THE SABBATH.
THE Sabbath law, as laid down in the Old Testament, was undoubtedly stringent. The fourth commandment, uttered amid all the solemnity of Mount Sinai, forbade all manner of work, while its observance was again and again pressed upon the people, and the sentence of death was passed upon every one who defiled that “day of holiness.” In after times the breach of this law brought upon Israel the severest judgment of Jehovah. Yet the day was not one connected with gloomy and doleful doings: the very name breathes sweetness — “Rest,” and the happy character of the day was quite discerned by the Jewish teachers of old. It was called the spouse of Israel, for, when the Sabbath had complained to God that it alone of all the days stood solitary (the others were paired), God had wedded it to Israel. Thus the tradition ran. So in every way it was sought to welcome the coming of the Sabbath. Mourning was banished, a special dress was reserved, and the best food that could be procured was placed on the table, even though it consumed the proceeds of the week’s labor, or if money had to be borrowed for the purpose, for it was held “he that borroweth for the Sabbath the Sabbath will repay him.”
The following is the legend of the Sabbath eve. “When a man leaves the synagogue for his home, an angel of good and an angel of evil accompany him. If he finds the table spread in his house, the Sabbath lamps lighted, and his wife and children in festive garments ready to bless the holy day of rest, then the good angel says, ‘May the next Sabbath, and all thy Sabbaths, be like this. Peace unto this dwelling — peace;’ and the angel of evil is forced to say, ‘Amen!’ But if the house is not ready, if no preparations have been made to greet the Sabbath — if no heart within the dwelling has sung, ‘Come, my beloved, to meet the bride, and the presence of the Sabbath let us receive,’ then the angel of evil speaks and says, ‘May all thy Sabbaths be like this;’ and the weeping angel of goodness responds, ‘Amen.’”
All this is fanciful enough, but underneath it lies the recognition of the beneficent character of the day of rest, given by God in goodness, and fruitful of good to those who observed the law respecting it. But there is another side to the story, and that a sad one — the Sabbath law as amplified by the Rabbis. By a strange perversity of mind — like certain mirrors which distort all that is reflected by them — though they held high opinions indeed of the Sabbath, they were distorted opinions, and altogether out of perspective with the teaching of the Old Testament. Thus, they assert that it redeemed the first created man from judgment; for, when he sinned on the eve of the holy day, and judgment was about to fall, the Sabbath came and said before God, “Lord of the world, in the six days of creation nothing in the world was killed, and wilt Thou begin with me? Is this my sanctification, and is this my blessing?” Therefore, by the merit of the Sabbath day Adam was delivered from the judgment of hell, and, when Adam saw the power of the Sabbath, he chanted “a psalm, or song, for the Sabbath day,” namely, Psa. 92 It was also held by one doctor that to every one who makes the Sabbath a delight an infinite inheritance is given; another promises the desire of one’s heart; and another says, “Whosoever keeps the Sabbath according to its constitutions, even though he were an idolater like Enosh, he shall be forgiven.” While Simon Ben Jochai (some of whose extravagant utterances have been quoted in previous papers) said: “If Israel would keep two Sabbaths, they should be immediately delivered.”
Probably, partly as a consequence from such notions, and partly because remembering how Israel had smarted in the past on account of their pollutions of God’s Sabbath, the Rabbis amplified the simple commands of the Pentateuch to such an extent that the Sabbath law contained in the Babylon Talmud covers 156 double pages of folio. Nor may we dismiss the matter by saying that the law as thus explained was only of man’s making, and that an Israelite might set it aside, and go back to the simple words of the written law. The Rabbis, at least, allowed no such heretical notions. They claimed most absolute submission to their decrees. They held that the ordinances of the Scribes were more precious and of more binding importance than those of Holy Scripture. “Every one who believes in Moses, our master,” say they, “and in his law, is bound to rest the practice of the law on them (the Scribes), and to lean on them.”
There was no appeal then from the terrible “oral law” (as it was called in contrast with the “written law”), and the wonder is how any man familiar with it could be happy upon the Sabbath, lest, at any step he should unthinkingly commit a breach of its manifold prohibitions; or how one not knowing it could refrain from the unhappy question: “Have I sinned in what I have done? do I sin in what I am doing?” For the Rabbis had discussed every conceivable question, and the general sentence is this: “To rest on the seventh day from work is an affirmative precept, for it is said, ‘On the seventh day thou shalt rest.’ Whosoever, therefore, does any work annuls an affirmative and transgresses a negative precept, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt do no manner of work.’ What is meant by being guilty of doing work? If it be done voluntarily and presumptuously, the meaning is that he is liable to excision, and if there be a witness and a warning, he is to be stoned. If he did it in error, he must bring a certain sin offering.” But though this looks very much like the law of Moses, it is remotely removed from it. The question is: What is work, as meant by the Rabbis? This we shall see.
It will be remembered that one of the chief complaints against the Lord Jesus Christ was, that He had broken the Sabbath. After He had healed the impotent man at Bethesda’s pool in Jerusalem, the Jews sought to slay Him, “because He had done these things on the Sabbath day.” In Galilee they condemned both Him and His disciples, the former for healing a withered man’s hand — for which they sought to destroy Him — the latter for plucking ears of corn. Matt. In Peræa — for all over the country alike, the same spirit prevailed — the synagogue ruler waxed indignant, because Jesus had loosed a daughter of Abraham, who for eighteen years had been bound by Satan. Again, at Jerusalem, they condemned Him as a sinner, because on the Sabbath day He had done what no other man ever did — He gave sight to the blind. What was the reason of this deep and fierce enmity? It was not — could not be — that He had set aside God’s law. No, but their miserable supplement to God’s law, which could not bind Him, had been infringed, and with a zeal and pertinacity which would have been commendable in pursuit of good, they persecuted Him. Alas! that when the Lord of the Sabbath came, they knew Him not.
With reference, first of all, to the offense of the disciples: all kinds of labor connected with bread were divided into eleven heads “fathers,” as the Rabbis called them — each head or “father” having sub-divisions or “descendants.” The “fathers” were: ploughing, sowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, sifting (selecting), grinding, sifting in a sieve, kneading, baking. By this ingenious division, the disciples’ simple act might involve a number of sins. For thus says the oral law: “In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered as sifting; if she rubs the heads of wheat, it is regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side adherences, it is sifting out fruit; if she bruises the ears, it is grinding; if she throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing.” Here are five labors, and as it is conceivable that the disciples did all these things, they were probably guilty of no less than five sins, tether with the previous sin of reaping, and were thus liable to present, in all, six sin-offerings each!
With reference to the works of the Lord, and the doctrines of the Scribes bearing on them, it was undoubtedly allowed that in cases of actual danger to life the ordinary provisions of the Sabbath law might be set aside. “The Sabbath is handed over to you, not ye to the Sabbath,” says an ancient commentary on Exodus, dealing with this point. But in the cases of healing by the Lord, there was no prospect of death immediately ensuing; hence His acts were offences against the oral law. For so opposed were the traditions to all mercy and goodness that nothing might be done upon the Sabbath which would tend to heal. That was a fundamental principle of the oral law. No plaster might be applied unless its object was to prevent a wound getting worse, not to heal it; no broken bone might be set; all external applications were forbidden. If a person was suffering from toothache he might not gargle his mouth with vinegar, though he might use the acid with a toothbrush in the ordinary way. A later comment adds, that even gargling might be done if the vinegar were afterward swallowed; that would merely be drinking. As to the eye (with reference now to John 9), it was allowed to apply wine to the outside of the eyelid, — that came under the head of washing; to apply it inside the eyelid was sinful.
To apply spittle (which was used by the Lord to mix the clay) was absolutely forbidden, as it was commonly believed to possess medicinal virtues. As to John 5, it would be no sin to carry a living person on a pallet; to carry a dead body thus would involve guilt; to carry the pallet by itself was entirely out of the question. We may add that it was allowed to a cripple to use his crutches, or even a wooden leg.
The question we reserved, What is work in the meaning of the Rabbis? has been pretty well answered. We, however, give a few more illustrations.
On the Sabbath a woman might not look into a mirror lest she should espy a white hair, and “sin” by pulling it out; she might walk in her own court, but not in the street, with false hair, — that would be a burden. Shoes might not be scraped; false teeth might not be worn, for, should they fall out, the two sins of “lifting” and “carrying” would be committed. A radish might be dipped in salt, but it must not be suffered to remain there, — that would be making a pickle! Nor might anything be carried on the person which could be put to any practical use. Thus, two horsehairs (which might be made into a bird-trap), a scrap of clean paper (useful for a customhouse note), were not allowed to be borne, — it would involve sin. The same applied to ink enough to write two letters of the alphabet, a pebble which might be thrown at a bird, or a piece of broken earthenware with which you might stir the coals; and so on. An egg laid on the Sabbath, by a hen kept for laying, might not be eaten, but if the hen was reserved for fattening it was allowable; in such case it was considered as part of the hen dropped off!
Many of these prohibitions are very foolish, others pressed hardly, and the familiar words of the Lord, in all their sober, actual truth, rise to the mind: “They [the Scribes] bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”