Literary Production. Morais, Sabato. Philadelphia, PA. Undated
- Title
- Literary Production. Morais, Sabato. Philadelphia, PA. Undated
- Author
- Morais, Sabato
- Date Created
- 1896
- Format
- 10 pages on 4 sheets
- Language(s)
- English
- Source
- Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies
- Sabato Morais Collection, Box 10, Folder 11
- Has Format
- https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/items/ark:/81431/p3pz52538/manifest.json
- Link to Colenda
- https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/catalog/81431-p3pz52538
- Provenance
- Transfer of Custody from the Hebrew Education Society, 10 March 1913.
- Is Format Of
- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/judaicadh/morais/main/TEI/SMBx10FF11_5.xml
- content
-
S. MORAIS,
546 N. FIFTH STREET,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
100
96
Did Jews practice human sacrifices?
A sentence towards the end of Leviticus, the third book of the Torah, whose perusal we have just concluded, has given me of late considerable concern. Nearly the whole chapter in which that sentence occurs, treats of the valuation of persons, or property de--voted to the sanctuary, or becoming, by reason of a vow, the possession of the ministering priests. The twenty ninth verse however, reads thus: [Hebrew] [Hebrew]. The revised ver--sion, varying very little from the so called author--ized one, translates literally as follows: "None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be ran--somed, he shall surely be put to death". The school of higher criticism, undeterred by the repeated denunciations in the Law and the pro--phets against human sacrifices, has dared to cite that verse as a proof that among ancient Israelites such brutalities were practised. And as novelties in literature, as like in all things, find easy acceptance, so in this instance, an idea destitute of foundation has been accepted received and approved by the credulous because supposed to emanate from deep thinkers profound scholarship.
It is said; the Pentateuch declares the first born of man, like the first ling of an animal hallowed to the Lord, therefore hence both are were to be placed in the same category; both are were to be con--sumed on the altar, in honor of the Lord. But in deference to an indisputable truth, I must recall to the memory of my hearers the fact that the Pentateuch has also shown the difference in the treatment of the human first born among males among human beings and the firstling of animals. In language which cannot be possibly misunderstood, we are told that the former was to have been ransomed by five shekels of the Sanctuary......[Hebrew] [Hebrew], whereas the latter was immolated [Hebrew] Naturally, I will be asked, what means then the sentence in which I quoted from to day's section? Well, the Leeser Bible, following agreeably to the traditional rendering, reads as follows: "Any one condemned to death among men, shall not be redeemed; he shall be put to death". Is that correct? Yes, substantially so; and the reason must be apparent to all unprejudiced minds.
For, the preceding sentence speaks of an object of whatever character devoted to the Lord, [Hebrew], while in our sentence no mention at all is made of a consecration to the Lord. It has reference therefore decidedly to a totally different case; I mean to that in which the judicial courts, or the ruling authorities have condemned a person--for a crime committed, as it was, for instance, in the case of Achan, during Joshua's administra-tion. That person could be not be ransomed. The sentence must be carried out, as we read else--where, that a guilty being may be dragged away from the very sanctuary to to which he too refuge, in order that he shall pay the penalty of his crime transgression offence. [Hebrew]
But who can harbor the thought that human sacrifices were sanctioned by our Legislator, seeing that mere ill usage towards a slave, such as blinding him of one eye, or even knocking out one of his teeth, compelled the owner to send his servant bondman free! Seeing also that parents could not exercise irresponsible power towards their own children, when these were dissolute and rebellious, but must apply
to the courts for a condign sentence? Does it stand to reason that a legislator so considerate and humane, would favor killing as a savory oblation to God? Far be it such iniquity from our Lawgiver, who in incisive lan--guage prohibits copying the atrocious and hein--tious habits of Egypt and Canaan, far be it from him to wink at and much less to approve of those very abo--minable customs. But higher criticism is not given to acknowledging itself vanquished. So also in the question at issue, it tries to prove from the act of Abraham, what that act positively disproves. Criticism argues thus. Unless hu--man sacrifices were had been common, the patriarch would never have thought of offering his son to God the Lord. And I, copying the critics and leaving aside for the [?] what Holy Writ sets down as a heavenly trial, argue thus. Yes, human sacrifices doubtless formed part of the shocking worship of hea--thens, but Abraham, who had discovered the way of God, which was to do righteousness and justice [Hebrew] instructed by inspiration his conscience, felt showed that such cruelties are an abomination in the sight of the Creator. So certain was he of that it, that he desisted from carrying out his intention original intention. And what the founder of our people, was Divinely whithheld from doing, his descendants learnt to avoid as a most heinous offence to nature and to nature's God.
But Bible readers, have sought to silence me by directing my attention to Jephtha's vow. I did not, however, flinch. I stood my ground. Let us cast a glance on the history of the Hebrew warrior--I prefer that appellation to the title of Judge--. He was a natural son of Gilead. The unkindness of relatives drove him early away form home and he, with a party of wild companions, made his home settled among strangers to his people and religion; very probably heathen Syrians, for the land of Job was in Amram near Mesopotamia. How long Jephtha led there a roving life, it is not stated. History simply says [Hebrew], mean--ing some years later, when the Ammonites had at--tacked the Israelites, the chiefs of Gilead, asked Jephtha to place himself at their head and fight the enemy. He consented and routed the invaders. But his sojourn among idolators, had exercised a woeful influence. Jephtha in his eager--ness to prove himself worthy of the generalship entrusted to his valor, vowed to that in the went of his victory, he would offer on the altar whatever being met him first, when he returned hailed home victorious a conqueror. To his horror, the only child he had--a young girl--had hastened to welcome back her father, dancing at the sound of timbrels which she played upon.
At that sight, the reckless parent who had become half paganised, was terror struck, but though heart broken, he insisted upon performing his rash vow and the filially devoted, but misled child, agreed to become the willing victim of that horrible promise. I know that not all Bible expositors have explained alike the fate of Jephtha's daughter. Some are of opinion that her having remained unmarried was then regarded as being deprived of life. But if it were so, what occasion had the girl to ask of her father two months time, during which she might weep on the mountains over her remaining being doomed to continue a virgin since she was to keep so always Besides nunneries never existed in Israel. Then, again, what did the daughters of Israel yearly lament about the daughter of Jephtha, as stated [?] [Hebrew] In reading the sad event incident with an unbiased judgment, I perceive that the historian, unwilling to dwell on the shocking epi--sode, limits himself simply to write, "he did with her accord--ing to the vow which he had vowed." I hold that Jephtha did not alone sin, for acting con-trarily to what Roheleth recommended centuries after later [Hebrew] "Be not rash with thy mouth," but also against the other injunction by the same author [Hebrew] "Be not hasty in thy spirit to get angry."
We notice that while Gideon instead of fighting the quarrelsome tribe of Ephraimites, pacified them. Jephtha made a desperate war against them and per--petrated a slaughter. The Talmudists not wishing to cast odium on one who had bravely entered the lists to deliver Israel our people in the hour of danger, say that Jephtha [Hebrew]--of light value--deserved nevertheless the esteem of his contemporaries [Hebrew] but they do not scruple to add that he had he studied his religion, he would not have lost his daughter [Hebrew] [Hebrew] I candidly admit that human sacrifices were offered by corrupt Kings of our nation and by then imitative subjects, for the impartial scriptures record that melancholy fact, but never never were they made by the sanction or connivance of our faith. In the third chapter of the second book of Kings, we read of a league between Jehoshaphat King of Judah, Jehoram King of Israel, and the King of Edom to de--feat the army of Moab. The battle was fierce. When the ruler of Moab felt that the fate seemed conspired determined to destroy his host, he took his oldest son, the heir apparent to the throne, and butchered him as an offering to his false gods; but he was a heathen, not a Jew, and Amos reproaches Moab
for his brutality. If we except the incident of Jephtha, which cannot be sufficiently repre--hended, no instance similar to it is met, during the lapse of so very many centuries, from the days that Moses our inspired legislator gave us his solemn charge, [Hebrew] [Hebrew] "There shall not be found among thee, one that causes his son, or his daughter to pass through the fire," and again: [Hebrew] [Hebrew] [Hebrew] "Thou shalt not do so to the Lord thy God (viz, like the heathens) for even their sons and their daughters they burnt on fire to their gods;" during so many cen--turies, I say, a crime unreproved, like that of Jephtha, never occurred. I leave it to the higher criticism to show the contrary beyond peradventure. I rest satisfied with having intimated that to blindly accept what a school, now a days greatly extolled lays down its axioms, is not wisdom, but credulity. The duty bounden obligation of every Jew and every Jewess who wishes to hold correct views touching the religion of Moses and the Prophets, is to search, without bias, into the writings of Moses and the Prophets. - Identifier
- p3pz52538
- identifier
- SMBx10FF11_5
Part of Literary Production. Morais, Sabato. Philadelphia, PA. Undated
Morais, Sabato, “Literary Production. Morais, Sabato. Philadelphia, PA. Undated”, Sabato Morais Digital Repository, accessed September 19, 2024, https://judaicadhpenn.org/legacyprojects/s/morais/item/83241