|
The
Oral Law—Letter of the Rev. Mr. Carillon.
St. Thomas, 4th of December,
1843.
Rev.
Mr. Leeser,
Dear
Sir—When I wrote you my letter of the 10th of August last,
it was by no means my intention, either to make my views public,* or to
take any position. I merely wished to give you a sketch of the situation
of my congregation; and my remarks concerning the Talmud were only made
to justify my rejection of the new prayer book adopted by the members of
the Temple in London.
Yet
it has pleased Mr. Henry Goldsmith to state, that "the position I
have assumed demanded refutation." Granted, however, that I assumed
a position; but did Mr. G. make good his refutation? What did he prove?
He only said "that the traditional laws are most unquestionably
divine." But where are his proofs? He says, "In Aboth." A
beautiful proof, indeed! He quotes the Talmud to prove that the Talmud
is divine! Can he prove it from Scripture, from Josephus, or from those
Jews, who, long before the second Temple, scattered over China, Tartary,
and Hindoostan, knew and know nothing either of a Talmud or of
traditional laws?** He
certainly cannot.
Mr.
G., it seems, cannot understand how a law can be authority without being
divine. Mr. G., indeed, should have, pondered better upon my
communication, before he took up the pen to refute it. Where did I speak
of rabbinical laws? I said authority, not laws; For I deny to the
Talmud and to all the Rabbis in the world, the right of making religious
laws. We, the children of Israel, have but one law, even the law
of the One God, given to us by the hands of the "faithful in his
house," and to which not one iota may be added. If I understand my
own words, I said that "the Talmud contains the true interpretation
of Scripture, and is our best guide for understanding the law
correctly." And this is the only authority which I ascribe to the
Talmud.
But
God forbid that any Jews should commit rebellion against the God of our
fathers, adding human laws, to the divine, pure, and perfect code,
destined to be at a future period the code of all mankind. What I have said I now repeat, viz., we could not understand
Scripture well, without the illustrations of the Talmud; and I add, that
the Talmud is a book full of beauty and wisdom. But should it therefore
be divine, or we be obliged to adhere blindly to all such
doctrines, (and some of them are very bad and unscriptural,) as have
flowed from the brains of the Rabbis themselves? With every pious Jew, I
love to dwell upon the glory of my ancestors; and whilst in Holy Writ I
see the spiritual superiority of Israel, I also admire in the Talmud and
other rabbinical writings the great wisdom and philosophy that have
flourished amongst us. But there is a wide difference between the book
of revelation and the productions of wise and learned men. The latter
are the fruits of skill and labour, worthy of imitation, of praise. But
there we must stop: no reverence may be given to them. The former is the
word of the living God. There are no arguments, no rules of logic. There
it is God that speaketh; and who shall withstand? Let us admire the
Talmud; let us ponder over its contents; let us teach it to our
children; and let its wisdom produce such men as a Maimonides, a
Mendelssohn, and other such luminaries in Israel. But never, never let
us call it divine. By doing so we turn heretics; for the only book
divine is that of Moses and the Prophets. That is the code, the law of
Israel; our wisdom, our life, our salvation: and faithful to God's
command, let us turn from it neither to the right nor to the left.
I
will not enlarge upon the subject by refuting the few and insignificant
proofs which Mr. Goldsmith has brought forward in behalf of the divinity
of the Talmud, and will only remark, that I never expected a refutation
from him; but I will not say any thing to wound his feelings; on the
contrary, I wish to encourage him to defend the divinity, not of the
Talmud, but of Moses and the Prophets. I know that he is blessed
with talents, which, well used, may secure a lasting benefit to himself
and to the congregation wherein he lives. Nay, more, I would rejoice
could I see him played in the office of minister, which now, alas! with
a few exceptions, is in America filled by inefficient men, who, though
being mere Hazanim, and even not entirely fit for that station either,
yet dare to call themselves ministers.
As
to you, my dear Mr. Leeser, I respect both you and your congregation,
and well may they rejoice in possessing you; but though I entertain such
high opinions of you, yet, my dear friend, you must not think that I
shall alter my views regarding the Talmud only because you utterly
disapprove them. That Scripture is divine we both believe. Nay, I am
sure we both would rather die, than deny God's law or his Unity. But for
the Talmud I would not die; nay, not for all the writings of the Rabbis.
And if you, my dear sir, have opinions different to mine, why, prove
that I am in the wrong. But you will make your enemies say (and you have
many, for you are good, and learned) that you believe yourself of too
great importance, when you take upon yourself to approve or disapprove
with a single fiat, the opinions of those who at least know as much as
you do.
As
I sincerely pardon your candour (your own request) in utterly
disapproving my views, I hope you will reciprocally pardon my
candid expressions. And hoping that the God of our fathers will soon
reunite us in our blessed Palestine, under the sway of our own King
Messiah, I most respectfully remain yours,
B. C. Carillon.
Note.—In stating, in our remarks upon Mr.
Carillon's first letter to us, that we utterly disapproved of his views,
we merely meant thereby to advise our readers that we allowed Mr. C. the
right to address them, without being responsible for all he said, not to
assume any undue superiority which we do not possess; we did not enter
into any argument at the time, because we knew well enough that others
much better fitted for the task would be ready to defend rabbinical
authority with arguments sufficiently weighty for all practical
purposes. We believe in the existence of a tradition, and moreover, that
it is preserved in the Talmudic writings; this, however, does not say,
that all things written or said by Rabbins is of divine authority; and
if we err not, the Talmud nowhere claims this. In the mean time, we
present to our readers the views of one truly learned in these matters,
and ask for him that respect which his learning and piety demand.—Ed.
Oc.
Letter
of the Rev. A. Rice
Baltimore,
18th December, 1843.
Rev. I. Leeser,
Respected
friend—You know how much I am interested in every development of our
religion, and how much I should wish to restore the genuine light of
Talmudic authority; but the little acquaintance I have with the English
language is the only reason why I cannot defend my opinions before the
community. But having seen a part of the subject discussed in two late
numbers of the Occident, by the
Rev. Mr. Carillon and
Mr. Henry
Goldsmith, I am induced to break my silence, and to speak on the matter
as well as I can in a language new and foreign to me. Neither of the two
learned gentlemen has taken notice of the preface of Maimonides to the Mishnah, where he illustrates this subject in plain terms. He says,
"that the Talmud must be divided in five parts:
"First. Laws
and explanations of laws which have been transmitted from Moses with
reference to Scriptural passages; all such are unquestionably divine.
"Second. Oral
laws without Scriptural reference, which we callהלכה למשה
מסיני which are also
divine.
"Third. Laws
deduced by explanations from the Scriptures in accordance with out
Scriptural logic י״ג מדות
שהתורה
נדרשת בהן; all such are
not immediately divine, and we find, therefore, that many such questions
are debated in the Talmud, and the decision was obtained through the
vote of the majority.
"Fourth.
Institutions and ordinances גזירות
of Prophets and Rabbis, intended to act as a hedge around the vineyard
of the Lord, כדי לעשות
סייג לתורה, these
are from their very nature not divine; and
"Fifth.
Customs, תקונים
ומנהגים;
but many of these customs are doubtlessly transmitted from Moses
himself. (See Berachot, fol. 48.; Megillah, fol. 4."
I believe that
these illustrations of Maimonides are the only true defence against the
invaders of Talmudic authority. Such passages as
מדרשים and
הגדות (allegorical comments upon Holy Writ
and legends) are not points of law, and have nothing to do with this
question; but the learned men in Israel know very well that in the
הגדות (legends) are contained treasured of
wisdom, of which the unbeliever cannot form a proper estimate.
Should you find
that this crude essay is deserving of publicity, and think it worthy a
place in the Occident, it is at your service; and you will find me
always prepared to defend our religion as far as my want of acquaintance
with the language of the country will permit me. I am very respectfully
yours,
A.
Rice. |
