Book of Enlightenment (Part II)

afar, that none may know their whereabouts until he permits it. And God knows best! XX. THE HEIR OF AN ADULTRESS. Question: Should a man take to himself a woman as his wife he discovers afterwards to have violated her purity, and who is adjudged to be killed; if she is killed, who will be her heir? Her heir will be the high priest who adjudges her to death. None else, whether he be a relative or neighbor, or even her husband, can inherit the least thing from her. This can be inferred from Num. v. 5-8: "When a man or a woman commit any sin...if the person have no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, such restitution that is made unto Jehovah for guilt must be the priest's." The writer of this answer compares it with the case of the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad, who would not have inherited their father, unless it were for the fact that he did rebel against God, for they said: "He was not among them that gathered themselves against Jehovah in the company of Korah: but he died in his own sin" (Num. xxvii.3). His sin resulted from his work on the Sabbath: on that day he was discovered felling wood, which was not rebellion, and therefore his daughters deserved to inherit him. The unbeliever or rebellious, according to our learned men, can neither inherit nor be inherited. It is said that in such a case as we have already mentioned, the money advanced, or whatever was

a case as we have already mentioned, the money advanced, or whatever was promised to the woman by the husband before the marriage to be paid by him after the marriage, even if it were advanced to her previous to the discovery of her guilt, the same forms a part of her inheritance, and he can lay no claim to it. And God knows the unknown. XXI. THE FACE OF LABAN. Why is it that in Gen. xxxi.2, "And Jacob saw the face of Laban, and, behold, they were not Eynam as before," the plural form is used? The reading Eynam refers surely as well to the children of Laban.[2] For the first verse reads, "And he heard the words of Laban's sons, saying, Jacob hath taken away all that was our father's." Thus Eynam refers to them as well as to their father. Our lord Jacob discovered the inner change of Laban from that of his face; for nothing he concealed within himself but leaked through the features of his face and the utterances of his tongue. The countenance of man is the mirror of his soul. Some say that the sharp sight of the believer unveils the inner soul. But God knows best. XXII. CONCERNING OATHS. How can you harmonize the command of the Decalogue, "Do not pronounce the name of Jehovah thy God in vain," and the one, "Do not swear falsely in my name," with "His words he shall not unbind or break"? Answer: The command given in Deut. v. 11, meaning, "Thou shalt not raise," etc., really does not mean to prohibit something the carrying of which

raise," etc., really does not mean to prohibit something the carrying of which is sinful, nor the raising or lifting of an object from one place to another; but the command means simply, "Do not pronounce" the name of the Most High in false utterances, just as we have the same words Lo tish-sha in the prohibitive command Lo tish-sha shoma shaw, meaning, "Do not pronounce or raise a false report"- avoid spreading reports of the veracity of which you are not sure. Our learned men have divided oaths under three heads. First. The prohibited oath of falsehood, as meaning "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," and "Thou shalt not bear vain or untruthful witness." Second. The prohibited oath for selling or buying commodities either without weight or measure, but by mere guesswork. Third. The prohibited oaths which are made for no purpose whatever, and nothing is affirmed or denied thereby. From the command "Thou shalt not swear falsely in my name," we may infer that an oath may be either obligatory, or lawful, or vicious. The first is the right of the one accused of crime but without evidence. The oath is to be made in the court before the judge, for Jehovah said, "In my name thou shalt swear"; also, "The oath of Jehovah shall be between them." The lawful oath is that which binds a man to performance if the act be lawful; as, refraining from eating, drinking, fasting, and wearing costly apparels, etc. The oath is such cases is binding,

fasting, and wearing costly apparels, etc. The oath is such cases is binding, and must be carried out. The vicious oath is that which is made falsely, coupling the name of the Most High God with things unlikely or false, and thereby dishonoring him. Compare "Ye shall not swear falsely in my name, and thus profane the name of God. I am Jehovah." The punishment of such a transgression must be meted out with death. The transgressor profanes the name God by such an oath, made in any other tongue. As to Lev. v. 2, it means that the swearer rashly must be bound to his oath, if sin is not to be committed; but if his oath is due to causes which render him unconscious of his oath, such as drinking, he is not responsible; if conscious, he is quite responsible and must carry out his obligation. Then God said, "He shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that which proceeded out of his mouth." Our learned men have written with great zeal concerning the import of "Thou shalt not pronounce the name of Jehovah they God falsely." Of the many allusions this passage contains, one is to the hypocrite, who shows piety to the world, but who is secretly attached to his sins and to a life of immorality, a slave to his passions, and therefore his connection with God is groundless, and the pronunciation of God's name is in vain, and untrue to his conviction. Therefore God said: "For Jehovah will not

vain, and untrue to his conviction. Therefore God said: "For Jehovah will not hold him guiltless, who pronounces his name falsely." Clear! The man whose conduct is so characterized is more afraid of the creature than of the Creator, and cannot be guiltless before God, for his false oath. Every word God as given in the revealed Torah through our lord Moses (upon whom be peace) possesses several allusions which are to be applied in their proper places. This is enough for the man who lays aside his prejudice, and is willing to receive guidance and act piously. In all such things let God be the final judge, and let the sentence he utters be carried out. This is all which a tired mind and sickly intelligence could discover. But the Most High knows best what is ideally right. XXIII. THE INHERITANCE OF A WOMAN WHO MARRIES OUTSIDE THE TRIBE. If a man should die leaving behind him wealth, such as land, etc., but no male heir who may legally inherit him; if he should be survived by daughters, married in families other than his and outside of the tribe, what should be done with the wealth of the defunct? Have the daughters any rightful claim on them or not? What would follow? The answer (praise be to God only) is as follows. The daughters who are the only offspring of their parents should marry their cousins of their tribe, if they desire valid claim to their shares, in order that the inheritance may continue to be

valid claim to their shares, in order that the inheritance may continue to be theirs. Remember that the daughters of Zelophehad, when their request was granted, were conditioned to marry in the tribe of their father; for the inheritance should never pass from one tribe to another. Our predecessors (may God be pleased with them) said, and their saying must be obeyed, that even if the daughter who has inherited from her father should desire to marry a man outside of her tribe she would be disinherited, and others worthier than she, who belong to the tribe, would receive the inheritance. This statement is absolute, and liable to no modification. The land of the defunct should not be transferred to his daughters who are his only heirs, but who have married into another tribe. The inheritance of their father must remain intact; another tribe in not to enjoy its use. It must be preserved and carefully guarded until God's purpose is made manifest relative to the daughters of the defunct. Should their husbands die, they are entitled to the inheritance; should they die, the inheritance becomes the property of the House of God, if there is none that may have a legal claim to it. Cf. Num. v. 8, "And if there is no kinsman to the man that restitution may be made to him for the guilt, the restitution that is made for the guilt unto Jehovah shall belong to the priest." The restitution to the priest is made

unto Jehovah shall belong to the priest." The restitution to the priest is made as if to the House of God. This is according to our understanding of the law and to the exact interpretation of our learned men. But the Most High God knows best the exact truth. Verily he knows the unknown. XXIV. THE USE OF RENNET. Some of my people asked me concerning the use made by our predecessors of the rennet of the suckling kid, in order to make cheese, by placing it in milk, and the continuance of this custom until the attention of the humble writer was called to it, resulting in its abolition; and since then we have not discovered any using it. As to the use of the rennet by our people, I may say it is surely a great vice which our people introduced inadvertently. They had either taken it from the Jews, or had been deceived into adopting it by some indifferent believers in the days of Benutan. Nobody seemed to have spoken against the practice, as it is evident many generations had come and passed without the least attention having been called to it. If one should ask, How could this have taken place during all this time and period, the length of which is unknown, and none of the former learned and able men had ever attempted to oppose and prohibit the practice? For an answer, I can only say that God, in his divine foreknowledge, knew that doubtless some faults would be unknowingly committed

foreknowledge, knew that doubtless some faults would be unknowingly committed by his hosts, and their eyes could not discover them, and therefore, he said in Lev. iv. 13: "And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, and a certain thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly." Otherwise no need of this passage would have been found. No guilt is therefore to be laid on us, or on those who preceded us, for this practice; for it was due to a general inadvertence. Behold how careful we are in our use of meat in connection with milk or milk in connection with meat. Should a vessel have the least trace of flesh or milk; should it not even be very clean, and then any of the two substances, flesh or milk, be placed in it, it becomes, according to us, Tamay, that is, "defiled." Even if the salt that touched the meat be used with milk, the same state of pollution would follow, and we could not use the milk. The rennet is, in reality, one of the portions of the sheep or kid that belongs to the priest, and should be immediately delivered to him, and no delay made: for it is Kadosh, "holy." Since it contains milk, and the butcher removes it and cuts it while both knife and hands are stained with flesh and blood, it becomes binding to us to have nothing to do with its use as food, if we are to be faithful to our tradition and practices. I, therefore, in order to keep my religious duties,

tradition and practices. I, therefore, in order to keep my religious duties, have put its use under the ban. Its eating is neither necessary nor binding, and we have neither command nor law to that effect; but we use it as we use butter and fat and the like. It is unlike the unleavened bread and the sacrifices of the Passover which must be eaten. We must not defile our souls by a doubtful thing which we can easily do. God said, "Do not defile your souls," and "Ye shall be holy to God," etc. This is sufficient. To obey is safest, and God knows best. XXV. THE ABRIDGMENT BY LAYMEN OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRIESTHOOD. A few men of the laity protested that they should be "associates" of the Scribes in giving judgments and supervising the estates of the priesthood. Can there be any attention paid to them, and have they any right to their claim? If what they claim is vain, please give them a confuting reply, and convict them strongly of their vicious pretensions; and may the kind giver reward you! The answer: The noble Torah gives the children of Levi complete authority over all the estates or offerings of the temple. None else can have any hand in these matters. Thus said God in Num. xviii. 1: "And Jehovah said to Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy fathers' house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary. And thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood. And thy brethren also, the

thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood. And thy brethren also, the line of Levi, the tribe of thy father, draw them near with thee, that they will be responsible as he was." God foreknew that the descendants of Aaron are the children of Levi. Again, we are plainly told that in whatever matter not indicated by the law, the decision of the priests, the sons of Levi, should prevail, and could not be modified unless by some legal reasons. Read Deut. xviii. 8: "If there be concealed from thee a matter in judging, as between blood and blood, between plea and plea, or stroke and stroke, matters of controversy...arise, and go up to the place, which Jehovah thy God has chosen, to the Levite priests." Their decision is binding, as we read in verse 10: "according to the decision they shall tell thee thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence they shall show thee, neither to the right nor to the left." The same is affirmed in those things set apart fro God: "Then the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad; as the priest shall value it, so it shall stand" (Lev. xxvii. 14). In addition, I must say that, from Scriptural inferences, the high priest of the people must have his due honor. None should injure his name or measure up himself beyond him, as one may do with others. His people should pay him their respects and esteem, and should not look at him as any of their ordinary fellow citizens. Distinction and

not look at him as any of their ordinary fellow citizens. Distinction and preference should be given all his people, for it is apparent to all intelligent people that not every man of any grade could be made into a high priest, lest his practices humiliate him and keep him aloof, lest God be displeased and his worship be vain; this especially given with reference to the Levites, who are, as the righteous Lord has said, the chosen persons for priesthood, prayer, blessing, and divine judgments. Compare Deut. xviii. 5: "For Jehovah thy God has chosen him out of all thy tribes, that he may stand to serve in the name of Jehovah, he and his sons all the days." This means that they were chosen from ancient days to be honored and respected. I have found, also, that the Levite must not be discarded and others followed: "Beware of the discarding the Levite the length of thy days on earth" (Deut. xii. 19). It is in connection with the tribe of Levi that the apostle Moses made the prayer found in Deut. xxxiii. 11, that its prayers may be heard, and blessings may be bestowed; that its enemies may be crushed, as "O Jehovah, bless his strength, and be pleased with the words of his hands." A warning is given that the Levite may not be opposed, as we read in the same verse: "But break through the lions of those that rebel against him and hate him." The learned Hasam Assoory of Tyrus explains these

against him and hate him." The learned Hasam Assoory of Tyrus explains these words as follows: He who harbors any evil thing or hatred against this tribe, Jehovah will smite him with great calamities, and his plans will fail; for the prayers or curses of the Levites shoot through faster than very arrows. As to the words "Break through the lions of the opposers and haters," they mean that he who would plan to do such things is only a darer, who is unaware of his conditions, and is like the man who drinks poison to try it. To impress the people with dire consequences of such an attempt, he says, "Who could oppose him?" Therefore, I believe that it is not lawful to depart at any time from their given decisions and pleasures, nor is it lawful to call a halt to them through reasons of expediency, on merely mental grounds- for they have been long before empowered by the declarations of the Torah, and it is not to be imagined that the decisions of others are applicable to them unless there is against them a legal plea. And God knows best. Now I ask you readers of this my epistle to explain to me the exact meaning of the words of Jehovah in Deut. xix. 14, "Thou shalt not remove the landmarks of thy neighbors which the ancients have set up." What meaning do you put on the word Reeshoneem, "first ones," "ancient ones"? God has affirmed this command with strong terms, for he said, "Cursed be the man who changes the landmarks of his neighbor."

Pray, inform me, also, concerning the meaning of the words, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I am God." How contrary to this command do we act! How we do hate each other, and how we do backbite each other! To these things is due our downfall and utter relapse. So much is sufficient. And, as for the rest, though it is unknown to me, and I understand not even the boundaries of that I know not, it is definite in the mind of God, and he knows all. Amen. WRITTEN ON THE 29TH DAY OF SHEWAL, CORRESPONDING TO THE 21ST OF NOVEMBER OF THE ARABIC YEAR 1325 (1907), BY THE HUMBLE AUTHOR JACOB, THE PRIEST OF THE SAMARITAN PEOPLE IN NABLOUS. [1] The Samaritans read this word Kash-sheet, and derive it from a verb meaning "to grow fat, plump, and beautiful." [2] The Hebrew form is probably a later correction. It is Eynennoo,- "it was not."