awr Vip
"Woitt ot
A PUBLICATION OF THE ASGLO-JEWISH PERIODICAL PRESS.
FOB THE PROMOTION OP THE SPIRITUAL AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE JEWS, BY TIIE DISSEMINATION OF INTELLIGENCE ON SUBJECTS AFFECTING THEIR INTERESTS. AND BY THE ADVOCACY AND DEFENCE OF THEIr\eLIGIOU8 INSTITUTIONS.
C|»b *1*11 *yvt*® rtrsrt to Hr tom. an® to tjr eaot. an® to t|t nort|. an® to tfir soul®: ant in t®ct ant in t|p orr® sfinll all Hr fanilir* Of t|l eart® It limit. 1 ' —l ocation of the Jewa. Gen. xxviii. 14.
Vol. IV- No.. 103.] LONDON, 16th OF IYAR, A.M. 5605.—23rd MAY, 1845. [Price 3d.
CONTENTS.-
nW HID* tot—Th* Agn of the World.
Religious Meditation* sweated by the Haftoiaha. No. 18. J"Dp.
The CoaremooUt* in the Holy City.
On CipUnI Punishment*.
Miscsllansocs InraLUomica.—The Court; appointment of anew Ambassador to Russia.—Jews' Orphan Asylum; anniversary balL—Jewish Ladies' Loan and Visitin; Society.—Lying-in Charity.—The Burton Street Secession; difficulties on the marriage question.
Fouiqn and Colonial Intelligence. —Honour Rabbinate .—Letpsic Pair.— inundation at Frag **.—Inaccurate Reports in foreign Jewish Journals.—Extraordinary Misrepresentation.—Manifesto of German Rabbis ; animadversions on it.—Seoeasion Movements in Berlin. Breslau and Frankfort .—Death of another Jewish Philanthropist.—Miscellanea.—Publicity, a guarantee against Mal-atl- ministration.
Notices, Advertisements, Ac.
nViy roa* “o —the age of the world.
The age of the world haa long been a subject of dispute, and remains enveloped in obscurity to the present day. The sources whence any accurate information might be derived for ascertaining the precise age of the world, never have been, nor ever can be, completely discovered ; since many periods have elapsed, which have passed unnoticed and uncalculated by our most ancient chronological writers; especially by those of holy writ; snch as the beginning of the 400 years of affliction which God foretold to Abram, (Gen. xv. 13.;) the exact duration of the existence of both temples, and others. Hence, various opinions have been expressed as to the periods of those events; aa we find in efpty "HD ch. i.—urn nr6*3D Mechiltha on the lection Boh, (Exod. x-xiii.) ch. xiv. nan runts’ on Exodus, ch. xviii.—Koirun on Exod. ch. xiv., and especially in the Slt'ny ]3 inn* Dinn on Exod. xii. 40. 41., that the 430 years of the Egyptian captivity began in the 70th year of Abram, or in the 2018th year of the creation; thereby computing the redemption from Egypt to have taken place in the year 2448 from the creation. This again is contradicted by ^loan 13*33 pNin the Gaon Rabbenu Chan&nel, (vide **ro 13*33 on the passage itnp* *33 3(5301), who maintains that the above 430 years of captivity began with the birth of Isaac, and consequently finished 30 years after 2448, i. e. 2478 from the creation. The >ame opinion is held by Don Isaac Abarbanel, who in his commentary on the covenant of Abram in the Pentateuch, and in several other parts of his writings, states that the 400 years referred to in Gen. xv. 13., commenced with the birth of Isaac, and that God had prolonged those 400 to 430 years, on account of Israel’s sins.
The duration of the existence of the first temple, according to Tractate, »©1* ch. i., Tr. r*jj ch. i., Tr. (* 33 P ch. ii., and the l*«t chapter of D*n3I, was 410 years. In this again many other ancient writers differ: e. g., according to YedidyahAlex- androny, the duration of Rie first temple was 440 years ; according to Joeepkut, 470 years; and Rabbi Abraham bon Dand Haletoy, *iOK3n, deduces, from the various reigns of the kings of Judah given in the Bible, the duration of .the first >«mple to have been 430 years; and various other conflicting opinions have been advanced on the subject.
This contrariety of opinion respecting the age of the world, has long been noticed by many historians; amongst whom may oe mentioned the author of the d* 3*P 31W3 (Rabbi Azaiyah of Adomim), for which opinion he incurred the blame of the most orthodox of hia day. But no one haa yet attempted to prove, that the very same controversy existed also amongst the Talmudists, The following observations will, I trust, clearly esta
blish the fact, that this dispute was rife amongst the Talmudists themselves.
*33 *333 P^P D'nc* pSp C6p P*>P D*np P*?P 313VH ni3P K*3n • pSp D'np thtf ehv D*np ehv pSp d*3oik o*D3m • 3tjr l w 1333 roVm • D*np ehv b6p tfrv o*np sho 3dik ^>k')>d 3 p3 : <’JP p3D *11*33 30KD oWj 31D*> * ^tt*?D3
“ There are three different regulations for placing the seven embolismic years in the lunar cycle. Rabbi Eliezer says: the embolismic years are the 3rd 5th 8th 11th 14th 16th 19th
The Chachamim say. 3 6 8 11 14 16 19
And Rabban Gamaliel says 3 6 8 11 14 17 19"
The last is the standard of our present chronological calculations.
It will bo observed, that the difference between the above regulations consists in the second and sixth embolismic years of each lunar cycle. Rabbi Eliezer differs from Rabban Gamaliel, both in the second and in the sixth embolismic years; Bince according to him, the 5th and 16th of every lunar cycle are to be kept as embolismic years, while according to Rabban Gamaliel, they are considered aa common years. The Chachamim again differ from R. G. in the sixth embolismic year only, inasmuch aa, according to them, the 16th of every lunar cycle is to be kept as an embolismic year, which is not the case according to Rabban Gamaliel.
It appears far from probable that the above dispute, referred to the firing of the embolismic year itself; for we cannot imagine that Rabbi Eliezer kept the 5th and 16th years of every lunar cycle as embolismic, while Rabban. Gamaliel and his followers kept them as common years; or that the Chachamim, and R. E., kept the 16th of each lunar cycle aa an embolismic, while H. Gamaliel, R. Eliezer, Ac., kept it as a conimon year; neither can we suppose that they differed in the commencement of the epoch of the lunar cycle, which could easily have been rectified by admitting the 4th year of the creation according to Rabbi Eliezer, and the 12th according to the Chaehamim, aa the epoch of the first lunar cycle; for, why should the first 3 years of creation according to R. E., or the first 11 years according to the Chachamim, be excluded! Had such a sysbspi been adopted, a reason would no doubt have been assigned t>y them.
We may, therefore, deduce from the above, that they all agreed in fixing the emboliamic years; and that the epoch of the first lunar cycle began with the first year of Creation, was also indisputable. The only difference of opinion that existed between them, appears to have been aa to the year of creation which, according to R. E., was 16 years befoae our assumed era, and according to the Chachamim, 8 years before; consequently they differed in the ordinal title of each year; i. e.
G