|
Letter
of Rev. Mr. Rice.—The Oral Law.
Mr.
Editor,—The kind indulgence with which you were pleased to notice my
first attempt to write in the English language, induces me again to
speak freely concerning the
letter of Mr. H. Goldsmith, and to offer at
the same time some remarks upon
the course of the Rev. Mr. Marks towards
the Talmud.
The
endeavours of Mr. Goldsmith, to prove the divine authority of the
Talmud, are in so far praiseworthy as they show his adherence to that
compendium of laws; but in my humble opinion, it is as dangerous to
enlarge the limits of talmudic authority, as infidelity itself. The
reason for this opinion cannot be better supported than from the letter
of Mr. G. itself. He says, “There is no juste milieu; the
Talmud is divine, or it is not entitled to authority.” This conclusion
must appear erroneous to every man who has studied the Talmud in a
proper manner.
On
the contrary, the Talmud is entitled to authority, though every part of
it is not divine. But the question: “Who gives the Rabbins the right
to make laws?” is answered in the Talmud itself. (Tractate Sabbath,
fol. 23.) The Talmud takes up the question: “How can we say in our
blessings when performing
מצות
דרבנן
(a Rabbinical ordinance)אשר קדשנו
במצותיו
וצונו ‘who hath sanctified with his
commandments and commanded us,’ when in no place in the law is such an
ordinance as the talmudical law of lighting the lamps on the festival of
dedication (נר חנכה) or the
reading of the book of Esther on Purim enjoined by the Almighty?” To
which it is answered, that we are specially commanded in Deut. 17.11:
“According to the law which they (the teachers) shall teach thee, and
according to the judgment which they will say unto thee shalt thou do,
thou shalt not depart from the thing which they will tell thee to the
right or to the left.” Here the Lord requires of us to follow the laws
which our Rabbins may make, and all Rabbinical ordinances (מצות
דרבנן) possess divine authority only
in so far as the inunction “Thou shall not depart” (לא
תסור) extends. This is the true juste
milieu which Mr. G. has, perhaps from inexperience in the correct
talmudical exegesis denied to the Talmud.
The
same is maintained by Maimonides, in his preface to his Yad Hachasaka:
“All institutions and ordinances of the Rabbins are enjoined by the
Lord, so that we may not depart from them, by his holy word which
maintains, Thou shalt not depart, &c.”
This
authority to make ordinances, has ceased with the close of the Talmud,
when the Israelites became more scattered in small numbers all over the
world, and there lived no longer masses of a thousand learned men in one
place, as it was in the earlier times, when all the doctors who taught
in the spirit of the Talmud, lived in the Holy Land or its vicinity.
Maimonides says, therefore, that “Institutions and ordinances since
then adopted by any בית דין (ecclesiastical tribunal,) have never been able to receive the universal
sanction in Israel, as was the case with the enactments recorded in the
Talmud.”
Upon
the whole, I cannot understand Mr. G’s views, that either “the
Talmud is divine or is not entitled to authority.” Such an assertion
would bring us upon absurdities, or lead us to reject all obligation of
its contents. Is the second day of festivals a divine law? surely not;
still we claim that the Talmud had the right to make such a law, and
that the people could not reject it from the principle
לא
תסור “Thou shalt not depart,” (see
Maimonides, Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, chap. 5. Halacha, 6; and Sepher
Hachinuch, Mitzva, 496,) , and there are many hundred ordinances where
the Talmud proceeds upon the same authority.
When
Mr. G. says, that “the views of Maimonides cannot be quoted in
evidence of the truth of tradition,” I beg him to remember the
aphorism חכמים
הזהרו
בדבריכם “Wise men, take
care what you say;” and not contradict so hastily the opinions of the
great luminary of Israel. Rabbi Abraham ben David, the great and learned
Rabad, says of him: “He has accomplished an immense work, to condense
the whole of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, and all the
Toseftas,” (Hilchat Kilayim, Chap. 6. H. 2); we therefore should take
care to express our opinions with humility, so as not to oppose
ourselves without great cause to the wisdom of this enlightened spirit.
With
reference to the letter of Mr. Marks, I will merely tell him that his
ironical question will hardly weaken the authority of the Talmud, for he
has not comprehended the spirit of the talmudical interpretation.
He ought to have known that the recommendation of early marriages
applies only to the climate of the Holy Land, where puberty occurs
earlier than in colder countries (see Aben Ezra).
Again,
with regard to intoxication in Purim, he has not truly understood the
meaning of the text. The Talmud wishes to teach us allegorically, that
we ought to consider whether the elevation of Mordecai
ברוך
מרדכי or the sudden fall of Haman
ארור
המן was the greatest miracle, (or in other words,
that in rejoicing over the success of Israel, in escaping from the
danger which so fearfully threatened them, we should be careful not to
curse with the bitterness of hate, those who endeavoured to work our
destruction); and surely such a construction will more harmonize with
the general principles of the Rabbins who worked for the glorification
of the name of God, than the ironical remarks of Mr. Marks.
Your obedient servant,
A. Rice.
|
