but not if he lived one or two days. If living one day was sufficient to exonerate the master, why does it superfluously say two, as the consequence might be inferred from one.

Respecting all these incongruities, Tradition and Cabala give admirable explanations, without which we should grope on in the dark, and judge only by conjecture, so that it is proved how highly necessary Tradition and the Oral Law are. It was on this account that all arduous and difficult cases were referred to Moses 35 for what was clear in the written Law was open to every one, but as all did not understand alike, it was necessary they should enquire of the prophet of their day;36 for which reason Moses gave the Law into the charge of the priests, the sons of Levi,37 that they might verbally explain it to the generality: explanations by word of mouth being better understood than those by writing, where the sense is sometimes doubtful and perverted.

38

Thus we find that some prophets and pious men, although intimately acquainted with it, did things apparently contrary to the written Law; for King Solomon sanctified the court-yard of the temple, and sacrificed off the altar; he extended the holy days to fourteen days, which included the day of atonement. David and Solomon established singers with musical instruments to sing and play in the temple; Urijah, the prophet, fled to Egypt contrary to the precept. Hezekiah celebrated the Passover in the second month, although the law on that point was only for individual cases, because the people were not cleansed; Elijah offered sacrifices on Mount Carmel, although without the temple: all these acts being infractions of the literality of the Law; such saintly men would not have performed them unless tradition demonstrated a permission for so doing, on some particular occasions, as various treatises of the Talmud explain. Hence, the necessity is shewn of the Talmud and

Cabala.

And although Josephus writes in his 13th book to the Romans, and 2nd of the Wars, that the Hebrews in the time of the Second Temple, were divided into three sects,-the pw (Pharisees), who alone followed the Oral Law;

Bathusim בתוסים Essenes, called also איסיאי Sadducees), and) צדוקים the

39

66

rejected it, as adduced in the Guemara 9 of "Ioma," and various other places. The Cuzari,40 the commentary of Maimonides on the 1st chapter of " Abot,” and Don Isaac Abarbanel, in "Nahalat Aboth," say that the Sadducees were worse than the Essenes, as they denied the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the dead. These decreased after the destruction of the Temple, until the time of the Gueonim, when Anan 41 and his son Saul, irritated at not being elected prince and head of the Captivity, revived the sect, and with some disciples, denied tradition.

In the time of R. Sedaiah, they were followed by Hivai Alcalabi, who went into a thousand absurdities, and invented a new law; but R. Sedaiah so overpowered them by the force of his learned writings, that few retained those depraved opinions, and those who do are so unlearned, that they cannot even compose a book touching their belief, 42 and are separated from the whole con

35 Exodus, 18:16.

36 Deut. 17:19.

37 Ibid. 13:9.

28 Jeremiah, 26:21. 39 Ioma, c. 1; Meguilat Tahanit, c. 1, 4, 10; Menachot, c. 8; Batra, c. 8; Sabat, c. 14; Masechet Sophrim, c. 14, and Kidusin, c. 3.

42 This is the sect more generally known by the denomination of Caraites or Textarians. Since our author wrote, they have published some works, but they only exhibit their errors. For their regulation, they have a book of rules founded on precedents: Is not this tradition, which they consider inadmissible? They obtain no increase to their numbers, for men endowed with the least common sense will sooner be guided by the opinions of the many (in which there cannot possibly be collusion) than by those of a few disappointed persons.

gregation of Israel, who, wherever they may be dispersed, uniformly and invariably follow the Oral Law, which we otherwise term Cabala or Tradition, from the Lord having verbally revealed it to Moses which Scripture signifies by saying, "Mouth to mouth, he spoke to him."

May the God who guides us, direct and lead us in the path of truth! Amen. Here ends Exodus, which contains 64 apparent contradictions.

Their moral conduct is irreproachable; but the source they derive it from (the Holy Scriptures), renders it impossible to be otherwise. The necessity of an Oral Law, (where the points are fully discussed) cannot be better exemplified than in the three following cases of the Lex Talionis, stated in Exodus 21:

Eye for eye,”—Supposing a man having but one eye was to strike out an eye of a person having two, is the injurer to be made blind, or is he to make what judges may decide to be an adequate compensation?"

"Wound for wound,"-May not a similar wound prove mortal to one person and not to another? in which case, what justice demands will not have been executed; for if the injurer should die, and the injured recover, or vice versa, the law which exacts that life was to be taken for life would in neither case be fulfilled. Besides, who could exactly determine the extent of the injury?

"If a man's ox kill another's, the two oxen are to be divided." Let us suppose a fine stall-bred ox worth 50l. to kill one worth only 10., is the owner of the latter to receive three times its value, and be paid 301.? The above proves there must be something besides the Written Law to elucidate what at first sight appears clear, but on reflection is found to be difficult and to require explanation.-SUCH IS THE ORAL LAW.-TRANSLATOR.

LEVITICUS.

QUESTION 133.

Lev. 1:2. If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd and of the flock.

Isa. 1:11. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord.

Jer. 7:22. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

:

The opposition of these verses appears to be very great for in Leviticus God ordains the celebration of sacrifice. How then does Isaiah say, that the Lord does not require sacrificial rites; and Jeremiah, that such were not commanded to Israel when they were brought up from Egypt ?

RECONCILIATION.

Maimonides1 observing that, on the one hand, all the prophets declared that the Lord only required good actions from men, and a perfect obedience to his precepts: Samuel saying, "To obey is better than to sacrifice;" Micah, "Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams.

. He hath shewed

thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Solomon, "Be more ready to hear than to give the sacrifice of fools;"4 Asaph, in Psalms, "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or burnt-offerings I will take no

bullock from thy house."5 All these are verses that positively shew how little the Lord sought this kind of service. On the other hand, however, considering that in Leviticus they are ordered to be brought and offered, the said author was of opinion, that the words of the prophets should be understood according to their literal signification; and as Jeremiah says, that no such precept was ordered on Israel's going out of Egypt, nor is it laid down in the Ten Commandments as an essential rule, neither is it mentioned at Marah, where other precepts were given them.

The solution must therefore be, that sacrifices were subsequently enjoined to Israel, in consequence of their having been brought up in the barbarous customs of the Egyptians, and learned their heathenish usages. Ancient custom had habituated them to worship demons and unclean spirits, sacrificing to them, and to the vain idolatry of the celestial bodies and signs; and as custom becomes a second nature, if the Lord had entirely prohibited sacrifice, the utmost difficulty would have been experienced in Israel's obeying it; their minds being impressed with the conviction, that He, who was the True God, must be served through those means, and by such worship; and they would have been as astonished at its prohibition, as we should be were a prophet now to

1 Guide, b 3, c.32. 21 Sam. 15:22. 3 Micah 6:7. 4 Eccles.4:17.

5 Ps.50:8.

appear, and declare that the mere thought of service would suffice, without the corresponding action; holding prayer, fasts, and similar demonstrations of divine worship, to be vain and ridiculous. In thus opposing what we are accustomed to, we should esteem such a prophet to be false and wicked. We may therefore conclude, that if Israel had been proscribed the offering of sacrifices (a mode of worship which was then universal), they would have considered it an infraction of all propriety in the due observance of worship to God, and would have repudiated the idea of any contrary mode of service.

The supreme wisdom of God, therefore, allowed their continuing this ancient custom; but in order to extirpate from it the name of idolatry, and to eradicate from their minds all reference thereto, He commanded that those who desired to offer sacrifice, might do so, provided it was made to his holy name: and to no other creature, or supposed deity, as they had previously done; since he alone was the true God, to whom all their actions of worship must be directed: as the Scripture says, "They shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone astray.' "6 And in another place, at the very outset of the rules for sacrifice, it says, "If any among you bring an offering unto the Lord,"7 signifying. that when they wish to sacrifice, the offering must be dedicated to the name of the Lord; for which purpose, Maimonides continues, the building of the Tabernacle and Temple were commanded.

Therefore, it appears that sacrifice was not ordained from a first intention, in regard to its excellence or efficiency, but as a preventive of vain idolatry. And no difficulty can arise by saying, Why did not God entirely wean them from this depraved custom? because the Lord did not wish to alter the course of their second nature; as was demonstrated in his not leading them through the country of the Philistines, in their exodus from Egypt, although it was the nearest road to the promised land; but said, "Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.' Thus, although the Lord can change nature and will, in such a manner that they might not have been subjected to that dread of war, he did not in this instance, nor, as we are led to understand, in respect of sacrifices.

998

This is a summary of Maimonides' opinion on sacrifices, and the reason he gives for them; and on which account God did not exact or ordain their frequent celebration, but, on the contrary, only permitted their being offered in the Temple, and then solely by the priests. The verses are thus conciliated. For all the verses which state that God makes no account of sacrifices, are to be understood literally, since they were not ordained from a first intention; and their ordination in Leviticus results from the gracious consideration of God, in allowing the impulse of habitual custom to be directed into a right channel.

The Cabalistic theologians are of a different opinion; whence Nachmanides opposed many arguments to those of Maimonides: saying, How was it possible, if such services were not required, that so many particularities and requisites in the oblative rites, should be laid down throughout Leviticus. Besides which, we learn that Cain and Abel offered sacrifices before idolatry began; and Noah did the same on quitting the ark, the odour of whose offering was so acceptable to the Lord, that he swore not to destroy the world again by a deluge. We also find, that Balaam ordered seven altars to be erected; not, it is true, with a view to destroy idolatry, but as considering his prayers would thereby be better received. The Cabalists are therefore of opinion, that

6 Lev. 17:7.

7 Lev. 1:1.

8 Exod. 13:17.

9 Gen. 8:21.

sacrifices not only obtained divine grace for the sinner, but attracted sovereign influence from above, by uniting inferior with superior intelligences. They also imagined them as serving for food and maintenance to evil spirits called map (Kalifot 10). R. Judah à Levi was of the same opinion. And a digression may be permitted in copying a curious colloquy on the subject, which is related by him, as having taken place between King Cuzar and a Hebrew Sage, called Chaber, as follows:

11

"12

KING. In your Law there is a thing very difficult to be understood, namely, the sacrifices; of which it My sacrifice, my bread for my offering,' says, God being incorporeal, how can you dedicate and offer food to him? CHABER. It is not so; for the verse says, 'won which properly translated, is, "My bread for my fires;" as the sacrifices were partly consumed by fire, and the remainder served as maintenance for the priests.

KING. But your Sages say, that on account of the sacrifices the Divinity rested among you; and that as soon as these ceased, his divine assistance failed. How is it possible that the spiritual cause could connect and unite itself with you through corporeal means, such as the animals of which your sacrifices consisted; a thing quite repugnant to reason.

CHABER. It is true that sacrifices, offered in the Temple and Holy Land, had the virtue of attracting the Divinity.

KING. You have increased the doubt, for are not all places alike? can one be more holy than another? what difference can there be?

CHABER. Since you order me, O King, to treat on such exalted and mysterious subjects, I must necessarily fulfil your wishes. Know, then, that there are some things in the Law beyond the comprehension of the human mind, and which can only be understood through the means of Tradition, and what you now ask is a sufficiently secret and profound thing; but reducing it to a natural level, you know that some lands are more fit and proper for cultivation than others; some have gold and silver mines; others, metals of different sorts; some abound in odoriferous and delicious plants and trees; while others, on the contrary, are sterile and barren: these variations proceeding from the constellations which predominate over and influence their climate. This being the case, and that wide differences are found between one place and another, what difficulty, or repugnance to reason, is there that God, being immense, and diffusing his light throughout the universe, should regard and manifest himself more in one place than in another, since his creature, the sun, does not extend his rays equally everywhere; acting on some so that gold is produced, in others copper. The Holy Land, as the learned Aben Ezra said, is like the heart, receiving more from the soul than all the other members; and as the heart is in the centre of the body, so the Holy Land is in the centre of the world's population, and is therefore more acceptable to the Lord. For as the world is divided into seven climates, that land is situated in the best of them; the Psalmist describes it as "Beautiful for situation; the joy of the whole earth."13 Adam was created from its clay, and there was he buried. There it was Cain and Abel contended, and Cain's punishment consisted in being banished from it, as the Scripture says, "And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord." And as (according to Deuteronomy) "the eyes of the Lord are continually upon it,"15 Jonah is said

10 Maimonides, in b. 3, c. 46, considers the appellations of Demons and Evil Spirits to mean depraved opinions and false ideas, which generally lead men into error and sin.~ TRANSLATOR.