The old paths, or the Talmud tested by Scripture: Being a comparison of the principles and doctrines of modern Judaism with the religion of Moses and the prophetsMcCaul, Alexander
Religion
The old paths, or the Talmud tested by Scripture: Being a comparison of the principles and doctrines of modern Judaism with the religion of Moses and the prophets
McCaul, Alexander
Judaism -- Works to 1900
Now it may well be doubted, concerning many Jews in this city, whether
they are acquainted with even this portion of the Sabbath laws, but it
is quite certain that they are ignorant of the innumerable modes of
possible transgression which arise from these distinctions; for the oral
law then goes on to define what is lawful concerning each. In a public
jurisdiction he may move anything four ells:—
כל אדם יש לו ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים שיכול לטלטל בהם ׃
“Every man has got four ells within which he may move things.” Or, as
Rambam expresses it—
רשות היחיד ומקים פטור מותר לטלטל בכולן אפילו היה אורך כל אחת משתיהן כמה
מילין מטלטל בכולה , אבל רשות הרבים והכרמלית אין מטלטלין בהן אלא בארבע
אמות ׃
“In a private jurisdiction, and in a free place it is lawful to move
things the whole length of the place, even though the length of each
should be many miles. But in a public jurisdiction or a Karmelith things
may not be moved more than four ells.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xxiv. 11.)
Now, it may well be asked, upon what passage of the law of Moses these
distinctions are grounded, and what there is in a public jurisdiction
which converts an act lawful in a private jurisdiction, into a sin to be
expiated only by stoning the offender? For instance, in a private
jurisdiction a man may carry certain matters for miles without violating
the Sabbath commands, but if he venture out into a public jurisdiction
with a pocket-handkerchief or a snuff-box, or a half-crown in his
pocket, and carry it only five ells, he is guilty of death; and if the
Talmudists held the reigns of power, would be led out as soon as the
Sabbath was over, and stoned. Reason revolts against such doctrine, the
act is the very same in both cases, and is therefore in both cases a
sin, or in both cases lawful. Humanity shudders at the thought of
stoning a man for carrying a pocket-handkerchief, and the Bible teaches
us that a religion, teaching such inexorable and wanton cruelty, cannot
be from God. It is true that at present the power of Christianity
protects Israelites from such harsh treatment; but wherever the Talmud
has any degree of influence, Israel groans under its bondage. Many a
time have we seen Jews with their pocket-handkerchief tied round their
knee like a garter, for this is lawful, though to carry it in his pocket
would be a grave and capital offence. And we once knew an Israelite who
was taking a walk on the Sabbath-day, and being addressed by a Gentile
beggar, put his hand into his pocket and gave the poor man a small coin.
He was observed by some Talmudists, who immediately attacked him for his
profanation of the Sabbath. Afraid of losing his character, and being at
that time more anxious for the praise of man than that which cometh of
God, he defended himself by saying, that he had unintentionally taken
out the money in his pocket, but had remembered it when addressed by the
beggar, and therefore took the opportunity of getting rid of that which
it was not lawful to carry.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account