Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
The Weight of Three Thousand Years
By Professor Israel Shahak
3. ORTHODOXY
AND INTERPRETATION
THIS CHAPTER is
devoted to a more detailed description of the theologico-legal structure of
classical Judaism.1 However,
before embarking on that description it is necessary to dispel at least some
of the many misconceptions disseminated in almost all foreign-language (that
is, non-Hebrew) accounts of Judaism, especially by those who propagate such
currently fashionable phrases as 'the Judeo-Christian tradition' or 'the
common values of the monotheistic religions'.
Because of considerations of space I shall only deal in
detail with the most important of these popular delusions: that the Jewish
religion is, and always was, monotheistic. Now, as many biblical scholars
know, and as a careful reading of the Old Testament easily reveals, this
ahistorical view is quite wrong. In many, if not most, books of the Old
Testament the existence and power of 'other gods' are clearly acknowledged,
but Yahweh (Jehovah), who is the most powerful god, 2
is also very jealous of his rivals and forbids his people to worship them.3
It is only very late in the Bible, in some of the later prophets, that the
existence of all gods other than Yahweh is denied.4
What concerns us, however, is not biblical but classical
Judaism; and it is quite clear, though much less widely realized, that the
latter, during its last few hundred years, was for the most part far from pure
monotheism. The same can be said about the real doctrines dominant in
present-day Orthodox Judaism, which is a direct continuation of classical
Judaism. The decay of monotheism came about through the spread of Jewish
mysticism (the cabbala) which developed in the 12th and 13th centuries, and by
the late 16th century had won an almost complete victory in virtually all the
centers of Judaism. The Jewish Enlightenment, which arose out of the crisis of
classical Judaism, had to fight against this mysticism and its influence more
than against anything else, but in latter-:lay Jewish Orthodoxy, especially
among the rabbis, the influence of the cabbala has remained predominant.5
For example, the Gush Emunim movement is inspired to a great extent by
cabbalistic ideas.
Knowledge and understanding of these ideas is therefore
important for two reasons. First, without it one cannot under- stand the true
beliefs of Judaism at the end of its classical period. Secondly, these ideas
play an important contemporary political role, inasmuch as they form part of
the explicit system of beliefs of many religious politicians, including most
leaders of Gush Emunim, and have an indirect influence on many Zionist leaders
of all parties, including the zionist left.
According to the cabbala, the universe is ruled not by
one god but by several deities, of various characters and influences, emanated
by a dim, distant First Cause. Omitting many details, one can summarize the
system as follows. From the First Cause, first a male god called 'Wisdom' or
'Father' and then a female goddess called 'Knowledge' or 'Mother' were
emanated or born. From the marriage of these two, a pair of younger gods were
born: Son, also called by many other names such as 'Small Face' or 'The Holy
Blessed One'; and Daughter, also called 'Lady' (or 'Matronit', a word derived
from Latin), 'Shekhinah', 'Queen', and so on. These two younger gods should be
united, but their union is prevented by the machinations of Satan, who in this
system is a very important and independent personage. The Creation was
undertaken by the First Cause in order to allow them to unite, but because of
the Fall they became more disunited than ever, and indeed Satan has managed to
come very close to the divine Daughter and even to rape her (either seemingly
or in fact - opinions differ on this). The creation of the Jewish people was
undertaken in order to mend the break caused by Adam and Eve, and under Mount
Sinai this was for a moment achieved: the male god Son, incarnated in Moses,
was united with the goddess Shekhinah. Unfortunately, the sin of the Golden
Calf again caused disunity in the godhead; but the repentance of the Jewish
people has mended matters to some extent. Similarly, each incident of biblical
Jewish history is believed to be associated with the union or disunion of the
divine pair. The Jewish conquest of Palestine from the Canaanites and the
building of the first and second Temple are particularly propitious for their.
union, while the destruction of the Temples and exile of the Jews from the
Holy Land are merely external signs not only of the divine disunion but also
of a real 'whoring after strange gods': Daughter falls closely into the power
of Satan, while Son takes various female satanic personages to his bed,
instead of his proper wife.
The duty of pious Jews is to restore through their
prayers and religious acts the perfect divine unity, in the form of sexual
union, between the male and female deities.6
Thus before most ritual acts, which every devout Jew has to perform many times
each day, the following cabbalistic formula is recited: 'For the sake of the
[sexual] congress7 of the Holy
Blessed One and his Shekhinah... ' The Jewish morning prayers are also
arranged so as to promote this sexual union, if only temporarily. Successive
parts of the prayer mystically correspond to successive stages of the union:
at one point the goddess approaches with her hand- maidens, at another the god
puts his arm around her neck and fondles her breast, and finally the sexual
act is supposed to take place.
Other prayers or religious acts, as interpreted by the
cabbalists, are designed to deceive various angels (imagined as minor deities
with a measure of independence) or to propitiate Satan. At a certain point in
the morning prayer, some verses in Aramaic (rather than the more usual Hebrew)
are pronounced.8 This is
supposed to be a means for tricking the angels who operate the gates through
which prayers enter heaven and who have the power to block the prayers of the
pious. The angels only understand Hebrew and are baffled by the Aramaic
verses; being somewhat dull-witted (presumably they are far less clever than
the cabbalists) they open the gates, and at this moment all the prayers,
including those in Hebrew, get through. Or take another example: both before
and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands, uttering a special
blessing. On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God, by promoting the
divine union of Son and Daughter; but on the other he is worshiping Satan, who
likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that when he is offered a few of
them it keeps him busy for a while and he forgets to pester the divine
Daughter. Indeed, the cabbalists believe that some of the sacrifices burnt in
the Temple were intended for Satan. For example, the seventy bullocks
sacrificed during the seven days of the feast of Tabernacles9
were supposedly offered to Satan in his capacity as ruler of all the Gentiles,10
in order to keep him too busy to interfere on the eighth day, when sacrifice
is made to God. Many other examples of the same kind can be given.
Several points should be made concerning this system and
its importance for the proper understanding of Judaism, both in its classical
period and in its present political involvement in Zionist practice.
First, whatever can be said about this cabbalistic
system, it cannot be regarded as monotheistic, unless one is also prepared to
regard Hinduism, the late Graeco-Roman religion, or even the religion of
ancient Egypt, as 'monotheistic'.
Secondly, the real nature of classical Judaism is
illustrated by the ease with which this system was adopted. Faith and beliefs
(except nationalistic beliefs) play an extremely small part in classical
Judaism. What is of prime importance is the ritual act, rather than the
significance which that act is supposed to have or the belief attached to it.
Therefore in times when a minority of religious Jews refused to accept the
cabbala (as is the case today), one could see some few Jews performing a given
religious ritual believing it to be an act of worship of God, while others do
exactly the same thing with the intention of propitiating Satan - but so long
as the act is the same they would pray together and remain members of the same
congregation, however much they might dislike each other. But if instead of
the intention attached to the ritual washing of hands anyone would dare
to introduce an innovation in the manner of washing,11
a real schism would certainly ensue.
The same can be said about all sacred formulas of
Judaism. Provided the working is left intact, the meaning is at best a
secondary matter. For example, perhaps the most sacred Jewish formula, 'Hear 0
Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one', recited several times each day
by every pious Jew, can at the present time mean two contrary things. It can
mean that the Lord is indeed 'one'; but it can also mean that a certain stage
in the union of the male and female deities has been reached or is being
promoted by the proper recitation of this formula. However, when Jews of a
Reformed congregation recite this formula in any language other than Hebrew,
all Orthodox rabbis, whether they believe in unity or in the divine sexual
union, are very angry indeed.
Finally, all this is of considerable importance in Israel
(and in other Jewish centers) even at present. The enormous significance
attached to mere formulas (such as the 'Law of Jerusalem'); the ideas and
motivations of Gush Emunim; the urgency behind the hate for non-Jews presently
living in Palestine; the fatalistic attitude towards all peace attempts by
Arab states - all these and many other traits of Zionist politics, which
puzzle so many well-meaning people who have a false notion about classical
Judaism, become more intelligible against this religious and mystical
background. I must warn, however, against falling into the other extreme and
trying to explain all zionist politics in terms of this background. Obviously,
the latter's influences vary in extent. Ben-Gurion was adept at manipulating
them in a controlled way for specific ends. Under Begin the past exerts a much
greater influence upon the present. But what one should never do is to ignore
the past and its influences, because only by knowing it can one transcend its
blind power.
Interpretation of the Bible
It will be seen from the foregoing example that what most supposedly
well-informed people think they know about Judaism may be very misleading,
unless they can read Hebrew. All the details mentioned above can be found in
the original texts or, in some cases, in modern books written in Hebrew for a
rather specialized readership. In English one would look for them in vain,
even where the omission of such socially important facts distorts the whole
picture.
There is yet another misconception about Judaism which is
particularly common among Christians, or people heavily influenced by
Christian tradition and culture. This is the misleading idea that Judaism is a
'biblical religion'; that the Old Testament has in Judaism the same central
place and legal authority which the Bible has for Protestant or even Catholic
Christianity.
Again, this is connected with the question of
interpretation. We have seen that in matters of belief there is great
latitude. Exactly the opposite holds with respect to the legal interpretation
of sacred texts. Here the interpretation is rigidly fixed - but by the Talmud
rather than by the Bible itself.12
Many, perhaps most, biblical verses prescribing religious acts and obligations
are 'understood' by classical Judaism, and by present-:lay Orthodoxy, in a
sense which is quite distinct from, or even contrary to, their literal meaning
as understood by Christian or other readers of the Old Testament, who only see
the plain text. The same division exists at present in Israel between those
educated in Jewish religious schools and those educated in 'secular' Hebrew
schools, where on the whole the plain meaning of the Old Testament is taught.
This important point can only be understood through
examples. It will be noted that the changes in meaning do not all go in the
same direction from the point of view of ethics, as the term is understood
now. Apologetics of Judaism claim that the interpretation of the Bible,
originated by the Pharisees and fixed in the Talmud, is always more liberal
than the literal sense. But some of the examples below show that this is far
from being the case.
(1) Let us start with the Decalogue itself. The Eighth Commandment, Thou
shalt not steal' (Exodus, 20:15), is taken to be a prohibition against
'stealing' (that is, kidnapping) a Jewish person. The reason is that
according to the Talmud all acts forbidden by the Decalogue are capital
offenses. Stealing property is not a capital offense (while kidnapping of
Gentiles by Jews is allowed by talmudic law) - hence the interpretation. A
virtually identical sentence - 'Ye shall not steal' (Leviticus, 19:11) - is
however allowed to have its literal meaning.
(2) The famous verse 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth' etc. (Exodus, 21:24)
is taken to mean 'eye-money for eye', that is payment of a fine rather than
physical retribution.
(3) Here is a notorious case of turning the literal meaning into its exact
opposite. The biblical text plainly warns against following the bandwagon in
an unjust cause: thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt
thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment' (Exodus, 23:2).
The last words of this sentence - 'Decline after many to wrest judgment' - are
torn out of their context and interpreted as an injunction to follow the
majority
(4) The verse 'Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk' (Exodus,
23:19) is interpreted as a ban on mixing any kind of meat with any milk or
milk product. Since the same verse is repeated in two other places in the
Pentateuch, the mere repetition is taken to be a treble ban, forbidding a Jew
(i) to eat such a mixture, (ii) to cook it for any purpose and (iii) to enjoy
or benefit from it in any way.13
(5 ) In numerous cases general terms such as 'thy fellow', 'stranger', or
even 'man' are taken to have an exelusivist chauvinistic meaning. The famous
verse 'thou shalt love thy fellow14
as thyself (Leviticus, 19:18) is understood by classical (and
present-day Orthodox) Judaism as an injunction to love one's fellow Jew, not
any fellow human. Similarly, the verse 'neither shalt thou stand against the
blood of thy fellow' (ibid., 16) is supposed to mean that one must not
stand idly by when the life ('blood') of a fellow Jew is in danger; but, as
will be seen in Chapter 5, a Jew is in general forbidden to save the life of a
Gentile, because 'he is not thy fellow'. The generous injunction to leave the
gleanings of one's field and vineyard 'for the poor and the stranger' (ibid.,
9-10) is interpreted as referring exclusively to the Jewish poor and to
converts to Judaism. The taboo laws relating to corpses begin with the verse
'This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent ...
shall be unclean seven days' (Numbers~, 19:16). But the word 'man' (adam) is taken to mean 'Jew', so that only a Jewish corpse is taboo (that is,
both 'unclean' and sacred). Based on this interpretation, pious Jews have a
tremendous magic reverence towards Jewish corpses and Jewish cemeteries, but
have no respect towards non-Jewish corpses and cemeteries. Thus hundreds of
Muslim cemeteries have been utterly destroyed in Israel (in one case in order
to make room for the Tel-Aviv Hilton) but there was a great outcry because the
Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was damaged under Jordanian rule.
Examples of this kind are too numerous to quote. Some of the inhuman
consequences of this type of interpretation will be discussed in Chapter 5.
(6 ) Finally, consider one of the most beautiful prophetic passages,
Isaiah's magnificent condemnation of hypocrisy and empty ritual, and
exhortation to common decency. One verse (Isaiah, 1:15) in this passage
is: 'And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea,
when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.'
Since Jewish priests 'spread their hands' when blessing the people during
service, this verse is supposed to mean that a priest who commits accidental
homicide is disqualified from 'spreading his hands' in blessing (even if
repentant) because they are 'full of blood'. It is quite clear even from these
examples that when Orthodox Jews today (or all Jews before about 1780) read
the Bible, they are reading a very different book, with a totally different
meaning, from the Bible as read by non-Jews or non-Orthodox Jews. This
distinction applies even in Israel, although both parties read the text in
Hebrew. Experience, particularly since 1967, has repeatedly corroborated this.
Many Jews in Israel (and elsewhere), who are not Orthodox and have little
detailed knowledge of the Jewish religion, have tried to shame Orthodox
Israelis (or right-wingers who are strongly influenced by religion) out of
their inhuman attitude towards the Palestinians, by quoting at them verses
from the Bible in their plain humane sense. It was always found, however, that
such arguments do not have the slightest effect on those who follow classical
Judaism; they simply do not understand what is being said to them, because to
them the biblical text means something quite different than to everyone else.
If such a communication gap exists in Israel, where
people read Hebrew and can readily obtain correct information if they wish,
one can imagine how deep is the misconception abroad, say among people
educated in the Christian tradition. In fact, the more such a person reads the
Bible, the less he or she knows about Orthodox Judaism. For the latter regards
the Old Testament as a text of immutable sacred formulas, whose recitation is
an act of great merit, but whose meaning is wholly determined elsewhere. And,
as Humpty Dumpty told Alice, behind the problem of who can determine the
meaning of words, there stands the real question: 'Which is to be master?'
Structure of the Talmud
It should therefore be clearly understood that the source of authority for
all the practices of classical (and present-day Orthodox) Judaism, the
determining base of its legal structure, is the Talmud, or, to be precise, the
so-called Babylonian Talmud; while the rest of the talmudic literature
(including the so~called Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud) acts as a
supplementary authority.
We cannot enter here into a detailed description of the
Talmud and talmudic literature, but confine ourselves to a few principal
points needed for our argument. Basically, the Talmud consists of two parts.
First, the Mishnah - a terse legal code consisting of six volumes, each
subdivided into several tractates, written in Hebrew, redacted in
Palestine around AD 200 out of the much more extensive (and largely oral)
legal material composed during the preceding two centuries. The second and by
far predominant part is the Gemarah - a voluminous record of discussions on
and around the Mishnah. There are two, roughly parallel, sets of Gemarah, one
composed in Mesopotamia ('Babylon') between about AD 200 and 500, the other in
Palestine between about AD 200 and some unknown date long before 500. The
Babylonian Talmud (that is, the Mishnah plus the Mesopotamian Gemarah) is much
more extensive and better arranged than the Palestinian, and it alone is
regarded as definitive and authoritative. The Jerusalem (Palestinian) Talmud
is accorded a decidedly lower status as a legal authority, along with a number
of compilations, known collectively as the 'talmudic literature', containing
material which the editors of the two Talmuds had left out.
Contrary to the Mishnah, the rest of the Talmud and
talmudic literature is written in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, the latter
language predominating in the Babylonian Talmud. Also, it is not limited to
legal matters. Without any apparent order or reason, the legal discussion can
suddenly be interrupted by what is referred to as 'Narrative' (Aggadah) a
medley of tales and anecdotes about rabbis or ordinary folk, biblical figures,
angels, demons, witchcraft and miracles.15
These narrative passages, although of great popular influence in Judaism
through the ages, were always considered (even by the Talmud itself) as having
secondary value. Of greatest importance for classical Judaism are the legal
parts of the text, particularly the discussion of cases which are regarded as
problematic. The Talmud itself defines the various categories of Jews, in
ascending order, as follows, The lowest are the totally ignorant, then come
those who only know the Bible, then those who are familiar with the Mishnah or
Aggadah, and the superior class are those who have studied, and are able to
discuss the legal part of the Gemarah. It is only the latter who are fit to
lead their fellow Jews in all things.
The legal system of the Talmud can be described as
totally comprehensive, rigidly authoritarian, and yet capable of infinite
development, without however any change in its dogmatic base. Every aspect of
Jewish life, both individual and social, is covered, usually in considerable
detail, with sanctions and punishments provided for every conceivable sin or
infringement of the rules. The basic rules for every problem are stated
dogmatically and cannot be questioned. What can be and is discussed at very
great length is the elaboration and practical definition of these rules. Let
me give a few examples.
'Not doing any work' on the sabbath. The concept work is
defined as comprising exactly 39 types of work, neither more nor less. The
criterion for inclusion in this list has nothing to do with the arduousness of
a given task; it is simply a matter of dogmatic definition. One forbidden type
of 'work' is writing. The question then arises: How many characters must one
write in order to commit the sin of writing on the sabbath? (Answer: Two). Is
the sin the same, irrespective of which hand is used? (Answer: No). However,
in order to guard against falling into sin, the primary prohibition on writing
is hedged with a secondary ban on touching any writing implement on the
sabbath.
Another prototypical work forbidden on the sabbath is the
grinding of grain. From this it is deduced, by analogy, that any kind of
grinding of anything whatsoever is forbidden. And this in turn is hedged by a
ban on the practice of medicine on the sabbath (except in cases of danger to
Jewish life), in order to guard against falling into the sin of grinding a
medicament. It is in vain to point out that in modern times such a danger does
not exist (nor, for that matter, did it exist in many cases even in talmudic
times); for, as a hedge around the hedge, the Talmud explicitly forbids liquid
medicines and restorative drinks on the sabbath. What has been fixed remains
for ever fixed, however absurd. Tertullian, one of the early Church Fathers,
had written, 'I believe it because it is absurd.' This can serve as a motto
for the majority of talmudic rules, with the word 'believe' replaced by
'practice'.
The following example illustrates even better the level
of absurdity reached by this system. One of the prototypes of work forbidden
on the sabbath is harvesting. This is stretched, by analogy, to a ban on
breaking a branch off a tree. Hence, riding a horse (or any other animal) is
forbidden, as a hedge against the temptation to break a branch off a tree for
flogging the beast. It is useless to argue that you have a ready-made whip, or
that you intend to ride where there are no trees. What is forbidden remains
forbidden for ever. It can, however, be stretched and made stricter: in modern
times, riding a bicycle on the sabbath has been forbidden, because it is
analogous to riding a horse.
My final example illustrates how the same methods are
used also in purely theoretical cases, having no conceivable application in
reality. During the existence of the Temple, the High Priest was only allowed
to marry a virgin. Although during virtually the whole of the talmudic period
there was no longer a Temple or a High Priest, the Talmud devotes one of its
more involved (and bizarre) discussions to the precise definition of the term
'virgin' fit to marry a High Priest. What about a woman whose hymen had been
broken by accident? Does it make any difference whether the accident occurred
before or after the age of three? By the impact of metal or of wood? Was she
climbing a tree? And if so, was she climbing up or down? Did it happen
naturally or unnaturally? All this and much else besides is discussed in
lengthy detail. And every scholar in classical Judaism had to master hundreds
of such problems. Great scholars were measured by their ability to develop
these problems still further, for as shown by the examples there is always
scope for further development - if only in one direction - and such
development did actually continue after the final redaction of the Talmud.
However, there are two great differences between the
talmudic period (ending around AD 500) and the period of classical Judaism
(from about AD 800). The geographical area reflected in the Talmud is
confined, whereas the Jewish society reflected in it is a 'complete' society,
with Jewish agriculture as its basis. (This is true for Mesopotamia as well as
Palestine.) Although at that time there were Jews living throughout the Roman
Empire and in many areas of the Sassanid Empire, it is quite evident from the
talmudic text that its composition - over half a millennium - was a strictly
local affair. No scholars from countries other than Mesopotamia and Palestine
took part in it, nor does the text reflect social conditions outside these two
areas.
Very little is known about the social and religious
conditions of the Jews in the intervening three centuries. But from AD 800 on,
when more detailed historical information is again available, we find that the
two features mentioned above had been reversed. The Babylonian Talmud (and to
a much lesser degree the rest of the talmudic literature) is acknowledged as
authoritative, studied and developed in all Jewish communities. At the same
time, Jewish society had undergone a deep change: whatever and wherever it is,
it does not include peasants.
The social system resulting from this change will be
discussed in Chapter 4. Here we shall describe how the Talmud was adapted to
the conditions - geographically much wider and socially much narrower, and at
any rate radically different - of classical Judaism. We shall concentrate on
what is in my opinion the most important method of adaptation, namely the
dispensations.
The Dispensations
As noted above, the talmudic system is most dogmatic and does not allow any
relaxation of its rules even when they are reduced to absurdity by a change in
circumstances. And in the case of the Talmud - contrary to that of the Bible -
the literal sense of the text is binding, and one is not allowed to
interpret it away. But in the period of classical Judaism various talmudic
laws became untenable for the Jewish ruling classes - the rabbis and the rich.
In the interest of these ruling classes, a method of systematic deception was
devised for keeping the letter of the law, while violating its spirit and
intention. It was this hypocritical system of 'dispensations' (heterirn) which,
in my view, was the most important cause of the debasement of Judaism in its
classical epoch. (The second cause was Jewish mysticism, which however
operated for a much shorter period of time.) Again, some examples are needed
to illustrate how the system works.
(1) Taking of interest. The Talmud strictly forbids a Jew, on pain
of severe punishment, to take interest on a loan made to another Jew.
(According to a majority of talmudic authorities, it is a religious duty to
take as much interest as possible on a loan made to a Gentile.) Very detailed
rules forbid even the most far-fetched forms in which a Jewish lender might
benefit from a Jewish debtor. All Jewish accomplices to such an illicit
transaction, including the scribe and the witnesses, are branded by the Talmud
as infamous persons, disqualified from testifying in court, because by
participating in such an act a Jew as good as declares that 'he has no part in
the god of Israel'. It is evident that this law is well suited to the needs of
Jewish peasants or artisans, or of small Jewish communities who use their
money for lending to non-Jews. But the situation was very different in east
Europe (mainly in Poland) by the 16th century. There was a relatively big
Jewish community, which constituted the majority in many towns. The peasants,
subjected to strict serfdom not far removed from slavery, were hardly in a
position to borrow at all, while lending to the nobility was the business of a
few very rich Jews. Many Jews were doing business with each other.
In these circumstances, the following arrangement (called
heter 'isqa - 'business dispensation') was devised for an interest-
bearing loan between Jews, which does not violate the letter of the law,
because formally it is not a loan at all. The lender 'invests' his money in
the business of the borrower, stipulating two conditions. First, that the
borrower will pay the lender at an agreed future date a stated sum of money
(in reality, the interest in the loan) as the lender's 'share in the profits'.
Secondly, that the borrower will be presumed to have made sufficient profit to
give the lender his share, unless a claim to the contrary is corroborated by
the testimony of the town's rabbi or rabbinical judge, etc, - who, by
arrangement, refuse to testify in such cases. In practice all that is required
is to take a text of this dispensation, written in Aramaic and entirely
incomprehensible to the great majority, and put it on a wall of the room where
the transaction is made (a copy of this text is displayed in all branches of
Israeli banks) or even to keep it in a chest - and the interest-bearing loan
between Jews becomes perfectly legal and blameless,
(2) The sabbatical year. According to talmudic law (based on Leviticus,
25) Jewish-owned land in Palestine16
must be left fallow every seventh ('sabbatical') year, when all agricultural
work (including harvesting) on such land is forbidden. There is ample evidence
that this law was rigorously observed for about one thousand years, from the
5th century BC till the disappearance of Jewish agriculture in Palestine.
Later, when there was no occasion to apply the law in practice, it was kept
theoretically intact. However, in the 1880s, with the establishment of the
first Jewish agricultural colonies in Palestine, it became a matter of
practical concern. Rabbis sympathetic to the settlers helpfully devised a
dispensation, which was later perfected by their successors in the religious
zionist parties and has become an established Israeli practice.
This is how it works. Shortly before a sabbatical year,
the Israeli Minister of Internal Affairs gives the Chief Rabbi a document
making him the legal owner of all Israeli land, both private and public. Armed
with this paper, the Chief Rabbi goes to a non-Jew and sells him all the land
of Israel (and, since 1967, the Occupied Territories) for a nominal sum. A
separate document stipulates that the 'buyer' will 'resell' the land back
after the year is over. And this transaction is repeated every seven years,
usually with the same 'buyer'.
Non-zionist rabbis do not recognize the validity of this
dispensation,17 claiming
correctly that, since religious law for- bids Jews to sell land in Palestine
to Gentiles, the whole transaction is based on a sin and hence null and void.
The zionist rabbis reply, however, that what is forbidden is a real sale, not
a fictitious one!
(3) Milking on the sabbath. This has been forbidden in post-
talmudic times, through the process of increasing religious severity mentioned
above. The ban could easily be kept in the diaspora, since Jews who had cows
of their own were usually rich enough to have non-Jewish servants, who could
be ordered (using one of the subterfuges described below) to do the milking.
The early Jewish colonists in Palestine employed Arabs for this and other
purposes, but with the forcible imposition of the Zionist policy of exclusive
Jewish labor there was need for a dispensation. (This was particularly
important before the introduction of mechanized milking in the late 1950s.)
Here too there was a difference between zionist and non-zionist rabbis.
According to the former, the forbidden milking becomes
permitted provided the milk is not white but dyed blue. This blue Saturday
milk is then used exclusively for making cheese, and the dye is washed off
into the whey. Non-zionist rabbis have devised a much subtler scheme (which I
personally witnessed operating in a religious kibbutz in 1952). They
discovered an old provision which allows the udders of a cow to be emptied on
the sabbath, purely for relieving the suffering caused to the animal by
bloated udders, and on the strict condition that the milk runs to waste on the
ground. Now, this is what is actually done: on Saturday morning, a pious
kibbutznik goes to the cowshed and places pails under the cows. (There is no
ban on such work in the whole of the talmudic literature.) He then goes to the
synagogue to pray. Then comes his colleague, whose 'honest intention' is to
relieve the animals' pain and let their milk run to the floor. But if, by
chance, a pail happens to be standing there, is he under any obligation to
remove it? Of course not. He simply 'ignores' the pails, fulfills his mission
of mercy and goes to the synagogue. Finally a third pious colleague goes into
the cowshed and discovers, to his great surprise, the pails full of milk. So
he puts them in cold storage and follows his comrades to the synagogue. Now
all is well, and there is no need to waste money on blue dye.
(4) Mixed crops. Similar dispensations were issued by zionist
rabbis in respect of the ban (based on Leviticus, 19:19) against sowing
two different species of crop in the same field. Modern agronomy has however
shown that in some cases (especially in growing fodder) mixed sowing is the
most profitable. The rabbis invented a dispensation according to which one man
sows the field length- wise with one kind of seed, and later that day his
comrade, who 'does not know' about the former, sows another kind of seed
crosswise. However, this method was felt to be too wasteful of labor, and a
better one was devised: one man makes a heap of one kind of seed in a public
place and carefully covers it with a sack or piece of board. The second kind
of seed is then put on top of the cover. Later, another man comes and
exclaims, in front of witnesses, 'I need this sack (or board)' and removes it,
so that the seeds mix 'naturally'. Finally, a third man comes along and is
told, 'Take this and sow the field,' which he proceeds to do.18
(5) Leavened substances must not be eaten or even kept in the
possession of a Jew during the seven (or, outside Palestine, eight) days of
Passover. The concept 'leavened substances' was continually broadened and the
aversion to so much as seeing them during the festival approached hysteria.
They include all kinds of flour and even unground grain. In the original
talmudic society this was bearable, because bread (leavened or not) was
usually baked once a week; a peasant family would use the last of the previous
year's grain to bake unleavened bread for the festival, which ushers in the
new harvest season. However, in the conditions of post-Talmudic European Jewry
the observance was very hard on a middle-class Jewish family and even more so
on a corn merchant. A dispensation was therefore devised, by which all those
substances are sold in a fictitious sale to a Gentile before the festival and
bought back automatically after it. The one thing that must be done is to lock
up the taboo substances for the duration of the festival. In Israel this
fictitious sale has been made more efficient. Religious Jews 'sell' their
leavened substances to their local rabbis, who in turn 'sell' them to the
Chief Rabbis; the latter sell them to a Gentile, and by a special dispensation
this sale is presumed to include also the leavened substances of
non-practising Jews.
(6) Sabbath-Goy. Perhaps the most developed dispensations concern
the 'Goy (Gentile) of Sabbath'. As mentioned above, the range of tasks
banned on the sabbath has widened continually; but the range of tasks that
must be carried out or supervised to satisfy~ needs or to increase comfort
also keeps widening. This is particularly true in modern times, but the effect
of technological change began to be felt long ago. The ban against grinding on
the sabbath was a relatively light matter for a Jewish peasant or artisan, say
in second-century Palestine, who used a hand mill for domestic purposes. It
was quite a different matter for a tenant of a water mill or windmill one of
the most common Jewish occupations in eastern Europe. But even such a simple
human problem' as the wish to have a hot cup of tea on a Saturday afternoon
becomes much greater with the tempting samovar, used regularly on weekdays,
standing in the room. These are just two examples out of a very large number
of so-called 'problems of sabbath observance'. And one can state with
certainty that for a community composed exclusively of Orthodox Jews they were
quite insoluble, at least during the last eight or ten centuries, without the
'help' of non-Jews. This is even more true today in the 'Jewish state',
because many public services, such as water, gas and electricity, fall in this
category. Classical Judaism could not exist even for a whole week without
using some non-Jews.
But without special dispensations there is a great
obstacle in employing non-Jews to do these Saturday jobs; for talmudic
regulations forbid Jews to ask a Gentile to do on the sabbath any work which
they themselves are banned from doing.19 I shall describe two of the many types of dispensation used for such purposes.
First, there is the method of 'hinting', which depends on
the casuistic logic according to which a sinful demand becomes blameless if it
is phrased slyly. As rule, the hint must be obscure', but in cases of extreme
need a 'clear' hint is allowed. For example, in a recent booklet on religious
observance for the use of Israeli soldiers, the latter are taught how to talk
to Arab workers employed by the army as sabbath-Goy. In urgent cases, such as
when it is very cold and a fire must be lit, or when light is needed for a
religious service, a pious Jewish soldier may use a 'clear' hint and tell the
Arab: 'It is cold (or dark) here'. But normally an 'obscure' hint must
suffice, for example: 'It would be more pleasant if it were warmer here.' 20
This method of 'hinting' is particularly repulsive and degrading inasmuch as
it is normally used on non-Jews who, due to their poverty or subordinate
social position, are wholly in the power of their Jewish employer. A Gentile
servant (or employee of the Israeli army) who does not train himself to
interpret 'obscure hints' as orders will be pitilessly dismissed.
The second method is used in cases where what the Gentile
is required to do on Saturday is not an occasional task or personal service,
which can be 'hinted' at as the need arises, but a routine or regular job
without constant Jewish supervision. According to this method - called
'implicit inclusion' (havla'ah) of the sabbath among weekdays - the
Gentile is hired 'for the whole week (or year)', without the sabbath being so
much as mentioned in the contract. But in reality work is only performed on
the sabbath. This method was used in the past in hiring a Gentile to put out
the candles in the synagogue after the sabbath-eve prayer (rather than
wastefully allowing them to burn out). Modern Israeli examples are: regulating
the water supply or watching over water reservoirs on Saturdays.21
A similar idea is used also in the case of Jews, but for
a different end. Jews are forbidden to receive any payment for work done on
the sabbath, even if the work itself is permitted. The chief example here
concerns the sacred professions: the rabbi or talmudic scholar who preaches or
teaches on the sabbath, the cantor who sings only on Saturdays and other holy
days (on which similar bans apply), the sexton and similar officials. In
talmudic times, and in some countries even several centuries after, such jobs
were unpaid. But later, when these became salaried professions, the
dispensation of 'implicit inclusion was used, and they were hired on a
'monthly' or 'yearly' basis. In the case of rabbis and talmudic scholars the
problem is particularly complicated, because the Talmud forbids them to
receive any payment for preaching, teaching or studying talmudic matters even
on weekdays.22 For them an
additional dispensation stipulates that their salary is not really a salary at
all but 'compensation for idleness' (dmey batalah). As a combined
result of these two fictions, what is in reality payment for work done
mainly, or even solely, on the sabbath is transmogrified into payment
for being idle on weekdays. Social Aspects ofDispensations Two
social features of these and many similar practices deserve special mention.
First, a dominant feature of this system of
dispensations, and of classical Judaism inasmuch as it is based on them, is
deception - deception primarily of God, if this word can be used for an
imaginary being so easily deceived by the rabbis, who consider themselves
cleverer than him. No greater contrast can be conceived than that between the
God of the Bible (particularly of the greater prophets) and of the God of
classical Judaism. The latter is more like the early Roman Jupiter, who was
likewise bamboozled by his worshipers, or the gods described in Frazer's Golden
Bough.
From the ethical point of view, classical Judaism
represents a process of degeneration, which is still going on; and this
degeneration into a tribal collection of empty rituals and magic superstitions
has very important social and political consequences. For it must be
remembered that it is precisely the superstitions of classical Judaism which
have the greatest hold on the Jewish masses, rather than those parts of the
Bible or even the Talmud which are of real religious and ethical value. (The
same can be observed also in other religions which are now undergoing
revival.) What is popularly regarded as the most 'holy' and solemn occasion of
the Jewish liturgical year, attended even by very many Jews who are otherwise
far from religion? It is the Kol Nidrey prayer on the eve of Yom Kippur
- a chanting of a particularly absurd and deceptive dispensation. by which all
private vows made to God in the following year are declared in advance to be
null and void.23 Or, in the
area of personal religion, the Qadish prayer, said on days of mourning
by sons for their parents in order to elevate their departed souls to paradise
- a recitation of an Aramaic text, incomprehensible to the great majority.
Quite obviously, the. popular regard given to these, the most superstitious
parts of the Jewish religion, is not given to its better parts.
Together with the deception of God goes the deception of
other Jews, mainly in the interest of the Jewish ruling class. It is
characteristic that no dispensations were allowed in the specific interest of
the Jewish poor. For example, Jews who were starving but not actually on the
point of death were never allowed by their rabbis (who did not often go hungry
themselves) to eat any sort of forbidden food, though kosher food is usually
more expensive.
The second dominant feature of the dispensations is that
they are in large part obviously motivated by the spirit of profit. And it is
this combination of hypocrisy and the profit motive which increasingly
dominated classical Judaism. In Israel, where the process goes on, this is
dimly perceived by popular opinion, despite all the official brainwashing
promoted by the education system and the media. The religious establishment -
the rabbis and the religious parties - and, by association, to some extent the
Orthodox community as a whole, are quite unpopular in Israel. One of the most
important reasons for this is precisely their reputation for duplicity and
venality. Of course, popular opinion (which may often be prejudiced) is not
the same thing as social analysis; but in this particular case it is actually
true that the Jewish religious establishment does have a strong tendency to
chicanery and graft, due to the corrupting influence of the Orthodox Jewish
religion. Because in general social life religion is only one of the social
influences, its effect on the mass of believers is not nearly so great as on
the rabbis and leaders of the religious parties. Those religious Jews in
Israel who are honest, as the majority of them undoubtedly are, are so not
because of the influence of their religion and rabbis, but in spite of it. On
the other hand, in those few areas of public life in Israel which are wholly
dominated by religious circles, the level of chicanery, venality and
corruption is notorious, far surpassing the 'average' level tolerated by
general, non-religious Israeli society.
In Chapter 4 we shall see how the dominance of the profit
motive in classical Judaism is connected with the structure of Jewish society
and its articulation with the general society in the midst of which Jews lived
in the 'classical' period. Here I merely want to observe that the profit
motive is not characteristic of Judaism in all periods of its history. Only
the platonist confusion which seeks for the metaphysical timeless 'essence' of
Judaism, instead of looking at the historical changes in Jewish society, has
obscured this fact. (And this confusion has been greatly encouraged by
zionism, in its reliance on 'historical rights' historically derived from the
Bible.) Thus, apologists of Judaism claim, quite correctly, that the Bible is
hostile to the profit motive while the Talmud is indifferent to it. But this
was caused by the very different social conditions in which they were
composed. As was pointed out above, the Talmud was composed in two
well-defined areas, in a period when the Jews living there constituted a
society based on agriculture and consisting mainly of peasants - very
different indeed from the society of classical Judaism.
In Chapter 5 we shall deal in detail with the hostile
attitudes and deceptions practiced by classical Judaism against non-Jews. But
more important as a social feature is the profit- motivated deception
practiced by the rich Jews against poor fellow Jews (such as the dispensation
concerning interest on loans). Here I must say, in spite of my opposition to
marxism both in philosophy and as a social theory, that Marx was quite right
when, in his two articles about Judaism, he characterized it as dominated by
profit-seeking - provided this is limited to Judaism as he knew it, that is,
to classical Judaism which in his youth had already entered the period of its
dissolution. True, he stated this arbitrarily, historically and without
proof. Obviously he came to his conclusion by intuition; but his intuition in
this case - and with the proper historical limitation - was right.
NOTES:
1 As in Chapter 2, I use the term 'classical Judaism' to refer
to rabbinical Judaism in the period from about AD 800 up to the end of the
18th century. This period broadly coincides with the Jewish Middle Ages,
since for most Jewish communities medieval conditions persisted much
longer than for the west European nations, namely up to the period of the
French Revolution. Thus what I call 'classical Judaism' can be regarded as
medieval Judaism.
2 Exodus, 15:11.
3 Ibid., 20:3-6.
4 Jeremiah, 10; the same theme is echoed still later by
the Second Isaiah, see Isaiah, 44.
5 The cabbala is of course an esoteric doctrine, and its
detailed study was confined to scholars. In Europe, especially after about
1750, extreme measures were taken to keep it secret and forbid its study
except by mature scholars and under strict supervision. The uneducated
Jewish masses of eastern Europe had no real knowledge of cabbalistic
doctrine; but the cabbala percolated to them in the form of superstition
and magic practices.
6 Many contemporary Jewish mystics believe that the same end may
be accomplished more quickly by war against the Arabs, by the expulsion of
the Palestinians, or even by establishing many Jewish settlements on the
West Bank. The growing movement for building the Third Temple is also
based on such ideas.
7 The Hebrew word used here - yihud, meaning literally
union-in-seclusion - is the same one employed in legal texts (dealing with
marriage etc.) to refer to sexual intercourse.
8 The so-called Qedusbab Sblisbit (Third Holiness),
inserted in the prayer Uva Letzion towards the end of the morning
service.Numbers, 29.
9-10 The power of Satan, and his connection
with non-Jews, is illustrated by a widespread custom, established under
cabbalistic influence in many Jewish communities from the 17th century. A
Jewish woman returning from her monthly ritual bath of purification (after
which sexual intercourse with her husband is mandatory) must beware of
meeting one of the four satanic creatures: Gentile, pig, dog or donkey. If
she does meet any one of them she must take another bath. The custom was
advocated (among others) by Shn'et Musar, a book on Jewish moral
conduct first published in 1712, which was one of the most popular books
among Jews in both eastern Europe and Islamic countries until early this
century, and is still widely read in some Orthodox circles.
11 This is prescribed in minute detail. For example, the ritual
hand washing must not be done under a tap; each hand must be washed
singly, in water from a mug (of prescribed minimal size) held in the other
hand. If one's hands are really dirty, it is quite impossible to clean
them in this way, but such pragmatic considerations are obviously
irrelevant. Classical Judaism prescribes a great number of such detailed
rituals, to which the cabbala attaches deep significance. There are, for
example, many precise rules concerning behavior in a lavatory. A Jew
relieving nature in an open space must not do so in a North-South
direction, because North is associated with Satan.
12 'Interpretation' is my own expression. The classical (and
present-day Orthodox) view is that the talmudic meaning, even where it is
contrary to the literal sense, was always the operational one.
13 According to an apocryphal story, a famous 19th century
Jewish heretic observed in this connection that the verse Thou shalt not
commit adultery' is repeated only twice. 'Presumably one is therefore
forbidden to eat adultery or to cook it, but enjoying it is all right.'
14 The Hebrew re'akha is rendered by the King James
Version (and most other English translations) somewhat imprecisely as 'thy
neighbor'. See however II Samuel, 16:17, where exactly the same
word is rendered by the King James Version more correctly as 'thy friend'.
15 The Mishnah is remarkably free of all this, and in particular
the belief in demons and witchcraft is relatively rare in it. The
Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, is full of gross superstitions.
16 Or, to be precise, in many parts of Palestine. Apparently the
areas to which the law applies are those where there was Jewish
demographic predominance around AD 150-200.
17 Therefore non-zionist Orthodox Jews in Israel organize
special shops during sabbatical years, which sell fruits and vegetables
grown by Arabs on Arab land.
18 In the winter of 1945-6,1 myself, then a boy under 13,
participated in such proceedings. The man in charge of agricultural work
in the religious agricultural school I was men attending was a
particularly pious Jew and thought it would be safe if the crucial act,
that of removing the board, should be performed by an orphan under 13
years old, incapable of being, or making anyone else, guilty of a sin. (A
boy under that age cannot be guilty of a sin; his father, if he has one,
is considered responsible.) Everything was carefully explained to me
beforehand, including the duty to say, 'I need this board,' when in fact
it was not needed.
19 For example, the Talmud forbids a Jew to enjoy the light of a
candle lit by a Gentile on the sabbath, unless the latter had lit it for
his own use before the Jew entered the room.
20 One of my uncles in pre-1939 Warsaw used a subtler method. He
employed a non-Jewish maid called Marysia and it was his custom upon
waking from his Saturday siesta to say, first quietly, 'How nice it would
be if' - and then, raising his voice to a shout, '... Marysia would bring
us a cup of tea!' He was held to be a very pious and God fearing man and
would never dream of drinking a drop of milk for a full six hours after
eating meat. In his kitchen he had two sinks, one for washing up dishes
used for eating meat, the other for milk dishes.
21 Occasionally regrettable mistakes occur, because some of
these jobs are quite cushy, allowing the employee six days off each week.
The town of Bney Braq (near Tel-Aviv), inhabited almost exclusively by
Orthodox Jews, was shaken in the 1960s by a horrible scandal. Upon the
death of the 'sabbath Goy' they had employed for over twenty years to
watch over their water supplies on Saturdays, it was discovered that he
was not really a Christian but a Jew! So when his successor, a Druse, was
hired, the town demanded and obtained from the government a document
certifying that the new employee is a Gentile of pure Gentile descent. It
is reliably rumored that the secret police was asked to research this
matter.
22 In contrast, elementary Scripture teaching can be done for
payment. This was always considered a low-status job and was badly paid.
23 Another 'extremely important' ritual is the blowing of a
ram's horn on Rosh Hashanah, whose purpose is to confuse Satan.
<<
Back -- Chapter 3 -- Next
>>
|