Gentiles in Halacha
http://www.daatemet.org.il/daathalacha/en_gentiles1.html
The Jews Are Called 'Man'
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
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,1
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.2
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 beit, 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
Akiva3
(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."4
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 Sanhendrin 57a on this beraitha it is
stated: "There, how should we learn the bereitha, 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 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)5:
"...'You shall not steal' is similar to 'You shall not
murder' and 'You shall not commit adultery'6
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'."7
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]."8
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.'9
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 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 3.10
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 !ny 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 say11
'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 Wars12
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 Gentile13
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.14
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!15
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."16
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 20.17
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 1276.18
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."19
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..."20
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.21
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."22
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 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
shall23
appoint a king over you from among your brethren,' all
appointments of authority that you make should not be [made]24
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 convert25
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'."26
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 224.27
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 Cohaim. 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'."28
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 is29
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,'30
and the wind will blow them all away, and one who thinks of
them as something [worthwhile] will gather the wind in his
fist."31
(See further the words of Maimonides in chapter 4 of The
Laws of Slaughtering halachot 11-12).32
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'."33
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,34
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 expresof 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 possess 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
degreeof 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 I, 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."35
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 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'."36
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" apure 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.37
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?38
(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 Gentiis 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.39
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'."
1In
general, Chazal used two terms when they spoke of a non-Jew:
goy [Gentile] and nochri [foreigner]. (Occasionally the term
acharim [others] also describes Gentiles, primarily in the
halachic Midrash. Concerning halachas or specific
circumstances, the terms ger toshav and Noahide also appear
- see novellae of Nachmanides on Tractate Makkot 9a, and in
the novellae of the Ritba there, but the matters have been
distorted in the Ritba.) Thus it appears in all the ancient
manuscripts and old printings. All of the variants on the
term "worshippers of stars and the zodiac" that appear in
the majority of the printings are distortions, meant to
deceive the Christian censor into thinking that specifically
idolatrous Gentiles were meant. In certain printings they
went even further, and in many places changed the terms goy
and nochri: occasionally they used Samaritan, other times
Cannanite and even Amalekite! Of course, in this essay I use
the exact and original version of the matters.
How sad it is that even though it is now possible to
ascertain the accurate version, many Torah scholars continue
to cite the distortions of the censor.back
to text
2There, in the end of the halacha: "He is given
blows and punished and told that he may be punished by death
for this, but he is not killed," see ibid. in the Kesef
Mishna and in the Ridbaz for why he is not killed.back
to text
3Thus according to the Babylonian version and the
Tosephta, but in the version of the Sifra the opinions are
switched, and Maimonides rules similar to Rabbi Yosi the
Galilean. In some manuscripts of the Tosephta the version is
as in the Sifra.back
to text
4See
Birkat HaNatziv on Mechilta on the aforementioned
section, who proves from the Mechilta Mishpatim
parasha 12 that a ger toshav is never
included in the term "his neighbor."back
to text
5Thus it is in the edition of Rabbi S. Albek
OBM. In the edition of Rabbi S.Z. Eirenreich HYD it is
in 194d.back
to text
6See ibid. in the commentary "Even
Shlomo" by Rabbi S.Z. Eirenreich (page 195 section 93),
for a discussion of his question that "you shall not
commit adultery" is inconceivable concerning the wife of
a Gentile.back
to text
7Thus is the text in the Rome edition of
5240, and in the edition of Rabbi Shabtai Frankel. See
ibid. in Yalkut Shinuei Nuschaot, that it is the wording
of all manuscripts and printed editions except for the
Vilna-Warsaw edition which was distorted by the
Christian censor: "One who kills the soul of a man
transgresses a negative commandment as it is stated 'You
shall not murder'." This is the source of Rabbi
Lichtenstein and Rabbi Amital's mistake when they wrote
that according to the so-called opinion of Maimonides
one who kills a Gentile transgresses a negative
commandment. How surprising it is that well known rabbis
rely on sources known for their inaccuracies, and make
Halachic decisions according to distortions of a censor.back
to text
8It must be noted here that the Halachic
arbiters disagree on the meaning of the beriatha in
Avodah Zarah which the Yere'im brought here. In the
opinion of the Beit Yosef, there is no commandment to
lower Gentiles who do not fulfill the seven Noachide
commandments into a pit, but if he wants to, he may
lower them. This view was restated by the Darkei Moshe
and the Shach -- see Yoreh Deah, beginning of paragraph
158. However the Bach and the Taz there, and the
Maharshal in his commentary on the SM'G (negative
commandment 48), wrote that the phrase "nor lower them"
means that it is forbidden to do so, and this view is
upheld by the Yere'im here, who brought the beriatha as
a proof that it is forbidden to kill a Gentile. This
view was also expressed by Maimonides in the beginning
of chapter 10 of The Laws of Idolatry: "We do not make a
covenant with idol worshippers...and it is forbidden to
have mercy on them, as it is stated 'nor show mercy to
them.' Therefore, if one sees an idol worshipper
perishing or drowning in the river, he should not raise
him up. If he sees him being taken to die, he should not
save him.
However, to actually kill him or to push him into a pit,
or some such, is forbidden, for he is not at war with
us."
Similarly he wrote in The Laws of a Murderer and
Protecting Life, chapter 4, halacha 11. This is also the
opinion of Rabbeinu Yona in his novellae on Sanhedrin
57a, and in the Meiri there, 57b. (See there in Rabbeinu
Yona, that the prohibition of lowering a Gentile who
does not fulfill the seven Noachide commandments into a
pit is Rabbinic. The Taz wrote similarly in Yorah Deah
158). However, it is possible that the Beit Yosef and
the Rama changed their opinions, for in the Shulchan
Aruch none of this is mentioned.back
to text
9From what the Yere'im we can imply that he
learned from the language of the verse he mentioned. In
regard to Maimonides, it is possible that he learned
from the Mechilta on the verse "You shall not murder":
"'You shall not murder' -- why is this stated? Because
it says 'One who spills the blood of his fellow man,' --
there it speaks of the punishment; where does it speak
of a warning? It is written, 'You shall not murder'." It
follows that only by committing a murder punishable by
death does one transgress the commandment "you shall not
murder."back
to text
10In the wording of the Shulchan Aruch
printed in the Mishnah Berurah, this section concerning
the Gentile is omitted, however in the regular editions
of the Shulchan Aruch the section remains, but in an
erroneous fashion.back
to text
11Thus it appears in the Rome edition. In the
Vilna edition: "If he says."back
to text
12Thus this section is called in the
manuscripts and in the Rome edition, and not "and Their
Wars," as it appears in the Vilna edition.back
to text
13As an example of what was written in the
first footnote, I will point out that in the Vilna
edition of the Talmud this mishnah is corrupted --
"Cannanite" is written instead of "Gentile," and in the
Vilna edition of the Mishnah the wording is "idolater."back
to text
14It must be pointed out that the Meiri there
(page 37b of the Gemara) wrote on that issue: "And
according to what is said in the Talmud, this law
applies only to nations which are not bound by religious
ways and ethics, as is said about them in the Talmud 'He
[G-d] saw that the Seven Commandments the sons of Noah
[Gentiles] accepted upon themselves were not being
fulfilled, [therefore] He permitted [not compensating
the damage to] their property' wherever the Law would
obligate it. As long as they [the Gentiles] fulfill the
Seven Commandments they are judged by us as we are
judged by them, and we don't show favor to ourselves in
legal matters. Consequently, it is needless to say that
such is the case regarding nations that are bound by
religious ways and ethics." And somewhat similarly, the
Maharal wrote in the seventh be'er of the book "Be'er
HaGolah" (page 145) that as long as a Gentile is not an
idol worshipper the law stated in the mishnah does not
apply to him. Likewise it is written in Mirkevet
Hamishneh. Rabbi Kook OBM wrote in Iggrot Ra'ayah part
one, page 99, that the Halacha in essence follows the
Meiri. However, these matters are very bewildering, for
in the aforementioned Mechilta it is stated explicitly:
"'His neighbor's,' to exclude the ox of... ger toshav,"
and there is no Gentile who refrains more from idol
worship and more strictly fulfills the seven Noahide
commandments than a ger toshav. And these are the words
of aforementioned halachic arbiters who learned from the
Talmud there (page 38a): "They said: 'which ever way you
turn -- if 'his neighbor' [is meant] specifically [i.e.
a Jew], then a Gentile whose ox injures a Jew's ox is
also exempt. And if 'his neighbor' is not [meant]
specifically, even a Jew whose ox injures an ox of a
Gentile is punishable. Rabbi Abahu answered: "the
Scripture says: 'He stood and measured the earth: He
beheld, and made the nations tremble' -- He [G-d] saw
that the sons of Noah [Gentiles] did not fulfill the
seven commandments they accepted upon themselves, so He
permitted their property to the Jews. Rabbi Yochanan
said from here [this law is learned]: 'He appeared from
Mount Paran,' -- from Paran [the giving of the Torah]
was the property of the Gentiles permitted to Israel."
However, in the Mechilta and in the aforementioned
Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai this law is
described as a Scriptural decree, and therefore the
verses of "and made the nations tremble" and "He
appeared" are only parables which are brought to explain
why the Torah fined the Gentiles even though they are
not included in 'his neighbor,' so that the law could
have been that a Gentile does not pay, just as he is not
paid, similar to the case of the dedicated ox. Thus the
Ran wrote on this matter (page 19 of the pages of the
Rif, s.v. V'shel nochri sh'nagach): "According to
the Law, the Gentile should also be exempt, however it
is a
fine that G-d fined them,
as it says in the Talmud." Thus we should also
understand the above mentioned words of Maimonides. (See
the explanation of Rabbi Yonatan of Lunel on the Rif,
who at the start of his comment on this issue wrote,
"And this is a fine applied by the Sages" -- that is to
say, it is a Rabbinic law -- while at the end of his
comment he wrote "And G-d knows the hidden matters and
the hearts of man, and he punished the Gentiles
according to their cruelty and exempted the Jews
according to their innocence," signifying that this is
the Torah's law. It seems to me it is a copyist's error,
that is, at first it had been written v'knas hoo
d'kansam hach [hey-kaf which is an
abbreviation for hakatoov, or the Scripture] and
a copyist erred and wrote chach [chet-kaf,
which is an abbreviation for chachamim -- the
Sages] and subsequently changed kansam [it -- the
Scripture -- fined] to kansu [they -- the Sages
-- fined]. Thus it is proven from his comment on the
explanation of this issue in the Talmud [not by the Rif]
which appears in Shitah Mekubetzet there, s.v. amad
v'hetir, and these are his words: "...therefore, the
Scripture fines them in order to make them guard their
property [so that it causes no damage] -- Rabbi Jonathan
OBM." So in his opinion this is the Torah's law.) It is
not as some Achronim understood, that this law is
Rabbinic, and that according to the Torah the law
concerning the Gentiles is the same as the law
concerning dedicated objects. Similarly, we find it
written in the Meiri on a different matter (on Sanhedrin
57b)... "concerning the spilling of blood... if a Jew
kills a Gentile, if the Gentile did not fulfill the
Seven Commandments the Jew is exempt...but if they keep
the Seven Commandments, they are considered religious
people," meaning that if a Jew kills a Gentile who
strictly kept the Seven Commandments, he is put to
death. This is the opposite of the explanation in the
Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and in the
aforementioned Sifri Zuta in regards to the killing of a
Gentile, that even if a Jew killed a ger toshav
he is not put to death. Therefore we learn that the view
of the Meiri and who agree with him is puzzling.back
to text
15The source of this is in Bava Kama 113a.back
to text
16Here,
too, it is appropriate to point out the printed version:
"That phrase comes to teach something in his view also, as
stated in the beraitha: 'his neighbor' -- and not
an Amalekite.
But isn't it appropriate to learn that an Amalekite is
excluded from the phrase 'his brother'? One [phrase] comes
to permit exploiting him [a Gentile] and another comes to
permit robbing him"!! That is to say, they replaced
"Gentile" with "Amalekite" and the words "and as he holds,
that robbery of a Gentile is permitted" were removed. No
doubt average students, and even many Torah scholars, are
not aware that the Talmud they have before them has been
corrupted and distorted by malicious hands. I have copied
the wording from Dikdukei Sofrim, see there sections 40 and
50, and the quotations in the novellae of Nachmanides, the
Ran, and Tosaphot HaRosh.back
to text
17Concerning what is written there by the
Maharshal to critique Rashi, that the reason for prohibition
is not because of desecration of G-d's name -- in the
Jerusalem Talmud it is clearly as Rashi wrote.back
to text
18However, from the aforementioned words of Rashi
in Sanhedrin it is clear that he meant this prohibition to
be Rabbinic prohibition, and so the aforementioned Yam Shel
Shlomo clearly states.back
to text
19In the commentary attributed to the Ran on
Sanhedrin 57a, it is specifically learned from what
Maimonides wrote in the beginning of The Laws of Robbery,
"Anyone who steals from his fellow...," that in Maimonides's
opinion, stealing from a Gentile is permitted by the Torah.
But this is very difficult to accept, for in a number of
places Maimonides uses the term 'his fellow' even though the
same halacha applies to a Gentile. See, for example, the
beginning of chapter 7 of The Laws of Theft: "One who weighs
for his fellow using weights which are less than those
customarily used or those which have been agreed upon
transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall
do no unrighteousness in judgement, in surveying, in weight,
or in measure,'" and there in halacha 8: "One who has
dealings with a Jew or with a Gentile idolater -- if he
measures or weighs falsely, he transgresses a negative
commandment and is obligated to recompense…" The wording
'his fellow' includes Gentiles. The Kesef Mishneh also wrote
in the beginning of his comment on The Laws of Robbery that
in Maimonides's opinion, the prohibition against robbing a
Gentile is not from the Torah, and the Shach, in the
beginning of paragraph 359, had already critiqued him and
wrote that judging from the wording of Maimonides in the
beginning of The Laws of Theft, this is not the case. And in
the beginning of paragraph 348 he wrote that it is seemingly
so, judging from the wording of the Shulchan Aruch itself.back
to text
20The wording of the Gemara is according to
Dikdukei Sofrim 8, Rif, and The Rulings of the Rid. In other
editions it appears differently.back
to text
21This is the wording of Maimonides's ruling
which will follow, and see Tzafnat Pa'aneach on Bava Kama
113b, where it is explained that if a Gentile erred on his
own, it is similar to a lost item.back
to text
22Thus appears in older editions, however in our
editions the wording is: "However, the error
of a Samaritan was
permitted, but only..." and it is difficult to know whether
to laugh or to cry regarding such 'corrections' of the
censor.back
to text
23See the glosses of the Gaon of Vilna here and
the glosses of the Bach on Yevamot 45b; however in The
Rulings of the Rid it appears as in the printed edition.back
to text
24So does it appear in the Rid there, and in
chapter 1 of The Laws of Kings halacha 4, thus it even
appears in the printed edition of Tractate Yevamot 45b;
however here it mistakenly appears in the printed edition as
"it will not be."back
to text
25So it appears in the manuscripts and in Midrash
HaGadol. In printed editions "and not to the father of the
woman convert" appears, having the same connotation.back
to text
26Thus is the wording in the precise manuscripts,
see Dikdukei Sofrim; in printed editions it appears with
slight changes, mostly abridgements of the verses.back
to text
27In the common printed editions of the Tur, the
matter of the houses of Gentiles appears with errors, while
the matter of their cemeteries is deleted. In the common
printed editions of the Shulchan Aruch both laws appear, but
'the nations of the world' is changed to 'worshippers of the
stars and zodiac,' as usual. In the version of the Shulchan
Aruch that appears in the Mishnah Berurah these laws are
deleted completely.back
to text
28See the discussion in the Gemara where some
questions are asked on this explanation, and after the
questions are answered, the Gemara adds: "It may also be
learned according to the Tanna who learned it before Rabbi
Elazar: anyone who is included in 'pour[ing]' is included in
the prohibition of pouring, and anyone who is not included
in 'pour[ing]' is not included in the prohibition of
pouring." It is clear that this additional answer is just
that, an additional answer, and the first explanation
stands.back
to text
29In the Rome edition: "...that this principal
category is from the words of the Sages..."back
to text
30Isaiah 40:15. See there in the commentaries.back
to text
31One who searches for these words in the Vilna
edition will search in vain, for they were completely
deleted by the censor; however a 'remembrance of the
destruction' of the Ra'avad's glosses are to be found in the
Kesef Mishneh, see there. I have the glosses which appear in
the Alumot edition of Mishneh Torah, which recently was
re-printed by Eshkol Publications.back
to text
32Different explanations were written to clarify
Maimonides opinion, but this is not the place to discuss
them.back
to text
33This is the wording in The Rulings of the Rid,
in the precise manuscripts and in other versions. See
Dikdukei Sofrim; in the printed versions it appears with
slight differences.back
to text
34In the printed version 'an Egyptian woman' --
and in this entire section many changes were made.back
to text
35And
in the continuation there: "This is also the secret of
what Chazal said: 'It is forbidden to have mercy on one
who lacks da'at,'' for one who lacks da'at
comes from the klipot lacking da'at, and
therefore one who has mercy on him causes the spreading
of the supreme mercy to the klipot as well…"
According to this it is possible to understand the
Gemara which I mentioned above regarding the lost item
of a Gentile (Sanhedrin 76b): "…one who returns a lost
item to a Gentile, of him the verse says: 'To add
drunkenness to thirst; the Lord will not spare him'."back
to text
36All citations from the Zohar are according
to the version in which the commentary "Or Yakar" by
Rabbi Moshe Cordovero appears, printed according to a
manuscript 400 years old (excluding parts that have yet
to be published in this edition). Rabbi Eliyahu Di Vidas
OBM, a student of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, wrote in the
end of his introduction to the well known book of the
Ramak, "Reshit Chochma": "In most passages of the Zohar
one may find many differences between the printed
edition and ours. However, our version was proofread
according to the hand-written manuscripts here in Safad,
which are highly accurate."back
to text
37It must be pointed out that in the
aforementioned booklet, "Chaviv Adam Shenivra B'tzelem"
by Yochanan Ben-Ya'akov, Director-General of B'nei Akiva,
the author, dealing with the aforementioned mishnah in
Avot (beginning on page 5 in the booklet), quotes only
the commentary of the "Tif'eret Yisrael." He similarly
treated the statement of Rashbi , "you are called men"
(page 13 in the booklet). Mr. Ben-Yaakov knew well to
quote Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz on this subject, and even
went as far as to quote the heretical words of Dr.
Yehezkel Cohen, which one is forbidden to bring into the
beit midrash. But the words of the majority of
Torah scholars, both quantitatively and qualitatively,
he apparently never heard. These two points exemplify
how little effort the author made to deeply understand
the subjects he dealt with; instead he merely wrote
things that fitted his own outlook.back
to text
38And indeed, the holders of this outlook
recognize this difficulty and therefore they had to
appeal to strange dialectics. Rabbi A.A. Kaplan found
himself in a difficult position concerning this subject
and presented the answer that while the prohibition of
killing a Gentile has the same severity as that of
killing a Jew, the Beit Din may pass a death sentence
only in a case where the soul of the one being put to
death is equal to the soul of the murdered, and since
the soul of a Jew is higher then that of a Gentile, he
is not put to death. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein also
adopted this idea (a synopsis of his lecture is brought
in the aforementioned booklet, page 72). However, they
forgot an explicit mishnah in Bava Kama, 4:6, and an
explicit Gemara, ibid. 41a, that an ox which kills a man
is punished by death, yet if he kills a Gentile, he is
acquitted. According to their explanation, why isn't the
ox killed?
back to text
39Here, too, Rabbi Lichtenstein is mistaken.
In the synopsis of his lecture, which was mentioned in
the previous footnote, he wrote (page 73 of the
booklet): "If we are speaking of injury, robbery, fraud,
or the like, things which can be reproached according to
any universal standard we might use -- behold, they must
be prohibited also in regards to the Gentile." According
to what we have clarified above regarding robbery of a
Gentile, the approach of the Jerusalem Talmud, the
Tosephta in Avodah Zarah and the Sifri on the portion of
V'zot HaBracha is that robbery of a Gentile is permitted
by the Torah. This is also the opinion of some Rishonim
and Achronim, and there seems to be no reason as
compelling as Rabbi Lichtenstein thinks. True, Halacha
states that robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the
Torah, but a clear-cut and simple view of the kind of
'there is no need to say…' does not exist here.