Tzfi’a 3
The Editorial Board
President
of the Editorial Board and Founder: Rabbi Moshe Segal OBM
Rabbi Yisrael Ariel
Moshe Asher
Joel Rakovsky
Amishar Segal
Articles are the authors' responsibility
5749
Jews Are
Called -- Man
The
Distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Torah
Rabbi
David Bar Chaim
Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav
Introduction
Over the past few years, there has been a
recognizable trend amongst different circles in the religious community -- a humanistic/universal
inclination. There are many who have
written in praise of love, “for all men who were created in the image of G-d.”
We have even been “graced” with a pamphlet of this name, Chaviv Adam Sh’nivra B’tzelem,
composed and edited by Mr. Yochanan Ben Ya’acov, the Director General of the
Bnei Akiva Youth Movement. The explicit goal of those who share this outlook is
to prove that all men are equal, that it is forbidden to discriminate against
any man on the basis of his race, and that anyone who claims the opposite is
nothing but a racist, distorting the words of the Torah in order to fit them to
his “dreadful” opinions.
Here are two
examples:
1. A statement
by Ms. R. Huberman:
“…I never
imagined that the Torah discriminates between one man and the next on the basis of faith,
nationality, or race…on the contrary, it is our Torah which teaches that the
blood of man is holy simply because he is man: “Whoever sheds man’s blood by
man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of G-d made He man” (Genesis
9)…in the Ten Commandments it is written: “You shall not murder”! There
is no hint of a restriction, no hint that the prohibition applies to a Jew and
not to a Gentile…”
(“Between Blood and Blood,” Amudim, a monthly
magazine of the Religious Kibbutz Movement, Tamuz 5745, pg.352).
2. [Former] Member of
Knesset (National Religious Party) Professor Avner Shaki:
“The Jews of
the State of Israel who received the Torah of Moses on Mount Sinai, where it
was established that man was created in the image of G-d, have no need for
any…law to teach us this fundamental basic of the Torah, that all men
are born equal according to Judaism…man’s equality, man’s status before G-d
and before his fellow man, is a primary and fundamental principle in the Jewish
Torah…of course, we will not assist any type of racism which discriminates
against man because of his color, religion, or nationality…”
(an excerpt from his speech
during a discussion in the Knesset on an amendment to the Basic Law of the
Knesset and the Penal Law)
We have
something very clear before us: all human beings, Jew and Gentile, are equal.
As will be further clarified, this outlook completely contradicts the Torah
of Moses, and stems from an absolute lack of knowledge, permeated with foreign
Western “values.” There would not be any need to respond were it not for the many who are mistaken and lead
astray by it.
This outlook
has even been expressed by some rabbis whose goal is to show how great and
important the stature of the Gentile is in our Torah, and who thereby violate
the truth by taking things out of context and inaccurately interpreting the
words of Chazal and the Rishonim. A large part of their efforts are centered
(due to the “Underground” affair, of course) on an attempt to prove that the prohibition
“You shall not murder” also applies to the killing of a Gentile. Here is an
excerpt from Rabbi Yehuda Amital, shlita:
“See the
Ra’aban on the Gemara Tractate Bava Kama 113a, that the prohibition of ‘You
shall not murder’ also applies to a Gentile, as is explicitly stated by
Maimonides in The Laws of a Murderer, chapter 1, halacha 1. See Yere’im,
paragraph 175, that the killing of a Gentile is a subsidiary to the prohibition
against murder.”
(From a letter published in Alon Shvut (Yeshiva
Har Etzion), issue number 100. His words are cited in the pamphlet previously
mentioned, Chaviv Adam Sh'nivra B'tzelem, in an experimental edition, pg.64)
Rabbi Aaron
Lichtenstein shlita writes:
“From
Maimonides’s words (Mishna Torah, The Laws of a Murderer, chapter 2, halacha 11) it is
clear that the prohibition “You shall not murder” applies to a Gentile who
fulfills the seven Noahide commandments, and the murderer is punished by
death from the Heavens. So on one hand there is no difference in the
prohibition of murder between a Jew and a Gentile…”
(From a synopsis of a lecture published in
Keshet B’Anan number 32, Gesher, and cited in the above mentioned pamphlet,
pg.72.)
The followers
of these rabbis continue their path:
“…‘You shall
not kill’! This
is an absolute prohibition, an unambiguous command that does not distinguish
between Jew and Gentile…”
(Mr. Yochanan Ben Ya’acov’s
words in his introduction to the above mentioned pamphlet, pg.1)
Later on it will become clear how misleading and
deceptive these matters are.
Not only about
this halacha are things written which are liable to mislead the public. For
example, Rabbi Lichtenstein writes:
“The field of
the Torah…is also relevant to the world of the Noahide, but there is no doubt
that as far as the extent is concerned…the study of Torah is much less in the
world of the Gentile than in our world.
Rabbi Meir’s
words in Tractate Sanhedrin 59a and the beraitha in Torat Cohanim are well
known: even a Gentile who sits and learns Torah receives reward…an
additional emphasis on the great and exalted study of Torah being relevant to
the world of the Gentile.” (From his essay, Bnei Adam, in the monthly
publication Emda, Number 3, pg.16, and in the previously mentioned pamphlet,
pg.74.)
It is amazing
that he forgot to point out everything said there on this matter, particularly
the conclusion. How could he not mention that Rabbi Meir’s words were brought
in order to disagree with Rabbi Yochanan who said: “A Gentile
who studies Torah is punishable by death, as it is said: ‘Moses commanded
us the Torah as an inheritance,’ for us it is an inheritance, and not for
them”? The conclusion is most important -- in order to settle the conflicting
statements the Talmud answers, “In this case, he is engaged in the seven
Noahide commandments” (He is engaged in the halachas of those seven
commandments to be skilled in them -- Rashi). He is permitted to study those
specific seven Noahide commandments -- and if he learned more than this, he is
punishable by death. So the Tosaphot wrote in Tractate Avodah Zara 3a, s.v. sh’afilu,
and Maimonides in The Laws of Kings, chapter 10, halacha 9, writes: “A
Gentile who engaged in Torah is punishable by death.
He should not engage in anything other than their seven commandments alone.”
The distance between what was said in the Talmud and Rabbi Lichtenstein’s words
is great.
In the
previously mentioned essay Rabbi Lichtenstein writes further:
“The field of
prayer also exists as a universal value…this has been said in connection to the
Holy Temple at its inception (I Kings 8:41-43); this is part of the prophecy of
the end of days: ‘For my house will be called a house of prayer for all the
nations.’ There is also room for the Gentile to come and pray in the Holy
Temple!”
How is it
possible to say such things? Indeed, we have learned a complete Mishna (Kalim,
chapter 1, mishna 8): “…Inside the walls of the Temple Mount is holier, and
therefore Gentiles and one who has been defiled by the dead cannot enter
there…” thus
Maimonides ruled in The Laws of the Holy Temple,
chapter 7, halacha 16. There is no way for a Gentile “to come and pray in the
Holy Temple”! The matter is clear: a Gentile can pray, even on the Temple
Mount, but not in the Holy Temple.
An additional
proof of the Gentile’s stature, according to Rabbi Lichtenstein:
“Animal
sacrifices are conceived by us as being of authentic Jewish character, but they
definitely belong, in the pure sense of the halacha, also to the world of the
Gentile: a Gentile offers animal sacrifices not just on any altar…but in the
Holy Temple” (from the above mentioned essay).
Aside from what
has been previously clarified, that there is absolutely no possibility of a
Gentile entering the Holy Temple, much less of offering sacrifices there,
this statement, like the one before it, does not reflect the position of “pure
halacha” on this topic. There is a discrepancy between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi
Yosi the Galilean in the Sifra on the portion of Emor, parsha 7, halacha
1, and in the Tosephta, Shekalim, chapter 1, halacha 7 (Zukermandel and
Leiberman editions, in the Vilna printing, halacha 3), and brought in Tractate
Menachot 73b, concerning which sacrifices can be accepted from a Gentile.
Maimonides ruled based on Rabbi Akiva (The Laws
of Sacrifices, chapter 3, halacha 2): “Men or women or slaves can bring
sacrifices. But from the Gentiles we only accept burnt offerings as it
is said: ‘From the hand of a Gentile do not offer the bread of your Lord’…but
we do not accept from them peace-offerings, nor meal-offerings, nor sin-offerings
or guilt-offerings…” In connection to this we must add that even if a Gentile
volunteered to donate money in order to have a part in the public sacrifices,
we do not accept it from him, as it is cited in the Sifra, chapter 7, halacha
12, and in Shekalim, chapter 1, mishna 5, and Maimonides wrote in The Laws of
Shekalim, chapter 1, halacha 7: “Everyone is obliged to give half a shekel…but
from the Gentiles who gave a half shekel, we do not accept it.” Generally
speaking -- there is no equality of rights for a Gentile, not in their entrance
to the Holy Temple nor in their offering of sacrifices there.
It seems that
these examples are sufficient to clarify the reason for writing this
essay. Now let us consider a long list of sources that clearly contradict the
previously mentioned opinions. First we will focus on halachic matters, and
afterwards on the spiritual realm. It must be noted that I plan to deal only
with halachot that illustrate the vast distinction the Torah makes between Jews
and Gentiles. I do not intend to examine the topic of the status of Gentiles in
the Torah in its entirety. For example, how and to what extent can the Gentile
serve G-d according to the Torah, and what is his reward for this? What is
possibilities are open for Gentiles residing in the land of Israel? What is the
law for Gentiles who are at war with us or hostile towards us? I will not deal
with these and similar matters -- for this is not my purpose. (These matters
are connected to specific situations and details, whereas the purpose of this
essay is the overall, consistent distinction between Jew and Gentile.) The same
is true concerning the second part of the essay, which will deal with the
spiritual realm.
1. Between Jews and
Gentiles – In Halacha
A. Killing a Gentile
It is written in the Torah (Leviticus
24:17):
"He who kills any man shall surely be
put to death," and it is also stated in the portion of Mishpatim (Exodus
21:14): "But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent, to slay him
with guile, you shall take him from my altar that he may die." On the
latter verse it is stated in Mechilta (Masechta D'Nezikin parasha 4):
"'But if a man comes with intent' -- Why was this stated? Since it is
stated 'And he that kills any man...,' perhaps this also speaks of one who
kills on purpose, in error, and others: a healer who killed [his patient], one
who inflicts [deadly] blows with permission of Beit Din, a father who
tyrannizes his son or student [to death] -- is this what it implies? It is
taught:
'But if a man comes with intent' -- to
exclude [one who kills in] error, 'man' to
exclude the minor, 'man' -- to include the others, 'his neighbor'
-- to include the minor, 'his neighbor' -- to exclude the others."
Isi the son of Akiva says: "Before the giving of the Torah we were warned
concerning the spilling of blood. After the giving of the Torah, instead of
being more severe, they were more lenient. In truth they said he is exempt from
the rule of man, and his judgement is the hands of Heaven."
We learn from the Mechilta that a Jew who killed a Gentile with
intent is not put to death by the Beit Din, as he would be had he killed a Jew.
The halacha is the same concerning a ger toshav, as is explicitly
stated in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on the above mentioned verse:
"'Upon his neighbor' -- with the exception of others, 'his neighbor' --
with the exception of the ger toshav. Perhaps I ought to exclude the
others, for they do not have commandments similar to the Jews, yet I ought not
exclude the ger toshav who has commandments similar to the Jews. It is
taught: 'his neighbor' -- with the exception of the ger toshav."
Likewise it is written in Sifri on the portion of Masaei, paragraph 160, see
there, and in Sifri Zuta on the portion of Masaei, 23: "Upon his neighbor
-- with the exception of the ger toshav."
Similarly we learn in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin chapter 9, mishnah 2:
"One who intended to kill an animal [and instead] killed a man, [intended]
to kill a Gentile [and instead] killed a Jew, [intended to kill] a fetus [and
instead] killed a child who is able to exist outside the womb, [he is]
exempt." These, too, are the words of Maimonides in The Laws of a Murderer
and Saving Life, chapter 2, halachas 10 and 11 (in manuscripts it appears as a
single halacha): "One who kills a Jew or kills a Cannanite slave is put to
death for this. And if he killed unintentionally, [he is] exiled. A Jew who
kills a ger toshav is not put to death for this by a Beit Din, as it is
said: 'But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent.' And it need not be
said that he is not put to death for [the killing of] a Gentile. The same for one who kills the slave of
another, or kills his own slave -- he is put to death for this, for the slave
has already accepted upon himself commandments and is [therefore] included in
the inheritance of G-d," and so the Tosaphot has written in the Talmud, Tractate Makkot 9a, s.v. k'savur.
In contrast, a ger toshav (and
all the more so a Gentile) who killed a Jew, even unintentionally, is put to
death, as we learned in chapter 2 of Tractate Makkot, mishnah 3, and in the
Gemara there (9a), and as Maimonides wrote in chapter 5 of The Laws of a
Murderer and Protecting Life, halacha 4: "A ger toshav who killed a
Jew without intent -- even though he did it unintentionally, he is put to
death."
However, it must be emphasized that one
cannot take this as permission to kill a Gentile. In the aforementioned
Mechilta it clearly states the opposite -- "his [one who kills a Gentile] judgement is in the hands of Heaven" --
so it is forbidden. See further in Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5
(Zukermandel edition, in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4):
"On the spilling of blood, how? …a Jew [who killed a] Gentile is
exempt," for one who kills is exempt [from punishment by Beit Din],
however [this action is] prohibited, and in Sanhedrin 57a on this beraitha it
is stated: "There, how should we learn the beraitha, prohibited [for a
Gentile to kill a Gentile or a Jew] and permitted [for a Jew to kill a Gentile]?
Yet we have learned in a beraitha that Gentiles and shepherds of small cattle
are not raised [from the pit] nor lowered [into it]?" --so there is a
prohibition against the killing of a Gentile. However, we have not found in the
words of Chazal a definition of the prohibition, and the Rishonim are in
dispute on this matter.
The opinion of the HaRa'aban is that
one who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of "You
shall not murder" and these are
his words in the commentary on Bava Kama paragraph 22 (page 74d):
"… 'You shall not steal' is similar to 'You shall not murder' and 'You
shall not commit adultery'
in that it refers both to Jew and Gentile."
This is not the opinion of Maimonides in the beginning of The Laws of a Murderer and
Protecting Life: "One who kills a Jew transgresses a negative
commandment as it is stated: ' You shall not murder'."
Maimonides also wrote something similar in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative
commandment 289, and Rabbi David HaKochavi restated it in his Sefer
HaMitzvot, negative commandment 289. Likewise, it is written in Yere'im
paragraph175 (Schiff edition, in other editions paragraph 248): "…and it
is called murder only concerning a Jew, as it is written: 'who murders his
neighbor' -- the murder of one's neighbor is called murder, but the murder of a
Gentile it is not called murder." And in the continuation of his
statement: "Subsidiary [prohibition] of murder: not to kill a Gentile, as
we learned in the beraitha in Avodah Zarah chapter 2 (page 26a): The Gentiles
and shepherds of small cattle are not raised [from the pit] nor lowered [into
it]."
According to Maimonides, the Yere'im, and Rabbi David HaKochavi, one who kills
a Gentile does not transgress the negative commandment 'you shall not murder.'
Summary
1. One who kills a Gentile, and even a ger
toshav, is not put to death for this by the Beit Din, even if he kills him
with intent. This is clearly stated in the Torah and in the words of Chazal.
2. In the opinion of the HaRa'aban, one
who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of "You shall
not murder," and in the opinion of Maimonides, the Yeare'im, and Rabbi
David HaKochavi, the murder of a Gentile is not included in this negative
commandment. However, according to all opinions there exists a prohibition in
this matter, as is clear from the words of Chazal.
So the Torah
differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile with regards to the killing of a
man.
B. Saving of Life
Regarding the subject of saving a life,
too, the Torah differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile. We learn in chapter
8 of Tractate Kippurim (Yoma) mishnah 45 (in the Vilna edition mishnah 47):
"One upon whom the ruins of a building collapsed and there is doubt
whether he is there or not, whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a Jew or
a Gentile, we clear off [the rubble]. If they found him alive, they clear off
[the rubble], if dead, they leave him there." The Talmud explains on page
85a: "It is needless to say 'there is doubt whether he is alive or dead' if he is a Jew, but even if we are uncertain
whether he is a Gentile or a Jew we clear off [the rubble]," and thus
wrote Maimonides in chapter 2 of The Laws of the Sabbath, halacha 21 (in the
Vilna edition, halacha 20): "If there was a courtyard with both Gentiles and
Jews, even one Jew and a thousand Gentiles, and the ruins of a building
collapsed upon them, we clear off the rubble from everyone for the sake of
the Jew. If one of them moved to another courtyard and it collapsed upon
him, we clear [the rubble] off him, for perhaps the one who moved [to the other
courtyard] is the Jew and the ones who remained are the Gentiles."
Likewise in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, paragraph 329, section
3.
It must be pointed out that a Jew who
wanted to engage himself in the saving of the life of a Gentile which involved
a transgression of the Sabbath, and did so in front of witnesses and after
being warned, is put to death by the Beit Din -- this is self evident.
C. Death by a Beit Din
It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy
19:15): "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or
for any guilt, in any sin that he may commit: at the word of two witnesses, or
at the word of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." And in
the Sifri (Shoftim, paragraph 188) it is written: "Thus far we [learn] it
with regards to the capital laws; from where do we learn it concerning monetary
laws? It is written, 'for any iniquity.' From where do we learn it concerning
[transgression for which one must bring] sacrificial offerings? It is written,
'or for any guilt.' Where do we learn it concerning [transgressions punishable
by] lashes [by a Beit Din]? It is written, 'in any sin that he may
commit'…" Maimonides wrote similarly in the beginning of chapter 5 of The
Laws of Testimony: "No verdict of
judgement may be made based on the testimony of one individual, neither
in monetary laws nor in capital laws, as is written: 'One witness shall not
rise up against a man for an iniquity, or for any guilt'…"
Likewise, one
is not put to death by a Beit Din, even if there were several witnesses to his
transgression, without forewarning, as we learn in the beginning of
chapter 5 of Tractate Sanhedrin: "They [a Beit Din] would investigate them
[the witnesses] with seven interrogations: Which week? Which year?…Do you
recognize him? Did you warn him?…" and there in the Talmud (Sanhedrin
40b): "Ula said: From where [do we learn] forewarning from the Torah? As
it is said: 'And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his
mother's daughter, and sees her nakedness.' Is this matter contingent on
'seeing?' Rather, until it is made perfectly clear to him [that sexual
relations with her are forbidden to him -- Rashi]…In the school of Hizkiya they learn it thus: 'But if a
man comes upon his neighbor with intent to slay him with guile' -- [this speaks
of a case] when he was forewarned, yet he still came with intent. In the school
of Rabbi Ishmael they learn it thus: '…those who find him gathering sticks,'
[it is mentioned in the present tense to teach us that] they forewarned him,
yet he continued to gather sticks" (see there; in the Jerusalem Talmud
there are other ways of learning the requirement of forewarning). Thus Maimonides wrote in the
beginning of chapter 12 of The Laws of Sanhedrin: "How are capital cases
judged? When witnesses come to the Beit Din… the judges say to them: 'Do you
recognize him? Did you forewarn him?' If they say 'We do not
recognize him,' or 'We are not sure,' or they did not forewarn him, behold,
[he] is exempt."
This is the way
concerning a Jew. With regards to a Gentile, however, it is taught in Sanhedrin
57b: "Rabbi Jacob bar Acha found it written in an Aggadic book from the
school of Rav: a Gentile is put to death by one judge and by one witness,
even if he was not forewarned, by testimony of a man and not of a woman,
and even of a family member. In the name of Rabbi Ishmael they said: Even for
[the killing of] a fetus." Thus Maimonides wrote in chapter 9 of The Laws
of Kings and Wars halachas 4
and 14 -- these laws were stated concerning a Gentile, in contrast to the laws
concerning a Jew. (A Jew is not put to death for killing a fetus as it is
stated in chapter 5 of Tractate Niddah, mishnah 3: "A one-day old baby
becomes impure by discharge…and one who kills him is liable…" and see the
reason for this in Rashi on Sanhedrin there, s.v. af al ha'ubarin, and
in the Gemara, Tractate Niddah there. Similarly, verdicts on capital cases
where a Jew is accused may be made only by a Beit Din of twenty three members,
as we have learned in Sanhedrin chapter 1, mishnah 4. Likewise regarding the
laws of testimony: the testimony of a family member is invalid for a Jew, as it
says in Sifri, paragraph 280, on the verse: "Fathers shall not be put to death
for children": "…fathers shall not be put to death by the testimony
of children, and children shall not be put to death by fathers. When it says
'and children,' it includes family members…").
We clearly see
that the Torah is much stricter about the procedures of judgement when dealing
with the life of a Jew than it is when dealing with that of a Gentile.
D. Damage by a Gentile
It is written
in the Torah: (Exodus 21:35): "If a man's ox injures his neighbor's ox and
it dies, they shall sell the live ox and divide the money received for it; they
shall also divide the dead animal." In the Mechilta (Tractate Nezikin
section 12) it is said: "'A man's ox' -- to exclude the ox of a minor, 'a man's ox' -- to
include the ox of others.' His neighbor's ox,' to include [the ox of] a
minor, 'his neighbor's' to exclude [the ox] of a Gentile, the ox of a
Samaritan, the ox of a ger toshav." And in the Mechilta of
Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai it is stated: "'His neighbor's,' -- to exclude
others, to exclude the ger toshav. Is it possible no payment will be
made to a Gentile or that a Gentile will not pay him? It is taught: 'He shall
surely pay,' to include [the payment of] a Gentile and of a ger toshav.
Is it possible that they pay for an innocent [ox] half the damage, and for a notorious
[ox] full damage? It is taught: 'His neighbors' ox,' the ox of his neighbor is
dealt with in such a manner, and not [the ox] of others, concerning whom it is
stated: 'He appeared from Mount Paran' (Deuteronomy 33:2), -- [G-d] appeared
disfavoring all the inhabitants of the world [in contrast to the Jews]."
Furthermore,
there is an explicit mishnah in Tractate Baba Kama 4:3: "An ox of a Jew
who injured an ox which was dedicated [to the Temple] or a dedicated ox which
injured an ox of a Jew is exempt, as it is written: 'his neighbor's ox' -- and
not a dedicated ox. An ox of a Jew who hurt an ox of a Gentile is
exempt. An ox of a Gentile who hurt the ox of a Jew -- whether it is an ox who
was harmless before or an ox which has been proven dangerous, [the owner] must
pay the full damage." A Jew who causes damage to a Gentile is always
exempt, however a Gentile who causes damage to a Jew must pay the full damage
in every case. And thus it is in Maimonides, chapter 8 of The Laws of Property
Damage, halacha 5, and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, beginning
of paragraph 406. The distinction between a Jew and a Gentile is clear.
It is
appropriate to cite the words of Maimonides in his explanation of the mishnah
in Bava Kama there: "If there was a legal case between a Jew and a
Gentile, then the manner of judging between them is as I will explain: if we
[i.e., a Jew] will win under their laws, we judge them according to their laws
and say to them: this is your law! If it is better that we judge according to
our laws, we judge them according to our laws and say to them: this is our law! And do
not find it difficult, and don't be surprised by it, just as one is not
surprised about the slaughter of animals even though they have done
no harm, for one in whom human characteristics are not complete is not truly a
man, and his end purpose is only for 'man' [that is to say, the entire raison
d'etre of the Gentiles is only for the benefit of the complete man -- comment
by Rabbi Y. Kapach shlita in his edition of Maimonides's Commentary on
the Mishnah], and the discussion on this matter requires a separate book."
E. Robbery and Theft of a Gentile
With regards to
robbery and theft from a Gentile, the Tanna'im disagreed, and subsequently so
did the Rishonim, whether the prohibition is from the Torah or only Rabbinic.
It is explained
in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 4 of Bava Kama, halacha 3: "It happened
that the [Roman] kingdom sent two officials to learn Torah from Rabban Gamliel.
They learned from him Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, Halacha, and Aggadah. In the
end they said: your entire Torah is fine and praiseworthy, except for these two
matters which you say -- a Jewish woman should not be a midwife for a Gentile
woman, but a Gentile woman can be a mid-wife for a Jewish woman, and a Jewish
woman cannot breastfeed the son of a Gentile woman, but a Gentile woman can
breastfeed [the child of] a Jewish woman with her permission; robbery of a Jew
is forbidden, but robbery of a Gentile is permitted. At that moment Rabban
Gamliel issued an edict that what is stolen from a Gentile is forbidden
because of the desecration of G-d's name." According to the Jerusalem
Talmud, that which is stolen from a Gentile is forbidden because of Rabban
Gamliel's edict and it is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Likewise it is written
in Sifri on the portion of V'zot HaBracha, section 344, except that the edict
of Rabban Gamliel is not mentioned there.
This is also
what is written in the Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (in the
Zuckermandel edition; in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4):
"…Regarding theft -- a thief, a robber, one who takes a [captive]
beautiful woman, and the like -- these are things it is forbidden for a Gentile
[to perpetrate] against a Gentile, or [against] a Jew, but it is permissible
for a Jew [to perpetrate] against a Gentile."
Thus Rashi
wrote on
the aforementioned beraitha which appears in Sanhedrin 57a, s.v. yisrael
b'goy mutar: "For 'You shall not exploit your neighbor' is written,
and it is not written 'a Gentile,' but there is a Rabbinic prohibition,
according to the one who says that robbery of a Gentile is forbidden because of
desecration of G-d's name in the last chapter 'HaGozel' [chapter 10 of Bava
Batra]." Thus it also appears in Bava Metzia 111b: "And since the
first Tanna learned the law from the phrase 'his brother,' what does he do with
the phrase 'his neighbor'? That phrase comes to teach something in his view
also, as stated in the beraitha: 'his neighbor' -- and not a Gentile. But isn't
it appropriate to learn that a Gentile is excluded from the phrase 'his
brother'? One [phrase] comes to permit exploiting him [a Gentile] and the other
comes to permit robbing him, as he holds that robbery of a Gentile is
permitted." And so it
is determined in the commentary attributed to the Ran on Tractate Sanhedrin
57a. Thus, too, ruled the Rama in Even HaEzer, paragraph 28, section 1, and
also the Maharshal in Yam shel Shlomo on Bava Kama, paragraph 20.
In contrast, it is explained in Torat
Cohanim on the portion of Behar Sinai, beginning of chapter 9 (and it appears in Bava Kama
113a with differences): "Rabbi Shimon says: from where do we learn that
stealing from a Gentile is forbidden? It is written: 'after he [a Jew] is sold
[to Gentiles].' Perhaps one can take him by force and leave? [Take the Jew by
force from the Gentile's house without paying, to steal him from the Gentile --
commentary attributed to Rabbi Simon Sens]. It is taught: 'He shall be
redeemed.' Perhaps one can deceive him? [Fool the Gentile and treat him like an
imbecile in order to buy his slave cheaply -- ibid..] It is taught: 'He
shall reckon with the one who bought him' -- to be precise with him… If the
Torah is so strict in [forbidding] robbery of a Gentile, how much more so
concerning robbery of a Jew." It is explained that robbery of
Gentiles is prohibited, and the plain meaning of the beraitha is that this
prohibition is from the Torah, as the GRA wrote in his commentary on Choshen
Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 8, and as the Radbaz wrote in his Responsa,
part 2 paragraph 1276.
Thus it also
appears in Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, section 266: "'When you come
into your neighbor's vineyard' -- 'your neighbor's,' to exclude others, 'your
neighbor's,' to exclude a vineyard dedicated to the Temple…" ('To exclude
others' -- that is to say, the vineyard of Gentiles, for concerning 'your
neighbor's' it is written: 'But you shall not put any in your vessel' -- so in
the vineyard of a Gentile it is permitted, and it is derived according to
the one who says that view which states that generally robbery of a Gentile is
forbidden… -- commentary
of Rabbeinu Hillel.) Thus it also appears in Tractate Bava Metzia 87b:
"…in your neighbor's vineyard and not in the vineyard of a Gentile. It
is understandable according to the one who says robbery of a Gentile is
forbidden, that is to say, we need this verse to permit a robbery to a
worker…" According to these Tanna'im, robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by
the Torah. Likewise it is stated in Seder Eliyahu Rabba (Tanna d'vey Eliyahu)
chapter 16 (in the Ish Shalom edition, in other editions it is chapter 15), see
there. See further the Tosephta on Bava Kama, chapter 10 halacha 15 (in the
Vilna edition, halacha 8).
Maimonides
wrote at
the beginning of The Laws of Theft: "Anyone who steals property worth the
value of a prutah and above transgresses a negative commandment, as it
says: 'You shall not steal'… no matter if he steals money from a Jew or the
money of a Gentile idolater…" In The Laws of Robbery and Lost Items,
chapter 1 halachas 1 and 2, he wrote: "Anyone who steals from a his fellow
something worth a prutah transgresses a negative commandment, as it
says: 'You shall not steal'…and it is forbidden to steal anything according to
the ruling of the Torah. It is forbidden to rob or exploit even a Gentile
idolater, and if one robs or exploits him, he must recompense him." This is
also the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat,
paragraph 348, section 2, and in the beginning of paragraph 359. Thus also
ruled the Gaon of Vilna there, paragraph 348, subsection 8, and in Even HaEzer,
paragraph 28, subsection 5, and the Ridbaz in the aforementioned responsum. (It
is appropriate to note what the Ridbaz wrote: even though stealing from a
Gentile is forbidden by the Torah, one does not transgress a negative
commandment by doing it; it is also explained so in Likutei HaGRA on
Maimonides, and according to this, once again there is no equality between a
Jew and a Gentile). See Chidushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger, paragraph 359, where he
proved that according to the view which holds that stealing from a Gentile is
prohibited, the prohibition stems from the Torah.
However, even
according to Maimonides's opinion that
stealing from a Gentile is forbidden from the Torah and that consequently one
transgresses a negative commandment by doing it, we find nevertheless found in
his words a distinction between a Jew and a Gentile, for thus he wrote in The
Laws of Robbery, chapter 6, halacha 7: "The Sages prohibited many things
on account of robbery, and one who transgresses these matters is a robber
according to their words -- for example, pigeon racers and dice rollers,"
and there in halacha 11: "one who plays dice with a Gentile does not
transgress the prohibition of robbery, but he transgresses the prohibition
of engaging in idleness, for it is not worthy of man to engage himself all the
days of his life in matters other than words of wisdom and cultivation of the
world." That is, in this issue also a Gentile is not completely equal with
a Jew. See in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 370 who
brought the words of Maimonides and did
not dispute him on this matter, and the SM'A in subsection 4 and in the
Prisha in subsection 7. The GRA, in subsection 7, agreed with him.
F. The Lost Item of a Gentile
It is written
in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:2): "You shall not see your brother's ox or
sheep going astray and hide yourself from them. You shall surely bring them
back to your brother." It is also stated (Exodus 23:4): "If you meet
your enemy's ox or his ass going astray, you shall surely bring it back to
him." In the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on the latter verse it is
written: "'Your brother's ox' -- I only have [learned about] my brother,
from where [do I learn about] my enemy? It is written: 'your enemy's ox'
anyway. Perhaps this is also the case concerning others? It is written: 'your
brother,' as your brother is your partner, so too, any man who is your
partner." And in Tractate Bava Kama 113b: "Rabbi Bibi bar
Gozla said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Chasida: robbery of a Gentile is
forbidden… his lost item is permitted, similar to what Rav Chama bar Guryeh
said in the name of Rav: from where do we know that the lost item of a Gentile
is permitted? As it says: 'In like manner shall you do with his ass; and so
shall you do with his garment; and with every lost thing of your brother's' --
every lost thing of your brother's and not every lost thing of a Gentile. It
was taught in a beraitha: Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair said, in any instance where
there is a desecration of G-d's name, even his [a Gentile's] lost item is
forbidden…"
We learn in
Tractate Machshirin, chapter 2 mishnah 8: "One who finds a lost item -- if
the majority [in the surrounding area] are Gentiles, he does not have to
publicly announce his finding; if the majority are Jews, he must publicly
announce it; if half are Gentiles and half are Jews, he must publicly
announce." Thus wrote Maimonides in the beginning of chapter 11 of The
Laws of Robbery and Lost Items: "One who returns a lost item to a Jew
fulfills a positive commandment, as it says: 'You shall surely bring them
back to your brother.' One who sees a lost item of a Jew and ignores it and
leaves it there transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not
see your brother's ox and hide yourself from them,' and he also abandons a
positive commandment. And if he returns it, he fulfills a positive
command." But in halacha 3 he wrote: "A lost item of a Gentile is
permitted, as it says: 'Every lost thing of your brother's'." Thus it is
explained in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 266, section
1.
In addition, it
is explained in Sanhedrin 76b: "Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: one
who marries his daughter to an elderly man, and one who marries his son of
minor age to a woman, and one who returns a lost item to a Gentile,
concerning him the verse says, 'To add drunkenness to thirst: the Lord will not
spare him'." These are the words of Maimonides there, halacha 3: "If
one returns a lost item [to a Gentile] to sanctify G-d's name, in order that
the Gentiles glorify the Jews, and know that they [the Jews] are a faithful
people -- this is praiseworthy. In a case where there is a desecration of G-d's
name, his [a Gentile's] lost item is forbidden, and he [the Jew] is obligated
to return it...". The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote similarly there.
(In regards to what Maimonides wrote "If he returned the lost item to sanctify…,"
this is according to the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 2 of Tractate Bava Metzia,
halacha 5 -- but it is important to emphasize that one cannot learn general
permission from this, as the Maharshal wrote in Yam shel Sholomo, chapter 10 of
Bava Kama, section 20: "G-d desires a man's heart [aspiration to worship
Him], therefore [one may do it] if this is his intention [to sanctify G-d's
name], however if his intention is that he, and not the faith of Israel,
should be praised, or because he loves the Gentile and has mercy on him, it is
forbidden [to return the Gentile's lost item].")
G. The Error of a Gentile
The error of a
Gentile [i.e., property of which he deprived himself due to an error] is
permitted, similar to the case of his lost item. Thus it is
explained in Bava Kama 113b: "Shmuel said: and his error is permitted."
However, the Rishonim disagree about whether it speaks of a case where a
Gentile erred in his calculation on his own or if it is permitted to deceive
him. In the opinion of Rashi, there (s.v. v'ivla lei zuza) it
is permitted to deceive him, in accordance with Rashi's opinion which was
clarified above, that stealing from a Gentile is permitted. The Tosaphot
also wrote there, s.v. ya'chol, that it is permitted to deceive a
Gentile, however only if he cannot discover it and it won't cause a desecration
of G-d's name. This is also the opinion of the Tur in Choshen Mishpat,
paragraph 348, section 3: "However, his error -- that is, to deceive him
in calculations or to raise his loan -- is permitted, but only if it will not
become evident to him -- for in such a situation there is no desecration of
G-d's name."
But this is
not the opinion of Maimonides, who wrote in chapter 11 of The Laws of Robbery and
Lost Items, halacha 4: "The error of a Gentile is similar to his lost item
and is permitted -- that is, if he erred on his own, but to deceive him is
forbidden." Likewise he wrote in the beginning of chapter 18 of The Laws
of Transactions. This is also the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel (brought in
Shita Mikubetzet; in Aruch, entry plez, it is brought without
attribution) of the Rif, of the HaRaviyah (brought in the Mordechai,
paragraph 158, and in Or Zarua there on Bava Kama), of the Mordechai, and of
the Nimukei Yosef.
The Rama in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph
348, section 2, brought both opinions and did not determine in this
matter; however, the Maharshal ruled in Yam shel Shlomo (chapter 11 of
Bava Kama, paragraph 20) that it is forbidden to deceive a Gentile, and
this is the intent of the Gaon of Vilna there, subsection 13.
In any case,
the entire essence of this dispute is specifically concerning a Gentile,
for with regards to the error of a Jew, everything must be recompensed,
as it appears in a number of places, including Kiddushin 42b: "Rava said: anything
concerning [faulty] measurements, weights or calculations, even if they are of
minimal value, is also recompensed," and so wrote Maimonides in the
beginning of chapter 15 of The Laws of Transactions, and the Tur, and the
Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 232.
H. Abduction
It is written
in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13): "You shall not steal," and
also there (21:16): "Whoever steals
a man and sells him -- if he is found in his hand, he shall be put to death."
In Mechilta, Yitro section 8 it is explained: "'You shall not steal' --
why is this stated? Since it says 'And he that steals a man, and sells him' --
his punishment is stated, from where do we learn a warning? It is written: 'You
shall not steal,' this is a warning with concerning abduction." In
Deuteronomy 24:7 it says: "If a man is found stealing any of his
brethren of the children of Israel and maltreating or selling him, that
thief will die: and you shall eliminate evil from within you" -- so it is
clearly stated in the Torah that only for abduction of a Jew is one punished by
death.
In Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, paragraph 273: "Stealing any of
his brethren -- and not others" (that is, Gentiles -- commentary of
Rabbeinu Hillel). Thus we also learn in
the beginning of chapter 11 of Sanhedrin: "These are the ones who are [put
to death by] strangulation: one who hits his father and mother, and one who
abducts a Jew…" And this is the
wording of Maimonides in The Laws of Theft, chapter 9, halacha 1: "Anyone
who steals a Jewish person transgresses a negative commandment, as it says:
'You shall not steal.' And there in halacha 6: "No matter whether he
abducted [one born] a Jew or a convert or a manumitted slave, as it says: 'Any
of his brethren,' and these are considered our brothers in Torah and
commandments. However, one who steals a slave or a man who is
half-slave/half-free is exempt" -- in any case, we learn that one who
abducts a Gentile is exempt.
I. One Who
Injures His Fellow
It is written
in the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:2-3): "And it shall be, if the wicked man is
worthy to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down, and he shall be beaten
before him, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty lashes he shall
give him and not exceed, lest, if he exceeds and beats him with more lashes
than these, your brother shall be made vile before you."
In the
Mechilta, Mishpatim section 5 on the verse "And he that smites his father
or his mother shall surely be put to death," it is explained: "We
have heard the punishment, but a warning we have not heard. It is as written,
'Forty lashes he shall give him, and not exceed,' and the matter is an a
fortiori inference: if one who is commanded to beat is warned not to
[over]beat, one who is commanded not to beat is obviously warned not to
beat."
All this is
regarding a Jew, as Maimonides wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment
300 (in Rav Kapach's edition): "And from this negative commandment stems the
warning not to beat any Jew: if concerning this sinner we are warned not to
beat him, all the more so regarding any other man." Likewise, he wrote in
The Laws of Monetary Damages in the beginning of chapter 5: "It is
forbidden for one to injure himself or his fellow. And not only the one who
causes injury, but anyone who strikes a kosher Jewish person, whether a
minor or an adult, whether a man or a woman, in any manner like fighting,
transgresses a negative commandment, as it is written: 'He shall not exceed to
beat him'." See further in The Laws of the Rebellious, chapter 5, halacha
8, and in chapter 16 of The Laws of Sanhedrin, halacha 12. Thus it is also
written in Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 600 (in other editions, commandment
595).
Furthermore,
one who injures his fellow is obligated to recompense him, as we learn in the
beginning of chapter 8 of Bava Kama: "One who injures his fellow is
obligated in five categories: damage, pain, healing, rest, and
embarrassment." However, the obligation of compensation applies
specifically to one who hit a Jew, as Maimonides wrote there, halacha 3:
"One who hits his fellow a blow which does not have the value of a prutah
is given lashes, for there are no payments appropriate to enable the paying off
of this negative commandment. Even if he hits a slave of his fellow, giving him
a blow which does not have the value of a prutah, he is given lashes,
for he [the slave] is obligated in some commandments" -- but one who
hits a Gentile is not liable for any punishment.
In contrast, it
says in Sanhedrin 58b: "Rabbi Chanina said: a Gentile who hits a Jew is
punishable by death, as it says: 'And he looked this way and that, and when
he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian" (because [the
Egyptian] had hit a Jewish man -- Rashi, s.v. v'yach). Thus wrote
Maimonides at the end of halacha 3: "And a Gentile who hit a Jew is
punished by death, as it says, 'And he looked this way and that…he slew the
Egyptian'." (However, in The Laws of Kings, chapter 10, halacha 6 he
wrote: "And a Gentile who hits a Jew, even if he injured him slightly --
even though he is punishable by death, he is not killed." See there, in
the Kesef Mishneh and the Ridbaz, for an explanation of why he is not put to
death).
J. Fraud
It is written
in the Torah (Leviticus 25:14): "And if you sell anything to your
neighbor, or buy anything from your neighbor's hands, you shall not defraud one
another." In Sifra on the portion of Behar Sinai, section 3, halacha 4 it
is written: "'You shall not defraud one another' -- this is monetary
fraud." Maimonides wrote in The Laws of Transactions, in the beginning of
chapter 12: "It is forbidden for either the seller or purchaser to defraud
his fellow, as it says: 'And if you sell anything to your neighbor, you shall
not defraud one another.' Even though
one [who does that] transgresses a negative commandment, he is not given
lashes, for it can be recompensed. Whether he defrauded with intent or he did
not know that the transaction was fraudulent, he is obligated to
recompense."
However,
regarding a Gentile the law is different. In Tractate Bechorot 13b it is
explained: "They said: to your partner you return [something gained by]
fraud, and you don't return it to a Gentile." Maimonides wrote in
chapter 13, halacha 7: "A Gentile has not [been included in the
transgression of] fraud as it says: 'one another' [literally, 'each his brother'].
But a Gentile who defrauded a Jew must recompense him according to our laws --
it should not be more severe than it is with a Jew." Thus also wrote the
Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 227 (in the Tur,
section 30 and in the Shulchan Aruch section 26). In this matter also the
inequality of a Gentile is obvious.
K.
Appointing a King and Other Authorities
It is written
in the Torah (Deuteronomy 17:15): "Then you shall appoint a king over you,
whom the Lord your G-d will choose: one from among your brethren shall you set
as king over you, but you shall not set over you a stranger who is not your
brother." In Sifri, Shoftim, paragraph 157 it says: "Your brother,
and not from others" (that is to say, Gentiles, for a Gentile king may
not be appointed over Jews -- Rabbeinu Hillel). And not just a Gentile, but
also a righteous convert, considered a Jew in every matter, is disqualified for
kingship, as is explained in Midrash HaGadol: "'You shall not set over you
a stranger ' -- to exclude the convert… from here they said it is
forbidden to appoint a king from the converts, even after a number of
generations, until his mother is [one born] Jewish."
This is
also the law concerning any position of
authority, as explained in Kiddushin 76b: "We have learned: 'Then you
shall appoint a
king over you from among your brethren,' all appointments of authority that you
make should not be[made]
except from among your brethren." Thus wrote Maimonides in chapter 1 of
The Laws of Kings, halacha 4: "We do not appoint a king from amongst the
converts, even after several generations, until his mother is [one born]
Jewish, as it is written, 'You will not set over you a stranger who is not your
brother.' Not only for kingship, but also for any position of authority in
Israel, neither a general nor chief over fifty people, nor chief over ten
people, nor even a person appointed to verify that the water is distributed to
the fields. It is superfluous to talk about a judge or a nasi, who may
not be other than [one born] a Jew, as is written, 'one from among your
brethren shall you set as king over you'--all the people whom you give
positions of authority shall not be from other than your brethren."
However,
regarding the possibility of appointing a convert to judge over Jews, the
Rishonim are in disagreement. In the opinion of Rashi on Tractate Yevamot 102a,
s.v. ger dan et chaveiro, a convert is allowed to judge a Jew on
property matters, but not concerning capital laws (see also on Kiddushin 76b,
s.v. kol mesimot.) However, in the opinion of the Rif at the end of
chapter 4 of Sanhedrin, the Tosaphot on Yevamot 45b s.v. keivan and in
Sanhedrin 36b s.v. chada, the Nimukei Yosef at the beginning of chapter
12 of Yevamot, the Ran on the Rif, end of chapter 4 of Sanhedrin, and the Meiri
on Kiddushin there, a convert cannot judge a Jew, even on property matters,
until his mother is [one born] Jewish. Thus Maimonides also ruled in The Laws
of Sanhedrin, chapter 2 halacha 9: "A Beit Din of three [judges], one
of them being a convert, is disqualified until his mother is [one born]
Jewish." Nevertheless, a convert may judge his fellow convert, as it
is explained in Yevamot 102 and as Maimonides wrote in chapter 11, halacha 11.
Also the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 7, wrote
similarly.
It is
appropriate to mention the words of the Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 509 (in
other editions 498) on this subject: "The root of this commandment is well
known… one appointed to authority… must be, at the very least, from the seed of
Israel, for they are merciful [people] the sons of merciful [people], in order
that they have mercy on the nation and not oppress them in any matter. He must
love truth, righteousness, and integrity; as is known, anyone from the family
of Abraham possess all these good qualities…"
It must be
emphasized that this is an example of the distinction between one who comes
from the seed of Israel and a righteous Gentile who converts to Judaism.
Even though there may not be many such examples, this is not an exceptional
case, as will be further clarified.
L.
Defamation
It is written
in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:19-21) regarding defamation of one's wife:
"And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the
father of the girl, because he has defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall
remain his wife; he may not divorce her all his life." In Sifri on the
portion of Ki Teze, section 238 it is written:
"'And give them to the father of the girl' -- with the exception
of a female convert whose
mother became pregnant before she converted, but gave birth after she
converted, for [defaming] her daughter one does not pay a hundred shekels of
silver."
Thus we learn
in Ketubot, chapter 4, mishnah 3: "A woman who converted with her daughter
and [the daughter, while engaged] had illicit sexual relations -- she is put to
death by strangulation [and not by stoning, for stoning is only in the case of
a woman born Jewish]. She need not be taken out of her father's door [as is the
law for an engaged woman born Jewish] and [her husband does not have to pay a
fine] of one hundred shekels [if he defamed her, for this is only the law
concerning a woman born Jewish]. If the mother became pregnant before she
converted and gave birth after her conversion, she [the engaged daughter who
had illicit sexual relations] is put to death by stoning, but [the law
concerning] her father's door does not apply to her, nor [the law concerning]
one hundred shekels. If the mother both became pregnant and gave birth after
her conversion, her daughter is considered a born Jew in all matters."
Thus Maimonides also wrote in The Laws of a Virgin Girl, chapter 3, halacha 8:
"For any woman whose rape or seduction does not carry a fine, one who
defames her is exempt from lashes and payments. So it is regarding a Gentile
woman who converted and a maidservant who was manumitted under the age of three
years; even if she was conceived before her mother converted and was born after
she converted, one who defames her is exempt from lashes, as it says: 'Because
he has defamed a virgin of Israel' -- [this does not apply] until her
conception and birth are in holiness."
M. You Shall
Not Hate
It is written
in the Torah (Leviticus 19:17): "You shall not hate your brother in
your heart. You shall certainly rebuke your neighbor, and not suffer sin on his
account" -- so it is clearly stated in the Torah that this prohibition
specifically regards Jews. And so Maimonides wrote in The Laws of Mental
States, chapter 6, halacha 6 (in the printed edition, halacha 5): "Anyone
who hates a Jew in his heart transgresses a negative commandment, as it
says: 'You shall not hate your brother in your heart'." Thus he also wrote
in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 302, and likewise it appears in Sefer
HaChinuch, commandment 245 (in other editions 238).
N. You Shall
not Avenge or Bear a Grudge -- And You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself
It is written
in the Torah (Leviticus 19:18): "You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge
against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as
yourself: I am the Lord" -- here also the verse yells out "the
children of your people." In Torat Cohanim on the portion of Kedoshim,
chapter 4, halacha 12: "You shall not avenge nor bear a grudge against the
children of your people -- but you can avenge and bear a grudge
against others" (that is, against Gentiles -- explanation of the
Ra'avad). In the words of Maimonides in The Laws of Mental States, chapter 7,
halacha 10 (in the printed edition, halacha 7): "One who avenges against
his fellow transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not
avenge'." And there in halacha 11 (in the printed edition, the
continuation of halacha 7): "What is considered vengeance? If one's fellow
said to him 'lend me your ax' and he answered 'I will not lend it to you.' The
next day he needed to borrow an ax from his friend. He said to him 'lend me
your ax' and the other answered, 'I will not lend it to you, as you did not
lend it to me when I requested.' This is vengeance." And there, halacha 12
(in the printed edition, halacha 8): "Also, anyone who bears a grudge
against a Jew transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall
not bear a grudge against the children of your people.' How is this? Reuven
said to Shimon 'rent me this house' or 'lend me this ox' and Shimon refused.
Later, Shimon needed to borrow or to rent and Reuven said: 'See? I will lend it
to you, for I am not like you and I will not pay you back for your actions.'
One who does so transgresses the commandment 'You shall not bear a
grudge'…"
With regards to
the second half of the verse, Maimonides wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot positive
commandment 206 (according to Rav Kapach's edition): "We were commanded to
love one another…and my compassion and love to my brother in faith and religion
shall be as my love and compassion to myself…" In chapter 6 of The Laws of
Mental States, halacha 4 (in the printed edition, halacha 3): "It is a
commandment for every person to love each and every Jew as he loves
himself, as it says: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'."
O. One Who Sees Jewish Houses/Jewish
Graveyards -- Gentile Houses/Gentile Graveyards
In Berachot 58b
this beraitha appears: "The rabbis learned: one who sees inhabited Jewish
houses says: 'Blessed is He who establishes the border of the widow,' [if he
sees them] in their destruction he says: 'Blessed is the true judge.' On
Gentile inhabited houses he says 'The Lord will pluck up the house of
the proud, but He will establish the border of the widow,' in their
destruction --he says, 'O Lord G-d of
vengeance; O G-d of vengeance, appear!'" Furthermore there: "The
rabbis taught: one who sees Jewish cemeteries says: 'Blessed be He who created
you in judgement, and maintained you in judgement, and gathered you in
judgement and in the future will raise you up in judgement.' The son of Ravina
concluded in the name of Rav Nachman the son of Isaac: 'and knows all of your
numbers, and in the future He will give you life and establish you in
judgement; blessed is the reviver of the dead.' On cemeteries of the
Gentiles he says: 'Your mother shall be greatly ashamed; she that bore
you shall be disgraced: behold the end of the nations is a wilderness, dry land,
and desert'." The exact
words of the Talmud appear in Maimonides, chapter 10 of The Laws of Blessings,
halacha 11 (in printed editions, halacha 10) and in halacha 22 (in printed
editions, halacha 19), and also in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, end
of paragraph 224.
P. 'You
[Jews] Are Called Man' -- The Comparison of Gentiles to Animals
In Ezekiel
23:20 it says: "There she lusted upon her paramours, whose members were
like those of asses, and whose issue was like that of horses" ('whose members
were like those of asses' -- their sexual organs, 'and whose issue was like
that of horses' -- means excessive sexual relations, for horses engage in
copulation more that any other male animals, 'whose issue' -- spouting of semen
like a stream of passing water -- Rashi). This verse is a parable to the
Gentiles, as is explained there, and the verse compares them to animals.
This comparison is not by chance, as we will see further on, and it represents
the foundation for a number of Halachic laws.
Q. An Ox who Damages a Maidservant
It is written
in the Torah (Exodus 21:22): "If men fight and hurt a woman with child so
that her fetus departs from her, and yet no further harm ensue, he shall surely
be punished, as the woman's husband will lay upon him, and he shall pay as the
judges determine." In Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and in the
Midrash HaGadol it is stated: "'If men fight -- from here I only have
[learned concerning] men, from where do I know that this includes two women or
a woman and a man? It is stated: '…shall surely be punished' -- whether a man
or a woman. What is taught by 'men'? -- men and not oxen. From here they said:
if one's ox injures a woman, [the owner] is exempt from payments for her
offspring." And in the Mishnah (Bava Kama, chapter 5, mishnah 5): "An
ox which attempted to injure his fellow [ox] and [instead] hit a [pregnant]
woman and she aborted her child -- [the owner of the ox is] exempt from payment
for her offspring." And there in the Talmud (49a): "Rav Papa said: an
ox who injured a pregnant maidservant and she had a miscarriage -- [the owner
of the ox] must pay her for her offspring. What is the reason? For he [the
ox] has merely injured a pregnant she-ass, as the Scripture says: 'Stay
here with the ass,' -- the people who are like asses." And in the
words of Maimonides in chapter 1 of The Laws of Monetary Damage, halacha 4:
"[Ones' ox] that injured a pregnant maidservant and she miscarried -- [the
owner of the ox] must pay for her offspring charges, for this is similar to
injuring a pregnant she-ass." Likewise it appears in the Tur and Shulchan
Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 405, section 3. (This exegesis, "A
people who are like asses," appears in a number of places in the Talmud;
only this example has been presented in order not to prolong the discussion).
R. The
Impurity of a Gentile
Concerning the matter of impurity caused by a dead person, it is written
(Numbers19:14): "This is the law: when a man dies in a tent, all that
comes into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven
days." In Yevamot 61a, and also in Tractate Bava Metzia 114b, this
beraitha appears: "Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: Gentile cemeteries do not
defile as it says, 'But you My flock, the flock of My pasture, are men.' You
are called men, but the nations of the world [Gentiles] are not called men"
('do not defile' -- that which overshadows them -- Rashi in Yevamot). This is
the wording of Maimonides, chapter 1 of The Laws of The Impurity of the Dead,
halacha 13: "And a Gentile does not defile [objects within] a tent. This law
is received from tradition. Behold, it says concerning the wars with Midian:
'And whoever has touched any slain' -- and it does not mention there a tent.
Also, a Gentile cannot become impurified by the dead. If a Gentile touched,
carried, or overshadowed a dead body, he is considered as one who had not come
in contact with it. Behold, to what is this similar? -- To an animal who
touched or overshadowed a dead body. Not only the impurity of the dead
alone, but all impurities -- Gentiles and animals are not defiled by
them." (The source for this law, that a Gentile does not become
impurified, is in Tractate Nazir 61b and in Tosephta on Ohalot, chapter 1,
halacha 4 [in the Vilna edition, halacha 2]: "A Gentile, an animal, a
child born after eight months of gestation, clay vessels, food and liquids
which came in contact with a dead body -- utensils that touched them are
pure.") So agreed Nachmanides and the Rashba in their novellae on Yevamot,
as did the Yere'im in paragraph 322, and the Raviyah in Hilchot Azharot
HaCohanim M'tum'atan page 249 (explained also in Haga'ot Mimoniot Hilchot Evel, chapter 3 halacha 3
section 2, see there, where he states that this is also the opinion of Ritzba),
and the Eshkol, end of Hilchot Tumat Cohanim. This is also the opinion of the
Gaon of Vilna in Aderet Eliyahu on Chukat 19:18, and also of the Meiri in
Yevamot and Bava Metzia there. However, Rabbeinu Tam determined that the
Halacha does not follow Rabbi Shimon's opinion regarding the impurity of the
tent as the Tosaphot has written on Yevamot there, s.v. m'maga, and in
Bava Metzia there (page a), s.v. mahoo, and so the Rosh wrote in Bava
Metzia, and the SM'G in negative commandment 235 -- but for our purposes this
does not matter, for even according to the opinion of those who disagree, this
foundation is a general one and determines the Halacha in other cases, as will
be clarified further on.
S. Gentiles and the Anointing Oil
It is written in the Torah (Exodus 30:22) with regards to the
prohibition of pouring the anointing oil: "Upon man's flesh shall it not
be poured, neither shall you make any other like it…or he who puts any of it
upon a stranger shall be cut off from his people." In the Midrash HaGadol
it is stated: "One who pours it on himself or on others is guilty. Is it
possible that even if he poured it on an animal and utensils, and
upon Gentiles who are like animals, or poured it on the dead, he is guilty?
It is written: 'upon man's flesh it shall not be poured,' this excludes
those whom I cannot call men." In Kritot 6b it is written: "The
rabbis taught: one who pours the anointing oil on an animal or utensils is
exempt, on Gentiles and the dead, exempt. It is all right about animals and
utensils, as it is written: 'Upon man's flesh shall it not be poured'; animals
and utensils are not men. [One who pours on the] dead is also exempt, for once
one has died, he is called 'dead' and not 'man.' However, [one who pours on]
Gentiles, why is he exempt? Aren't they men? It is true, as it is written: 'But
you My flock, the flock of My pasture, are men' -- you are called 'men' and the
nations of the world [Gentiles] are not called 'men'." In the
words of Maimonides in The Laws of Holy Temple Utensils and Their Users chapter
1 halacha 6: "One who pours on utensils or on animals and Gentiles who
are similar to them, or pours it on the dead, is exempt, as it says: 'upon
man's flesh shall it not be poured'." We have not found anyone who
disputes this halacha.
T. Animal Slaughter by a Gentile
Another example: we learn in the beginning of Mishnah Chulin: "An
animal slaughtered animal by a Gentile is considered a carcass and defiles one
who carries it." (even if it was slaughtered according to the Halacha and
others observe him, Rashi, Chulin 13a, s.v. shchitat nocri). In the
Tosephta there: "All are acceptable to slaughter, even a Samaritan, even
an uncircumcised person, and even a man forcefully converted from Judaism. An
animal slaughtered by a heretic is like an idol, an animal slaughtered by a
Gentile is unfit, and an animal slaughtered by a monkey is
unfit, as it says: 'And you shall slaughter and eat' -- not the
slaughter of a Gentile, not the slaughter of a monkey, and not an animal that
was slaughtered by accident." So the slaughter of a Gentile is not kosher
because the Halacha considers him similar to an animal, and so it is explained
in the words of Tosaphot, Chulin 3b s.v. k'savar: "…and their
slaughter is disqualified as is that of the Gentiles from 'And you shall
slaughter' -- what you slaughter you may eat. And it is you who is permitted to
slaughter -- to exclude a Gentile…" Likewise wrote the Rosh in the
beginning of Chulin.
However, in chapter 2 of The Laws of Other Principal Categories of
Impurity, halacha 10, Maimonides brought a different reason for this law:
"A Gentile's slaughter is considered a carcass… it seems to me that even
this is from the
words of the Sages, for the impurity of idol worship and the impurity of its
offerings is Rabbinic, as will be explained. And because of idol worship, the
Gentiles were distanced and their slaughter was forbidden." But the
Ra'avad criticized him and wrote: "Abraham says: this is one of his
opinions, and there is none inferior to it, for the Gentiles are like
animals, they don't become impure and cannot defile, 'a people who are like
asses,' 'behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket,'
and the wind will blow them all away, and one who thinks of them as something
[worthwhile] will gather the wind in his fist." (See
further the words of Maimonides in
chapter 4 of The Laws of Slaughtering halachot 11-12).
The matters are, therefore, very clear: in the Tosephta it is plainly
stated that an animal slaughtered by a Gentile is unfit for there is no
difference between what he has slaughtered and what a monkey has slaughtered,
and thus wrote the Rosh and the Ra'avad. Even though Maimonides wrote a
different reason for this halacha, we have already clarified similar matters
from the words of Maimonides in other halachot, like his reasoning concerning
the abovementioned case of pouring oil of anointing. From here we see there is
no discrepancy regarding the status of a Gentile in Halacha, just a difference
in reasoning for this specific law.
U. Whose Members Are Like Those of Asses
Similarly, we have found in Berachot 25b: "Rav Yehuda said: it is
forbidden to recite the Shema in front of a naked Gentile.
But why mention a Gentile? Even in front of a naked Jew it is forbidden. [And
it answers]: it is necessary to speak of 'a naked Gentile,' for one might
have thought that since it is written 'Whose members are like those of
asses' a Gentile is like an ass. So this statement comes to tell us that
'nakedness' is mentioned in relation to the Gentiles: "'And they saw not
their father's nakedness'." And these
are the words of Maimonides in chapter 3 of The Laws of Reciting the Shema,
halacha 16: "As it is forbidden to read in front of feces and urine until
one distances himself from them, so is it forbidden to read in front of
nakedness until he turns aside. Even a Gentile or a minor -- it is forbidden to
read in front of them while they are naked." So wrote the Tur and Shulchan
Aruch in Orach Chaim, paragraph 74, section 4. These words speak for
themselves.
And in Berachot 58a it is stated: "Rav Shila saw a Jew who had
sexual relations with a Gentile woman, and he
gave him lashes. The Jew went to inform to the king. He said to them: 'There is
one Jew who judges without the permission of the king.' The king sent for him
and they said: 'Why did you act in such a manner?' Rav Shila answered: 'He had
relations with a she-ass.' They asked: 'Do you have a witness?' He answered:
'Yes!' Elijah appeared as a human being and testified. They said: 'If so, his
punishment is death.' Rav Shila said: 'From the day we [Jews] were expelled
from our land we don't have permission to enact the death penalty. You,
however, whatever you wish to do with him, do.' As they were consulting on the
matter, Rav Shila said: 'Yours, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and
the glory, and the victory, and the majesty.' They asked him: 'What did you
say?' He answered: 'This is what I said: blessed is the Merciful One who places
kingdoms on earth similar to the kingdom of heaven, and has given you governing
powers and mercy in your rulings [that you love justice -- Rashi]. They said to
him: 'Since you think so highly of us, we will allow you the permission to
judge.' [They gave him a stick to give lashes -- Rashi.] When he was about to
leave, that Jew asked him: 'Does G-d perform miracles for liars?' Rav Shila
answered: "Wicked one! Didn't I tell the truth? Aren't they called
asses? As it is written: 'whose members are like those of asses'."
And the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot chapter 3 halacha 4, states: "It
happened once that a man attempted to have sexual relations with the
maid-servant of Rabbi [a Gentile maidservant -- Toldot Yitzhak]. She said to
him: "if my mistress does not immerse [in the mikveh], I do not
immerse" [for I go together with my mistress to immerse, and she has not
yet gone and therefore I am a niddah -- ibid.]. He said to her: aren't
you similar to an animal? ['a nation who are like asses' -- why must you
immerse -- ibid.] She said to him: haven't you heard that one who has
relations with an animal is stoned to death? As it says: 'Anyone who lies with
an animal shall surely be put to death'."
Summary
What arises from all the aforementioned is that in the words of the
Prophets, and also in the words of our Sages OBM, the Gentiles are thought of
as animals. Even so, it clearly does not mean that they are actually treated as
animals, and there are distinctions between Gentiles and animals, for we have
already seen that the Halacha deems stealing from a Gentile to be forbidden by
the Torah's law, while it is clear that stealing from a beast is not considered
stealing. Likewise the Mechilta says that judgement of one who intentionally
kills a Gentile is given to Heaven and, of course, this is not the case
regarding an animal. Also, the Gentiles were commanded to fulfill the Seven
Commandments of the sons of Noah -- in contrast, of course, to animals.
Nevertheless, we have seen that the status of the Gentiles in Halacha is
similar to that of animals in many respects, and generally speaking, there is
no real distinctions made between them (further on we will expand slightly this
on deep concept).
2. Between the Jews and the
Gentiles -- In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought
Until now we have dealt with differing Halachic sources, scattered
throughout the Written and Oral Torah, which ridicule the aforementioned words
of Professor Shaki: "For all human beings are born equal according to the
viewpoint of Judaism…the equality of man… is primary and one of the foremost
foundations of the Torah of Israel…"(!) (It must be emphasized that in the
aforementioned list, not all of the halachot that make clear distinctions
between the Jews and Gentiles were mentioned. There are dozens, if not more, of
Halachic laws of this kind.) We will now deal with the spiritual aspect of the
subject -- but first, a brief introduction.
It is well known to all that the essence of the Torah is its inner
aspect. This
inner aspect is found in all parts of the Torah that are not Halachic: in the
Aggadah, in Jewish thought, and in the Kabbalah. The Halacha represents the
practical expression of this inner aspect, bringing it to action, but
behind these Halachic laws stands a spiritual world whose result are these laws
themselves. There is not one commandment from the Torah that stands on its own,
without foundation or background in the spiritual level. In this section of the
essay we will attempt to point out the inner/essential background of the
Halachic laws we have previously dealt with.
Below is an anthology of writings by great Jewish scholars, Rishonim,
and Achronim which deal with and expand upon the difference between the Jews
and the rest of the nations. Here too, we will concentrate only on the
distinction the Torah makes between a Jew and a Gentile, and we will not
deal with everything mentioned on this matter in these parts of the Torah.
'You Are Called Men' -- The Image of G-d in Man
A. The Ra'avad
We have already mentioned the words of the Ra'avad with regards to an
animal slaughtered by a Gentile: "for the Gentiles are like animals…and
one who thinks of them as something [worthwhile] will gather the wind in his
fist." It is clear that this is not a simple Halachic argument merely
explaining why he disagrees with Maimonides on matters of Halacha, but rather
the expression of an entire outlook concerning the Gentiles. As far as an
explanation is concerned, his words speak for themselves.
B. Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi
In the first part of his book The Kuzari, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi explains
at length the nation of Israel's exceptional nature and the difference between
them and the other nations. To the Kuzari king’s question (paragraph 102):
"Why was the Torah not given to all mankind? Would it not have been better
or more commensurate with Divine wisdom?" the Rabbi answers (paragraph
103): "Would it not have been best if all the animals could speak? You
have apparently forgotten what I said earlier concerning the genealogy of
Adam's progeny: that at first the spirit of Divine prophecy rested on one
person, who was chosen from his brethren, and inherited the merit of his
father. It was he in whom the Divine light was concentrated. He was the kernel,
while the others were as shells which had no share in that light. Thus it was until
the sons of Jacob came, who all were the meritorious kernel, distinguished
from all the other people by G-dly qualities, which made them, so to speak,
an different genus --an angelic one. Each of them, Divine endeavored to
attain the degree of prophecy, most of them succeeded in so doing; even those who were not successful were close to
that degree in their pious acts, sanctity, purity, and interaction with the
prophets."
So we see that the Jews, because of their special spiritual level, are
considered to be a genus different from all the other people.
C. The Maharal
The Maharal of Prague OBM, explains the saying of Rabbi Shimon bar
Yochai, "You are called men" in a number of places. In the book
Gevurot HaShem chapter 44 (page 167) he wrote: "…for even if all human
beings have a common shape, there still is a distinction…there are nations who
have more of a tendency towards the physical and their actions testify to this,
for they are inclined towards lust and abominable things. This is evidence of
their materialistic nature…and as we find animals, which are like an
intermediary between man and the rest of the animal world, such as the
monkey…likewise there exist men--who are not completely men. Therefore he
[Rashbi] spoke of, the complete man who doesn't gravitate towards
materialism too much -- these are the Jews, for they posses the
complete form without a tendency towards materialism. However, as for the other
nations, their form is nullified by their material aspect, until they, so to
speak, cease to be 'men,' because their material aspect is primary and their
form is secondary -- and in everything which has both a primary and a secondary
aspect, the secondaryaspect is always nullified by the primary aspect. With the
Jews, however, the opposite is true, for their form is primary and their
material aspect is secondary, and is therefore nullified."
In chapter 67 (ibid., page 311-312) he wrote: "For even
thought all human beings were created in the image of G-d, said it is written:
'You are called men and the nations of the world are not called men,' for the
G-dly form that was placed in man should not be nullified. In the Gentiles, who
are extremely materialistic, this form is nullified by the materialistic aspect
until the form itself becomes materialistic. Concerning the Jews, however, the
material aspect is nullified compared to the form, and since the material
aspect is nullified by the form, they are considered men."
Regarding what is written in Avot, chapter 3, mishnah 17 (in the Vilna
edition, mishnah 14), "He used to say, 'beloved is man for he is created
in [G-d's] image,' a greater love spreads upon him because he was created
in [G-d's] image, as it is written: 'For with G-d's image He made man;' beloved
are Israel, for they are called G-d's children. A greater love spreads upon
them, for they are called G-d's children, as is written, 'You are the children
of the Lord, your G-d'." The Maharal wrote in his commentary on Avot,
"Derech Chaim," (Hanig edition, page 146; in R' Chaim Pardes's
edition, page 354): "Even though it says 'Beloved is man,' this does
not include all human beings, for Chazal said: 'You are called men and
the nations are not called men' -- as though the completeness of the
Creation, which is given to man in particular, is given to the Jews and not to
the other nations…And even though this advantage is only possessed by Israel,
he said on this matter 'beloved is man' and not 'beloved are Israel,' because
there is a great difference [between the two]. Even though this advantage is
also possessed by Israel in particular, nevertheless, there does exist the form
of man in the nations also. However, the principal form of man does not
appear in the nations. In any case, this image does exist amongst the rest of
the nations, but it is worthless, and therefore he did not say 'beloved are
Israel who were created in G-d's image.' Additionally, when man was created,
this advantage was only possessed by Adam and Noah, even though they are not
called 'Israel.' Though after G-d chose Israel this Image was lessened amongst
the nations, nevertheless His image belongs to man in essence, and this matter
is clear" (see also "Netzach Yisrael," page 73).
In "Netzach Yisrael" chapter 14 (page 83) it is written:
"…Israel is special and separate from all the Gentiles, for the Gentiles
are on a materialistic level, whereas Israel is on the 'form' level…as Chazal
said: 'You are called men and the nations are not called men,' as
though it were an ordinary thing for them, that the comparison between Israel
and the Gentiles is similar to the comparison between man and animals who
cannot speak, and this is because man is distinct from animals in that he
is not materialistic and physical like the rest of the animal world; man is
intelligent. This is the level of Israel, for they are distinguished from the
material and are not immersed in it. Likewise with regards to Israel, the
material is nullified compared to the soul; the material aspect is merely a
transporter with the soul riding upon it, and the material is nullified, just
like an ass is nullified and secondary with regards to one who rides on it. So
is the matter with Israel, when they fulfil the will of G-d they alone are
considered a transcendent form. However, in regards to the nations it is the
exact opposite, as though their soul is nullified compared to the body,
and as though they are only body and material."
In "Tif'eret Yisrael," at the end of the first chapter, the
Maharal wrote: "…what Chazal said: 'You are called men and the nations are
not called men'…for the special difference between man and the animals is that
man possess a Heavenly soul. Behold, those who possess this Heavenly soul are
prepared for Heavenly matters such as prophecy and the Divine spirit, and this
matter can only be found in the nation that G-d has chosen. Therefore they in
particular are called 'man,' in completeness, in that they possess everything
worthy of being called 'man'… Therefore, 'you are called men.' Subsequently,
the commandments as Heavenly actions, are particularly related to Israel in
their entirety…"
Also in "Gur Aryeh" on the portion of Matot (page 164 s.v. v'ein
ha'goyim) it is written: "…and this is what they said 'You are called
men and the nations are not called men,' for the difference that exists
between the animal world and man exists within you exceedingly, but the
nations are not 'men,' for their souls are immersed in the material, associated
with the materialistic animal world, and this matter is clear."
D. The Ramchal
In the book "Derech Hashem," part 2, section 4, the Ramchal
explained at length the difference between Israel and the nations of the world:
One of the deepest concepts of G-d's
providence involves Israel and the other nations. With regards to their
basic human characteristics, the two appear exactly alike. From the Torah's
viewpoint, however, the two are completely different, and are treated as ones
belonging to completely different genera…
Before Adam sinned, he was on a level
much higher than contemporary man…
In that state, man was on a very lofty level, fit for a high degree of eternal
excellence…He would have then sired future generations while still in that
state of excellence. Their number would be accurately determined by G-d's
wisdom, depending on how those enjoying His good should best be perfected...
G-d had also determined and decreed
that all these generations that would have been born of Adam should exist on
various pre-determined levels. Some generations would thus be primary, while
others would be secondary, like roots and branches. Later generations would
stem from the earlier ones [and share their characteristics], like branches
stemming from a tree…
However, when Adam sinned, he fell from
his original high level, and brought upon himself a great degree of darkness
and insensitivity…. Mankind
in general also fell from its original height, and remained on a degraded
level…He was thus only prepared and receptive to a much lower level, and it was
in this state that his children were born…they were all born into this degraded
state…
Nevertheless, even in the time of his
downfall, the elevated aspect that existed in man as a result of his true root
was not completely extinguished. Adam was therefore not cast aside completely,
and could still return to the higher level. But he was actually on a lower
plane with only the potential for the higher level.
Behold, G-d gave Adam's descendants the
choice, at that time, to strengthen themselves and strive to elevate themselves
from this lower state and regain the higher level. The Highest Wisdom, however,
determined the length of time best suited for such an effort…
The Highest Wisdom deemed it fitting
that this effort be divided into a period for the roots and another for the
branches. The original effort would thus be that of the founding generations,
while what would come later would involve the following generations. The
whole human race still needed its state to be properly determined and the spiritual damage that had been done
to be rectified gradually. The proper procedure…the roots and chiefs of Adam's
descendants would first elevate themselves to the rectified level -- once this
had been accomplished, both the roots and their branches would remain in this
state forever, since the branches always follow the roots.
The time provided for generations to
function as roots, however, was limited, so one…who prepared himself properly
would permanently become a good and worthy root. He would then be prepared for
a high degree of excellence, appropriate for man in his original state… He would also attain the opportunity to produce offspring…on the level and state already
attained by him as their root.
The period during which this was
possible extended from the time of Adam until the generation of the Tower of
Babel. During this period there never ceased to be some righteous people who
preached the truth to the multitudes, such as Enoch, Methuselah, Shem and
Eber…Man's measure was filled, however, in the generation of the Tower of
Babel. G-d's attribute of justice then decreed that the time when men could be
considered roots should come to a close. Until this time, things could become a
permanent part of these roots, depending on…until this period came to a close.
G-d then scrutinized all mankind, perceiving the levels that should be
made permanent in that generation's people according to their deeds. These
things then became a permanent part of their nature in their aspect as roots…It
was thus determined that they should bear future generations, all possessing
the qualities that were deemed appropriate for their root [ancestor]. So all human beings were thus divided into permanent genera, each with its own characteristics and
limitations, just as all other genera in Creation…
According to the Highest Judgment, it
turned out that none of them deserved to rise above the degraded level…not even a little bit. But
Abraham, being the only
exception, succeeded
in elevating himself through his deeds, which led to him being chosen by G-d. Abraham was therefore permanently made
into a superior and excellent tree, conforming to man's highest level. It was
further provided that he would be able to produce branches [and father a
nation] based on his characteristics. The world was then divided into seventy
nations, each on its own particular level in the general scheme. All of
them, however, remained on the level of man in his fallen state, while only
Israel became men in the elevated state.
After this, the gate was closed on the
era of roots. Things would then be directed and brought about on the level of
branches, each one according to his nature…. When this period ended, things
were judged and made permanent, and a new era began. This is the era of
branches, which is still ongoing…
The verdict, however, was not that the
other nations should be destroyed. It only meant that they would have to remain
on the lower level that we have discussed. This lower state of man should
never have existed, had Adam not sinned… These nations still have the
human aspect, blemished though it may be, so G-d desired that they should
at least have a part of what was actually appropriate for the true mankind. He
therefore granted them a divine soul somewhat like that of the Jew, even though
it is not on the same level as Jewish souls are, but on a much lower level.
They were likewise given commandments through which they could attain both
material and spiritual advantages appropriate to their nature -- the Seven
Commandments given to the children of Noah.
In the World to Come, however, there
will be no nation other than Israel. The souls of righteous Gentiles will be allowed
to exist in the Future World, but only as an addition and attachment to Israel.
They will therefore be secondary to the Jews, just as a garment is secondary to
the one who wears it. All that they attain of the ultimate good will have to be
attained in this manner, since by virtue of their nature they can receive no
more.
Jews, therefore, are the "true humanity," whereas the Gentiles
are only "on a low level of humanity"; Jews "are true humanity
from its authentic roots," whereas the other nations are "all on the
level of Man in his fallen state" -- and therefore "are treated as
ones belonging to completely different genera."
One who reads the words of the Ramchal will notice how precisely he
chose them and how accurately they represent the words of Rabbi Shimon bar
Yochai, "You are called men."
E. Rabbi Abraham Issac HaCohen Kook
In the book "Orot," Orot Yisrael chapter 5, article 10 (page
156), Rabbi Kook wrote: "The difference between the Jewish soul, in
all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and
the soul of all the Gentiles, on all of their levels, is greater and
deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an
animal, for the difference in the latter case is one of quantity, while the
difference in the first case is one of essential quality."
F. Rabbi Charlap
In the book "Mei Marom" on Tractate Avot, Rabbi Charlap wrote
on the aforementioned mishnah (page 174): "And it is well known that the
argument of the nations is that they will say, 'Come, let us go to the mountain
of the Lord, to the house of the G-d of Jacob; He will teach us of His ways,
and we will walk in His paths' (Isaiah 2)…from this aspect they also possess
the level of 'man' -- however, this aspect is not theirs. It is only latent and
concealed within them through by virtue of the Jews, and this virtue is called
'man.' This is what is meant by 'beloved is man who was created in [G-d's]
image.' However, a greater love spreads upon Israel, for upon them appears
the light of G-d's image in all its holy shining…Therefore only Israel
cling to the Living G-d, 'And you who cling to the Lord your G-d are all living
today' -- you, the Jews, and not the nations of the world…"
G. Rabbi Tzadok HaCohen of Lublin
In the book "Poked Akarim" page 19, column 3, he wrote:
"Concerning what is explained in Yevamot, 'You are called men,' and not
the other nations, [the meaning is] that the Gentiles were deprived of the
title 'men' only where Israel were called 'men,' because in comparison to Israel,
who are the primary form of man in the Divine Chariot, it is irrelevant to call
any of the Gentiles 'men'; at most, they are like animals in the form of men.
Taken as themselves, however, all the children of Noah are considered men…and
when the Messiah comes…they too will recognize and admit that there are none
called 'man' except Israel…anyway, in comparison to Israel even now they are in
the category of animals…"
In "Pri Tzadik" part 1, page 30, column 3, he wrote:
"…before the Giving of the Torah, the souls of the nations and of Israel
were all at one level, for good and evil and the filth of the snake were all
combined. When Israel received the Torah and were chosen to be a special
nation, the filth ceased to exist in them and consequently, the roots of
their souls were separated [from those of the Gentiles]…And all the good
was rooted and set aside for the souls of Israel, and all the evil found root
in the souls of the other nations, for they all are part of the evil and Satan's camp…"
He wrote similarly in "Pri
Tzadik," part 5, page 76, column 2: "…for the nations, whose inner
essence lacks any root of holiness, can easily be caused to falter…which is
not the case concerning the holiness of Israel, who in their inner roots are
clinging to G-d…"
In "Takanat HaShavin," page 31, column 1 he wrote: "… for
the source of the souls of Israel is from a different chamber than the souls of
the other nations…and this soul has no connection whatsoever with the soul of
the nations. Therefore, even if one converted to idolatry he is still
considered a Jew with regards to the laws of marriage and divorce…"
H. The Arizal and Rabbi Chaim Vital
On the difference between souls of the Jews and Gentiles it is written
in the book "Etz Chaim" (Heichal Abi'a, Sha'ar HaKlipot, chapter 2):
"So we find that Israel possesses the three levels of soul (nefesh,
ruach, neshama) from holiness… The Gentiles, however, possess
only the level of nefesh from the feminine side of the klipot…for
the souls of the nations, which come from the klipot, are called 'evil'
and not 'good,' are created without the da'at [knowledge], and therefore
they also lack the ruach and neshama."
In Sha'ar Klipat Noga, chapter 3, it is written: "Now you will
understand what the animalistic soul of man is; it is the good and evil
inclination in man. The soul of the Gentiles comes from the
three klipot: wind, cloud, and fire, all of them evil. So is
the case with impure animals, beasts, and birds. However, the animalistic soul
of Israel and the animalistic soul of pure animals, beasts, and birds all come
from [klipat] noga."
In "Midrash Shmuel" on Tractate Avot (written by Rabbi Shmuel
Di Osida OBM -- one of the Kabbalists from Safad, who learned Kabbalah from the
Arizal) on the aforementioned mishnah it is explained as follows:
Afterwards, I asked the magnificent and
G-dly sage Rabbi Chaim of Vital to explain…if the sons of Noah are included in
'beloved is man who was created in [G-d's] image' or not. He answered that
definitely the wicked [perhaps this is a distortion of the censor and it should
state 'the Gentiles'] are not included in this statement, and the reason the
term 'man' was used is because it is a more important title than
'Israel'…additionally, the quarry from which the soul of Adam was taken is
higher than that of Jacob our forefather…and since Adam was created in G-d's
image so all men follow him, that is to say, the holy and pure amongst
them and the entire Jewish nation. Regarding the reason why the mishnah
brings an argument from the verse 'For in G-d's image He made man,' which
seemingly alludes to the Seven Commandments of the sons of Noah, he answered
that it would have been sufficient for the verse to have said, 'Whoever sheds a
man's blood, his own blood shall be shed,' so why is it written 'man's'?… It
comes to tell us the reason why G-d decreed that one Gentile who kills another
is punishable by death, for in reality who cares if a Gentile is killed, and
punishment by payment would have been sufficient. Perhaps, however, a
righteous man is destined to come out of his lineage…therefore G-d was
stringent concerning the killing of a Gentile for, in effect, one who kills a
Gentile is actually killing that potential righteous man, and therefore it is
written 'Whoever sheds a man's blood by man shall his blood be shed,' he spills
the blood of that potential righteous person…and because of this aspect of
holiness within a Gentile he is called 'man,' for if not, behold it is stated
'you are called men,' etc…
I further asked him whether from every
Gentile righteous people are destined to emanate. If only there were one
righteous Gentile from a city and two from a family!…yet 'his blood shall be
shed' is part of a general verdict…He answered that a Gentile who murders is
put to death only if there are witnesses, as the Targum Onkelos there translated the word b'sahadia
[according to the witnesses], and if there aren't witnesses, he is exempt.
Therefore G-d, Who knows the future, arranges that there would be no witnesses
to the killing of a Gentile who does not have the potential of producing a
righteous person from his lineage…
I. The Tanya
In the Tanya chapter 1 (page 5b) it is written: "The explanation of
this matter is according to what the Rabbi Chaim Vital OBM wrote…that every
Jew, whether he is righteous or wicked, has two souls, as it says,
'And the souls I have made' -- that is, two souls: one soul from the side of
the klipa and Satan's camp… also naturally good character traits
that are found in every Jew, such as mercifulness and charitable deeds, stem
from it, for in the Jew, the soul of this klipa comes from klipat
noga which also contains good…But it is not the case concerning
Gentile souls, for they stem from other impure klipot which contain
no good…and the second soul of the Jew is surely part of G-d on high…"
In the end of chapter 6 it is written: "The klipot are
divided into two levels…the lower level consists of three impure and completely
evil klipot which contain no good whatsoever…from there the souls of the
Gentiles are influenced and drawn, as are the bodies and the souls of all
impure animals which are forbidden to eat…However, the vital animalistic soul
in the Jews, which stems from the klipa…and the souls of pure animals,
beasts, birds, and fish which are permitted to eat…are influenced and drawn
from the second level of the klipot…which is called klipat noga…and
the majority of it is evil, combined with a slight amount of good…"
It is evident that what Ra'avad, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi, the Maharal, the
Ramchal, Rav Kook, Rav Charlap, and Rav Tzadok wrote in the language of the
Revealed Teaching, each in his own style, has been said by the Ari, Rabbi Chaim
Vital, the "Midrash Shmuel," and the Tanya in the language of the
Secret Teaching -- and the intention is the same.
J. The "Tosephot Yom Tov"
We have found, however, slight differences in the "Tosephot Yom
Tov" commentary on the aforementioned mishnah: "'Beloved is man for
he is created in [G-d's] image'… Rabbi Akiva spoke of all men…and Rabbi
Akiva's intention was all men including the Gentiles. Maimonides stated
explicitly in chapter 8 of The Laws of Kings (halacha 10): 'Moses our teacher
was commanded by the Mighty One to force the Gentiles to accept the
commandments of the sons of Noah…Anyone who accepts the Seven Commandments and
is careful to fulfill them is considered a righteous Gentile and receives a
portion in the World to Come. This depends upon him accepting and fulfilling
them because G-d had so commanded in the Torah…' And for Rabbi Akiva came
to communicate to the entire world what we have been commanded by Moses our
teacher as Maimonides stated…And it is appropriate to say that they were
created 'in an Image' -- however, [the mishnah] did not mention whose image it
is -- namely "G-d's" -- as it
is mentioned in the verse. These are also is words of rebuke, to reprove and
inform them that they are created in an image -- but in what type of image? In
the image of G-d…however, since they do not fulfill His commandments,
and even if they do, it is not out of a knowledge that G-d commanded them -- behold,
they are lacking the designation of G-d's image…"
K. The "Tif'eret Yisrael"
On the aforementioned mishnah he wrote: "…since the mishnah ends
with the words 'Beloved are Israel,' we understand that the beginning is
speaking about all mankind, that is to say, even Gentiles. Another
consideration is that the Tanna derives his statement from the verse '[G-d]
made man' which includes Gentiles, too, for this was said to the sons of
Noah…from this we understand that the Gentiles also possess G-d's
image of G-d…"
And in his commentary on this mishnah in "Boaz," he
interpreted the saying "You are called men" in a very surprising
fashion:
…therefore, Israel and the other
nations each have their own unique levels. The advantage the nations have
over Israel is that they have actually
made themselves through their own free will and their own might, and this is certainly an advantage over Israel who
were completed only through Heavenly intervention…that G-d did wonders to
complete them…Nevertheless, Israel also possess a unique level, for the
Gentiles have reached their levels only through their own human intellect. Therefore,
there are many commandments in the Torah which are above and beyond the human
intellect, as are all the decrees [chukim,
that is, laws which have no rationale behind them] of the Torah. The Gentiles do nor observe these commandments, since they do not
understand them….
Therefore, any of them who is ignorant…is still wallowing in the abominable
filth of the earlier generations, as the majority of the inhabitants of Africa
do…
Correspondingly, the completion of
the level of Israel is similar to that of Adam,
for all people are created without knowledge at birth, and with time and
learning the intellect develops…but this was not true in the case of Adam, who
was created at his full height and stature…with knowledge and intellect, and
the realization of all his responsibilities. Therefore he was judged similarly
to Israel in that he too was the handiwork of G-d, as Israel were…
Therefore, every place in the Torah where it says 'man,'
the sole intention is Israel…for the term 'man' is not fit for them [the
nations], for they gained their status only through difficult efforts and do
not resemble Adam at all. However, every place where it is written 'the sons of
man' includes the Gentiles also.… In conclusion, therefore, the fact that
only Jews are called 'man' is not particularly praise for them, it only
testifies that not they themselves peeled the thick layer from over their
closed hearts, but rather it was the result of their being G-d's handiwork.
The approach presented here is, undoubtedly, entirely different from
what we have previously seen. (Attention should be paid to the large
differences between the "Tif'eret Yisrael" and "Tosephot Yom
Tov").
L. Rabbi Tzvi Chiut
Rabbi Tzvi Chiut has an opinion similar to that of the "Tif'eret
Yisrael." Thus he wrote in his novellae on Yevamot 61a (printed at the end
of the Vilna edition of that tractate): "Incidentally, the intention of
Chazal here is not to exclude the other nations from the term 'man,' but
rather to explain that wherever the word 'man' is used on its own in the Torah
or Holy Writ, the intention is only the Jews, as in the religious literature
and customs of any particular nation wherever it is stated 'All men are warned
or obligated to do such and such,' the intention is only to those to whom it
pertains. Similarly in the Torah and in the Prophets, wherever the term 'man'
is used on its own, it pertains only to the Jews, for it is only they who are
addressed, with the obvious exception of prophecies explicitly directed to the
other nations; and the matter is simple."
M. The Zohar
The opinion of the Zohar on this subject is crystal-clear, unlike the
words of the "Tif'eret Yisrael" and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut. In "Raya
Mehemna" on the portion of Pinchas, page
238b it is written: "'And G-d said: let us make man'…that is, 'let
us make mankind in our image, after our likeness,' and the rabbis
established that there is no 'man' except for the Jews, as it states: 'But
you My flock, the flock of My pasture, you are men' -- You are men and not the
other nations, and because of this 'let Israel rejoice in Him who made
them'."
On the portion of Yitro (page 86a) it is written: "Rabbi Shimon
taught: Israel merited that G-d called them 'men,' as it is written 'But you My
flock, the flock of My pasture, you are men,' 'If any man of you brings an
offering.' Why are they called 'men'? For it is written 'And you who cling to
the Lord your G-d' -- you and not the other nations, and because of this
'you are men' -- you are called men…" And the Ramak OBM wrote on this in
his commentary "Or Yakar" (volume 8, page 214): "…G-d testified
for the Jews that they cling to the secret of nobility and the supreme form
which is called 'man,' as it is said, "If any man of you bring an
offering," which shows that you [the Jews] are 'men' and the nations are
not 'men,' and this explanation is necessarily derived from the verse, 'But you
My flock, the flock of My pasture, you are men,' the explanation of which
apparently is: you are called 'men' and not the nations of the world. From
there we learn what 'if any man of you bring an offering' means -- and this is
what these two verses teach us. So he testified that this level cannot be
achieved by any human being except the Jews alone…"
On the portion of Breishit (page 20b) the Zohar says:
These lights sketch the lower figure to
fix the figure of all those who are included in the term "man," an
inner figure -- [which is called the "face of
man" -- the Sulam commentary].
For all figures are called "men," and all figures which are
included in this expansion are called "men," as the verse says
"you are men," you are called "men." You and all the spirits
are called "men." [For all inner figures are thus called -- "the
face of man"… for all figures included in this expansion…are called by the
name 'men"…and this is what is written "You are 'men"…the
souls are also called by the name "men," as they interpret the
verse, "You are called men"… and all the spirits are also called by
the name "men," that is to say, only an aspect of the light of the
spirit, whose dress is the body, is called by this name, "men" -- the
Sulam.] The spirit of the holy side, his body is only a dress of the 'man,' and this is what is written, "You
dressed me in skin and flesh, and covered me with bones and sinews"…The flesh is only the dress of
"man," as is written, "flesh of man" -- the "man" is inside, and the flesh is only
the dressing of the "man" -- his body. The lower aspects, which were blended from this spirit [the "face of man" --
the Sulam], became an essence from which figures were sketched -- figures which were covered by different dresses [and
not by the dress of "man" -- the Sulam], that is, the figures of pure
animals: "The bovine, the sheep and the goat; The gazelle, the deer
and the fallow deer; and the ibex and the addax; and the wild ox and the wild
sheep" -- and these could be covered by the dress of the "man"
[the "face of man" -- the Sulam], that is, by the body of the
"man."
The Ramak wrote in his commentary "Or Yakar," (volume 2, page
31): "'His body is only a dress of the "man," etc.' -- this
means that although one may find that the bodily features of the Gentiles
and the Jews are the same, the meaning of the word 'man' is not the body.
For were it so, their saying "'You are called man' would not be just. But
rather the body is only a dress of what is within him -- namely the spirit, and
the body is only a dress for the spirit, that is the 'flesh of man': 'man' --
the spirit, 'flesh of man' -- the garment of man. And for this reason the
Jews, who are holy, are called 'men.' 'The lower aspects, which were
blended, etc.', they are holy and not impure, but not at the level of man;
however they are blended from the holy spirit, which expands increasingly, and
reaches the final levels of holiness…"
In continuation of the Zohar there it is written:
…in a similar fashion [as it is with
the holy spirit of "man" and pure animals -- the Sulam] it is
concerning Satan's camp, which is impure. The spirit which spreads to the
other nations stems from the impure side, and is not the aspect of
"man" -- and therefore it is not called by this name and does not have a share in it. [As was mentioned previously,
"You are called men, etc. " -- the Sulam]… Its body is the dress of "impure" [the spirit
whose name is "impure," and it is not called by the name
"man" and has no share in it -- the Sulam], the impure flesh in which
the impure spirit is dressed…
The lower aspects, which
were blended from this spirit, became an essence from which figures were
sketched -- figures, which were covered by different dresses, that is, the
figures of impure animals, and the Torah started describing them with
the words, "And these are impure for you" -- such as the pig, birds, and animals of
Satan's camp. The spirit which
permeates them is called impure, and their bodies are the dress of that spirit,
therefore it says, "flesh of pig" -- pig is it inside, and the flesh
is only the dressing of the "pig."
Therefore these two sides separated
one from another: one is included in the secret of "man" ["the
face of man," -- the Sulam], and the other is included in the secret of
"impure." And every genus takes the side of the
genera similar to it, and clings to them. [That is, the spirit of "man"
represents the general aspect of the
side of holiness, and the spirits of pure animals, beasts, and birds
represent its particular aspects, derived from the general one. On the other
hand,
the
spirit of a "wicked
man" represents the general aspect of the impure (side), and the spirits of the impure
animals, beasts, and birds represent particular aspects derived from it. These are two opposite
orders. Animals of every species are attracted to their specific species,
without mixing with the opposite side;
even if they did mix at one point, finally they will return to their species --
the 'Sulam'.]
These are the the Zohar's words.
Behold, before us lies the inner, deep explanation of the words of
Rashbi, "You are called men," and also an exalted and faithful source
for the aforementioned words of Rabbi Chaim Vital and the Tanya.
Furthermore, in the portion of Bereishit (page 47a) on the verse "Let
the waters teem with swarms of creatures that have a living soul" the
Zohar writes: "Rabbi Aba said: the verse 'creatures that have a living
soul,' pertains to the Jews, for they are the sons of G-d, and
from Him come their holy souls… And the souls of the other nations, where do
they come from? Rabbi Elazar said: they have souls from the impure left
side, and therefore they are all impure, defiling anyone who comes near
them."
In the continuation there it is written: Rabbi Elazar said: it supports
what we said above, 'that have a living soul' -- these are the Jews, for
they have the high and holy living soul. And the verse, 'Animals, creeping
things, and beasts of the earth, each to its kind,' refers to the Gentiles,
for they have no living soul, but only the prepuce, as we said above [that they
stem from powers of the left side which defile them -- the Sulam]."
In the end of the portion of Vayikra (page 25b) the Zohar says:
"Come and see the difference between Israel and the rest of the nations.
Even though a man from Israel merited only a nefesh, he remains on his
level; [and the higher levels are also open before him -- the Sulam] if he
wants to merit ruach or if he wants to merit a neshamah… [in
the printed editions it is added: 'he can obtain and merit it' and thus also
explains the Sulam]. The Gentiles, however, can never obtain more [than
their impure nefesh, -- the Sulam] except if one of them is circumcised,
for then he merits 'nefesh for nefesh' -- a nefesh from a different source [from
the holy side-- the Sulam]. In 'Or Yakar' (volume 12, page 100) it is
explained: "Can never obtain more; even the righteous Gentiles do
not merit holiness, except only from superficial levels…"
The Zohar's words are very clear, and most definitely cannot conform to
the words of the "Tif'eret Yisrael" and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut.
Summary
We have seen two opinions concerning the question of whether or not the
Gentiles possess G-d's image and the interpretation of the saying "You are
called men.":
1. The Ra'avad and the Kuzari, the Maharal and the Ramchal, Rav Kook and
Rav Charlap, the Ari and the Ramak, Rav Chaim Vital, the Tanya, Rav Tzadok
HaCohen and the Midrash Shmuel all stated in the same manner -- the Gentiles are
considered similar to beasts, lacking the complete G-dly image, and [the grounds
for] their words are explicated in countless places in the Zohar. (The quotes
from the Zohar previously brought are just a few examples of statements which
appear throughout the Zohar and Tikunim).
2. In contrast, we have seen the opinions of the "Tif'eret
Yisrael" and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut (who apparently never saw the words of
the Zohar and the aforementioned great Torah scholars) that the Gentiles are
also considered "men" and also possess G-d's image.
If we had to choose between the two opinions, undoubtedly the weight of
the Zohar and the giants of Kabbalistic wisdom and Jewish thought is beyond
any comparison greater than of the 'Tiferet Yisrael' and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut.
Moreover, even the Halachic sources presented in this essay, express a view
totally different from that of these two Torah scholars. How, for example,
would they consider the words of Midrash HaGadol concerning pouring of the
anointing oil: "…if it was poured on an animal or utensils, or on Gentiles
who are like animals…?" Or the words of the Tosephta in the beginning of
Chulin: "…an animal slaughtered by a Gentile is unfit, and an animal
slaughtered by a monkey is unfit…?" Or the words of the Talmud in Bava
Kama 49a, that a pregnant maidservant is like a "pregnant ass"? Or
the statement of Rav Shila in Berachot 58a: "Are they not called
asses"? Furthermore, in the words of the prophet Ezekiel the son of Buzi
the Gentiles are also likened to animals.
Additionally, all those Halachic laws that we mentioned, like the
ones concerning murder of a Gentile or saving of his life, causing damage to
his property and returning his lost item, seem unjust and
incomprehensible according to approach of these two scholars. If a Gentile also
possess G-d's image, why isn't a Jew who murders him for no just reason put to
death, as it is written (Genesis 9:6), "Whoever sheds a man's blood, through man shall his blood be shed, for in
G-d's image he made the man"? According to the words of the prophet, the
sayings of Chazal and almost all of the great Torah scholars, that the Gentiles
in truth are not called "men" it is understood; only one who murders
a "man" in the full sense of the word is put to death by a Beit Din.
However, according to the "Tif'eret Yisrael" and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut, if
Gentiles are also "men," what is there to say? (In an
attempt to rationalize and understand how they could have written words so far
removed from the words of Chazal, it can be said that the "Tif'eret
Yisrael" and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut wrote what they wrote words in the
atmosphere of blood libels and pogroms against the Jews. They saw fit,
therefore, to explain the matters in a way that would put the minds of the
slanderers and censurers at rest. The truth, in any case, remains the same.)
Another example -- how can one explain the fact that there were Tanna'im
who held that it is permitted to steal from and rob a Gentile according to the
Torah's law? What place is there for such an opinion if indeed G-d's image is
present in Gentiles? How can stealing from another person be permitted? However,
according to the view that G-d's image is present in Gentiles only in an
insignificant measure, and that their souls come from an impure source similar
to that of unclean animals, the difficulty disappears -- just as there is no
prohibition against stealing from an animal, so too is it permitted to steal
from a Gentile, for the difference is merely quantitative and not qualitative,
as is explained in the aforementioned words of Rav Kook. While the view which
maintains that stealing from a Gentile is prohibited by the Torah -- the view
which Halacha follows -- is based on the consideration that the difference
existing between Gentiles and the beasts is sufficient to prohibit stealing
from Gentiles.
Conclusion
From all that mentioned above it is clear that views presented by
certain personalities, including [former] Knesset member Professor A. Shaki,
Rabbi Lichtenstein and Rabbi Amital, and Mr. Yochanan Ben-Ya'akov, do not
represent the truth of the Torah. Simple and clear Halachic laws, whose foundations
are in the words of the Living G-d, clearly state the difference "between
the two bloods" (in the words of Ms. Huberman) -- between Jew and Gentile.
There is no escaping the facts: the Torah of Israel makes a clear
distinction between a Jew, who is defined as "man," and a Gentile.
This distinction is expressed in a long list of Halachic laws, be they monetary
laws, the laws of the Temple, capital laws or others. Even one who is not an
erudite Torah scholar is obligated to recognize this simple fact; it cannot be
erased or obscured.
It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d's word from Sinai,
obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce
"compromises" or "renovations" into it. Any attempt to
bypass or ignore certain things will not succeed. Perhaps one may view the
aforementioned Halachic laws as an expression of racism; another may see in
them baseless hate towards any Gentile. However, for the Jew who is devoted to
the Torah as it is, this is the reality and the living path which has been set
for the Jewish nation by the word of G-d.
One who carefully studies the sources cited previously will realize the
abysmal difference between the concepts "Jew" and "Gentile"
-- and consequently, he will understand why Halacha differentiates between
them.
The Torah of Israel is a set of instructions for life, and about those
who cling to it as it is, the verse says: "And you who cling to the Lord
your G-d, you are all living today."
In conclusion, there is nothing more appropriate and fitting than the
words of Rav Kook in "Orot" (Orot Yisrael 8, paragraph 5, page 169):
"The expansiveness of heart which occasionally attempts to consume the
entire world, all humanity, into the special love which spreads over Israel, calls
for examination. When the recognition of the special, holy excellence of Israel
endures in its distinction, and through this clarification, love and affection
spreads with good cheer to every nation and person as one, this is the
character trait of Abraham our forefather, the father of many nations, [of whom it is said,] 'And in you shall all
of the families of the earth be blessed -- and in your seed.' Sometimes,
though, the foundation of this expansion of affection stems from a dullness of
emotions and a dimming of the holy light of recognition of the supreme Jewish
uniqueness, and then it is poisonous, and the content of its activation
is full of awesome destruction, from which one must distance himself as
he would from an ox which has been proven dangerous, [as it is said,] 'And the
gate is battered to ruins,' 'I myself have seen it gore as an ox'."
