Ecology of a Changed World Trevor

Price
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/ecology-of-a-changed-world-trevor-price/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Radical Adaptation: Transforming Cities for a Climate

Changed World Stone Jr.

https://ebookmass.com/product/radical-adaptation-transforming-
cities-for-a-climate-changed-world-stone-jr/

The Children of Harvey Milk: How LGBTQ Politicians

Changed the World Andrew Reynolds

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-children-of-harvey-milk-how-
lgbtq-politicians-changed-the-world-andrew-reynolds/

The Price of Freedom: Financing French Resistance in

World War II David Foulk

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-price-of-freedom-financing-
french-resistance-in-world-war-ii-david-foulk/

The Post-American Middle East: How the World Changed

Where the War on Terror Failed Laurent A. Lambert

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-post-american-middle-east-how-
the-world-changed-where-the-war-on-terror-failed-laurent-a-
lambert/
When Broadway Was Black: The Triumphant Story of the
All-Black Musical that Changed the World Caseen Gaines

https://ebookmass.com/product/when-broadway-was-black-the-
triumphant-story-of-the-all-black-musical-that-changed-the-world-
caseen-gaines/

Essentials of Landscape Ecology 1st Edition Kimberly A.

With

https://ebookmass.com/product/essentials-of-landscape-
ecology-1st-edition-kimberly-a-with/

Law of One Price: A Chronicle of Dually Listed Indian

Stocks Vinodh Madhavan

https://ebookmass.com/product/law-of-one-price-a-chronicle-of-
dually-listed-indian-stocks-vinodh-madhavan/

The Price of Grace Diana Muñoz Stewart

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-price-of-grace-diana-munoz-
stewart/

The Price of Grace Diana Muñoz Stewart

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-price-of-grace-diana-munoz-
stewart-2/
Ecology of a Changed World
Front cover: Between 1970 and 2021, the number of people in
the world doubled to nearly 8 billion and the number of chickens
increased fivefold to 26 billion. The number of wild birds in North
America declined by 30% (the illustration runs to 2017, when bird
abundances were estimated). There may now be fewer birds in
North America than people in the world. See Figures 11.2, 12.3,
and 24.5. Illustration by Allison Johnson.
 Ecology of a
Changed World
T R EVO R P R IC E
University of Chicago, Chicago

Illustrated by
AVA R A I N E

1
 3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2022

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

Names: Price, Trevor, 1953– author.
Title: Ecology of a changed world / Trevor Price ; illustrated by Ava Raine.
Description: New York : Oxford University Press, [2022] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021029388 (print) | LCCN 2021029389 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197564172 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197564196 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Ecology. | Global environmental change. |
Biodiversity—Environmental aspects.
Classification: LCC QH541. P735 2021 (print) |
LCC QH541 (ebook) | DDC 577—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021029388
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021029389

DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197564172.001.0001

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

Royalties for this book will be donated to savingnature.org

 Contents

Preface  vii
Acknowledgments  ix
About the Companion Website xi

1. The Changed World  1

PA RT 1 . T H E R I SE A N D FA L L O F P O P U L AT IO N S

2. Population Growth  9
3. Population Regulation  21
4. Interactions between Species: Mutualisms and Competition  31
5. Predation and Food Webs  43
6. Parasites and Pathogens  52
7. Evolution and Disease  64
8. The Human Food Supply: Competition, Predation, and Parasitism  75
9. Food Security  83

PA RT 2 . T H E T H R E AT S T O B IO D I V E R SI T Y

10. Prediction  97
11. Human Population Growth  110
12. Growth of Wealth and Urbanization  121
13. Habitat Conversion  132
14. Economics of Habitat Conversion  143
15. Climate Crisis: History  155
16. Predictions of Future Climate and its Effects  166
17. Pollution  176
18. Invasive Species  184
vi Contents

19. Introduced Disease  194

20. Harvesting on Land  205
21. Harvesting in the Ocean  215
22. Harvesting: Prospects  226

PA RT 3 . AV E RT I N G E X T I N C T IO N S

23. Species  239

24. Population Declines  248
25. Extinction  261
26. Species across Space  273
27. Island Biogeography and Reserve Design  283
28. The Value of Species  294

Notes and References  303

Subject Index  331
Species Index 337
 Preface

This book has been updated over 15 years in order to keep up with the rapid
changes of the twenty-​first century, and it will continue to be updated through
an associated website, which also contains appendices to chapters, and worked
examples. The coronavirus pandemic, the Black Lives Matter movement, excep-
tional fires and heatwaves exmplify the changes and the challenges of our times.
A book on the science behind the biodiversity crisis has much to say about the
pandemic and climate change. The SARS CoV-​2 virus crossed into humans most
likely from the hunting of bats for food. So, we might ask, what would happen if
there were no bats in the world? The science is clear. Every time a species is lost,
others become more common, making new disease transmission and virulence
even more likely. We can see this in the rapid spread of coronavirus through the
dense human population. We can also observe more directly effects of bat loss in
North America, where white nose disease inadvertently introduced from Europe
in 2006 has killed millions of bats, which in turn has been linked to increased
insecticide use by farmers attempting to combat the insect pests the bats would
otherwise have eaten. This book moves beyond specific examples and beyond
disease. We want to quantify biodiversity loss and the consequences for human
well-​being as we go forward.
What about Black Lives Matter? As sports writer Barney Ronay put it: “so
much unhappiness is created, so much talent is lost, so many people who should
be doing things and have opportunities to do those things, don’t receive those
opportunities.” (Complete citations are in the references section at the end of the
book.) What can we say about connections between these injustices and con-
servation? Asymmetries and inequalities lie beyond race. They include gender,
sexual orientation, disability, caste, religion, nationality, and wealth. Such
inequalities are not only morally indefensible, but contribute to the crisis of na-
ture. As a middle-​class white male, my concern with the natural world comes
from privilege and past experience. Others have not had this same fortune, and
one feels that nothing but good could come out of more such opportunity.
In this book I focus on one important inequality: that of wealth. Aside from
the other benefits of having money, many are not able to buy enough food, de-
spite there being more than enough food now produced to feed everyone. Like
other forms of inequality, poverty is not something I have personally had to deal
with, but it is something I have witnessed firsthand, working in India. Wealth
disparities impact conservation greatly, from the direct effects of being poor
viii Preface

(e.g., it leads people to hunt bats) to the more general lack of opportunity that is
associated with all types of discrimination. Within countries, wealth inequality
continues to increase, but the economic growth of Asian and South American
countries has meant that across the world inequality has been decreasing, at least
until the recent economic downturn. On average, people have been becoming
richer and healthier, and we hope this trend will pick up again soon. Such wel-
come changes have huge implications for the conservation of biodiversity. These
changes are covered in the book, and many of the consequences surely apply
more generally to the mitigation of all social injustices.
 Acknowledgments

Chris Andrews, Bettina Harr, Julia Weiss, and several anonymous reviewers read
the whole book. Various pieces have been read by Erin Adams, Sarah Cobey, Ben
Freeman, Peter Grant, Sean Gross (who made the compelling suggestion to delete
a chapter), Rebia Khan, Kevin Lafferty, Karen Marchetti, Robert Martin, Natalia
Piland, Yuvraj Pathak, Uma Ramakrishnan, Mark Ravinet, Matthew Schumm,
David Wheatcroft, and anonymous reviewers. Many people have responded
to requests for information, including David Archer, Sherri Dressel, Clinton
Jenkins, David Gaveau, Kyle Hebert, David McGee, Loren McClenachan, Nate
Mueller, Natalia Ocampo-​Peñuela and Stuart Sandin. The copy editor, Betty
Pesagno, made an excellent and thorough review. Kaustuv Roy has always been
supportive and a great friend. I appreciated the R programming environment
(citations are in the Notes and References section at the end of the book). I par-
ticularly wish to thank Angela Marroquin and Bettina Harr for much help with
the figures and Ava Raine for her outstanding drawings.
The book is dedicated to local activists, who are at the frontline of conserving
the planet’s biodiversity, sometimes at considerable risk to themselves. They in-
clude Homero Gómez González and Raúl Hernández Romero, who were mur-
dered in 2020, apparently by illegal loggers. Their work involved conserving the
winter habitat of the emblematic monarch butterfly which migrates from the
eastern United States to a few mountain tops in central Mexico. Not so long ago
the monarch population numbered in the many hundreds of millions, but in the
last 10 years, never more than 100 million (Chapter 24).
 About the Companion Website

http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780197564172/ins_res/l0k-res/.

Oxford has created a website to accompany Ecology of a Changed World.

As the world continues to change, the site will be used to post regular updates
to various chapters and figures.
In addition, the website carries study questions and their solutions, plus an
appendix that covers the measurement of uncertainty and some mathematical
derivations.
The reader is encouraged to consult this resource as a complement to the book.
Color plate 1 (Figure 4.1) Left: Mutualism: Bees and flowers form a mutualism,
whereby an increase in the population size of one causes an increase of the other,
and a decrease in one causes a decrease of the other. Right: Competition: Roots of
ground ivy (stained green) and wild strawberry (stained blue) compete for nutrients
and water. An increase in one species causes a decrease in the other, and a decrease
in one species leads to an increase in the other. For furter details see the text figure.

Color plate 2 (Figure 6.4) Food web from Carpinteria Bay. Each circle is a species in
the web, with plants along the base, predators in blue and parasites in red (circle size
relates to abundance; J. P. McLaughlin and K. D. Lafferty). Left: the cercaria larva of
a flatworm, one of the flatworm’s secondary hosts, the California killifish, and one
of its primary hosts, the great blue heron, in which the adult worm infests the liver.
Right: Pickleweed, American coot and striped shore crab at their corresponding
positions in the web. For further details see the text figure.
Color plate 3 (Figure 8.2) Vetch has evolved a mimic seed, resembling lentil seeds.
For further details see the text figure.

Color plate 4 (Figure 9.3) The extent to which crop yields of the three major grains
(wheat, corn, rice) were below the maximum possible in the year 2000, given
technology and fertilizer available at that time. For further details see the text figure.
Color plate 5 (Figure 10.2) Left: Annual deviations from the average of 1880–​1919
for global mean surface temperature up to 2005 (in places one sees more than one
line because three different assessments have been made). Thin lines represent the
average of different models of temperature change, accounting for both human and
natural causes, with the shading around them different run of the models. The blue
lines represent a more recent set of models than the orange lines and reproduce the
past more faithfully. Right: Global temperature 1990–​2020. For further details see
the text figure.
Color plate 6 (Figure 13.1) Above: Estimated net primary productivity
(NPPpristine) as it would be in the absence of humans. The units are grams carbon/​
m2/​ year. Below Human Appropriated Net Primary Productivity (HANPP) as a
percentage of NPPpristine for the year 2000. Blue areas are places where human
effects have been to increase NPP. For further details see the text figure.
Color plate 7 (Figures 13.2 and 13.3) Above: Exploitation of the planet by humans,
after weighting land by its calorific value (Table 13.1), estimated for the year 2011.
Below: Requirements from the planet if everyone in the world had per capita
consumption patterns of the five countries listed, based on 2010 data. The left bar is
identical to the upper figure. From the Global Footprint Network: see figure legends
for further details. Qatar now somewhat exceeds China. It is a desert country whose
excessive use of energy results in a low land use footprint.
Color plate 8 (Figure 13.4) Above left: Forest inferred for c. 8,000 years before
present and in 1990. Above right: Average cover in 3km*3km grid squares estimated
by remote sensing across the world in the year 2001. Below: Red dots indicate
3km*3km grid squares that have experienced at least some forest loss between 2001
and 2019, superimposed on the above right figure. For further details see the text
figure.
Color plate 9 (Figure 13.7) Borneo land use in 1973 and 2018. The lower graphs
show an expanded version of the white rectangle, which covers Gunung Palang
National Park and its surroundings. (Compiled by the Center for International
Forestry Research; nusantara-​atlas.org).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
the curse of the poor, and many of which flatly contradict others, all
proceed from the God of mercy and truth? The temple must first be
cleansed of all defilement before the glory of God can enter. It is
therefore a matter of the first and highest importance, to every Jew
who wishes well to his nation, to examine that system, whose
constant companion for so many centuries has been misery; and if
they are convinced of its falsehood, then to use every exertion to
deliver their brethren, from that which is mischievous as well as
false. We might urge its tendency to produce and perpetuate an
unfriendly separation between the Jews and their neighbours: not
that we are ignorant of God’s declaration,
‫הן עם לבדד ישכון ובגוים לא יתחשב ׃‬
“Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among
the nations.” (Numb, xxiii. 9.) We know it and believe it, and are
therefore fully convinced, that all the wit and power of man will never
be able to effect what some so ardently desire, an amalgamation
with the nations where Israel is dispersed. We have no desire to
contravene the declared will of God, and to degrade Israel from their
position as a holy nation to the rank of an inconsiderable religious
sect. But still we might urge against the oral law, that it goes beyond
God’s intention by producing an unfriendly separation and an
estrangement between man and man, which is injurious to the
welfare of both Jew and Gentile; we leave this, however, to the
consideration of those Israelites who feel, or profess to feel, a love
and affection for all men; and content ourselves at present with the
indubitable fact, that the laws concerning slaughtering are most
oppressive to the poor and enslaving to the minds of all. It is not
merely the bodily grievance of starvation to which we now allude,
though that is wicked and vexatious to the last degree, and should
therefore not be tolerated for a moment by the humane and the
merciful. There is something that is worse than any bodily suffering,
and that is, to be tempted to do violence to conscience by professing
what we do not believe, or by congealing our real sentiments. And
yet in many a Jewish congregation this is frequently the case. It
pleases God to give to the poor the power of reasoning as well as to
the rich, and thus some of this class are occasionally led to see the
absurdity of the oral law, and to detest those inventions which doom
them and their families to starvation, but yet they would not dare
either to avow or to act upon their conviction. To eat any ether than
rabbinical food would at once cut them off from the bounty of the
synagogue, and from the sympathy of its worshippers. To express
their convictions would be sufficient to have them numbered with the
profane and ungodly, and therefore they conceal their real
sentiments, and pretend to be what they are not, that they may not
deprive their families of the little assistance which an apparent
conformity to rabbinic usages may procure. Here then is another and
more unequivocal badge of slavery. The oral law deprives the poor
entirely of liberty of conscience. He not only must not eat, he must
not think, at least he must not express a thought, no, nor even a
doubt, about that system which is the cause of his misery. It is true,
that those who profess or suppress religious sentiments merely to
serve their temporal interests, are either very weak or very guilty. But
we must make some allowance for the infirmity of human nature, and
especially in the case of a poor man, who has no bread for his
children, and whose mind has been debased from his youth by such
bondage. It is to the system that we are to impute these debasing
effects. It not only torments the body, but degrades the mind; and,
therefore, every Israelite who loves and respects liberty of
conscience, should endeavour to procure it for his brethren.
According to the law of the land they have it. They are free to
worship and serve God as they think most agreeable to his will; but
the oral law steps in between, and deprives them of the benefit. The
Jewish poor dare not serve God according to their conscience, nor
even express the convictions of their heart. All the legislators in
Christendom could not set them free. The duty as well as the
possibility of delivering them from this bondage rests with their
brethren. But they, alas! whatever the motive, decline the glorious
task.
 No. LII.
LAWS CONCERNING MEAT WITH MILK.

It is recorded of the Cutheans and those other nations whom the

King of Assyria placed as colonists at Samaria, that they
endeavoured to combine the service of the true God with the worship
of idols. “So these nations feared the Lord, and served their craven
images, both their children and their children’s children: as did their
fathers, so do they unto this day.” (2 Kings xvii. 41.) Every one can
see that this conduct was as foolish as it was wicked. It was wicked
to dishonour the true God by associating him with them that were no
gods; and it was foolish to imagine that God could be pleased with a
partial homage and a divided heart. Total idolatry would have been
more reasonable and less offensive to the Divine Being, for he,
whom we acknowledge as God, must necessarily have the whole of
our fear, our love, and our obedience. And yet there is perhaps a
way of serving God more unreasonable still, and that is by giving to
sinful and fallible men the honour that is due to God alone. The
Cutheans falsely thought that God was one amongst many; and if
they worshipped the many, it was under the impression that they
were really gods. But suppose a nation to acknowledge the one true
God, and then to fix upon a certain number of men to be honoured
and served with the same degree of reverence and obedience; none
can doubt that this nation would be far more irrational than that of the
Cutheans, inasmuch as to pay Divine honours to a number of our
fellow-men is more extravagant still than to worship a plurality of
imaginary deities. Some may think that such a degree of absurdity is
impossible, but fact shows that it is not only possible, but that it has
actually occurred. When men exalt the inventions of their teachers to
a level with the known and acknowledged laws of God, and make
obedience to these inventions an essential part of their religion, they
confer upon men the highest degree of honour and of service that
can be rendered to God. The unreserved submission of the heart
and conscience to the will of God is the highest act of worship, and
when it is given to the will of men, in that degree men are made
gods. Whether these remarks apply to those who make the ‫הלכות‬
‫ בשר בחלה‬, i.e., “The constitutions concerning meat in milk” a part of
their religion, it is for the adherents of the oral law to inquire.
The general principle of these constitutions is thus expressed—
‫בשר בחלב אסור לבשלו ואסור לאכלו מן התורה ואסור בהנאה וקוברין אותו ואפרו‬
‫ ומי שיבשל משניהם כזית כאחד לוקה שנאמר לא תבשל‬, ‫אסור כאפר כל הנקברין‬
‫ וכן האוכל כזית משניהם מהבשר והחלב שנתבשלו כאחד לוקה‬, ‫גדי בחלב אמו‬
‫ואע׳׳פ שלא בשל ׃‬
“It is unlawful to boil meat in milk—according to the law, it is also
unlawful to eat it; it is likewise unlawful to make any profit by it, and it
is to be buried. Its ashes are also unlawful, like the ashes of other
things that are buried. Whosoever boils together a quantity of these
two things, equal to an olive, is to be flogged, for it is said, ‘Thou
shalt not seethe a kid in its mothers milk.’ (Exod. xxiii. 19.) In like
manner, he that eats a quantity of the flesh and the milk, which have
been boiled together, amounting in value to an olive, is to be flogged,
even though be did not boil them.” (Hilchoth Maakhaloth Asuroth, c.
ix. i.) Here the oral law determines generally, that it is unlawful to boil
meat in milk, or to make any use of meat so boiled, and sentences
the transgressor to a severe and degrading corporal punishment,
and yet this determination is altogether an invention of men, for
which there is not the slightest authority in the Word of God. The
prohibition of Moses is confined to one single case, which is exactly
defined: “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk,” but there
the prohibition ends, for the specification of one particular shows that
that alone is intended, and necessarily excludes all others. To give
some colour to the unwarranted extension, it is asserted that
‫וגדי הוא כולל ולד השור ולד השה ולד העז עד שיפרוט ויאמר גדי עזים ׃‬
“Kid includes the young of kine, of sheep, and of goats, so that to
particularize, the word goat is added as ‘a kid of the goats.’” And so
Rashi also affirms in his commentary. Aben Ezra, however, has
saved us the trouble of giving a refutation of our own, for he says—
‫ואיננו כן כי גדי לא יקרא רק שהוא מהעזים ובלשון ערבי הוא גדי ולא יאמר על מין‬
‫ רק יש הפרש בין גדי ובין גדי עזים כי גדי גדול מגדי עזים כי עודנו צריך‬, ‫אחר‬
‫היותו עם העזים וככה שעיר ושעיר עזים וחכמים קבלו שלא יאכלו ישראל בשר‬
‫בחלב ׃‬
“This is not so, for nothing is called kid except the young of the
goats; and in Arabic the word has the same signification, and is
never applied to any other species. But there is a difference between
kid and kid of the goats, for the former is larger, and it is necessary
for the latter still to be with the goats; and the same thing is true of
‫שעיר‬, which is used in the same way. It is by tradition that the wise
men received, that Israel should not eat meat in milk.” (Comment. in
Exod. xxiii. 19.) Thus Aben Ezra, himself a most learned rabbi,
confesses that the words of the written law restrict the prohibition to
one particular case, and that the rest is mere matter of tradition. Of
course if it could be proved that this tradition came from God through
Moses, it would be equivalent to the written law, but there is no
attempt to prove anything of the kind. The authors of the oral law
calculated throughout upon the blind credulity of their followers, and
therefore here, as elsewhere, there is an entire absence of proof.
Indeed, the tradition itself bears the plain mark of forgery. How can
any one possibly believe that, if God meant to forbid meat and milk
entirely, he should first express himself incorrectly, and then leave
the correction of the error to uncertain tradition? If the command had
only been once noticed, it would have been hard to believe such a
thing; but when we remember that this command is thrice repeated,
in Exod. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26, and Deut. xiv. 21, it is plainly incredible.
Thrice is the command written, and thrice it is restricted to one
particular case, and yet the rabbies have dared to make
unauthorized additions of their own, and their followers to this day
exalt them to a level with the laws of God. It cannot be replied that
the rabbies would not commit such wickedness as this, for every one
who knows anything of the oral law, knows that a great proportion of
it consists merely of the words of the Scribes, acknowledged as
such, and distinguished by that name from the supposed traditions
from Sinai. Thus in the constitutions before us, it is plainly confessed
that the written law allows the flesh of wild animals and of fowl in
milk, and yet the rabbies forbid it:—
‫וכן בשר חיה ועוף בין בחלב חיה בין בחלב בהמה אינו אסור באכילה מן התורה‬
‫ ואסור באכילה מדברי סופרים כדי שלא‬, ‫לפיכך מותר לבשלו וםותר בהנאה‬
‫יפשטו העם ויבואו לידי איסור בשר בחלב של תורה ויאכלו בשר בהמה טהורה‬
‫בחלב בהמה טהורה שהרי אין משמעות הכתוב אלא גדי בחלב אמו ממש לפיכך‬
‫אסרו כל בשר בחלב ׃‬
“And thus the flesh of a wild animal or of fowl, whether in the milk of
a wild or tame animal, is not forbidden as food by the written law,
and therefore it is lawful to boil it, and to profit by it. But according to
the words of the scribes, it is unlawful to eat it, lest the people should
go farther, and be led into a transgression of the written law, and eat
the flesh of a clean beast in the milk of a clean beast: for the letter of
the written law refers only to a kid in its mother’s milk in the strictest
sense; therefore the wise men have forbidden all meat in milk.” In
this there is no equivocation, but a simple confession that the
rabbies have taken upon themselves to forbid what God has
allowed; and have, without ceremony or scruple, made great
additions to his law. It matters little what the motive was, the conduct
itself is in the highest degree presumptuous. The pretence, that
these additions were made only for the purpose of keeping the
people far removed from sin, will not serve as a ground of
justification. If God had desired such precautionary measures, as
being either necessary or beneficial, he would have prescribed them
himself. If he did not prescribe them, and the rabbies themselves
confess that he did not, but that they are the words of the scribes,
then they can be neither necessary nor beneficial, unless we can
believe what it would be blasphemy to assert, that is, that God’s law
was imperfect until it was mended by the scribes. It is truly
astonishing that men professing respect for the law of Moses should
treat it with such indignity, and still more so that those who appear so
anxious to avoid transgression, should themselves systematically
transgress that plain command.
‫לא תוסיפו על הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם ׃‬
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you.” (Deut. iv. 2.)
But the most extraordinary thing of all is, that the modern Jews
should pride themselves on the purity of their faith, and think that
they only of all the nations serve the true God and him only, when
they are in truth serving the authors of the oral law, and dividing their
religious obedience between God and the rabbies. If the rabbinic
additions were specimens of profound wisdom in legislation, or had a
tendency to promote either the moral or temporal welfare of
mankind, there would be some excuse, but what shall we say of
those who transgress a plain command for the sake of such an
addition as the following:—
, ‫הבשר לבדו מותר והחלב לבדו מותר ובהתערב שניהם ע׳׳י בישול יאסרו שניהם‬
‫במה דברים אמורים שנתבשלו שניהם ביחד או שנפל חם לתוך חם או צונן לתוך‬
‫חם אבל אם נפל אחד משניהם והוא חם לתוך השני והוא צונן קולף הבשר כולו‬
‫שנגע בו החלב ואוכל השאר ואם נפל צונן לתוך צונו מדיח החתיכה ואוכלה ׃‬
“The flesh by itself is lawful, and the milk by itself is lawful, but as
soon they are mixed together by means of boiling (or cooking) they
both become unlawful. In what cases does this hold? When both are
boiled together, or when one being hot falls into the other also being
hot, or when one, cold, falls into the other hot. But if one of them
being hot falls upon the second being cold, then all that part of the
meat which was touched by the milk is to be peeled off, and the
remainder may be eaten. But if one in a cold state falls upon the
other also cold, then that piece is to be washed, and after that may
be eaten.” (Hilchoth Maakhaloth Asuroth, c. ix. 17.) We have, in the
first place, an unwarranted extension of the divine command. God
has simply forbidden to seethe a kid in its mother’s milk. The rabbies
first extend this to the young of kine, and sheep. Then they advance
another step and forbid the boiling or cooking of any sort of meat in
milk, and now we have seen another advance still, whereby even
any mixture of flesh and milk is strictly forbidden. Thus the rabbies
aim at universal dominion, and are satisfied with nothing short of an
entire subjugation of the heart and conscience. Other tyrants must
rest satisfied with the enslavement of the body, but cannot touch the
thought. The authors of the oral law attack the liberty of thought, and
intrude even into the kitchens of their victims. They are determined
that their followers shall not eat excepting as they please, and boldly
invade the prerogative of God himself, by forbidding the food which
he provides for his people. But this extract presents, in the second
place, an outrage on common sense. If milk and meat each be lawful
by itself, how can the mixture make them unlawful? Whatever God
forbids is unlawful, no matter whether we understand the reason or
not. But here the rabbies themselves acknowledge that God has not
forbidden this mixture; but that the prohibition is entirely their own
invention. We are therefore bound to use our senses, if God has
given us any, and to ask a reason why. Then, again, why should that
which is lawful when cold, be made unlawful by being hot? It may be
said, that this is a matter of little importance. In itself it is; but as a
burden on the consciences of men, it is of the very highest
importance, and as a cheat upon the ignorant it is more important
still. In many countries, these and similar inventions constitute the
whole religion of the ignorant, and especially of the women. The oral
law affirms that it is not necessary to teach women the law of God,
but it is almost a matter of life and death that they should know these
rabbinic laws about meat and milk. If a woman is unable to read the
Word of God, and is as ignorant as a heathen, of God’s will, the
rabbies think that is a trifle. But if a woman were, through ignorance
to serve up meat with any admixture of milk, the whole family would
be in an uproar, and the rabbi himself would have to be consulted
about a remedy for so dreadful a calamity. The consequence is, that
with the mass of the uneducated, accuracy in these observances
passes for piety, and these poor beings hope that they are going
straight to heaven, when they are utterly devoid or ignorant of that
holiness, truth, and purity, which are the first essentials for admission
into the presence of God. Thus the oral law destroys the souls of
multitudes, but others will have to answer for their blood. All who
uphold the system must share in the responsibility. The rabbies who
teach, the learned Jews who aid and abet, the priests and Levites to
whom God has committed the pastorship of his people, but who
neglect their sacred office, all will have to answer for the souls of the
lost. But most of all those who know that these things are wrong,
who themselves eat meat and milk, and laugh at rabbinic
superstition, and yet are insensible to the miseries of their poor and
ignorant brethren. Every one practically acquainted with the working
of these laws, knows not only that they beget a false notion of
religion, but that they are also a torment in this life. In domestic and
culinary economy, accidents will happen. Meat may fall into milk, or
milk into a pot of meat. Misery and vexation are the consequence,
and if the unfortunate woman to whom the accident has happened
cannot get satisfaction at home, she must go to the rabbi to inquire
what is to be done. For instance—
‫ או חלב שנפל לתוך הבשר ונתבשל עמו שיעורו בנותן‬, ‫בשר שנפל לתוך החלב‬
‫ טועם הגוי את‬, ‫ כיצד חתיכה של בשר שנפלה לקדירה רותחת של חלב‬, ‫טעם‬
‫הקדרה אם אמר שיש בה טעם בשר אסורה ואם לאו מותרת ואותה חתיכה‬
‫ אבל אם‬, ‫ בד׳׳א שקדם והוציא את החתיכה קודם שתפלוט חלב שבלעה‬, ‫אסורה‬
‫לא סלק משערים אותה בששים מפני שהחלב שנבלע בה ונאסר יצא ונתערב עם‬
‫שאר החלב ׃‬
“With respect to meat which falls into milk, or milk that falls into the
midst of meat, the measure is, if it give a taste? How so? If a peace
of meat fall into a boiling pot of milk, a Gentile is to taste the contents
of the pot: and if he says that it has a taste of meat, then it is
unlawful. But if it has not the taste of meat, then the milk is lawful,
but that piece of meat is unlawful. In what cases does this hold? In
case that the piece of meat has been taken out, before it has emitted
the milk which it has sucked in. But if it has not been taken out, then
a calculation must be made whether its proportion to the whole is as
one to sixty; because the milk that was sucked in, and had become
unlawful, has been emitted and has mixed with the rest of the milk.”
(Ibid.) Now, in the most tolerable case, that is, if the owner of the milk
can afford to lose it and the meat too, there is, first, an unnecessary
inconvenience and vexation, which no man has a right to inflict upon
another. But there is, secondly, and what is of far more
consequence, a great sin in wasting good and wholesome, and,
according to the written law, lawful food. If the milk tastes of meat,
then the milk and the meat are rendered not only unlawful but
perfectly useless. How then can the Jews expect peace and plenty,
when their oral law teaches them to despise and cast from them with
disdain God’s blessings? But suppose that the owner of the milk and
the meat is a poor man, and that he has laid out his hard and scanty
earnings to provide food for his family, an accident of this kind will
leave them destitute. Their last hope of support is taken away, and
they may die of hunger. If they go to the rabbies, and urge the
necessity of the case—plead that they have no more—reason that if
meat by itself is lawful, that milk is also lawful—that the law of Moses
no where forbids this food—the teachers of the oral law will answer,
that their traditions cannot be broken; and the poor people must
learn that to eat food permitted and given by God is a sin, but to die
of starvation is lawful. How can men with any of the feelings of
humanity believe that such a law is from God?—how can men of any
common sense suffer the consciences and the bodies of the poor
and ignorant to be thus tormented? Above all, how can a nation that
prides itself on the purity of its faith yield an idolatrous obedience to
cruel and oppressive laws invented by men? It is a vain boast for
them to say that they have no images—the oral law and its
enactments constitute a whole host of idols. It is an unfounded
triumph which they celebrate over the worshippers of Moloch. The
oral law is a deity as fierce and as bloody, and to it are daily
immolated the souls and bodies of the poor and ignorant. Any
homage rendered to falsehood, or to cruelty, is idolatrous; and every
thinking man must admit, that the worship of the oral law is of this
character. To the Rabbinists themselves we would say, Just think
whether it be possible that God would have given a law so
oppressive, or whether he can have any pleasure in the obedience
which is rendered at the expense of mercy? To those who reject the
oral law we would say, You have a duty to perform from which
nothing can exempt you—and that is, to rest neither day nor night
until Israel is delivered from this idolatrous worship of men, and set
free from a yoke so oppressive to body and soul. We grant that
Christians have also a duty, and in these papers we endeavour to
discharge our share of it. But the duty incumbent upon Israelites is
tenfold more imperative. The ties of flesh and blood—their office as a
kingdom of priests—the mercy of God in giving them the law as their
inheritance—all increase their responsibility and add to the weight of
obligation. It would be a shame for Israel to be silent when even the
Gentiles cry out for the restoration of the religion of Moses and the
prophets. Israelites may have peculiar difficulties. They may be
united in commercial relations or by family ties with those who are in
bondage to the oral law. They may fear the injury of their worldly
prospects—they may dread the frown of relatives and friends. This
was also the case of Abraham, when he determined to renounce the
false gods of his fathers, and to worship the true God alone; and
every one who determines by God’s help to follow and assert the
truth, must make up his mind to love it even more than life itself. But
can a son of Abraham hesitate? Will he forfeit the smile of God to
escape the frown of friends? Nay, if his friends are still in error, is this
not a double motive to urge him forward in the overthrow of that
error? Must he not he doubly anxious to deliver his father, his
mother, his brothers and his sisters from such bondage? The first
attempt may be difficult—the immediate results may be unpleasant;
but if for God’s sake he asserts God’s truth, he shall have God’s
blessing, and at last find peace even amongst those who are now
offended. As long as the present state of things continues, Israel can
never be restored to their ancient position. God in mercy keeps them
in dispersion, to prevent the triumph of the oral law. But when is this
state of misery to cease? There must be a beginning. Some one
follower of Moses must be zealous enough and bold enough to
attack the strong holds of superstition, and to rouse his brethren to a
sense of their condition—some one who not only professes to be a
follower of Moses, but who has imbibed his spirit, and whose trust is
in the God of his fathers.
 No. LIII.
RABBINISM OPPRESSIVE TO THE POOR.

When God gave Israel the law, by the hand of Moses, he also gave
them several tests, whereby they might at all times try themselves,
and know to a certainty whether they were really obedient or not—
and whether the laws, to which they yielded obedience, were really
the laws given by Moses. One of these tests is found in the following
words:—“Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as
the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land
whither ye go to possess it. Keep, therefore, and do them; for this is
your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations,
which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation
is a wise and understanding people.” (Deut. iv. 5.) By the help of
these words, Israel may know at any time whether they are really
keeping the laws of Moses. They have only to consult their own
experience, and determine whether they are honoured by all nations
on account of their wisdom. Moses promises that a reputation for
wisdom, and the honour that accompanies it, shall be the reward of
obedience. If therefore the Jews at this present time are obedient,
this promise must be in daily fulfilment. But, if they are not honoured
and respected for their wisdom, then we must conclude, that they
are deficient in obedience, and further, that the laws to which they
are at present so devoted are not the laws of Moses. Now it is a
certain fact, that admiration for the wisdom of Israel has not been the
prevailing sentiment amongst the nations of the world for the last two
thousand years. The Jewish people has been most deplorably
underrated. Their genius and their literature have been ignorantly
undervalued, and the folly of the authors of the oral law has been
unjustly visited upon each and every individual of the nation. We
grant the injustice and the impiety of such hasty judgments, but
cannot deny the fact, and the fact proves that the laws to which
Israel now yields obedience are not the laws of Moses. They now
obey the commands of the oral law, and the nations have heard of
the statutes thereof, but no one says, “Surely this great nation is a
wise and understanding people.” Some may, perhaps, ascribe this to
prejudice, and no doubt there are cases where prejudice has much
to do with the decision, but this is not our case. Our prepossessions
are all in favour of the Jews, and yet we cannot help questioning the
wisdom of those, who make such laws as the following a part of their
religion:—
‫אין לשין העיסה בחלב ואם לש כל הפת אסורה מפני הרגל עבירה שמא יאכל בה‬
‫ ואין טשין את התנור באליה ואם טש כל הפת אסורה עד שיסיק את התנור‬, ‫בשר‬
‫ ואם שינה בצורת הפת עד שתהיה נכרת כדי שלא יאכל בה‬, ‫שמא יאכל בה חלב‬
‫לא בשר ולא חלב הרי זה מותר ׃‬
“It is not lawful to knead the dough with milk, and if it be done, all the
bread is unlawful, lest this should lead to further transgression, and it
should be eaten with meat. It is also unlawful to smear the oven with
the tail of a sheep; and if it be done, all the bread is unlawful, lest
milk should be eaten with it. But, if some change be made in the
form of the bread whereby it may be recognized, so as that neither
meat nor milk should be eaten with it, then it is lawful.” (Hilchoth
Maakhaloth Asuroth, c. ix. 22.) We do not wish to persuade the Jews
either to knead dough with milk, or to smear an oven with the tail of a
sheep, but when we remember all the poverty and want that is in the
world, we cannot help asking, What is there so sinful in either of the
above actions, as to make such bread unlawful for the use of God’s
people? Has God forbidden it? or has he so strictly prohibited the
use of meat and milk together, as to make this excess of caution
necessary? Neither the one nor the other. The law of God as given
by Moses, allows the use of meat and milk together. It forbids only
one particular case, the boiling of a kid in its mother’s milk: and to
this the rabbies have, without any authority, added all these other
commands, and thus burdened the conscience, and made religion
an intricate and difficult science intelligible only to the learned, and
not always to them. What wisdom is there in forbidding what God did
not think necessary to forbid? What wisdom is there in neglecting or
disregarding the revealed will of God, and giving up the conscience
to the guidance of weak and fallible men like ourselves? But above
all, what wisdom is there in oppressing and tormenting the poor?
The oral law says—
‫ מי שאכל גבינה או חלב תחלה מותר לאכול אחריו בשר מיד‬.
‫מי שאכל בשר בתחלה בין בשר בהמה בין בשר עוף לא יאכל אחריו חלב עד‬
‫שיהיה ביניהם כדי שיעור סעודה אחרת והוא כמו שש שעות מפני הבשר שבין‬
‫השינים שאינו סר בקינוח ׃‬
“He that eats cheese or milk first, may eat meat immediately after.
“He that eats meat first, whether it be the meat of a beast or of a
fowl, must not eat milk after it, until the regular time between two
meals, that is six hours, shall have elapsed; because of the meat
which remains between the teeth, and which is not got out by
wiping.” (Ibid., 26, 28.) Now in the case of the rich or the affluent,
who can procure a good and sufficient meal of meat, and can
therefore wait for six hours, this may be no great hardship, though
even in that case, we must protest against the unauthorized burden
imposed upon the conscience; but when applied to the needy and
the destitute, this law becomes an intolerable yoke. Just suppose the
father of a starving family who goes forth to beg assistance from the
charitable. He receives a small portion of meat, and hastens back to
divide it with his wife and children. They partake of the relief, but it is
not sufficient to supply their wants. He therefore goes forth again,
and some friend of the poor gives him some milk or cheese, he
brings it home with thankfulness, but dare not touch it himself nor
give it to his children—they have already fasted many an hour—they
are still weak with hunger—a little of the milk or the cheese would
recruit exhausted nature—the children cry and entreat for six hours
more, for though God allows this food, rabbies have forbidden it. Is
there wisdom in this? Is God honoured by such a religion, which
counts his permission as nothing, and exalts the authority of the
rabbies above that of God himself? And may we not ask the some
question of the following law?
‫האוכל גבינת הגוים או חלב שחלבו גוי ואין הישראל רואהו מכין אותו מכת מרדות‬
‫ והחמאה מקצת הגאונים התירוה שהרי לא גזרו על חחמאה וחלב טמא אינו‬,
‫עומד ומקצת הגאונים אסרוה מפני צחצוח חלב שישאר בה ׃‬
“He that eats Gentile cheese, or milk which a Gentile has milked, but
the Israelite did not see him, is to be flogged with the flogging of
rebellion. But, as to the butter, some of the Gaons have pronounced
it lawful, because there is no express decision about it, and because
unclean milk will not set. Others of the Gaons, on the contrary, have
pronounced it unlawful, on account of the small drops of milk which
remain in it.” (Joreh Deah, 115.) Here we have the same total want
of consideration for the poor, and the same fierce and cruel spirit.
Just suppose, again, the case of a destitute Jewish family, where the
father is laid on a bed of sickness, and unable to earn daily bread for
his children. The mother, weary with tending the sick couch of her
husband, and her heart half-broken with the children’s cry for bread,
goes to solicit help from the almoners of the synagogue. She obtains
eighteen pence per month, but finds that on this small sum it is
impossible for a family to subsist; she then goes to individuals of her
nation, and gets what she can, but still not sufficient to the wants of
her children, and of her sick husband. In her distress, she goes to
some Christian neighbours, who give her some milk and cheese.
The pangs of hunger, and the affections of a wife and mother
overcome her superstition, she carries this bounty home and
partakes of it along with her husband and children. Has, she thereby
committed a sin; has she violated any one precept of the Mosaic law;
has she blasphemed the name of her God? Let reason, let the Law
and the Prophets answer, and they will say, No: she has done her
duty. But what does the oral law say? It says, that she has
committed a dreadful sin. And what is to be her punishment, and that
of her husband and children? Flogging—the flogging of rebellion. If
the oral law had power, it would lead them forth to the place of
execution, and there inflict stripes without number and without
mercy. The bystanders, and those attracted by the cries would ask,
What dreadful crime has this family committed? and the answer
would be, To save themselves from starvation they dared to eat
Gentile cheese and milk. Gentiles would ask again, What, is this the
law? Does Judaism teach that so innocent an action is to be
punished with such severity? and being answered in the affirmative,
would go away exclaiming, “What a merciful religion! Surely this
great nation is a wise and understanding people!” No: they would
retire in horror, thanking God that they are not Jews, and that God
has preserved them from so dreadful a delusion, and from such
iniquitous cruelty. What, then, do our Jewish readers think of this law,
and the religion of which it is a part? It is certain that there are
multitudes of Jews in this city who live in the constant violation of this
command; who constantly use milk supplied by Gentiles, and yet
pretend to profess Judaism as their religion. Let all such ask
themselves, by what authority they transgress a command
sanctioned by so severe a punishment. Is it because they think it
irrational, or unwarranted by the law of Moses? if so, they attack at
once the authority of the whole system of Judaism. If the oral low
can be proved to be absurd, or unjust, or cruel, in any one particular,
its value as a divine tradition is utterly destroyed. Let them, then, be
consistent; if they reject Judaism, let them say so, let them not
pretend to have the Jewish religion, when they have it not. Let them
honestly confess that their reason, directed by Scripture, has led
them to reject it; and let them fulfil the consequent duty of
endeavouring to deliver their poor brethren from a bondage so cruel.
They must know that these laws about milk and butter, and the art of
slaughtering, cut off many a poor Jew from the last refuge of the
destitute—the poor-house. Many a one who is now starving with his
family, would be glad to have the relief which the parish provides, but
he dare not accept of it. Either his conscience, perverted by these
rabbinical statutes, will not permit him, or he is afraid of his brethren,
who would think that in going into such an asylum he had renounced
his God. Those who use Gentile milk without scruple, will have much
to answer for, if they suffer such oppression and such superstition to
continue. It is a vain excuse for any one to say, “What can I do?” Any
one individual, however weak and uninfluential, has it in his power by
God’s blessing, to deliver the poor. Let him continually protest
against such superstition, let him reason with his brethren. Let him
determine to take no rest, until the yoke is torn from the necks of his
nation. He will ultimately prevail. He will be the instrument in God’s
hand, of offering a greater deliverance than that from Egypt,
inasmuch as the emancipation of the soul is of more importance than
that of the body. In this respect, amongst others, Jesus of Nazareth
has done more than Moses. If he had not arisen, the oral law would
have been universal, and the world have continued either sunk in
idolatry or slaves to a cruel superstition. The cruelty of a religion,
which commands a man to be flogged for eating that which God
permits, is not to be disputed; the prohibition of Gentile bread
furnishes another instance of similar inhumanity.
‫יש דברים שאסרו חכמים אע׳׳פ שאין להם עיקר מן התורה כמו פת של גוים אפילו‬
‫אפאו לו ישראל והשלקות שמבשלין הגוים ואסרו לשתות במסיבתן אפילו שאר‬
‫משקין שאין בהן משום חשש יין נסך וכל אלו דברים אסרו משום חתנות וכו׳ ׃‬
“There are some things which the wise men have pronounced
unlawful, although they have no foundation for the prohibition in the
law, as bread of the Gentiles, even though an Israelite should have
baked it for him—and cooked victuals, which the Gentiles have
cooked. They have also pronounced it unlawful to drink at a Gentile
table, even those drinks of which there can be no suspicion that wine
of libation is mixed with them. And they pronounced these things
unlawful to prevent the possibility of intermarriage,” &c. (Ibid. 112.)
There are many remarks suggested by this passage, but at present
we limit ourselves to the prohibition of Gentile bread. It is here
confessed that there is no foundation for it in the law of Moses, and
that therefore the rabbies have no authority for the prohibition; and
yet a very little consideration is sufficient to show that great
inconvenience may arise. For instance, if a poor Jew is travelling in
this country, exhausts his stock of money, and goes to a farm-house
to ask relief, he cannot accept any meat—he is not to drink any milk
on pain of a flogging. Suppose, then, that the people offer him some
home-baked bread, even this is forbidden:—
‫פת של בעל הבית אסורה לעולם ׃‬
“Bread baked by a private house-keeper is eternally forbidden.” The
poor man, therefore, may starve. But the inhumanity appears still
more in the discussion of the question, whether and when it is lawful
to eat baker’s bread. The rabbies are divided. Some allow it,
because the rule is—
‫מי שהתענה ג׳ ימים מותר בפת של גוים משום חיי נפש וברוב מקומות גליותנו אין‬
‫ ויש אוסרין אותו אלא א׳׳כ התענה‬, ‫פלטר ישראל מצוי והוה כאלו התענה ג׳ ימים‬
‫ג׳ ימים ממש ׃‬
“He that has fasted three days may lawfully eat Gentile bread, and
as in many places of our captivity there is no Israelite baker, this
case is considered parallel to that of him who has fasted three days.
But there are others who say that it is unlawful, unless he has fasted
three days, in the strictest sense of the word.” (Ibid.) One would think
that, in a case of doubt, men that had the fear of God would naturally
incline to the side of mercy; but here we find teachers of religion
forbidding what God has allowed, unless the victim of poverty has
first endured the torment of starvation for three days; and in one
case actually determining that a fellow-creature shall die of hunger,
rather than suffer their unauthorized traditions to be broken. If a
Gentile Government should seize on a number of unfortunate
Israelites guilty of no crime, and shut them up in a prison, and then
leave them to die of starvation, what just indignation would be
excited! Every man would protest against such wanton cruelty, and
yet this is just what modern Judaism has done. By forbidding Gentile
meat, milk, cheese, and bread, it has consigned hundreds to
starvation. There are at this moment numbers of individuals, if not
families, pining away in want, whose wants could be relieved, if the
oral law did not interpose its iron front, and pronounce starvation
lawful, and help from Gentiles unlawful; and yet their brethren, who
pride themselves upon their benevolence and humanity, leave them
to perish, and suffer the system to remain that it may be a curse to
coming generations. It is truly astonishing to see the indifference of
those who pride themselves upon their emancipation from
superstition, and who themselves eat Gentile bread, and milk, and
cheese, and perhaps meat, without any scruple. It is more
astonishing still, how the nation at large suffers itself to be deluded
by men who do not agree amongst themselves as to what the law
really is. We saw above, that the greatest of the rabbies, even the
Gaons themselves, differ as to the lawfulness of Gentile butter;—
here we see that they cannot agree as to the lawfulness of Gentile
bakers’ bread. How is it, then, that the Jews cannot see that their
present religion of the oral law is altogether one of uncertainty and
that, therefore, there is no dependence upon it? Here they eat freely,
even the strictest, of Gentile bread; but yet, according to some of
their greatest men, they are thereby committing a deadly sin. These
wise men humanely say, that it is necessary first to fast for three
days. Now of what use is an oral law that cannot even tell us
certainly what sort of bread it is unlawful to eat? The Rabbinist boast
is, that the oral law teaches them the true meaning of the written law,
and thus saves them from all doubtful disputation. But how can that
be true, when the oral law has not yet settled when it is lawful to eat
Gentile bread? If the rabbies cannot agree on so simple a matter,
what trust can be placed in them in difficult questions? The Jews
cannot even tell, by the help of their religion, whether they are not
committing a sin, and leading their children to commit a sin, when
they give them a piece of bread and butter. How, then, can they be
satisfied with a religion where the simplest concerns of life are still a
matter of doubt and disputation; and especially where the poor are
made to suffer the greatest hardships, whilst, by keeping to Moses
and the prophets, they might find relief? But, above all, how can they
believe that a religion is divine, or its authors good and pious men,
when an innocent action, nay, the fulfilment of a natural duty, is
punished with flogging? There is no punishment of which the oral law
is so fond; and it would be a curious and interesting employment to
furnish a list of all the offences to which it is annexed. Perhaps in
nothing does the Talmud differ more from the New Testament. The
New Testament has not, in any one case, prescribed so cruel a
punishment. The Talmud and all its compendiums prescribe it on the
most trifling occasion. The maxim of the New Testament is that of the
Old also, “I will have mercy, not sacrifice.” Now, if the practice of
mercy be more agreeable in the eyes of God, than even those
ceremonial rites which he himself ordained, with what pleasure can
he contemplate the religion of the oral law, which punishes, even
what God has allowed, with unmeasured cruelty? Aben Ezra
supposed that this command, “Not to seethe a kid in its mother’s
milk,” was given in order to prevent cruelty even to the brute
creation; if this be true, how does God regard the perversion of his
mercy, which pretends to keep this command, to spare the brute
creation, by dooming hundreds of mankind to starvation, and by
flogging those who endeavour to escape from their misery by eating
what he has nowhere forbidden? If God has compassion upon the
beasts that perish, what can he think of those teachers of religion
who talk with such composure of a fellow-creature’s fasting for three
days before he may eat bread sold by a Gentile baker, and who
absolutely decide that it is his duty to die, rather than partake of
bread baked by a private individual who is not a Jew? We appeal to
the good sense of every Israelite to answer these questions. Is it not
evident that the God of mercy must view with indignation, those
teachers who thus misrepresent the nature of revealed religion, and
who cause his holy name to be blasphemed amongst the ignorant?
But if those men are guilty, a portion of their guilt rests upon all those
who aid and abet in upholding the system. There can be but little
excuse for those who have the Law and the Prophets in their hands,
and who therefore ought to know, that the cruelty of the oral law is as
contrary to the character of God, as light is to darkness. And there is
no excuse at all for those Israelites who themselves despise these
Rabbinical laws, and yet by their silence and indifference leave their
brethren still in misery. They are answerable for all the dishonour
done to God; for all the misery inflicted upon man; and for all the
contempt heaped upon the wisdom of Israel.