New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-03-19
DIvORCE-THE OMITTED WORDS.
To N ssrrr.BAsnARots RABBr.0

Too "ssnI BARBARous EABBL"
SIR: omitted tho words In tie text from Dsuterons
omy to which In to-day's TRIBUNE you refer fssss-
tioualy. they were at all essential 10 tbs true I'M
derstsndng Of the text, you are right IN taking ne
severely to task for them OMISSION man who would
earbe quotation from any book to sut his purpose
ought to forfeit all claim to public confidence.
| 1 omitted them from what you may term weak
ness or may pronounce TO be fstijiousness. Ny
studies never having gone beyond Greek, the Old
Testament, IN its original tongue lie sealed book to
| me. The expression, "becsuse he hath foucd some
uncesLness in her" conveyed 10 my mind no idea
except phrase conched in terms less vailed than
modern usage is wont 10 employ to mean disgust pro-
duced by some perEonai habit idiosyncrasy. II in
this was not mistaken, the words are clearly nom
essential and might nnocsntly consult my feelings
by emitting them in the columns OF daily paper.
But IT, as you assert, the Hebrew word rendered
nncleapness6 means adultery the omission was
grave one, even II not wihfuliy committed.
Docs it mean aouIteryf II, wirhou. presumption,
one vho mas never cultivated those roots Of which that
inpudent fellow who indited Hudibras declared that
thew "fourish most On barren ground, may venture
to argue the point with Rabbi, ask leave TO take
seue as to this Interpretation. The subject indeed, Is
adj agreeable one; but, in selfdefnse cannot now
choose but follow whittier you lead, namely, TO the
chapter cited by you Levticus xviii, where, as you
inform us, the same word rendered uuceanness in
Deuteronomy occurs several times and 10 translated
Dakedness." The htet verse IN WHICH tDls happens
reads thus: "The nakedness of thy father aud the
Iakedness of thy mother thou shalt NOS uncover
IT. you aese, the word erUah here translated ma
kedness" is Throughout Sacred Scripture invariably
used express Illicit Intercourse a. In wes case
would adultery and the sbove test we substitute the
Sof word ws s os e. ys s sy Ss %s.
which, to my ootuser perceptions becomes wholly unine-
in Whist your Learning may set down my simplicity have
ss ss TEXT gs Ss.9n re n1 2 ts Q.
Genesis il, 2s,) was cursed
Umbev 49, sduery, but give that meaning other
defining words expressly added The priest In that text,
nSs n With to unesa
Nth another inegd Of ny husband be thou free &c.
adultery for uncesnnes we should NOT only have sgsnt
out sea n wGo h seem n 1s
other stbDg must confess never before heard Of
to preclude four reading Those words II pas
that she he wfe ind favor in bis because Of
favorS in eyes her person or her CHARACTER be-
o' WIZ. would ssss Of
Mrs Smith found no favor in Mr. smh' eyes, because OF
Finally difficulty fem.ins which in my eyes, IN the eyes
Of all Christsns must be- IL insupersbe though semi-
bsrbsou. Rabbi peh'p' may get IT, JesH' did not IN
your assertion H. that MOse.ssw "idsutioai with .hsaw
Of your stete (HewYork) that IL to say that allowed
divorce for no other canse except sdusy es We. Why
Why I'D be- add a1e% The not and
sornication and shall mary smother cOmmieth siutey"
You Moses law and Jesus law Identical Yet here
find Jesus dscardng the permission granted only be-
tho old Hebrews hard hearts, and substituting the
But there nothing TO discard We're the law d
the substitute inculcated and the That
every ssonsble must sheer impo,sibty
he tng with his audience snd recommend
Ing for their adoption the sefsame thing he condemned
We well know historical fact that at
the when told that Jesus declared adultery TO be the
divorce that declaration Ne Greeiey
Ia Bis ast letter. reminds In opposition to the laws and
ussRes alike among Jews and Gentiles."
inform ed how far Rabbs usually regard the
words the opinions Of Jesus authoritative Fct myself
errorthe ancient Jews you age not permit
ted divorce their wives except be for fornicslon andn
there ia Chs day. nothing TO reform IN
Jewish divorce awt Is enough for 10 know th In
sdbeng after careful survey Of the whole ground dol TO
the opposite opinion but adopting the views and sharing
the Interpretation put forth by the Author Of the Chan Re
hgion - ROBERT DALE OWEN
All this strikes us as very absurd, and based on an
unaccountabe lack of perception. The fundamental
idea of the Mosaic law is personal and perfect purity
Moses therefore, permitted the husband who had been
deceived to the chastity, prior to marriage of his
wife, to put her away. This Jesus disaDowed, as
temporary local permission, based on grounds Pc
cuar TO the Hebrew economy, reestablishing in its
stead the law as it was from the beginning" that
only incontinence, after marriage, can afford valid
reason for divorce.--Ed. Tribune.