dr. edersheim's life of jesus contains some interesting appendices on jewish beliefs and ceremonies. one of these deals with the sabbath laws of the chosen people, and we propose to cull from it a few curious illustrations of jewish superstitions.
the mishnic tractate sabbath stands at the head of twelve tractates on festivals. another tractate treats of "commixtures," which are intended to make the sabbath laws more bearable. the jerusalem talmud devotes 64 folio columns, and the babylon talmud 156 double folio pages, to the serious discussion of the most minute and senseless regulations. it would be difficult to understand how any persons but maniacs or idiots could have concocted such elaborate imbecilities, if we did not remember that the priests of every religion have always bestowed their ability and leisure on matters of no earthly interest to anyone but themselves.
travelling on the sabbath was strictly forbidden, except for a distance of two thousand cubits (1,000 yards) from one's residence. yet if a man deposited food for two meals on the friday at the boundary of that "journey," the spot became his dwelling-place, and he might do another two thousand cubits, without incurring 'god's wrath. if a jewish traveller arrived at a place just as the sabbath commenced, he could only remove from his beasts of burden such objects as it was lawful to handle on the lord's day. he might also loosen their gear and let them tumble down of themselves, but stabling them was out of all question.
the rabbis exercised their ingenuity on what was the smallest weight that constituted "a burden." this was fixed at "a dried fig," but it was a moot point whether the law was violated if half a fig were carried at two different times on the same sabbath. the standard measure for forbidden food was the size of an olive. if a man swallowed forbidden food of the size of half an olive, and vomited it, and then ate another piece of the same size, he would be guilty because his palate had tasted food to the prohibited degree.
throwing up an object, and catching it with the same hand was an undoubted sin; but it was a nice question whether he was guilty if he caught it with, the other hand. rain water might be caught and carried away, but if the rain had run down from a wall the act was sinful. overtaken by the sabbath with fruit in his hand, stretched out from one "place" to another, the orthodox jew would have to drop it, since shifting his full hand from one locality to another was carrying a burden.
nothing could be killed on the sabbath, not even insects. speaking of the christian monks, jortin says that "some of them, out of mortification, would not catch or kill the vermin which devoured them; in which they far surpassed the jews, who only spared them upon the sabbath day." this interesting fact is supported by the authority of a kabbi, who is quoted in latin to the effect that cracking a flea and killing a camel are equally guilty. dr. edersheim evidently refers to the same authority in a footnote. on the whole this regulation against the killing of vermin must have been very irksome, and if the fleas were aware of it, they and the jews must have had a lively time on the sabbath. we cannot ascertain whether the prohibition extended to scratching. if it did, curses not loud but deep must have ascended to the throne of the eternal; and if, as jesus says, every idle word is written down in the great book of heaven, the recording angel must have had anything but a holiday on the day of rest.
no work was allowed on the sabbath. even roasting and baking had to be stopped directly the holy period began, unless a crust was already formed, in which case the cooking might be finished. nothing was to be sent, even by a heathen, unless it would reach its destination before the sabbath. kabbi gamaliel was careful to send his linen to the wash three days before the sabbath, so as to avoid anything that might lead to sabbath labor.
the sabbath lamp was supposed to have been ordained on mount sinai. to extinguish it was a breach of the sabbath law, but it might be put out from fear of gentiles, robbers, or evil spirits, or in order that a person dangerously ill might go to sleep. such concessions were obviously made by the rabbis, as a means of accommodating their religious laws to the absolute necessities of secular life. they compensated themselves, however, by hinting that twofold guilt was incurred if, in blowing out one candle, its flame lit another.
according to the mosaic law, there was to be no fire on the sabbath. food might be kept warm, however, said the rabbis, by wrapping it in non-conductors. the sin to be avoided was increasing the heat. eggs might not be cooked, even in sand heated by the sun, nor might hot water be poured on cold. it was unlawful to put a vessel to catch the drops of oil that might fall from the lamp, but one might be put there to catch the sparks. another concession to secular necessity! a father might also take his child in his arms, even if the child held a stone, although it was carrying things on the sabbath; but this privilege was not yielded without a great deal of discussion.
care should be taken that no article of apparel was taken off and carried. fortunately palestine is not a land of showers and sudden changes of temperature, or the rabbis would have had to discuss the umbrella and overcoat question. women were forbidden to wear necklaces, rings, or pins, on the sabbath. nose-rings are mentioned in the regulations, and the fact throws light on the social condition of the times. women were also forbidden to look in the glass on the sabbath, lest they should spy a white hair, and perform the sinful labor of pulling it out. shoes might not be scraped with a knife, except perhaps with the back, but they might be touched up with oil or water. if a sandal tie broke on the sabbath, the question of what should be done was so serious and profound that the rabbis were never able to settle it. a plaster might be worn to keep a wound from getting worse, but not to make it better. false teeth were absolutely prohibited, for they might fall out, and replacing them involved labor. elderly persons with a full artificial set must have cut a sorry figure on the sabbath, plump-faced mrs. isaacs resolving herself periodically into a toothless hag.
plucking a blade of grass was sinful. spitting in a handkerchief was allowed by one rabbi, but the whole tribe were at loggerheads about spitting on the ground. cutting one's hair or nails was a mortal sin. in case of fire on the sabbath, the utensils needed on that day might be saved, and as much clothes as was absolutely necessary. this severe regulation was modified by a fiction. a man might put on a dress, save it, go back and put on another, and so on ad infinitum. watering the cattle might be done by the gentile, like lighting a lamp, the fiction being that he did it for himself and not for the jew.
assistance might be given to an animal about to have young, or to a woman in childbirth—which are further concessions to property and humanity. all might be done on the sabbath, too, needful for circumcision. on the other hand, bones might not be set, nor emetics given, nor any medical or surgical operation performed. wine, oil, and bread might be borrowed, however, and one's upper garment left in pledge for it. no doubt it was found impossible to keep the jews absolutely from pawnbroking even on the sabbath, another concession was made for the dead. their bodies might be laid out, washed, and anointed. priests of every creed are obliged to give way on such points, or life would become intolerable, and their victims would revolt in sheer despair.
nature knew nothing of the jewish laws, and hens had the perversity to lay eggs on the sabbath. such eggs were unlawful eating; yet if the hen had been kept, not for laying but for fattening, the egg might be eaten as a part of her economy that had accidentally fallen off!
such were the puerilities of the sabbath law among the jews. the old testament is directly responsible for all of them. it laid down the basic principle, and the rabbis simply developed it, with as much natural logic as a tree grows up from its roots. our sabbatarians of to-day are slaves to the ignorance and follies of the semi-barbarous inhabitants of ancient palestine; men who believed that god had posteriors, and exhibited them; men who kept slaves and harems; men who were notorious for their superstition, their bigotry, and their fanaticism; men who believed that the infinite god rested after six days' work, and ordered all his creatures to regard the day on which he recruited his strength as holy. surely it is time to fling aside their antiquated rubbish, and arrange our periods of rest and recreation according to the dictates of science and common sense.
the origin of a periodical day of rest from labor is simple and natural. it has everywhere been placed under the sanction of religion, but it arose from secular necessity. in the nomadic state, when men had little to do at ordinary times except watching their flocks and herds, the days passed in monotonous succession. life was never laborious, and as human energies were not taxed there was no need for a period of recuperation, we may therefore rest assured that no sabbatarian law was ever given by moses to the jews in the wilderness. such a law first appears in a higher stage of civilisation. when nomadic tribes settle down to agriculture and are welded into nations, chiefly by defensive war against predatory barbarians; above all, when slavery is introduced and masses of men are compelled to build and manufacture; the ruling and propertied classes soon perceive that a day of rest is absolutely requisite. without it the laborer wears out too rapidly—like the horse, the ox, or any other beast of burden. the day is therefore decreed for economic reasons. it is only placed under the sanction of religion because, in a certain stage of human development, there is no other sanction available. every change in social organisation has then to be enforced as an edict of the gods. this is carried out by the priests, who have unquestioned authority over the multitude, and who, so long as their own privileges and emoluments are secured, are always ready to guard the interest of the temporal powers.
such was the origin of the day of rest in egypt, assyria, and elsewhere. but it was lost sight of in the course of time, even by the ruling classes themselves; and the theological fiction of a divine ordinance became the universally accepted explanation. this fiction is still current in christendom. we are gravely asked to believe that men would work themselves to death, and civilised nations commit economical suicide, if they were not taught that a day of rest was commanded by jehovah amidst the lightnings and thunders of sinai. in the same way, we are asked to believe that theft and murder would be popular pastimes without the restraints of the supernatural decalogue fabled to have been received by moses. as a matter of fact, the law against theft arose because men object to be robbed, and the law against murder because they object to be assassinated. superstition does not invent social laws; it merely throws around them the glamor of a supernatural authority.
priests have a manifest interest in maintaining this glamor. accordingly we find that nonconformists as well as churchmen claim the day of rest as the lord's day—although its very name of sunday betrays its pagan origin. it is not merely a day of rest, they tell us; it is also a day of devotion. labor is to be laid aside in order that the people may worship god. the physical benefit of the institution is not denied; on the contrary, now that democracy is decisively triumphing, the people are assured that sunday can only be maintained under a religious sanction. in other words, religion and priests are as indispensable as ever to the welfare of mankind.
this theological fiction should be peremptorily dismissed. whatever service it once rendered has been counterbalanced by its mischiefs. the rude laborer of former times—the slave or the serf—only wanted rest from toil. he had no conception of anything higher. but circumstances have changed. the laborer of to-day aspires to share in the highest blessings of civilisation. his hours of daily work are shortened. the rest he requires he can obtain in bed. what he needs on sunday is not rest, but change; true re-creation of his nature; and this is denied him by the laws that are based upon the very theological fiction which is pretended to be his most faithful friend.
the working classes at present are simply humbugged by the churches. the day of rest is secure enough without lies or fictions. what the masses want is an opportunity to make use of it. now this cannot be done if all rest on the same day. a minority must work on sunday, and take their rest on some other day of the week. and really, when the nonsensical solemnity of sunday is gone, any other day would be equally eligible.
parsons work on sunday; so do their servants, and all who are engaged about their gospel-shops. why should it be so hard then for a railway servant, a museum attendant, an art-gallery curator, or a librarian to work on sunday? let them rest some other day of the week as the parson does. they would be happy if they could have his "off days" even at the price of "sunday labor."
churches and chapels do not attract so many people as they did. there is every reason why priestly protective laws should be broken down. it is a poor alternative to offer a working man—the church or the public-house; and they are now trying to shut the public-house and make it church or nothing. other people should be consulted as well as mystery-men and their followers. let us have freedom. let the dwellers in crowded city streets, who work all day in close factories, be taken at cheap rates to the country or the seaside. let them see the grand sweep of the sky. let them feel the spring of the turf under their feet. let them look out over the sea—the highway between continents—-and take something of its power and poetry into their blood and brain. during the winter, or in summer if they feel inclined, let them visit the institutions of culture, behold the beautiful works of dead artists, study the relics of dead generations, feel the links that bind the past to the present, and imagine the links that will bind the present to the future. let their pulses be stirred with noble music. let the sunday be their great day of freedom, culture, and humanity. as "god's day" it is wasted. we must rescue it from the priests and make it "man's day."
