Jewish scholar confirms tachings of the Talmud.
------------------------------------------------------
JEWISH HISTORY, JEWISH RELIGION by Professor Israel Shahak
Ch. 5
Gentiles in the Land of lsrael
IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL anti-Gentile laws, the Halakhah has special laws against
Gentiles who live in the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisra'el) or, in some cases, merely pass
through it. These laws are designed to promote Jewish supremacy in that country.
The exact geographical definition of the term 'Land of Israel' is much disputed in the
Talmud and the talmudic literature, and the debate has continued in modern times between
the various shades of zionist opinion. According to the maximalist view, the Land of Israel
includes (in addition to Palestine itself) not only the whole of Sinai, Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon, but also considerable parts of Turkey. (51) The more prevalent 'minimalist'
interpretation puts the northern border 'only' about half way through Syria and Lebanon, at
the latitude of Homs. This view was supported by Ben~Gurion. However, even those who
thus exclude parts of Syria-Lebanon agree that certain special discriminatory laws (though
less oppressive than in the Land of Israel proper) apply to the Gentiles of those parts,
because that territory was included in David's kingdom. In all talmudic interpretations the
Land of Israel includes Cyprus.
I shall now list a few of the special laws concerning Gentiles in the Land of Israel. Their
connection with actual zionist practice will be quite apparent.
The Halakhah forbids Jews to sell immovable property - fields and houses - in the Land of
Israel to Gentiles. In Syria, the sale of houses (but not of fields) is permitted.
Leasing a house in the Land of Israel to a Gentile is permitted under two conditions. First,
that the house shall not be used for habitation but for other purposes, such as storage.
Second, that three or more adjoining houses shall not be so leased.
These and several other rules are explained as follows: ... 'so that you shall not allow them
to camp on the ground, for if they do not possess land, their sojourn there will be temporary.'
(52) Even temporary Gentile presence may only be tolerated 'when the Jews are in exile, or
when the Gentiles are more powerful than the Jews,' but
When the Jews are more powerful than the Gentiles we are forbidden to let an
idolator among us; even a temporary resident or itinerant trader shall not be
allowed to pass through our land unless he accepts the seven Noahide precepts,
(53) for it is written: 'they shall not dwell in thy land' (54) that is, not even
temporarily. If he accepts the seven Noahide precepts, he becomes a resident
alien (ger toshav) but it is forbidden to grant the status of resident alien except at
times when the Jubilee is held [that is, when the Temple stands and sacrifices
are offered]. However, during times when Jubilees are not held it is forbidden to
accept anyone who is not a full convert to Judaism (ger tzedeq). (55)
It is therefore clear that - exactly as the leaders and sympathizers of Gush Emunim say -
the whole question to how the Palestinians ought to be treated is, according to the
Halal,;hah, simply a question of Jewish power: if Jews have sufficient power, then it is their
religious duty to expel the Palestinians.
All these laws are often quoted by Israeli rabbis and their zealous followers. For example,
the law forbidding the lease of three adjoining houses to Gentiles was solemnly quoted by a
rabbinical conference held in 1979 to discuss the Camp David treaties. The conference also
declared that according to the Halakhah even the 'autonomy' that Begin was ready to offer to
the Palestinians is too liberal. Such pronouncements - which do in fact state correctly the
position of the Halakhah - are rarely contested by the Zionist 'left'.
In addition to laws such as those mentioned so far, which are directed at all Gentiles in the
Land of Israel, an even greater evil influence arises from special laws against the ancient
Canaanites and other nations who lived in Palestine before its conquest by Joshua, as well as
against the Amalekites. All those nations must be utterly exterminated, and the Talmud and
talmudic literature reiterate the genocidal biblical exhortations with even greater
vehemence. Influential rabbis, who have a considerable following among Israeli army
officers, identify the Palestinians (or even all Arabs) with those ancient nations, so that
commands like 'thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth' (56) acquire a topical meaning.
In fact, it is not uncommon for reserve soldiers called up to do a tour of duty in the Gaza
Strip to be given an 'educational lecture' in which they are told that the Palestinians of Gaza
are 'like the Amalekites'. Biblical verses exhorting to genocide of the Midianite (57) were
solemnly quoted by an important Israeli rabbi in justification of the Qibbiya massacre, (58)
and this pronouncement has gained wide circulation in the Israeli army. There are many
similar examples of bloodthirsty rabbinical pronouncements against the Palestinians, based
on these laws.
Abuse
UNDER THIS HEADING I would like to discuss examples of halakhic laws whose most
important effect is not so much to prescribe specific anti-Gentile discrimination as to
inculcate an attitude of scorn and hatred towards Gentiles. Accordingly. in this section I shall
not confine myself to quoting from the most authoritative halakhic sources (as I have done
so far) but include also less fundamental works, which are however widely used in religious
instruction.
Let us begin with the text of some common prayers. In one of the first sections of the daily
morning payer, every devout Jew blesses God for not making him a Gentile. (59) The
concluding section of the daily prayer (which is also used in the most solemn part of the
service on New Year's day and on Yom Kippur) opens with the statement: 'We must praise
the Lord of all ... for not making us like the nations of [all] lands ... for they bow down to
vanity and nothingness and pray to a god that does not help.' (60) The last clause was
censored out of the prayer books. but in eastern Europe it was supplied orally, and has now
been restored into many Israeli-printed prayer books. In the most important section of the
weekday prayer - the 'eighteen blessings' - there is a special curse, originally directed
against Christians, Jewish converts to Christianity and other Jewish heretics: 'And may the
apostates' (61) have no hope, and all the Christians perish instantly'. This formula dates from
the end of the 1st century, when Christianity was still a small persecuted sect. Some time
before the 14th century it was softened into: 'And may the apostates have no hope. and all
the heretics (62) perish instantly', and after additional pressure into: 'And may the informers
have no hope, and all the heretics perish instantly'. After the establishment of Israel. the
process was reversed, and many newly printed prayer books reverted to the second formula,
which was also prescribed by many teachers in religious Israeli schools. After 1967, several
congregations close to Gush Emunim have restored the first version (so far only verbally,
not in print) and now pray daily that the Christians may perish instantly'. This process of
reversion happened in the period when the Catholic Church (under Pope John XXIII)
removed from its Good Friday service a prayer which asked the Lord to have mercy on
Jews, heretics etc. This prayer was thought by most Jewish leaders to be offensive and even
antisemitic.
Apart from the fixed daily prayers, a devout Jew must utter special short blessings on
various occasions, both good and bad (for example, while putting on a new piece of clothing.
eating a seasonal fruit for the first time that year, seeing powerful lightning, hearing bad
news, etc.) Some of these occasional prayers serve to inculcate hatred and scorn for all
Gentiles, We have mentioned in Chapter 2 the rule according to which a pious Jew must
utter curse when passing near a Gentile cemetery, whereas he must bless God when passing
near a Jewish cemetery. A similar rule applies to the living; thus, when seeing a large
Jewish population a devout Jew must praise God, while upon seeing a large Gentile
population he must utter a curse. Nor are buildings exempt: the Talmud lays down (63) that
a Jew who passes near an inhabited non-Jewish dwelling must ask God to destroy it,
whereas if the building is in ruins he must thank the Lord of Vengeance. (Naturally, the rules
are reversed for Jewish houses.) This rule was easy to keep for Jewish peasants who lived
in their own villages or for small urban communities living in all-Jewish townships or
quarters. Under the conditions of classical Judaism, however, it became impracticable and
was therefore confined to churches and places of worship of other religions (except Islam).
(64) In this connection, the rule was further embroidered by custom: it became customary to
spit (usually three times) upon seeing a church or a crucifix, as an embellishment to the
obligatory formula of regret. (65) Sometimes insulting biblical verses were also added. (66)
There is also a series of rules forbidding any expression of praise for Gentiles or for their
deeds, except where such praise implies an even greater praise of Jews and things Jewish.
This rule is still observed by Orthodox Jews. For example. the writer Agnon, when
interviewed on the Israeli radio upon his return from Stockholm, where he received the
Nobel Prize for literature, praised the Swedish Academy, but hastened to add: 'I am not
forgetting that it is forbidden to praise Gentiles, but here there is a special reason for my
praise' - that is, that they awarded the prize to a Jew.
Similarly, it is forbidden to join any manifestation of popular Gentile rejoicing, except
where failing to join in might cause 'hostility' towards Jews, in which case a 'minimal' show of
joy is allowed.
In addition to the rules mentioned so far, there are many others whose effect is to inhibit
human friendship between Jew and Gentile. I shall mention two examples: the rule on
'libation wine' and that on preparing food for a Gentile on Jewish holy days.
A religious Jew must not drink any wine in whose preparation a Gentile had any part
whatsoever. Wine in an open bottle, even if prepared wholly by Jews, becomes banned if a
Gentile so much as touches the bottle or passes a hand over it. The reason given by the
rabbis is that all Gentiles are not only idolators but must be presumed to be malicious to
boot, so that they are likely to dedicate (by a whisper, gesture or thought) as 'libation' to
their idol any wine which a Jew is about to drink. This law applies in full force to all
Christians, and in a slightly attenuated form also to Muslims. (An open bottle of wine
touched by a Christian must be poured away, but if touched by a Muslim it can be sold or
given away, although it may not be drunk by a Jew.) The law applies equally to Gentile
atheists (how can one be sure that they are not merely pretending to be atheists?) but not to
Jewish atheists.
The laws against doing work on the sabbath apply to a lesser extent on other holy days. In
particular, on a holy day which does not happen to fall on a Saturday it is permitted to do any
work required for preparing food to be eaten during the holy days or days. Legally, this is
defined as preparing a 'soul's food' (okhel nefesh); but 'soul' is interpreted to mean 'Jew',
and 'Gentiles and dogs' are explicitly excluded. (67) There is, however, a dispensation in
favor of powerful Gentiles, whose hostility can be dangerous: it is permitted to cook food on
a holy day for a visitor belonging to this category, provided he is not actively encouraged to
come and eat.
An important effect of all these laws - quite apart from their application in practice - is in
the attitude created by their constant study which, as part of the study of the Halakhah, is
regarded by classical Judaism as a supreme religious duty. Thus an Orthodox Jew learns
from his earliest youth, as part of his sacred studies, that Gentiles are compared to dogs,
that it is a sin to praise them, and so on and so forth. As a matter of fact, in this respect
textbooks for beginners have a worse effect than the Talmud and the great talmudic codes.
One reason for this is that such elementary texts give more detailed explanations, phrased
so as to influence young and uneducated minds. Out of a large number of such texts, I have
chosen the one which is currently most popular in Israel and has been reprinted in many
cheap editions, heavily subsidized by the Israeli government. It is The Book of Education,
written by an anonymous rabbi in early 14th century Spain. It explains the 613 religious
obligations (mitzvot) of Judaism in the order in which they are supposed to be found in the
Pentateuch according to the talmudic interpretation (discussed in Chapter 3). It owes its
lasting influence and popularity to the clear and easy Hebrew style in which it is written.
A central didactic aim of this book is to emphasize the 'correct' meaning of the Bible with
respect to such terms as 'fellow', 'friend' or 'man' (which we have referred to in Chapter 3).
Thus §219, devoted to the religious obligation arising from the verse 'thou shalt love thy
fellow as thyself', is entitled: 'A religious obligation to love Jews', and explains:
To love every Jew strongly means that we should care for a Jew and his
money just as one cares for oneself and one's own money, for it is written: 'thou
shalt love thy fellow as thyself' and our sages of blessed memory said: 'what is
hateful to you do not do to your friend' ... and many other religious obligations
follow from this, because one who loves one's friend as oneself will not steal his
money, or commit adultery with his wife, or defraud him of his money, or deceive
him verbally, or steal his land, or harm him in any way. Also many other religious
obligations depend on this, as is known to any reasonable man.
In §322, dealing with the duty to keep a Gentile slave enslaved for ever (whereas a Jewish
slave must be set free after seven years), the following explanation is given:
And at the root of this religious obligation [is the fact that] the Jewish people are
the best of the human species, created to know their Creator and worship Him,
and worthy of having slaves to serve them. And if they will not have slaves of
other peoples, they would have to enslave their brothers, who would thus be
unable to serve the Lord, blessed be He. Therefore we are commanded to
possess those for our service, after they are prepared for this and after idolatory
is removed from their speech so that there should not be danger in our houses,
(68) and this is the intention of the verse 'but over your brethren the children of
Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor', (69) so that you will not have
to enslave your brothers, who are all ready to worship God.
In §545, dealing with the religious obligation to exact interest on money lent to Gentiles,
the law is stated as follows: 'That we are commanded to demand interest from Gentiles when
we lend money to them, and we must not lend to them without interest,' The explanation is:
And at the root of this religious obligation is that we should not do any act of
mercy except to the people who know God and worship Him; and when we
refrain from doing merciful deed to the rest of mankind and do so only to the
former, we are being tested that the main part of love and mercy to them is
because they follow the religion of God, blessed be He. Behold, with this intention
our reward [from God] when we withhold mercy from the others is equal to that
for doing [merciful deeds] to members of our own people.
Similar distinctions are made in numerous other passages. In explaining the ban against
delaying a worker's wage (§238) the author is careful to point out that the sin is less serious
if the worker is Gentile. The prohibition against cursing (§239) is entitled 'Not to curse any
Jew, whether man or woman. Similarly, the prohibitions against giving misleading advice,
hating other people, shaming them or taking revenge on them (§§240, 245, 246, 247) apply
only to fellow-Jews.
The ban against following Gentile customs (§262) means that Jews must not only 'remove
themselves' from Gentiles, but also 'speak ill of all their behavior, even of their dress'.
It must be emphasized that the explanations quoted above do represent correctly the
teaching of the Halakhah. The rabbis and, even worse, the apologetic 'scholars of Judaism'
know this very well and for this reason they do not try to argue against such views inside the
Jewish community; and of course they never mention them outside it. Instead, they vilify any
Jew who raises these matters within earshot of Gentiles, and they issue deceitful denials in
which the art of equivocation reaches its summit. For example, they state, using general
terms, the importance which Judaism attaches to mercy; but what they forget to point out is
that according to the Halakhah 'mercy' means mercy towards Jews.
Anyone who lives in Israel knows how deep and widespread these attitudes of hatred and
cruelty to towards all Gentiles are among the majority of Israeli Jews. Normally these
attitudes are disguised from the outside world, but since the establishment of the State of
Israel, the 1967 war and the rise of Begin, a significant minority of Jews, both in Israel and
abroad, have gradually become more open about such matters. In recent years the inhuman
precepts according to which servitude is the 'natural' lot of Gentiles have been publicly
quoted in Israel, even on TV, by Jewish farmers exploiting Arab labor, particularly child
labor. Gush Emunim leaders have quoted religious precepts which enjoin Jews to oppress
Gentiles, as a justification of the attempted assassination of Palestinian mayors and as divine
authority for their own plan to expel all the Arabs from Palestine.
While many zionists reject these positions politically, their standard counter-arguments are
based on considerations of expediency and Jewish self-interest, rather than on universally
valid principles of humanism and ethics. For example, they argue that the exploitation and
oppression of Palestinians by Israelis tends to corrupt Israeli society, or that the expulsion
of the Palestinians is impracticable under present political conditions, or that Israeli acts of
terror against the Palestinians tend to isolate Israel internationally. In principle, however,
virtually all zionists - and in particular 'left' zionists - share the deep anti-Gentile attitudes
which Orthodox Judaism keenly promotes.
Attitudes to Christianity and Islam
IN THE FOREGOING, several examples of the rabbinical attitudes to these two religions
were given in passing. But it will be useful to summarize these attitudes here.
Judaism is imbued with a very deep hatred towards Christianity, combined with ignorance
about it. This attitude was clearly aggravated by the Christian persecutions of Jews, but is
largely independent of them. In fact, it dates from the time when Christianity was still weak
and persecuted (not least by Jews), and it was shared by Jews who had never been
persecuted by Christians or who were even helped by them. Thus, Maimonides was
subjected to Muslim persecutions by the regime of the Almohads and escaped from them
first to the crusaders' Kingdom of Jerusalem, but this did not change his views in the least.
This deeply negative attitude is based on two main elements.
First, on hatred and malicious slanders against Jesus. The traditional view of Judaism on
Jesus must of course be sharply distinguished from the nonsensical controversy between
antisemites and Jewish apologists concerning the 'responsibility' for his execution. Most
modern scholars of that period admit that due to the lack of original and contemporary
accounts, the late composition of the Gospels and the contradictions between them, accurate
historical knowledge of the circumstances of Jesus' execution is not available. In any case,
the notion of collective and inherited guilt is both wicked and absurd. However, what is at
issue here is not the actual facts about Jesus, but the inaccurate and even slanderous
reports in the Talmud and post-talmudic literature - which is what Jews believed until the
19th century and many, especially in Israel, still believe. For these reports certainly played
an important role in forming the Jewish attitude to Christianity.
According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry,
inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish
sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the
talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.
The more popular accounts - which were nevertheless taken quite seriously - such as the
notorious Toldot Yesbu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him
of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable, and this
popular tradition still persists. (70) The Gospels are equally detested, and they are not
allowed to be quoted (let alone taught) even in modern Israeli Jewish schools.
Secondly, for theological reasons, mostly rooted in ignorance, Christianity as a religion is
classed by rabbinical teaching as idolatry. This is based on a crude interpretation of the
Christian doctrines on the Trinity and Incarnation. All the Christian emblems and pictorial
representations are regarded as 'idols' - even by those Jews who literally worship scrolls,
stones or personal belongings of 'Holy Men'.
The attitude of Judaism towards Islam is, in contrast, relatively mild. Although the stock
epithet given to Muhammad is 'madman' ('meshugga'), this was not nearly as offensive as it
may sound now, and in any case it pales before the abusive terms applied to Jesus. Similarly,
the Qur'an - unlike the New Testament - is not condemned to burning. It is not honored in
the same way as Islamic law honors the Jewish sacred scrolls, but is treated as an ordinary
book. Most rabbinical authorities agree that Islam is not idolatry (although some leaders of
Gush Emunim now choose to ignore this). Therefore the Halakhah decrees that Muslims
should not be treated by Jews any worse than 'ordinary' Gentiles. But also no better. Again,
Maimonides can serve as an illustration. He explicitly states that Islam is not idolatry, and in
his philosophical works he quotes, with great respect, many Islamic philosophical
authorities. He was, as I have mentioned before, personal physician to Saladin and his family,
and by Saladin's order he was appointed Chief over all Egypt's Jews. Yet, the rules he lays
down against saving a Gentile's life (except in order to avert danger to Jews) apply equally
to Muslims.
END - Chapt. 5 |
