commanding Israel to study in his law day and night; the latter prohibiting all study for the seven days of the mourning; but whenever these two authorities are opposed, no rational being can doubt that it is Israel's duty to obey God rather than man. But, in the present day, when the oral law is not the law of the land, when, therefore, the ordinances of the Scribes have no authority whatever, it is impossible to conceive why Israel should obey this prohibition, unless they wish, by some public act, to exhibit their determination to transgress the laws of God. Every one who abstains from the study of God's Word for seven days, plainly disobeys the Divine command as given by Moses and the prophets; how then can the Jews of the present day deceive themselves by supposing that they have the religion of Moses? The main difference between Heathenism and the religion of Moses is, that the latter gives a revelation of God's will to guide us in difficulty and to comfort us in affliction. The main difference between a Heathen and a Jewish mourner ought to be, that the Jew flees for consolation to God and his Word, whilst the Heathen indulges in sorrow as those that have no hope. The oral law, however, breaks down with this distinction, and reduces the Jew to the level of the Heathen, by robbing him in his hour of need of God's promises, and commanding him to abstain for seven days from all study of God's Word. These laws respecting mourning, then, as being oppressive to the poor, insulting to the unlearned, degrading to humanity, and contrary to the express precepts of the Divine law, have no intrinsic merit to commend them to Israel, and no claim upon their obedience.

602

No. LVI.

DISPENSATION FROM AN OATH.

A RELIGION which is plainly contrary to any of the Divine attributes, must necessarily be false. For instance, God is a holy God: a religion, therefore, which would promote unholiness could not have the Holy One of Israel for its author. God is also a merciful and a just God: a religion, therefore, which is characterized by cruelty or injustice, cannot proceed from him; and for this reason, amongst others, we believe that the religion of the oral law cannot be that true religion which God gave to Moses and the prophets. The oral law is most unjust in its laws respecting Gentiles, slaves, and unlearned men, and most unmerciful in very many of its enactments. But if there be one attribute more than another, which is distinctive of the true God, it is truth. In the prophecies of Jeremiah, He is even identified with truth, as it is said—

ויהוה אלהים אמת :

The Lord God is Truth." (Jer. x. 10.) And in that prediction, which he put into the mouth of Balaam, he says, that it is by this attribute that he is distinguished from the sons of men. "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Numbers xxiii. 19.) Men may be wicked enough to promise what they do not intend to perform, or after promising, may change their mind, and refuse to fulfil their engagements; but God is too holy to deceive wilfully, or to alter what has proceeded out of his mouth. A religion, therefore, which in any wise tends to lessen our reverence for truth, or encourages men to alter

a solemn engagement, or, what is still worse, teaches how to absolve from oaths, cannot proceed from the God of truth; and this is what the oral law does in certain cases. We do not mean to accuse it of teaching, as the religion of Rome does, that dispensation may be had from every kind of oath. On the contrary, the rabbies assume the power of "rash

,שבועות בטוי dispensation only in the case of

oaths;" but we mean to assert, that even that assumption is contrary to the Word of God, and injurious to the cause of truth; and, therefore, sufficient to overthrow the credit of the oral law as a religion given by God. The doctrine itself is as follows:

מי שנשבע שבועת בטוי ונחם על שבועתו וראה שהוא מצטער אם קיים שבועה זו • ונהפכה דעתו לדעת אחרת • או שנולד לו דבר שלא היה בדעתו בשעת השבועה וניחם בגללו הרי זה נשאל לחכם אחד או לשלשה הדיוטות במקום שאין שם חכם ומתירין לו שבועתו • ויהיה מותר לעשות דבר שנשבע שלא לעשותו או שלא לעשות דבר שנשבע לעשותו

וזהו הנקרא היתר שבועות • ודבר זה אין לו עיקר כלל בתורה שבכתב אלא כך למדו ממשה רבינו מפי הקבלה שזה הכתוב לא יחל דברו שלא יחלל הוא בעצמו דרך קלות ראש אבל אם נחם בשאט נפש כענין שנא' וחללת את שם אלהיך • וחזר בו חכם מתיר לו :

"If any man swear a rash oath, and afterwards repent of .it, because he sees that if he keep this oath it will cause him grief, and therefore changes his mind; or if something should occur to him which was not in his mind at the time when he swore, and he repent on that account; behold, a person, in such circumstances, is to ask one wise man (rabbi), or three common men in any place where there is not a wise man, and they absolve him from his oath; and then it will be lawful to do a thing which he had sworn not to do, or to leave undone a thing which he had sworn to do and this is what is called absolution from oaths,

:

6

This matter has no foundation whatever in the written law, but it has been learned from Moses, our master, by oral tradition, that the Scripture, He shall not profane his word,' (Numbers xxx. 3, in the English Bible 2,) means, that a man shall not himself profane his word in a way of levity and with a contemptuous mind, according as it is written, Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God' (Levit. xix. 12); but if a man repent and change his mind, a wise man is to absolve him." (Hilchoth Sh'vuoth, c. vi. 1, 2.) Here it is plainly taught, that if a man has reason to fear any personal inconvenience, or even if he changes his mind, he may escape from the most solemn obligation that can be laid upon the consciences of men; and that, after appealing to God in confirmation of his declaration to do or to leave undone some particular action, one or more of his fellow-sinners can remit his duty to his Creator, and give him a license to do the very contrary of that which he had promised before and unto God, that he would do. Now let every Israelite reader first consult his own reason, and reflect whether this doctrine is agreeable to the character of God, as set forth in the Scripture. The God of the Bible is a God of eternal and immutable truth. of his peculiar characteristics, that he keepeth covenant and mercy. A man, therefore, who breaks his word, and still more so, a man who breaks an oath, is unlike God. Is it probable, then, that God would give a religion with a special provision for making men unlike himself? Again, God is a God of knowledge, and therefore knows that the children of men are in a great degree the children of habit; he knows also that by habit the evil propensities are strengthened, and that there is in men a strong propensity to shrink from their word, if it cause any trouble or damage: is it likely, then, that God would give a law directly tending to strengthen that evil propensity by

One

forming a habit of breaking one's word, even under the solemn circumstances of an oath? Reason decides that such a law cannot proceed from the God of Israel. Has it then any support in the written Word of God? It would be strange, indeed, if the Word of God should contain anything contrary to reason. As revealing the nature of Him who is incomprehensible, it may contain things above our reason: but that in giving laws for man it should give him licence to do what his reason tells him is directly opposed to the character of God, is altogether incredible. The rabbies, themselves, however, do not endeavour to justify the doctrine by a reference to Scripture. They say in plain terms, "This matter has no foundation whatever in the written law," and thus acknowledge that it is altogether a matter of tradition, the argument against it, therefore, becomes doubly strong. Every one knows, that a story loses nothing by passing through many mouths, but that in the course of its progress it gets so many additions, and undergoes so many changes as at last to be scarcely recognisable. This circumstance makes all oral tradition uncertain and unsatisfactory, but is particularly suspicious when it appears, not only opposed to the Scripture character of God, but also favourable to the evil propensities of man. If it had exacted a more scrupulous regard to truth. and a willing submission to hardship and inconvenience for the sake of truth, then, as opposing the principles of selfinterest, it would have been less suspicious; but when it actually tells men that to do what may save them from worldly trouble or personal disadvantage is a Divine institution, one cannot help suspecting that it is an invention of men, who found it convenient occasionally to escape from the obligation of an oath. But after all, the great arbiter must be the written Word of God. The rabbies say, That it has been learned from Moses by oral tradition, that the words,