Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
The Weight of Three Thousand Years
By Professor Israel Shahak
5. THE
LAWS AGAINST NON-JEWS
AS EXPLAINED in
Chapter 3, the Halakhah, that is the legal system of classical Judaism - as
practiced by virtually all Jews from the 9th century to the end of the l8th
and as maintained to this very day in the form of Orthodox Judaism - is based
primarily on the Babylonian Talmud. However, because of the unwieldy
complexity of the legal disputations recorded in the Talmud, more manageable
codifications of talmudic law became necessary and were indeed compiled by
successive generations of rabbinical scholars. Some of these have acquired
great authority and are in general use. For this reasons we shall refer for
the most part to such compilations (and their most reputable commentaries)
rather than directly to the Talmud. It is however correct to assume that the
compilation referred to reproduces faithfully the meaning of the talmudic text
and the additions made by later scholars on the basis of that meaning.
The earliest code of talmudic law which is still of major
importance is the Misbneh Tarab written by Moses Maimonides in the late 12th
century. The most authoritative code, widely used to date as a handbook, is
the Shulhan 'Arukh composed by R. Yosef Karo in the late 16th century as a
popular condensation of his own much more voluminous Beys Yosef which was
intended for the advanced scholar. The Shulhan 'Arukh is much commented upon;
in addition to classical commentaries dating from the 17th century, there is
an important 20th century one, Mishnab Berurab. Finally, the Talmudic
Encyclopedia - a modern compilation published in Israel from the 1950s and
edited by the country's greatest Orthodox rabbinical scholars - is a good
compendium of the whole talmudic literature.
Murder and Genocide
ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense
and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and
adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to
punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice,
anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A Jew who indirectly causes the death of
another Jew is, however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a sin against
the 'laws of Heaven', to be punished by God rather than by man.
When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite
different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the
laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court.1 To cause indirectly the death of a
Gentile is no sin at all.2
Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the
Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, 'one must not lift
one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by
removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice .., there is no
prohibition here, because it was not done directly:3 He points out, however,
that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile's death is forbidden if it may
cause the spread of hostility towards Jews.4
A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish
jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However,
if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not
punished.5
All this has a direct and practical relevance to the
realities of the State of Israel. Although the state's criminal laws make no
distinction between Jew and Gentile, such distinction is certainly made by
Orthodox rabbis, who in guiding their flock follow the Halakhah. Of special
importance is the advice they give to religious soldiers.
Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a
Gentile outright applies only to 'Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at
war', various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion
that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even
should be killed.6 Since 1973 this doctrine is being publicly propagated for
the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers. The first such official
exhortation was included in a booklet published by the Central Region Command
of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In this booklet the
Command's Chief Chaplain writes:
When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a
raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of
harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should
be killed... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he
makes an impression of being civilized ... In war, when our forces storm the
enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good
civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good.7
The same doctrine is expounded in the following exchange
of letters between a young Israeli soldier and his rabbi, published in the
yearbook of one of the country's most prestigious religious colleges,
Midrashiyyat No'am, where many leaders and activists of the National Religious
Party and Gush Emunim have been educated.8
Letter from the soldier Moshe to Rabbi Sbipn 'on Weiser '
With God's help, to His Honor, my dear Rabbi,
'First I would like to ask how you and your family are. I hope all is
well. I am, thank God, feeling well. A long time I have not written. Please
forgive me. Sometimes I recall the verse "when shall I come and appear
before God?'9 I hope, without being certain, that I shall come during one of
the leaves. I must do so.
'In one of the discussions in our group, there was a debate about the
"purity of weapons" and we discussed whether it is permitted to
kill unarmed men - or women and children? Or perhaps we should take revenge
on the Arabs? And then everyone answered according to his own understanding.
I could not arrive at a clear decision, whether Arabs should be treated like
the AmeIekites, meaning that one is permitted to murder [sic ] them until
their remembrance is blotted out from under heaven,10 or perhaps one should
do as in a just war, in which one kills only the soldiers?
'A second problem I have is whether I am permitted to put myself in
danger by allowing a woman to stay alive? For there have been cases when
women threw hand grenades. Or am I permitted to give water to an Arab who
put his hand up? For there may be reason to fear that he only means to
deceive me and will kill me, and such things have happened.
'I conclude with a warm greeting to the rabbi and all his family. -
Moshe.'
Reply of. Shun 'on Weiser to Moshe
'With the help of Heaven. Dear Moshe, Greetings.
'I am starting this letter this evening although I know I cannot finish
it this evening, both because I am busy and because I would like to make it
a long letter, to answer your questions in full, for which purpose I shall
have to copy out some of the sayings of our sages, of blessed memory, and
interpret them.11
'The non-Jewish nations have a custom according to which war has its own
rules, like those of a game, like the rules of football or basketball. But
according to the sayings of our sages, of blessed memory, [ ... ] war for us
is not a game but a vital necessity, and only by this standard must we
decide how to wage it. On the one hand .... ] we seem to learn that if a Jew
murders a Gentile, he is regarded as a murderer and, except for the fact
that no court has the right to punish him, the gravity of the deed is like
that of any other murder. But we find in the very same authorities in
another place [ ... that Rabbi Shim'on used to say: "The best of
Gentiles - kill him; the best of snakes dash out its brains."
'It might perhaps be argued that the expression "kill" in the
saying of R. Shim'on is only figurative and should not be taken literally
but as meaning "oppress" or some similar attitude, and in this way
we also avoid a contradiction with the authorities quoted earlier. Or one
might argue that this saying, though meant literally, is [merely] his own
personal opinion, disputed by other sages [quoted earlier]. But we find the
true explanation in the Tosalot.12 There [ .... ] we learn the following
comment on the talmudic pronouncement that Gentiles who fall into a well
should not be helped out, but neither should they be pushed into the well to
be killed, which means that they should neither be saved from death nor
killed directly. And the Tosafot write as follows:
"And if it is queried [because] in another place it was said The
best of Gentiles - kill him, then the answer is that this [saying] is meant
for wartime." [ ... ]
'According to the commentators of the Tosafot, a distinction must be made
between wartime and peace, so that although during peace time it is
forbidden to kill Gentiles, in a case that occurs in wartime it is a mitzvah
[imperative, religious duty] to kill them.[...]
'And this is the difference between a Jew and a Gentile: although the
rule "Whoever comes to kill you, kill him first" applies to a Jew,
as was said in Tractate Sanhednn [of the Talmud], page 72a, still it only
applies to him if there is [actual] ground to fear that he is coming to kill
you. But a Gentile during wartime is usually to be presumed so, except when
it is quite clear that he has no evil intent. This is the rule of
"purity of weapons" according to the Halakhah - and not the alien
conception which is now accepted in the Israeli army and which has been the
cause of many [Jewish] casualties. I enclose a newspaper cutting with the
speech made last week in the Knesset by Rabbi Kalman Kahana, which shows in
a very lifelike - and also painful - way how this "purity of
weapons" has caused deaths.
'I conclude here, hoping that you will not find the length of this letter
irksome. This subject was being discussed even without your letter, but your
letter caused me to write up the whole matter.
'Be in peace, you and all Jews, and [I hope to] see you soon, as you say.
Yours - Shim'on.
Reply of Moshe to R. Shun 'on Weiser
'To His Honor, my dear Rabbi,
'First I hope that you and your family are in health and are all right.
'I have received your long letter and am grateful for your personal watch
over me, for I assume that you write to many, and most of your time is taken
up with your studies in your own program.
'Therefore my thanks to you are doubly deep.
'As for the letter itself, I have understood it as follows:
'In wartime I am not merely permitted, but enjoined to kill every Arab
man and woman whom I chance upon, if there is reason to fear that they help
in the war against us, directly or indirectly. And as far as I am concerned
I have to kill them even if that might result in an involvement with the
military law. I think that this matter of the purity of weapons should be
transmitted to educational institutions, at least the religious ones, so
that they should have a position about this subject and so that they will
not wander in the broad fields of "logic", especially on this
subject; and the rule has to be explained as it should be followed in
practice. For, I am sorry to say, I have seen different types of
"logic" here even among the religious comrades. I do hope that you
shall be active in this, so that our boys will know the line of their
ancestors clearly and unambiguously.
'I conclude here, hoping that when the [training] course ends, in about a
month, I shall be able to come to the yeshivah [talmudic college]. Greetings
- Moshe.'
Of course, this doctrine of the Halakhah on murder
clashes, in principle, not only with Israel's criminal law but also - as
hinted in the letters just quoted - with official military standing
regulations. However, there can be little doubt that in practice this doctrine
does exert an influence on the administration of justice, especially by
military authorities. The fact is that in all cases where Jews have, in a
military or paramilitary context, murdered Arab non-combatants - including
cases of mass murder such as that in Kafr Qasim in 1956 - the murderers, if
not let off altogether, received extremely light sentences or won far-reaching
remissions, reducing their punishment to next to nothing.13
Saving of Life
THIS SUBJECT - the supreme value of human life and the obligation of every
human being to do the outmost to save the life of a fellow human - is of
obvious importance in itself. It is also of particular interest in a Jewish
context, in view of the fact that since the second world war Jewish opinion
has - in some cases justly, in others unjustly - condemned 'the whole world'
or at least all Europe for standing by when Jews were being massacred. Let us
therefore examine what the Halakhah has to say on this subject.
According to the Halakhah, the duty to save the life of a
fellow Jew is paramount.14 It supersedes all other religious obligations and
interdictions, excepting only the prohibitions against the three most heinous
sins of adultery (including incest), murder and idolatry.
As for Gentiles, the basic talmudic principle is that
their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them
outright. The Talmud itself~~ expresses this in the maxim 'Gentiles are
neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]'. Maimonides16
explains:
"As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ...
their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are
at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the
sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand
against the blood of thy fellow'17 - but [a Gentile] is not thy
fellow."
In particular, a Jewish doctor must not treat a Gentile
patient. Maimonides - himself an illustrious physician - is quite explicit on
this; in another passage18 he repeats the distinction between 'thy fellow' and
a Gentile, and concludes: 'and from this learn ye, that it is forbidden to
heal a Gentile even for payment...'
However, the refusal of a Jew - particularly a Jewish
doctor - to save the life of a Gentile may, if it becomes known, antagonize
powerful Gentiles and so put Jews in danger. Where such danger exists, the
obligation to avert it supersedes the ban on helping the Gentile. Thus
Maimonides continues: ' ... but if you fear him or his hostility, cure him for
payment, though you are forbidden to do so without payment.' In fact,
Maimonides himself was Saladin's personal physician. His insistence on
demanding payment - presumably in order to make sure that the act is not one
of human charity but an unavoidable duty - is however not absolute. For in
another passage he allows Gentile whose hostility is feared to be treated
'even gratis, if it is unavoidable'.
The whole doctrine - the ban on saving a Gentile's life
or healing him, and the suspension of this ban in cases where there is fear of
hostility - is repeated (virtually verbatim) by other major authorities,
including the 14th century Arba'ah Turirn and Karo's Beyt Yosef and Shulhan
'Arukh.19 Beyt Yosef adds, quoting Maimonides: 'And it is permissible to try
out a drug on a heathen, if this serves a purpose'; and this is repeated also
by the famous R. Moses Isserles.
The consensus of halakhic authorities is that the term
'Gentiles' in the above doctrine refers to all non-Jews. A lone voice of
dissent is that of R. Moses Rivkes, author of a minor commentary on the
Shulhan Arukh, who writes.20
Our sages only said this about heathens, who in their day
worshipped idols and did not believe in the Jewish Exodus from Egypt or in the
creation of the world ex nihilo. But the Gentiles in whose [protective] shade
we, the people of Israel, are exiled and among whom we are scattered do
believe in the creation of the world ex nihilo and in the Exodus and in
several principles of our own religion and they pray to the Creator of heaven
and earth ... Not only is there no interdiction against helping them, but we
are even obliged to pray for their safety.
This passage, dating from the second half of the 17th
century, is a favorite quote of apologetic scholars.21 Actually, it does not
go nearly as far as the apologetics pretend, for it advocates remov~ing the
ban on saving a Gentile's life, rather than making it mandatory as in the case
of a Jew; and even this liberality extends only to Christians and Muslims but
not the majority of human beings. Rather, what it does show is that there was
a way in which the harsh doctrine of the Halakhah could have been
progressively liberalized. But as a matter of fact the majority of later
halakhic authorities, far from extending Rivkes' leniency to other human
groups, have rejected it altogether.
Desecrating the Sabbath to Save Life
DESECRATING THE SABBATH - that is, doing work that would otherwise be
banned on Saturday - becomes a duty when the need to save a Jew's life demands
it.
The problem of saving a Gentile's life on the sabbath is
not raised in the Talmud as a main issue, since it is in any case forbidden
even on a weekday; it does however enter as a complicating factor in two
connections.
First, there is a problem where a group of people are in
danger, and it is possible (but not certain) that there is at least one Jew
among them: should the sabbath be desecrated in order to save them? There is
an extensive discussion of such cases. Following earlier authorities,
including Maimonides and the Talmud itself, the Shulhan Arukh 22 decides these
matters according to the weight of probabilities. For example, suppose nine
Gentiles and one Jew live in the same building. One Saturday the building
collapses; one of the ten - it is not known which one - is away, but the other
nine are trapped under the rubble. Should the rubble be cleared, thus
desecrating the sabbath, seeing that the Jew may not be under it (he may have
been the one that got away)? The Shulhan 'Arukh says that it should,
presumably because the odds that the Jew is under the rubble are high (nine to
one). But now suppose that nine have got away and only one - again, it is not
known which one - is trapped. Then there is no duty to clear the rubble,
presumably because this time there are long odds (nine to one) against the Jew
being the person trapped. Similarly: 'If a boat containing some Jews is seen
to be in peril upon the sea, it is a duty incumbent upon all to desecrate the
sabbath in order to save it.' However, the great R. 'Aqiva Eiger (died 1837)
comments that this applies only 'when it is known that there are Jews on
board. But ... if nothing at all is known about the identity of those on
board, [the sabbath] must not be desecrated, for one acts according to [the
weight of probabilities, and] the majority of people in the world are Gentiles
.23 Thus, since there are very long odds against any of the passengers being
Jewish, they must be allowed to drown.
Secondly, the provision that a Gentile may be saved or
cared for in order to avert the danger of hostility is curtailed on the
sabbath. A Jew called upon to help a Gentile on a weekday may have to comply
because to admit that he is not allowed, in principle, to save the life of a
non-Jew would be to invite hostility. But on Saturday the Jew can use sabbath
observance as a plausible excuse. A paradigmatic case discussed at length in
the Talmud24 is that of a Jewish midwife invited to help a Gentile woman in
childbirth. The upshot is that the midwife is allowed to help on a weekday
'for fear of hostility', but on the sabbath she must not do so, because she
can excuse herself by saying: 'We are allowed to desecrate the sabbath only
for our own, who observe the sabbath, but for your people, who do not keep the
sabbath, we are not allowed to desecrate it.' Is this explanation a genuine
one or merely an excuse? Maimonides clearly thinks that it is just an excuse,
which can be used even if the task that the midwife is invited to do does not
actually involve any desecration of the sabbath. Presumably, the excuse will
work just as well even in this case, because Gentiles are generally in the
dark as to precisely which kinds of work are banned for Jews on the sabbath.
At any rate, he decrees: 'A Gentile woman must not be helped in childbirth on
the sabbath, even for payment; nor must one fear hostility, even when [such
help involves] no desecration of the sabbath.' The Shulhan 'Arukh decrees
likewise.25
Nevertheless, this sort of excuse could not always be
relied upon to do the trick and avert Gentile hostility. Therefore certain
important rabbinical authorities had to relax the rules to some extent and
allowed Jewish doctors to treat Gentiles on the sabbath even if this involved
doing certain types of work normally banned on that day. This partial
relaxation applied particularly to rich and powerful Gentile patients, who
could not be fobbed off so easily and whose hostility could be dangerous.
Thus, R. Yo'el Sirkis, author of Bayit Hadash and one of
the greatest rabbis of his time (Poland, 17th century), decided that 'mayors,
petty nobles and aristocrats' should be treated on the sabbath, because of the
fear of their hostility which involves 'some danger'. But in other cases,
especially when the Gentile can be fobbed off with an evasive excuse, a Jewish
doctor would commit 'an unbearable sin' by treating him on the sabbath~. Later
in the same century, a similar verdict was given in the French city of Metz,
whose two parts were connected by a pontoon bridge. Jews are not normally
allowed to cross such a bridge on the sabbath, but the rabbi of Metz decided
that a Jewish doctor may nevertheless do so 'if he is called to the great
governor': since the doctor is known to cross the bridge for the sake of his
Jewish patients, the governor's hostility could be aroused if the doctor
refused to do so for his sake. Under the authoritarian rule of Louis XIV, it
was evidently important to have the goodwill of his intendant; the feelings of
lesser Gentiles were of little importance.26
Hokhrnat Shloinoh, a 19th century commentary on the
Shulhan 'Arukh, mentions a similarly strict interpretation of the concept
'hostility' in connection with the Karaites, a small heretical Jewish sect.
According to this view, their lives must not be saved if that would involve
desecration of the sabbath, 'for "hostility" applies only to the
heathen, who are many against us, and we are delivered into their hands .. But
the Karaites are few and we are not delivered into their hands, [so] the fear
of hostility does not apply to them at all.'27 In fact, the absolute ban on
desecrating the sabbath in order to save the life of a Karaite is still in
force today, as we shall see.
The whole subject is extensively discussed in the
responsa of R. Moshe Sofer - better known as 'Ilatam Sofer' - the famous rabbi
of Pressburg (Bratislava) who died in 1832. His conclusions are of more than
historical interest, since in 1966 one of his responsa was publicly endorsed
by the then Chief Rabbi of Israel as 'a basic institution of the Halakhah'.28
The particular question asked of Ratam Sofer concerned the situation in
Turkey, where it was decreed during one of the wars that in each township or
village there should be midwives on call, ready to hire themselves out to any
woman in labor. Some of these midwives were Jewish; should they hire
themselves out to help Gentile women on weekdays and on the sabbath?
In his Tesponsum,29 Hatam Sofer first concludes, after
careful investigation, that the Gentiles concerned - that is, Ottoman
Christians and Muslims - are not only idolators 'who definitely worship other
gods and thus should "neither be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled
down",' but are likened by him to the Amalekites, so that the talmudic
ruling 'it is forbidden to multiply the seed of Amalek' applies to them. In
principle, therefore, they should not be helped even on week- days. However,
in practice it is 'permitted' to heal Gentiles and help them in labor, if they
have doctors and midwives of their own, who could be called instead of the
Jewish ones. For if Jewish doctors and midwives refused to attend to Gentiles,
the only result would be loss of income to the former - which is of course
undesirable. This applies equally on weekdays and on the sabbath, provided no
desecration of the sabbath is involved. However, in the latter case the
sabbath can serve as an excuse to 'mislead the heathen woman and say that it
would involve desecration of the sabbath'.
In connection with cases that do actually involve
desecration of the sabbath, Hatam Sofer - like other authorities - makes a
distinction between two categories of work banned on the sabbath. First, there
is work banned by the Torah, the biblical text (as interpreted by the Talmud);
such work may only be performed in very exceptional cases, if failing to do so
would cause an extreme danger of hostility towards Jews. Then there are types
of work which are only banned by the sages who extended the original law of
the Torah; the attitude towards breaking such bans is generally more lenient.
Another responsuin of Hatam Sofer~O deals with the
question whether it is permissible for a Jewish doctor to travel by carriage
on the sabbath in order to heal a Gentile. After pointing out that under
certain conditions traveling by horse- drawn carriage on the sabbath only
violates a ban imposed 'by the sages' rather than by the Torah, he goes on to
recall Maimonides' pronouncement that Gentile women in labor must not be
helped on the sabbath, even if no desecration of the sabbath is involved, and
states that the same principle applies to all medical practice, not just
midwifery. But he then voices the fear that if this were put into practice,
'it would arouse undesirable hostility,' for 'the Gentiles would not accept
the excuse of sabbath observance,' and 'would say that the blood of an
idolator has little worth in our eyes'. Also, perhaps more importantly,
Gentile doctors might take revenge on their Jewish patients. Better excuses
must be found. He advises a Jewish doctor who is called to treat a Gentile
patient out of town on the sabbath to excuse himself by saying that he is
required to stay in town in order to look after his other patients, 'for he
can use this in order to say, "I cannot move because of the danger to
this or that patient, who needs a ~doctor first, and I may not desert my
charge"
With such an excuse there is no fear of danger, for it is
a reasonable pretext, commonly given by doctors who are late in arriving
because another patient needed them first.' Only 'if it is impossible to give
any excuse' is the doctor permitted to travel by carriage on the sabbath in
order to treat a Gentile.
In the whole discussion, the main issue is the excuses
that should be made, not the actual healing or the welfare of the patient. And
throughout it is taken for granted that it is all right to deceive Gentiles
rather than treat them, so long as 'hostility' can be averted.31
Of course, in modern times most Jewish doctors are not
religious and do not even know of these rules. Moreover, it appears that even
many who are religious prefer to their credit - to abide by the Hippocratic
oath rather than by the precepts of their fanatic rabbis.32 However, the
rabbis' guidance cannot fail to have some influence on some doctors; and there
are certainly many who, while not actually following that guidance, choose not
to protest against it publicly.
All this is far from being a dead issue. The most up-
to-date halakhic position on these matters is contained in a recent concise
and authoritative book published in English under the title Jewish Medical
Law.33 This book, which bears the imprint of the prestigious Israeli
foundation Mossad Harav Kook, is based on the responsa of R. Eli'ezer Yehuda
Waldenberg, Chief Justice of the Rabbinical District Court of Jerusalem. A few
passages of this work deserve special mention.
First, 'it is forbidden to desecrate the sabbath ... for
a Karaite.'34 This is stated bluntly, absolutely and without any further
qualification. Presumably the hostility of this small sect makes no
difference, so they should be allowed to die rather than be treated on the
sabbath.
As for Gentiles: 'According to the ruling stated in the
Talmud and Codes of Jewish Law, it is forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath -
whether violating Biblical or rabbinic law - in order to save the life of a
dangerously ill gentile patient. It is also forbidden to deliver the baby of a
gentile women on the Sabbath.'35
But this is qualified by a dispensation: 'However, today
it is permitted to desecrate the Sabbath on behalf of a Gentile by performing
actions prohibited by rabbinic law, for by so doing one prevents ill feelings
from arising between Jew and Gentile.'36
This does not go very far, because medical treatment very
often involves acts banned on the sabbath by the Torah itself, which are not
covered by this dispensation. There are, we are told, 'some' halakhic
authorities who extend the dispensation to such acts as well - but this is
just another way of saying that most halakhic authorities, and the ones that
really count, take the opposite view. However, all is not lost. Jewish Medical
Law has a truly breathtaking solution to this difficulty.
The solution hangs upon a nice point of talmudic law. A
ban imposed by the Torah on performing a given act on the sabbath is presumed
to apply only when the primary intention in performing it is the actual
outcome of the act. (For example. grinding wheat is presumed to be banned by
the Torah only if the purpose is actually to obtain flour.) On the other hand,
if the performance of the same act is merely incidental to some other purpose
(melakhah seh'eynah tzrikhah legufah) then the act changes its status - it is
still forbidden, to be sure, but only by the sages rather than by the Torah
itself. Therefore: In order to avoid any transgression of the law, there is a
legally acceptable method of rendering treatment on behalf of a gentile
patient even when dealing with violation of Biblical Law. It is suggested that
at the time that the physician is providing the necessary care, his intentions
should not primarily be to cure the patient, but to protect himself and the
Jewish people from accusations of religious discrimination and severe
retaliation that may endanger him in pa,~rticular and the Jewish people in
general. With this intention, any act on the physician's part becomes an act
whose actual outcome is not its primary purpose' ... which is forbidden on
Sabbath only by rabbinic law.37
This hypocritical substitute for the Hippocratic oath is
also proposed by a recent authoritative Hebrew book.38
Although the facts were mentioned at least twice in the
Israeli press,39 the Israeli Medical Association has remained silent.
Having treated in some detail the supremely important
subject of the attitude of the Halakhah to a Gentile's very life, we shall
deal much more briefly with other halakhic rules which discriminate against
Gentiles. Since the number of such rules is very large, we shall mention only
the more important ones.
Sexual Offenses
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE between a married Jewish woman and any man other than
her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the three most
heinous sins. The status of Gentile women is very different. The Halakhah
presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse 'whose flesh is
as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is like the issue of horses'40 is applied to them. Whether a Gentile woman is married or not makes
no difference, since as far as Jews are concerned the very concept of
matrimony does not apply to Gentiles ('There is no matrimony for a heathen').
Therefore, the concept of adultery also does not apply to intercourse between
a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather, the Talmud41 equates such
intercourse to the sin of bestiality. (For the same reason, Gentiles are
generally presumed not to have certain paternity.)
According to the Talmudic Encyclopedia: 42 'He who has
carnal knowledge of the wife of a Gentile is not liable to the death penalty,
for it is written: "thy fellow's wife"43 rather than the alien's
wife; and even the precept that a man "shall cleave unto his wife"44
which is addressed to the Gentiles does not apply to a Jew, just there is no
matrimony for a heathen; and although a married Gentile woman is forbidden to
the Gentiles, in any case a Jew is exempted.'
This does not imply that sexual intercourse between a
Jewish man and a Gentile woman is permitted - quite the contrary. But the main
punishment is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if
she was raped by the Jew: 'If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether
she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if
he is a minor aged only nine years and one day - because he had willful coitus
with her, she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her
a Jew got into trouble'45 The Jew, however, must be flogged, and if he is a
Kohen (member of the priestly tribe) he must receive double the number of
lashes, because he has committed a double offense: a Kohen must not have
intercourse with a prostitute, and all Gentile women are presumed to be
prostitutes.46
Status
ACCORDING TO THE HALAKHAH, Jews must not (if they can help it) allow a
Gentile to be appointed to any position of authority, however small, over
Jews. (The two stock examples are commander over ten soldiers in the Jewish
army' and 'superintendent of an irrigation ditch'.) Significantly, this
particular rule applies also to converts to Judaism and to their descendants
(through the female line) for ten generations or 'so long as the descent is
known'.
Gentiles are presumed to be congenital liars, and are
disqualified from testifying in a rabbinical court. In this respect their
position is, in theory, the same as that of Jewish women, slaves and minors;
but in practice it is actually worse. A Jewish woman is nowadays admitted as a
witness to certain matters of fact, when the rabbinical court 'believes' her;
a Gentile - never.
A problem therefore arises when a rabbinical court needs
to establish a fact for which there are only Gentile witnesses. An important
example of this is in cases concerning widows: by Jewish religious law, a
woman can be declared a widow - and hence free to remarry - only if the death
of her husband is proven with certainty by means of a witness who saw him die
or identified his corpse. However, the rabbinical court will accept the
hearsay evidence of a Jew who testifies to having heard the fact in question
mentioned by a Gentile eyewitness, provided the court is satisfied that the
latter was speaking casually ('goy mesiah left tummd) rather than in reply to
a direct question; for a Gentile's direct answer to a Jew's direct question is
presumed to be a lie.47 If necessary, a Jew (preferably a rabbi) will actually
undertake to chat up the Gentile eyewitness and, without asking a direct
question, extract from him a casual statement of the fact at issue.
Money and Property
(1) Gifts. The Talmud bluntly forbids giving a gift to a Gentile.
However, classical rabbinical authorities bent this rule because it is
customary among businessmen to give gifts to business contacts. It was
therefore laid down that a Jew may give a gift to a Gentile acquaintance,
since this is regarded not as a true gift but as a sort of investment, for
which some return is expected. Gifts to 'unfamiliar Gentiles' remain
forbidden. A broadly similar rule applies to almsgiving. Giving alms to a
Jewish beggar is an important religious duty. Alms to Gentile beggars are
merely permitted for the sake of peace. However there are numerous rabbinical
warnings against allowing the Gentile poor to become 'accustomed' to receiving
alms from Jews, so that it should be possible to withhold such alms without
arousing undue hostility.
(2) Taking of interest. Anti-Gentile discrimination in this matter
has become largely theoretical, in view of the dispensation (explained in
Chapter 3) which in effect allows interest to be exacted even from a Jewish
borrower. However, it is still the case that granting an interest-free loan to
a Jew is recommended as an act of charity, but from a Gentile borrower it is
mandatory to exact interest. In fact, many - though not all - rabbinical
authorities, including Maimonides, consider it mandatory to exact as much
usury as possible on a loan to a Gentile.
(3) Lost property. If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is
Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return
his find by advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early
rabbinical authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an
article lost by a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it.48 In
more recent times, when laws were passed in most countries making it mandatory
to return lost articles, the rabbinical authorities instructed Jews to do what
these laws say, as an act of civil obedience to the state - but not as a
religious duty, that is without making a positive effort to discover the owner
if it is not probable that he is Jewish.
(4) Deception in business. It is a grave sin to practice any kind of
deception whatsoever against a Jew. Against a Gentile it is only forbidden to
practice direct deception. Indirect deception is allowed, unless it is likely
to cause hostility towards Jews or insult to the Jewish religion. The
paradigmatic example is mistaken calculation of the price during purchase. If
a Jew makes a mistake unfavorable to himself, it is one's religious duty to
correct him. If a Gentile is spotted making such a mistake, one need not let
him know about it, but say 'I rely on your calculation', so as to forestall
his hostility in case he subsequently discovers his own mistake.
(5) Fraud. It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at
an unreasonable price. However, 'Fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is
written: "Do not defraud each man his brother";49 but a Gentile who
defrauds a Jew should be compelled to make good the fraud, but should not be
punished more severely than a Jew [in a similar case].'50
(6) Theft and robbery. Stealing (without violence) is absolutely
forbidden - as the Shulhan 'Arukh so nicely puts it: 'even from a Gentile'.
Robbery (with violence) is strictly forbidden if the victim is Jewish.
However, robbery of a Gentile by a Jew is not forbidden outright but only
under certain circumstances such as 'when the Gentiles are not under our
rule', but is permitted 'when they are under our rule'. Rabbinical authorities
differ among themselves as to the precise details of the circumstances under
which a Jew may rob a Gentile, but the whole debate is concerned only with the
relative power of Jews and Gentiles rather than with universal considerations
of justice and humanity. This may explain why so very few rabbis have
protested against the robbery of Palestinian property in Israel: it was backed
by overwhelming Jewish power.
Gentiles in the Land of lsrael
IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL anti-Gentile laws, the Halakhah has special laws
against Gentiles who live in the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisra'el) or, in some
cases, merely pass through it. These laws are designed to promote Jewish
supremacy in that country.
The exact geographical definition of the term 'Land of
Israel' is much disputed in the Talmud and the talmudic literature, and the
debate has continued in modern times between the various shades of zionist
opinion. According to the maximalist view, the Land of Israel includes (in
addition to Palestine itself) not only the whole of Sinai, Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon, but also considerable parts of Turkey.51 The more prevalent
'minimalist' interpretation puts the northern border 'only' about half way
through Syria and Lebanon, at the latitude of Homs. This view was supported by
Ben~Gurion. However, even those who thus exclude parts of Syria-Lebanon agree
that certain special discriminatory laws (though less oppressive than in the
Land of Israel proper) apply to the Gentiles of those parts, because that
territory was included in David's kingdom. In all talmudic interpretations the
Land of Israel includes Cyprus.
I shall now list a few of the special laws concerning
Gentiles in the Land of Israel. Their connection with actual zionist practice
will be quite apparent.
The Halakhah forbids Jews to sell immovable property -
fields and houses - in the Land of Israel to Gentiles. In Syria, the sale of
houses (but not of fields) is permitted.
Leasing a house in the Land of Israel to a Gentile is
permitted under two conditions. First, that the house shall not be used for
habitation but for other purposes, such as storage. Second, that three or more
adjoining houses shall not be so leased.
These and several other rules are explained as follows:
... 'so that you shall not allow them to camp on the ground, for if they do
not possess land, their sojourn there will be temporary.'52 Even temporary
Gentile presence may only be tolerated 'when the Jews are in exile, or when
the Gentiles are more powerful than the Jews,' but when the Jews are more
powerful than the Gentiles we are forbidden to let an idolator among us; even
a temporary resident or itinerant trader shall not be allowed to pass through
our land unless he accepts the seven Noahide precepts,53 for it is written:
'they shall not dwell in thy land'54 that is, not even temporarily. If he
accepts the seven Noahide precepts, he becomes a resident alien (ger toshav)
but it is forbidden to grant the status of resident alien except at times when
the Jubilee is held [that is, when the Temple stands and sacrifices are
offered]. However, during times when Jubilees are not held it is forbidden to
accept anyone who is not a full convert to Judaism (ger tzedeq).55
It is therefore clear that - exactly as the leaders and
sympathizers of Gush Emunim say - the whole question to how the Palestinians
ought to be treated is, according to the Halal,;hah, simply a question of
Jewish power: if Jews have sufficient power, then it is their religious duty
to expel the Palestinians.
All these laws are often quoted by Israeli rabbis and
their zealous followers. For example, the law forbidding the lease of three
adjoining houses to Gentiles was solemnly quoted by a rabbinical conference
held in 1979 to discuss the Camp David treaties. The conference also declared
that according to the Halakhah even the 'autonomy' that Begin was ready to
offer to the Palestinians is too liberal. Such pronouncements - which do in
fact state correctly the position of the Halakhah - are rarely contested by
the Zionist 'left'.
In addition to laws such as those mentioned so far, which
are directed at all Gentiles in the Land of Israel, an even greater evil
influence arises from special laws against the ancient Canaanites and other
nations who lived in Palestine before its conquest by Joshua, as well as
against the Amalekites. All those nations must be utterly exterminated, and
the Talmud and talmudic literature reiterate the genocidal biblical
exhortations with even greater vehemence. Influential rabbis, who have a
considerable following among Israeli army officers, identify the Palestinians
(or even all Arabs) with those ancient nations, so that commands like 'thou
shalt save alive nothing that breatheth'56 acquire a topical meaning. In fact,
it is not uncommon for reserve soldiers called up to do a tour of duty in the
Gaza Strip to be given an 'educational lecture' in which they are told that
the Palestinians of Gaza are 'like the Amalekites'. Biblical verses exhorting
to genocide of the Midianite57 were solemnly quoted by an important Israeli
rabbi in justification of the Qibbiya massacre,58 and this pronouncement has
gained wide circulation in the Israeli army. There are many similar examples
of bloodthirsty rabbinical pronouncements against the Palestinians, based on
these laws.
Abuse
UNDER THIS HEADING I would like to discuss examples of halakhic laws whose
most important effect is not so much to prescribe specific anti-Gentile
discrimination as to inculcate an attitude of scorn and hatred towards
Gentiles. Accordingly. in this section I shall not confine myself to quoting
from the most authoritative halakhic sources (as I have done so far) but
include also less fundamental works, which are however widely used in
religious instruction.
Let us begin with the text of some common prayers. In one
of the first sections of the daily morning payer, every devout Jew blesses God
for not making him a Gentile.59 The concluding section of the daily prayer
(which is also used in the most solemn part of the service on New Year's day
and on Yom Kippur) opens with the statement: 'We must praise the Lord of all
... for not making us like the nations of [all] lands ... for they bow down to
vanity and nothingness and pray to a god that does not help.'60 The last
clause was censored out of the prayer books. but in eastern Europe it was
supplied orally, and has now been restored into many Israeli-printed prayer
books. In the most important section of the weekday prayer - the 'eighteen
blessings' - there is a special curse, originally directed against Christians,
Jewish converts to Christianity and other Jewish heretics: 'And may the
apostates'61 have no hope, and all the Christians perish instantly'. This
formula dates from the end of the 1st century, when Christianity was still a
small persecuted sect. Some time before the 14th century it was softened into:
'And may the apostates have no hope. and all the heretics62 perish instantly',
and after additional pressure into: 'And may the informers have no hope, and
all the heretics perish instantly'. After the establishment of Israel. the
process was reversed, and many newly printed prayer books reverted to the
second formula, which was also prescribed by many teachers in religious
Israeli schools. After 1967, several congregations close to Gush Emunim have
restored the first version (so far only verbally, not in print) and now pray
daily that the Christians may perish instantly'. This process of reversion
happened in the period when the Catholic Church (under Pope John XXIII)
removed from its Good Friday service a prayer which asked the Lord to have
mercy on Jews, heretics etc. This prayer was thought by most Jewish leaders to
be offensive and even antisemitic.
Apart from the fixed daily prayers, a devout Jew must
utter special short blessings on various occasions, both good and bad (for
example, while putting on a new piece of clothing. eating a seasonal fruit for
the first time that year, seeing powerful lightning, hearing bad news, etc.)
Some of these occasional prayers serve to inculcate hatred and scorn for all
Gentiles, We have mentioned in Chapter 2 the rule according to which a pious
Jew must utter curse when passing near a Gentile cemetery, whereas he must
bless God when passing near a Jewish cemetery. A similar rule applies to the
living; thus, when seeing a large Jewish population a devout Jew must praise
God, while upon seeing a large Gentile population he must utter a curse. Nor
are buildings exempt: the Talmud lays down63 that a Jew who passes near an
inhabited non-Jewish dwelling must ask God to destroy it, whereas if the
building is in ruins he must thank the Lord of Vengeance. (Naturally, the
rules are reversed for Jewish houses.) This rule was easy to keep for Jewish
peasants who lived in their own villages or for small urban communities living
in all-Jewish townships or quarters. Under the conditions of classical
Judaism, however, it became impracticable and was therefore confined to
churches and places of worship of other religions (except Islam).64 In this
connection, the rule was further embroidered by custom: it became customary to
spit (usually three times) upon seeing a church or a crucifix, as an
embellishment to the obligatory formula of regret.65 Sometimes insulting
biblical verses were also added.66
There is also a series of rules forbidding any expression
of praise for Gentiles or for their deeds, except where such praise implies an
even greater praise of Jews and things Jewish. This rule is still observed by
Orthodox Jews. For example. the writer Agnon, when interviewed on the Israeli
radio upon his return from Stockholm, where he received the Nobel Prize for
literature, praised the Swedish Academy, but hastened to add: 'I am not
forgetting that it is forbidden to praise Gentiles, but here there is a
special reason for my praise' - that is, that they awarded the prize to a Jew.
Similarly, it is forbidden to join any manifestation of
popular Gentile rejoicing, except where failing to join in might cause
'hostility' towards Jews, in which case a 'minimal' show of joy is allowed.
In addition to the rules mentioned so far, there are many
others whose effect is to inhibit human friendship between Jew and Gentile. I
shall mention two examples: the rule on 'libation wine' and that on preparing
food for a Gentile on Jewish holy days.
A religious Jew must not drink any wine in whose
preparation a Gentile had any part whatsoever. Wine in an open bottle, even if
prepared wholly by Jews, becomes banned if a Gentile so much as touches the
bottle or passes a hand over it. The reason given by the rabbis is that all
Gentiles are not only idolators but must be presumed to be malicious to boot,
so that they are likely to dedicate (by a whisper, gesture or thought) as
'libation' to their idol any wine which a Jew is about to drink. This law
applies in full force to all Christians, and in a slightly attenuated form
also to Muslims. (An open bottle of wine touched by a Christian must be poured
away, but if touched by a Muslim it can be sold or given away, although it may
not be drunk by a Jew.) The law applies equally to Gentile atheists (how can
one be sure that they are not merely pretending to be atheists?) but not to
Jewish atheists.
The laws against doing work on the sabbath apply to a
lesser extent on other holy days. In particular, on a holy day which does not
happen to fall on a Saturday it is permitted to do any work required for
preparing food to be eaten during the holy days or days. Legally, this is
defined as preparing a 'soul's food' (okhel nefesh); but 'soul' is interpreted
to mean 'Jew', and 'Gentiles and dogs' are explicitly excluded.67 There is,
however, a dispensation in favor of powerful Gentiles, whose hostility can be
dangerous: it is permitted to cook food on a holy day for a visitor belonging
to this category, provided he is not actively encouraged to come and eat.
An important effect of all these laws - quite apart from
their application in practice - is in the attitude created by their constant
study which, as part of the study of the Halakhah, is regarded by classical
Judaism as a supreme religious duty. Thus an Orthodox Jew learns from his
earliest youth, as part of his sacred studies, that Gentiles are compared to
dogs, that it is a sin to praise them, and so on and so forth. As a matter of
fact, in this respect textbooks for beginners have a worse effect than the
Talmud and the great talmudic codes. One reason for this is that such
elementary texts give more detailed explanations, phrased so as to influence
young and uneducated minds. Out of a large number of such texts, I have chosen
the one which is currently most popular in Israel and has been reprinted in
many cheap editions, heavily subsidized by the Israeli government. It is The
Book of Education, written by an anonymous rabbi in early 14th century Spain.
It explains the 613 religious obligations (mitzvot) of Judaism in the order in
which they are supposed to be found in the Pentateuch according to the
talmudic interpretation (discussed in Chapter 3). It owes its lasting
influence and popularity to the clear and easy Hebrew style in which it is
written.
A central didactic aim of this book is to emphasize the
'correct' meaning of the Bible with respect to such terms as 'fellow',
'friend' or 'man' (which we have referred to in Chapter 3). Thus �219,
devoted to the religious obligation arising from the verse 'thou shalt love
thy fellow as thyself', is entitled: 'A religious obligation to love Jews',
and explains:
To love every Jew strongly means that we should care for
a Jew and his money just as one cares for oneself and one's own money, for it
is written: 'thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself' and our sages of blessed
memory said: 'what is hateful to you do not do to your friend' ... and many
other religious obligations follow from this, because one who loves one's
friend as oneself will not steal his money, or commit adultery with his wife,
or defraud him of his money, or deceive him verbally, or steal his land, or
harm him in any way. Also many other religious obligations depend on this, as
is known to any reasonable man.
In �322, dealing with the duty to keep a Gentile slave
enslaved for ever (whereas a Jewish slave must be set free after seven years),
the following explanation is given:
And at the root of this religious obligation [is the fact
that] the Jewish people are the best of the human species, created to know
their Creator and worship Him, and worthy of having slaves to serve them. And
if they will not have slaves of other peoples, they would have to enslave
their brothers, who would thus be unable to serve the Lord, blessed be He.
Therefore we are commanded to possess those for our service, after they are
prepared for this and after idolatory is removed from their speech so that
there should not be danger in our houses,68 and this is the intention of the
verse 'but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one
over another with rigor',69 so that you will not have to enslave your
brothers, who are all ready to worship God.
In �545, dealing with the religious obligation to exact
interest on money lent to Gentiles, the law is stated as follows: 'That we are
commanded to demand interest from Gentiles when we lend money to them, and we
must not lend to them without interest,' The explanation is:
And at the root of this religious obligation is that we
should not do any act of mercy except to the people who know God and worship
Him; and when we refrain from doing merciful deed to the rest of mankind and
do so only to the former, we are being tested that the main part of love and
mercy to them is because they follow the religion of God, blessed be He.
Behold, with this intention our reward [from God] when we withhold mercy from
the others is equal to that for doing [merciful deeds] to members of our own
people.
Similar distinctions are made in numerous other passages.
In explaining the ban against delaying a worker's wage (�238) the author is
careful to point out that the sin is less serious if the worker is Gentile.
The prohibition against cursing (�239) is entitled 'Not to curse any Jew,
whether man or woman. Similarly, the prohibitions against giving misleading
advice, hating other people, shaming them or taking revenge on them (��240,
245, 246, 247) apply only to fellow-Jews.
The ban against following Gentile customs (�262) means
that Jews must not only 'remove themselves' from Gentiles, but also 'speak ill
of all their behavior, even of their dress'.
It must be emphasized that the explanations quoted above
do represent correctly the teaching of the Halakhah. The rabbis and, even
worse, the apologetic 'scholars of Judaism' know this very well and for this
reason they do not try to argue against such views inside the Jewish
community; and of course they never mention them outside it. Instead, they
vilify any Jew who raises these matters within earshot of Gentiles, and they
issue deceitful denials in which the art of equivocation reaches its summit.
For example, they state, using general terms, the importance which Judaism
attaches to mercy; but what they forget to point out is that according to the
Halakhah 'mercy' means mercy towards Jews.
Anyone who lives in Israel knows how deep and widespread
these attitudes of hatred and cruelty to towards all Gentiles are among the
majority of Israeli Jews. Normally these attitudes are disguised from the
outside world, but since the establishment of the State of Israel, the 1967
war and the rise of Begin, a significant minority of Jews, both in Israel and
abroad, have gradually become more open about such matters. In recent years
the inhuman precepts according to which servitude is the 'natural' lot of
Gentiles have been publicly quoted in Israel, even on TV, by Jewish farmers
exploiting Arab labor, particularly child labor. Gush Emunim leaders have
quoted religious precepts which enjoin Jews to oppress Gentiles, as a
justification of the attempted assassination of Palestinian mayors and as
divine authority for their own plan to expel all the Arabs from Palestine.
While many zionists reject these positions politically,
their standard counter-arguments are based on considerations of expediency and
Jewish self-interest, rather than on universally valid principles of humanism
and ethics. For example, they argue that the exploitation and oppression of
Palestinians by Israelis tends to corrupt Israeli society, or that the
expulsion of the Palestinians is impracticable under present political
conditions, or that Israeli acts of terror against the Palestinians tend to
isolate Israel internationally. In principle, however, virtually all zionists
- and in particular 'left' zionists - share the deep anti-Gentile attitudes
which Orthodox Judaism keenly promotes.
Attitudes to Christianity and Islam
IN THE FOREGOING, several examples of the rabbinical attitudes to these two
religions were given in passing. But it will be useful to summarize these
attitudes here.
Judaism is imbued with a very deep hatred towards
Christianity, combined with ignorance about it. This attitude was clearly
aggravated by the Christian persecutions of Jews, but is largely independent
of them. In fact, it dates from the time when Christianity was still weak and
persecuted (not least by Jews), and it was shared by Jews who had never been
persecuted by Christians or who were even helped by them. Thus, Maimonides was
subjected to Muslim persecutions by the regime of the Almohads and escaped
from them first to the crusaders' Kingdom of Jerusalem, but this did not
change his views in the least. This deeply negative attitude is based on two
main elements.
First, on hatred and malicious slanders against Jesus.
The traditional view of Judaism on Jesus must of course be sharply
distinguished from the nonsensical controversy between antisemites and Jewish
apologists concerning the 'responsibility' for his execution. Most modern
scholars of that period admit that due to the lack of original and
contemporary accounts, the late composition of the Gospels and the
contradictions between them, accurate historical knowledge of the
circumstances of Jesus' execution is not available. In any case, the notion of
collective and inherited guilt is both wicked and absurd. However, what is at
issue here is not the actual facts about Jesus, but the inaccurate and even
slanderous reports in the Talmud and post-talmudic literature - which is what
Jews believed until the 19th century and many, especially in Israel, still
believe. For these reports certainly played an important role in forming the
Jewish attitude to Christianity.
According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper
rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt
of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his
execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic
account the Romans are not even mentioned.
The more popular accounts - which were nevertheless taken
quite seriously - such as the notorious Toldot Yesbu are even worse, for in
addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name
'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable, and this popular
tradition still persists.70 The Gospels are equally detested, and they are not
allowed to be quoted (let alone taught) even in modern Israeli Jewish schools.
Secondly, for theological reasons, mostly rooted in
ignorance, Christianity as a religion is classed by rabbinical teaching as
idolatry. This is based on a crude interpretation of the Christian doctrines
on the Trinity and Incarnation. All the Christian emblems and pictorial
representations are regarded as 'idols' - even by those Jews who literally
worship scrolls, stones or personal belongings of 'Holy Men'.
The attitude of Judaism towards Islam is, in contrast,
relatively mild. Although the stock epithet given to Muhammad is 'madman' ('meshugga'), this was not nearly as offensive as it may sound now, and in any
case it pales before the abusive terms applied to Jesus. Similarly, the Qur'an
- unlike the New Testament - is not condemned to burning. It is not honored in
the same way as Islamic law honors the Jewish sacred scrolls, but is treated
as an ordinary book. Most rabbinical authorities agree that Islam is not
idolatry (although some leaders of Gush Emunim now choose to ignore this).
Therefore the Halakhah decrees that Muslims should not be treated by Jews any
worse than 'ordinary' Gentiles. But also no better. Again, Maimonides can
serve as an illustration. He explicitly states that Islam is not idolatry, and
in his philosophical works he quotes, with great respect, many Islamic
philosophical authorities. He was, as I have mentioned before, personal
physician to Saladin and his family, and by Saladin's order he was appointed
Chief over all Egypt's Jews. Yet, the rules he lays down against saving a
Gentile's life (except in order to avert danger to Jews) apply equally to
Muslims.
<<
Back -- Chapter 5 -- Next
>>
|