Hebrew Literature

by Unknown

(6.) “Universal, particular and universal.” Where there are two universal statements with a particular statement between, the particular limits the universals. An example is furnished in Deut. xiv. 26, where, speaking of the application of the second tithe, it is said, “Thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after; for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth.” The special limitation, between the two universal permissions, is to productions of the land of Canaan.

(7.) “The general that requires the special, and the special that requires the general.” An example is furnished in Lev. xvii. 13: “Whatsoever man ... hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.” The word “cover” or “hide” is again used in Gen. xviii. 17: “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I shall do?” The conclusion is drawn, that cover is restricted to the blood being hidden under dust, and not put in any vessel. Again (Exod. xiii. 2): “Sanctify unto me all the first-born; whatever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast, it is mine.” From this verse females might be included with males. Reference is made to Deut. xv. 19, where it is found “All the firstling males.” Still it is obscure, when there are firstling females, about the males born afterward. Reference is made to Exod. xxxiv. 19: “All that openeth the matrix is mine.” Here all first-born are allowed. This, however, is too general, and it is again restricted by the word males. And as this is too general, it is again restricted by “all that openeth the matrix.”

(8.) “Whatsoever is taught in general and something special is mentioned—it is mentioned to strengthen the general rule.” An example is furnished in Lev. xx. 2, where the worship of Moloch is forbidden, and the penalty for the sin is death. The conclusion drawn is, that such mention of a special form of idolatry confirms the prohibition of all idolatry.

(9.) “When there is a general rule and also an exception—the exception lightens and does not aggravate.” An example is furnished in the command (Exod. xxi. 12), “He that smiteth a man so that he die, he shall surely be put to death.” The exception is, “Whoso killeth his neighbor ignorantly” (Deut. xix. 4, 5), “he can flee to one of the cities of refuge.”

(10.) “When there is a general rule, and an exception not agreeing with the general rule, the exception both lightens and aggravates.” An example is furnished from the plague of leprosy (Lev. xiii. 3) when the hair is turned white. The head and beard are excepted (29th verse) lest there be gray hairs—this lightens. But if on the head and beard there be “yellow thin hair,” it is a dry scall—this aggravates.

(11.) “When there is an exception from a general rule to establish a new matter—the new matter cannot be brought under the general rule again, unless it be mentioned in the text.” An example is furnished from the eating of holy things (Lev. xxii. 10-13). The priest, any soul bought with his money, and he that is born in his house, may eat of it. This is the general rule. If the priest's daughter be married to a stranger, she may not eat of them. This is the exception. This exception would have remained if she continued married to a stranger, or had a child, or had not returned to her father's house. Therefore a new law is provided, that in the event of none of these things happening, she may again eat of the holy things.

(12.) “Things that teach from the subject, and things that teach from the end.” An example is furnished from the eighth commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.” This law, if applied to man-stealing or kidnapping, implies capital punishment. The reason given is from its following “Thou shalt do no murder,” and “Thou shalt not commit adultery”—two laws which, if violated, entailed death. The second part of this rule applies to things that teach from the end. What is [pg 039] meant by the end is a matter of dispute. Some say it means the final cause of logicians. Others say it means something in the end or conclusion of the law itself. If it be the latter, an example is furnished from the case of the leprous house (Lev. xiv. 45): “And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the mortar of the house.” These directions teach that houses made of mud are excepted.

(13.) “When two texts contradict each other, until a third be found to decide between them.” An example is furnished in Gen. i. 1: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” It is again written, Gen. ii. 4, “In the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens.” The question now arises, Which did He make first? The answer is found in Isaiah xlviii. 13: “Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spanned the heavens.” The conclusion is drawn that He made both at once. Another instance is the discrepancy in the census of Israel. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 9, the number stated is eight hundred thousand. In 1 Chron. xxi. 5, the number is said to have been “eleven hundred thousand.” The difference of three hundred thousand is accounted for by referring to 1 Chron. xxvii. 1, where it is said that twenty-four thousand served the king every month. These men, when multiplied by the months, make two hundred and eighty-eight thousand. And the twelve thousand which waited upon the twelve captains raise the number to three hundred thousand, the amount required to reconcile the two statements.

In reading the following tracts it should be borne in mind that the meaning in many places is more implied than expressed.[7] Often an idea is taken for granted, which patient continuance in reading can alone bring to light. The subjects to which these tracts refer should first be studied in the Bible; because after such study the restless subtlety of the Rabbis in “binding heavy burdens on men's shoulders” can be more fully discerned. It is desirable to look on these writings from this point of observation; just as on some mountain top one [pg 040] looks not only at the gold which the morning sun pours on grass and flower, but also on the deep valley where the shadows still rest, that one may the more sensibly feel how glorious the sun is. The whole theory of this second, or Oral Law, has arisen from inattention to the express statement of Moses: “These words (the ten commandments) the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: AND HE ADDED NO MORE” (Deut. v. 22). And it tends to nullify the declaration of the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it” (Isaiah ix. 6).

In concluding this introduction it is perhaps well to glance briefly at the age in which the Talmud grew to its present state. It was a period of great activity and thought. Old systems of debasing superstition were breaking up and passing away. A new faith had arisen to regenerate man. The five centuries which followed the appearing of our Saviour in this world were filled with religious and political events which still make their vibrations felt. From the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the Jewish polity, an impulse was given to those political changes which have since gone on without intermission among the nations of the earth. From the overthrow of the Jewish Temple an impulse was given to religious earnestness which, often from wrong, often from right motives, has increased, and will increase, as the great consummation draws nigh.