Abstract
This chapter focuses on the talmudic determination “You are called men but Gentiles are not called men,” setting an unsuitable hierarchy between Israel and other nations evoking racist associations. The study of the rabbinic hermeneutical discourse, however, reveals that the view that precludes the possibility of any contradiction between rationality and rabbinic statements was accepted literally. Generations of talmudic commentators suggested an interpretation that denies the hierarchical stance. The hierarchical voice, then, has not disappeared but its minor resonance shows the centrality of the autonomous voice. The significant effort that sages have consistently invested in deconstructing a seemingly hierarchical stance reveals their deep moral commitment and their recognition that, together with their membership in the particular Jewish community, they also belong to a universal ethical community. This membership compels them to perform interpretive moves that will bring the determinations of halakhic sages closer to a rational stance that rejects DCM.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
BT Yevamot 60b–61a and parallel versions. In the printed version, “heathens” replaced “Gentiles” due to censorship considerations. See Dikdukei Soferim on Bava Metsia 114b, and manuscript versions of Yevamot.
- 2.
Yehezkel Cohen, The Attitude to the Gentile in Halakhah and in Reality in the Tannaitic Period (Ph.D. dissertation: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1975) [Heb].
- 3.
Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, trans. Reuven Hammer (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986), Piska 173, 201. Hammer renders it as “person.”
- 4.
BT Berakhot 7b, and see also Cohen, Attitude to the Gentile, 80–81.
- 5.
M. Shekalim 7:6.
- 6.
Sifra, Be-Har, ed. Isaac Hirsch Weiss (Vienna, 1862), ch. 9, 110b [Heb].
- 7.
The Midrash on Proverbs, trans. Burton L. Visotzky (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1992), 23. See, for example, Yalkut Shimoni, Proverbs, ed. Shimon of Frankfurt (Jerusalem, 1984), § 929 [Heb]. Note that, in the Midrash version, the words “from Israel” are added to “a single soul.” Ephraim E. Urbach, however, showed this addition is of no significance here. See Ephraim E. Urbach, “‘Kol Ha-Meqayyem Nefesh Aḥat …: Development of the Version, Vicissitudes of Censorship, and Business Manipulations of Printers,” in The World of the Sages: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2002), 561–577 [Heb].
- 8.
See Cohen, Attitude to the Gentile, 85.
- 9.
An initial study on this topic is Moshe Greenberg, On the Bible and Judaism, ed. Avraham Shapira (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1984) [Heb]. The prominent flaws of this study are its ideological character and its critical-polemical stance. Greenberg presents an imbalanced picture of Jewish tradition that marginalizes the ontological trend. Moreover, he does not deal with the full spectrum of sources found in Jewish tradition and with their various meanings.
- 10.
Rashi ad locum, s. v. mokesh adam.
- 11.
For further discussion of R. Hanina’s statement, see Chap. 10.
- 12.
Krakow 1555–Posen 1634.
- 13.
Maharsha, BT Sanhedrin 46b, s. v. li-shnei ahim. On Maharsha’s stance, see later in this chapter.
- 14.
The Zohar, trans. Daniel C. Matt, vol. 2 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004), Hayyei Sarah, 131a. Matt renders as “human being” the original “bar nash” (Aramaic for man). It merits note that this Zohar passage has frequently been cited in halakhic discussions on impurity laws. See, for example, Avrohom Bornsztain, Responsa Avnei Nezer, Yoreh Deah, Part 1 (New York, 1952), 312, § 19 [Heb].
- 15.
North Africa 1696–Jerusalem 1743.
- 16.
Hayyim Ben Atar, Or ha-Hayyim, Numbers 19:1 (Jerusalem: Horev, 2003) [Heb].
- 17.
Safed, sixteenth century.
- 18.
Shmuel di Uzeda, Midrash Shmuel (Warsaw, 1869), 118 [Heb].
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
Ibid. Further on in his commentary, he cites R. Hayyim Vital, who presents a similar view. R. Shmuel suggests another interpretation as well, which belongs to the restrictive trend and is discussed later.
- 21.
Poland c. 1520–Prague 1609.
- 22.
R. Judah Loew b. Bezalel (Maharal), Derekh Hayyim, ed. Hayyim Pardes (Tel Aviv, 1975), 204 [Heb].
- 23.
Jerusalem 1724–Livorno 1806.
- 24.
Literally, “of priestly seed.” The reference is to his teacher, R. Yitzhak Hacohen.
- 25.
R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai (Hida), Devash le-Fi (Lemberg, 1862), Part 1, § 14 [Heb].
- 26.
Maharsha, Hidushei Aggadot, s. v. ha-soter lo’o.
- 27.
See Urbach, “‘Kol Ha-Meqayyem Nefesh Aḥat.’”
- 28.
Maharsha, Hidushei Aggadot, 37a, s. v. lefikhakh.
- 29.
Luntschitz 1545–Prague 1619.
- 30.
Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz, Olelot Ephraim, 1 (Lemberg, 1859), § 22 [Heb].
- 31.
Turkey 1500–Safed 1580.
- 32.
Moses b. Joseph di Trani, Responsa Mabit (Jerusalem: Yad ha-Rav Nissim, 1990), Part 3, § 22 [Heb].
- 33.
The source of this addition is unclear and may be due to fears of censorship.
- 34.
On the meaning of “even though they have sinned, they are still Jews,” see Jacob Katz, Halakhah and Kabbalah: Studies in the History of Jewish Religion, Its Various Faces and Social Relevance (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984), 255–269 [Heb].
- 35.
Russia 1809–1879.
- 36.
R. Meir Leibush b. Yehiel Michel, ha-Malbim al ha-Torah, Leviticus 1, Torah Or, § 1 (Jerusalem, 1957) [Heb].
- 37.
Ibid.
- 38.
Guide 1:7, 33.
- 39.
Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, ed. Joseph Kapah (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1964) [Heb].
- 40.
Perhaps an ironic element is evident here in that medieval universalism is perceived in current terms as a kind of elitist particularism. At present, universalism is founded on recognition of the unconditional immanent value of every human creature regardless of their intellectual achievements. This distinction raises the question of the continuity between medieval and contemporary universalism and whether medieval universalism enabled exclusion.
- 41.
Lithuania 1843–1926.
- 42.
Meir Simha Hacohen of Dwinsk, Meshekh Hokhmah (Jerusalem, 1973), Genesis 18:27, 19 [Heb]. On his anti-mythical approach, see ibid., Exodus 12:21; 19:13; 32:17.
- 43.
Ibid., Exodus 32:6.
- 44.
Belorussia 1745–Russia 1813.
- 45.
Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim (New York, 1974) 4:2 [Heb]. Cf. Pri Megadim, Mishbetsot Zahav, Orah Hayyim 4, § 7 [Heb].
- 46.
In the Tanya, R. Schneur Zalman writes: “The souls of the people of the world, however, emanate from the other, unclean kelippot which contain no good whatsoever” (Likkutei Amarim, Tanya, bilingual edition [Toronto: Kehot, 1984], ch. 1, and see also ch. 6).
- 47.
Lunel 1155–Spain 1215.
- 48.
Abraham b. Nathan (Yarhi), Sefer ha-Manhig (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1978), Hilkhot Netilat Yadayim, 205 [Heb]. Cf. Hayyim Palachi, Responsa Lev Hayyim (Salonica/Izmir, 1823–1869), Part 1, Orah Hayyim, § 68, and Part 2, Orah Hayyim, § 6.
- 49.
Poland 1775–1869.
- 50.
See also Ovadia Yosef, Responsa Yabi’a Omer (Jerusalem, 1974), Part 1, Yoreh Deah, § 10 and 23 [Heb].
- 51.
For further discussion of this distinction, see later.
- 52.
Moshe Sofer, Responsa Hatam Sofer (Jerusalem, 1972–1982), Yoreh Deah, § 336, [Heb].
- 53.
R. Abraham Hacohen Kook, Responsa Da’at Cohen (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1960), § 199 [Heb].
- 54.
Ibid.
- 55.
R. Abraham Hacohen Kook, Orot (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1985), 156 [Heb].
- 56.
BT Sanhedrin 59a.
- 57.
Rashi, ad locum, s. v. ha-adam.
- 58.
Tosefot on Yevamot 61a, s. v. ve-ein.
- 59.
Note that Tosefot Sanhedrin ad locum, s. v. ela ha-adam, cite an addition that is placed within quotes: “because man refers to the advantage of the perfect person, adorned by God’s Torah.” This addition could tilt Rabbenu Tam’s statement in an ontological direction, although this entire matter is hardly simple since this addition is not found in the Tosefot in Yevamot and in Avodah Zarah 3a, s. v. kohanim. Furthermore, its meaning is unclear since the addition stressing uniqueness requires the definite article [“the man”] rather than its elimination. This tradition, however, which ascribes the ontological trend to Rabbenu Tam, recurs in Hida’s statement in Devash le-Fi, § 14: “Israel, who are held from above, are called ‘man’ [adam], a name that comes from God, and heathens, who are from the side of fifty gates of impurity, are called ‘the man’ [ha-adam], which in numerology equals impurity [tame].” Yet, this is a homily without any specific context and lacking any basis in Rabbenu Tam’s statement. R. Hizkiyahu Medini, Sdei Hemed (New York, 1962) pointed also to the logical fallacy that results from ascribing such an interpretation to Rabbenu Tam. According to Hida, the term “the man” applies only to Gentiles, whereas according to Rabbenu Tam it applies both to Gentiles and to Jews (ibid., vol. 1, § 74), 35–36.
- 60.
Tosefot Yevamot 31a, and see also Tosefot on Sanhedrin 59a.
- 61.
Yehezkel Landau, Responsa Nod’a bi-Yhuda (Ashkelon, 1990–1994), Yoreh Deah § 94, 90 [Heb].
- 62.
Poland 1805–1855.
- 63.
Zvi Hirsch [Maharatz] Hayot, Hidushei Maharatz Hayot, Yevamot 61a, s. v. atem kruyim.
- 64.
Maharatz Hayot, Complete Works of Maharatz Hayot, vol. 1, Darkei Moshe (Tel Aviv, 1983), 488 [Heb].
- 65.
Maharal’s book Derekh Hayyim was first published in Krakow in 1589, ten years after the birth of R. Yom-Tov Lippman Heller, the rabbi of Krakow, in 1579.
- 66.
Yom-Tov Lippman Heller, Tosefot Yom-Tov. His commentary appears in most standard editions of the Mishnah.
- 67.
Ibid., Nega’im, 12:1.
- 68.
The reference could be to the kabbalist R. Isaac Luria—his teacher and mentor at the yeshiva where he studied.
- 69.
Uzeda, Midrash Shmuel, 120.
- 70.
Ibid. See also Avi Sagi, Living with the Other: The Ethic of Inner Retreat, trans. Batya Stein (Cham: Switzerland: Springer, 2018), 143–146.
- 71.
R. Ben Zion Meir Hai Uziel, Piskei Uziel bi-She’elot ha-Zeman (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1977), 178 [Heb]. For further discussion, see Chap. 8.
- 72.
North Africa 1892–Israel 1974.
- 73.
Yosef Mashash, Responsa Mayim Kedoshim, Yoreh Deah, § 109 [Heb]. This part of the responsa of R. Mashash is included in his book Mayim Hayyim, Part 2 (Jerusalem, 1985) [Heb].
- 74.
Ibid.
- 75.
On this ethos, see Pinhas Eliyahu Horowitz, Sefer ha-Brith, Section 13 (Warsaw, 1898) [Heb].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sagi, A. (2021). “You Are Called Men”: Between Jew and Gentile. In: Morality and Religion. Jewish Thought and Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82242-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82242-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-82241-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-82242-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)