Tzfi’a 3
The Editorial Board
President
of the Editorial Board and Founder: Rabbi Moshe Segal OBM
Rabbi Yisrael Ariel
Moshe Asher
Joel Rakovsky
Amishar Segal
Articles are the authors' responsibility
5749
Jews Are
Called -- Man
The
Distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Torah
Rabbi
David Bar Chaim
Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav
Introduction
Over the past few years, there has been a
recognizable trend amongst different circles in the religious community -- a humanistic/universal
inclination. There are many who have
written in praise of love, “for all men who were created in the image of G-d.”
We have even been “graced” with a pamphlet of this name, Chaviv Adam Sh’nivra B’tzelem,
composed and edited by Mr. Yochanan Ben Ya’acov, the Director General of the
Bnei Akiva Youth Movement. The explicit goal of those who share this outlook is
to prove that all men are equal, that it is forbidden to discriminate against
any man on the basis of his race, and that anyone who claims the opposite is
nothing but a racist, distorting the words of the Torah in order to fit them to
his “dreadful” opinions.
Here are two
examples:
1. A statement
by Ms. R. Huberman:
“…I never
imagined that the Torah discriminates between one man and the next on the basis of faith,
nationality, or race…on the contrary, it is our Torah which teaches that the
blood of man is holy simply because he is man: “Whoever sheds man’s blood by
man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of G-d made He man” (Genesis
9)…in the Ten Commandments it is written: “You shall not murder”! There
is no hint of a restriction, no hint that the prohibition applies to a Jew and
not to a Gentile…”
(“Between Blood and Blood,” Amudim, a monthly
magazine of the Religious Kibbutz Movement, Tamuz 5745, pg.352).
2. [Former] Member of
Knesset (National Religious Party) Professor Avner Shaki:
“The Jews of
the State of Israel who received the Torah of Moses on Mount Sinai, where it
was established that man was created in the image of G-d, have no need for
any…law to teach us this fundamental basic of the Torah, that all men
are born equal according to Judaism…man’s equality, man’s status before G-d
and before his fellow man, is a primary and fundamental principle in the Jewish
Torah…of course, we will not assist any type of racism which discriminates
against man because of his color, religion, or nationality…”
(an excerpt from his speech
during a discussion in the Knesset on an amendment to the Basic Law of the
Knesset and the Penal Law)
We have
something very clear before us: all human beings, Jew and Gentile, are equal.
As will be further clarified, this outlook completely contradicts the Torah
of Moses, and stems from an absolute lack of knowledge, permeated with foreign
Western “values.” There would not be any need to respond were it not for the many who are mistaken and lead
astray by it.
This outlook
has even been expressed by some rabbis whose goal is to show how great and
important the stature of the Gentile is in our Torah, and who thereby violate
the truth by taking things out of context and inaccurately interpreting the
words of Chazal and the Rishonim. A large part of their efforts are centered
(due to the “Underground” affair, of course) on an attempt to prove that the prohibition
“You shall not murder” also applies to the killing of a Gentile. Here is an
excerpt from Rabbi Yehuda Amital, shlita:
“See the
Ra’aban on the Gemara Tractate Bava Kama 113a, that the prohibition of ‘You
shall not murder’ also applies to a Gentile, as is explicitly stated by
Maimonides in The Laws of a Murderer, chapter 1, halacha 1. See Yere’im,
paragraph 175, that the killing of a Gentile is a subsidiary to the prohibition
against murder.”
(From a letter published in Alon Shvut (Yeshiva
Har Etzion), issue number 100. His words are cited in the pamphlet previously
mentioned, Chaviv Adam Sh'nivra B'tzelem, in an experimental edition, pg.64)
Rabbi Aaron
Lichtenstein shlita writes:
“From
Maimonides’s words (Mishna Torah, The Laws of a Murderer, chapter 2, halacha 11) it is
clear that the prohibition “You shall not murder” applies to a Gentile who
fulfills the seven Noahide commandments, and the murderer is punished by
death from the Heavens. So on one hand there is no difference in the
prohibition of murder between a Jew and a Gentile…”
(From a synopsis of a lecture published in
Keshet B’Anan number 32, Gesher, and cited in the above mentioned pamphlet,
pg.72.)
The followers
of these rabbis continue their path:
“…‘You shall
not kill’! This
is an absolute prohibition, an unambiguous command that does not distinguish
between Jew and Gentile…”
(Mr. Yochanan Ben Ya’acov’s
words in his introduction to the above mentioned pamphlet, pg.1)
Later on it will become clear how misleading and
deceptive these matters are.
Not only about
this halacha are things written which are liable to mislead the public. For
example, Rabbi Lichtenstein writes:
“The field of
the Torah…is also relevant to the world of the Noahide, but there is no doubt
that as far as the extent is concerned…the study of Torah is much less in the
world of the Gentile than in our world.
Rabbi Meir’s
words in Tractate Sanhedrin 59a and the beraitha in Torat Cohanim are well
known: even a Gentile who sits and learns Torah receives reward…an
additional emphasis on the great and exalted study of Torah being relevant to
the world of the Gentile.” (From his essay, Bnei Adam, in the monthly
publication Emda, Number 3, pg.16, and in the previously mentioned pamphlet,
pg.74.)
It is amazing
that he forgot to point out everything said there on this matter, particularly
the conclusion. How could he not mention that Rabbi Meir’s words were brought
in order to disagree with Rabbi Yochanan who said: “A Gentile
who studies Torah is punishable by death, as it is said: ‘Moses commanded
us the Torah as an inheritance,’ for us it is an inheritance, and not for
them”? The conclusion is most important -- in order to settle the conflicting
statements the Talmud answers, “In this case, he is engaged in the seven
Noahide commandments” (He is engaged in the halachas of those seven
commandments to be skilled in them -- Rashi). He is permitted to study those
specific seven Noahide commandments -- and if he learned more than this, he is
punishable by death. So the Tosaphot wrote in Tractate Avodah Zara 3a, s.v. sh’afilu,
and Maimonides in The Laws of Kings, chapter 10, halacha 9, writes: “A
Gentile who engaged in Torah is punishable by death.
He should not engage in anything other than their seven commandments alone.”
The distance between what was said in the Talmud and Rabbi Lichtenstein’s words
is great.
In the
previously mentioned essay Rabbi Lichtenstein writes further:
“The field of
prayer also exists as a universal value…this has been said in connection to the
Holy Temple at its inception (I Kings 8:41-43); this is part of the prophecy of
the end of days: ‘For my house will be called a house of prayer for all the
nations.’ There is also room for the Gentile to come and pray in the Holy
Temple!”
How is it
possible to say such things? Indeed, we have learned a complete Mishna (Kalim,
chapter 1, mishna 8): “…Inside the walls of the Temple Mount is holier, and
therefore Gentiles and one who has been defiled by the dead cannot enter
there…” thus
Maimonides ruled in The Laws of the Holy Temple,
chapter 7, halacha 16. There is no way for a Gentile “to come and pray in the
Holy Temple”! The matter is clear: a Gentile can pray, even on the Temple
Mount, but not in the Holy Temple.
An additional
proof of the Gentile’s stature, according to Rabbi Lichtenstein:
“Animal
sacrifices are conceived by us as being of authentic Jewish character, but they
definitely belong, in the pure sense of the halacha, also to the world of the
Gentile: a Gentile offers animal sacrifices not just on any altar…but in the
Holy Temple” (from the above mentioned essay).
Aside from what
has been previously clarified, that there is absolutely no possibility of a
Gentile entering the Holy Temple, much less of offering sacrifices there,
this statement, like the one before it, does not reflect the position of “pure
halacha” on this topic. There is a discrepancy between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi
Yosi the Galilean in the Sifra on the portion of Emor, parsha 7, halacha
1, and in the Tosephta, Shekalim, chapter 1, halacha 7 (Zukermandel and
Leiberman editions, in the Vilna printing, halacha 3), and brought in Tractate
Menachot 73b, concerning which sacrifices can be accepted from a Gentile.
Maimonides ruled based on Rabbi Akiva (The Laws
of Sacrifices, chapter 3, halacha 2): “Men or women or slaves can bring
sacrifices. But from the Gentiles we only accept burnt offerings as it
is said: ‘From the hand of a Gentile do not offer the bread of your Lord’…but
we do not accept from them peace-offerings, nor meal-offerings, nor sin-offerings
or guilt-offerings…” In connection to this we must add that even if a Gentile
volunteered to donate money in order to have a part in the public sacrifices,
we do not accept it from him, as it is cited in the Sifra, chapter 7, halacha
12, and in Shekalim, chapter 1, mishna 5, and Maimonides wrote in The Laws of
Shekalim, chapter 1, halacha 7: “Everyone is obliged to give half a shekel…but
from the Gentiles who gave a half shekel, we do not accept it.” Generally
speaking -- there is no equality of rights for a Gentile, not in their entrance
to the Holy Temple nor in their offering of sacrifices there.
It seems that
these examples are sufficient to clarify the reason for writing this
essay. Now let us consider a long list of sources that clearly contradict the
previously mentioned opinions. First we will focus on halachic matters, and
afterwards on the spiritual realm. It must be noted that I plan to deal only
with halachot that illustrate the vast distinction the Torah makes between Jews
and Gentiles. I do not intend to examine the topic of the status of Gentiles in
the Torah in its entirety. For example, how and to what extent can the Gentile
serve G-d according to the Torah, and what is his reward for this? What is
possibilities are open for Gentiles residing in the land of Israel? What is the
law for Gentiles who are at war with us or hostile towards us? I will not deal
with these and similar matters -- for this is not my purpose. (These matters
are connected to specific situations and details, whereas the purpose of this
essay is the overall, consistent distinction between Jew and Gentile.) The same
is true concerning the second part of the essay, which will deal with the
spiritual realm.
1. Between Jews and
Gentiles – In Halacha
A. Killing a Gentile
It is written in the Torah (Leviticus
24:17):
"He who kills any man shall surely be
put to death," and it is also stated in the portion of Mishpatim (Exodus
21:14): "But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent, to slay him
with guile, you shall take him from my altar that he may die." On the
latter verse it is stated in Mechilta (Masechta D'Nezikin parasha 4):
"'But if a man comes with intent' -- Why was this stated? Since it is
stated 'And he that kills any man...,' perhaps this also speaks of one who
kills on purpose, in error, and others: a healer who killed [his patient], one
who inflicts [deadly] blows with permission of Beit Din, a father who
tyrannizes his son or student [to death] -- is this what it implies? It is
taught:
'But if a man comes with intent' -- to
exclude [one who kills in] error, 'man' to
exclude the minor, 'man' -- to include the others, 'his neighbor'
-- to include the minor, 'his neighbor' -- to exclude the others."
Isi the son of Akiva says: "Before the giving of the Torah we were warned
concerning the spilling of blood. After the giving of the Torah, instead of
being more severe, they were more lenient. In truth they said he is exempt from
the rule of man, and his judgement is the hands of Heaven."
We learn from the Mechilta that a Jew who killed a Gentile with
intent is not put to death by the Beit Din, as he would be had he killed a Jew.
The halacha is the same concerning a ger toshav, as is explicitly
stated in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on the above mentioned verse:
"'Upon his neighbor' -- with the exception of others, 'his neighbor' --
with the exception of the ger toshav. Perhaps I ought to exclude the
others, for they do not have commandments similar to the Jews, yet I ought not
exclude the ger toshav who has commandments similar to the Jews. It is
taught: 'his neighbor' -- with the exception of the ger toshav."
Likewise it is written in Sifri on the portion of Masaei, paragraph 160, see
there, and in Sifri Zuta on the portion of Masaei, 23: "Upon his neighbor
-- with the exception of the ger toshav."
Similarly we learn in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin chapter 9, mishnah 2:
"One who intended to kill an animal [and instead] killed a man, [intended]
to kill a Gentile [and instead] killed a Jew, [intended to kill] a fetus [and
instead] killed a child who is able to exist outside the womb, [he is]
exempt." These, too, are the words of Maimonides in The Laws of a Murderer
and Saving Life, chapter 2, halachas 10 and 11 (in manuscripts it appears as a
single halacha): "One who kills a Jew or kills a Cannanite slave is put to
death for this. And if he killed unintentionally, [he is] exiled. A Jew who
kills a ger toshav is not put to death for this by a Beit Din, as it is
said: 'But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent.' And it need not be
said that he is not put to death for [the killing of] a Gentile. The same for one who kills the slave of
another, or kills his own slave -- he is put to death for this, for the slave
has already accepted upon himself commandments and is [therefore] included in
the inheritance of G-d," and so the Tosaphot has written in the Talmud, Tractate Makkot 9a, s.v. k'savur.
In contrast, a ger toshav (and
all the more so a Gentile) who killed a Jew, even unintentionally, is put to
death, as we learned in chapter 2 of Tractate Makkot, mishnah 3, and in the
Gemara there (9a), and as Maimonides wrote in chapter 5 of The Laws of a
Murderer and Protecting Life, halacha 4: "A ger toshav who killed a
Jew without intent -- even though he did it unintentionally, he is put to
death."
However, it must be emphasized that one
cannot take this as permission to kill a Gentile. In the aforementioned
Mechilta it clearly states the opposite -- "his [one who kills a Gentile] judgement is in the hands of Heaven" --
so it is forbidden. See further in Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5
(Zukermandel edition, in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4):
"On the spilling of blood, how? …a Jew [who killed a] Gentile is
exempt," for one who kills is exempt [from punishment by Beit Din],
however [this action is] prohibited, and in Sanhedrin 57a on this beraitha it
is stated: "There, how should we learn the beraitha, prohibited [for a
Gentile to kill a Gentile or a Jew] and permitted [for a Jew to kill a Gentile]?
Yet we have learned in a beraitha that Gentiles and shepherds of small cattle
are not raised [from the pit] nor lowered [into it]?" --so there is a
prohibition against the killing of a Gentile. However, we have not found in the
words of Chazal a definition of the prohibition, and the Rishonim are in
dispute on this matter.
The opinion of the HaRa'aban is that
one who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of "You
shall not murder" and these are
his words in the commentary on Bava Kama paragraph 22 (page 74d):
"… 'You shall not steal' is similar to 'You shall not murder' and 'You
shall not commit adultery'
in that it refers both to Jew and Gentile."
This is not the opinion of Maimonides in the beginning of The Laws of a Murderer and
Protecting Life: "One who kills a Jew transgresses a negative
commandment as it is stated: ' You shall not murder'."
Maimonides also wrote something similar in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative
commandment 289, and Rabbi David HaKochavi restated it in his Sefer
HaMitzvot, negative commandment 289. Likewise, it is written in Yere'im
paragraph175 (Schiff edition, in other editions paragraph 248): "…and it
is called murder only concerning a Jew, as it is written: 'who murders his
neighbor' -- the murder of one's neighbor is called murder, but the murder of a
Gentile it is not called murder." And in the continuation of his
statement: "Subsidiary [prohibition] of murder: not to kill a Gentile, as
we learned in the beraitha in Avodah Zarah chapter 2 (page 26a): The Gentiles
and shepherds of small cattle are not raised [from the pit] nor lowered [into
it]."
According to Maimonides, the Yere'im, and Rabbi David HaKochavi, one who kills
a Gentile does not transgress the negative commandment 'you shall not murder.'
Summary
1. One who kills a Gentile, and even a ger
toshav, is not put to death for this by the Beit Din, even if he kills him
with intent. This is clearly stated in the Torah and in the words of Chazal.
2. In the opinion of the HaRa'aban, one
who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of "You shall
not murder," and in the opinion of Maimonides, the Yeare'im, and Rabbi
David HaKochavi, the murder of a Gentile is not included in this negative
commandment. However, according to all opinions there exists a prohibition in
this matter, as is clear from the words of Chazal.
So the Torah
differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile with regards to the killing of a
man.
B. Saving of Life
Regarding the subject of saving a life,
too, the Torah differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile. We learn in chapter
8 of Tractate Kippurim (Yoma) mishnah 45 (in the Vilna edition mishnah 47):
"One upon whom the ruins of a building collapsed and there is doubt
whether he is there or not, whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a Jew or
a Gentile, we clear off [the rubble]. If they found him alive, they clear off
[the rubble], if dead, they leave him there." The Talmud explains on page
85a: "It is needless to say 'there is doubt whether he is alive or dead' if he is a Jew, but even if we are uncertain
whether he is a Gentile or a Jew we clear off [the rubble]," and thus
wrote Maimonides in chapter 2 of The Laws of the Sabbath, halacha 21 (in the
Vilna edition, halacha 20): "If there was a courtyard with both Gentiles and
Jews, even one Jew and a thousand Gentiles, and the ruins of a building
collapsed upon them, we clear off the rubble from everyone for the sake of
the Jew. If one of them moved to another courtyard and it collapsed upon
him, we clear [the rubble] off him, for perhaps the one who moved [to the other
courtyard] is the Jew and the ones who remained are the Gentiles."
Likewise in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, paragraph 329, section
3.
It must be pointed out that a Jew who
wanted to engage himself in the saving of the life of a Gentile which involved
a transgression of the Sabbath, and did so in front of witnesses and after
being warned, is put to death by the Beit Din -- this is self evident.
C. Death by a Beit Din
It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy
19:15): "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or
for any guilt, in any sin that he may commit: at the word of two witnesses, or
at the word of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." And in
the Sifri (Shoftim, paragraph 188) it is written: "Thus far we [learn] it
with regards to the capital laws; from where do we learn it concerning monetary
laws? It is written, 'for any iniquity.' From where do we learn it concerning
[transgression for which one must bring] sacrificial offerings? It is written,
'or for any guilt.' Where do we learn it concerning [transgressions punishable
by] lashes [by a Beit Din]? It is written, 'in any sin that he may
commit'…" Maimonides wrote similarly in the beginning of chapter 5 of The
Laws of Testimony: "No verdict of
judgement may be made based on the testimony of one individual, neither
in monetary laws nor in capital laws, as is written: 'One witness shall not
rise up against a man for an iniquity, or for any guilt'…"
Likewise, one
is not put to death by a Beit Din, even if there were several witnesses to his
transgression, without forewarning, as we learn in the beginning of
chapter 5 of Tractate Sanhedrin: "They [a Beit Din] would investigate them
[the witnesses] with seven interrogations: Which week? Which year?…Do you
recognize him? Did you warn him?…" and there in the Talmud (Sanhedrin
40b): "Ula said: From where [do we learn] forewarning from the Torah? As
it is said: 'And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his
mother's daughter, and sees her nakedness.' Is this matter contingent on
'seeing?' Rather, until it is made perfectly clear to him [that sexual
relations with her are forbidden to him -- Rashi]…In the school of Hizkiya they learn it thus: 'But if a
man comes upon his neighbor with intent to slay him with guile' -- [this speaks
of a case] when he was forewarned, yet he still came with intent. In the school
of Rabbi Ishmael they learn it thus: '…those who find him gathering sticks,'
[it is mentioned in the present tense to teach us that] they forewarned him,
yet he continued to gather sticks" (see there; in the Jerusalem Talmud
there are other ways of learning the requirement of forewarning). Thus Maimonides wrote in the
beginning of chapter 12 of The Laws of Sanhedrin: "How are capital cases
judged? When witnesses come to the Beit Din… the judges say to them: 'Do you
recognize him? Did you forewarn him?' If they say 'We do not
recognize him,' or 'We are not sure,' or they did not forewarn him, behold,
[he] is exempt."
This is the way
concerning a Jew. With regards to a Gentile, however, it is taught in Sanhedrin
57b: "Rabbi Jacob bar Acha found it written in an Aggadic book from the
school of Rav: a Gentile is put to death by one judge and by one witness,
even if he was not forewarned, by testimony of a man and not of a woman,
and even of a family member. In the name of Rabbi Ishmael they said: Even for
[the killing of] a fetus." Thus Maimonides wrote in chapter 9 of The Laws
of Kings and Wars halachas 4
and 14 -- these laws were stated concerning a Gentile, in contrast to the laws
concerning a Jew. (A Jew is not put to death for killing a fetus as it is
stated in chapter 5 of Tractate Niddah, mishnah 3: "A one-day old baby
becomes impure by discharge…and one who kills him is liable…" and see the
reason for this in Rashi on Sanhedrin there, s.v. af al ha'ubarin, and
in the Gemara, Tractate Niddah there. Similarly, verdicts on capital cases
where a Jew is accused may be made only by a Beit Din of twenty three members,
as we have learned in Sanhedrin chapter 1, mishnah 4. Likewise regarding the
laws of testimony: the testimony of a family member is invalid for a Jew, as it
says in Sifri, paragraph 280, on the verse: "Fathers shall not be put to death
for children": "…fathers shall not be put to death by the testimony
of children, and children shall not be put to death by fathers. When it says
'and children,' it includes family members…").
We clearly see
that the Torah is much stricter about the procedures of judgement when dealing
with the life of a Jew than it is when dealing with that of a Gentile.
D. Damage by a Gentile
It is written
in the Torah: (Exodus 21:35): "If a man's ox injures his neighbor's ox and
it dies, they shall sell the live ox and divide the money received for it; they
shall also divide the dead animal." In the Mechilta (Tractate Nezikin
section 12) it is said: "'A man's ox' -- to exclude the ox of a minor, 'a man's ox' -- to
include the ox of others.' His neighbor's ox,' to include [the ox of] a
minor, 'his neighbor's' to exclude [the ox] of a Gentile, the ox of a
Samaritan, the ox of a ger toshav." And in the Mechilta of
Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai it is stated: "'His neighbor's,' -- to exclude
others, to exclude the ger toshav. Is it possible no payment will be
made to a Gentile or that a Gentile will not pay him? It is taught: 'He shall
surely pay,' to include [the payment of] a Gentile and of a ger toshav.
Is it possible that they pay for an innocent [ox] half the damage, and for a notorious
[ox] full damage? It is taught: 'His neighbors' ox,' the ox of his neighbor is
dealt with in such a manner, and not [the ox] of others, concerning whom it is
stated: 'He appeared from Mount Paran' (Deuteronomy 33:2), -- [G-d] appeared
disfavoring all the inhabitants of the world [in contrast to the Jews]."
Furthermore,
there is an explicit mishnah in Tractate Baba Kama 4:3: "An ox of a Jew
who injured an ox which was dedicated [to the Temple] or a dedicated ox which
injured an ox of a Jew is exempt, as it is written: 'his neighbor's ox' -- and
not a dedicated ox. An ox of a Jew who hurt an ox of a Gentile is
exempt. An ox of a Gentile who hurt the ox of a Jew -- whether it is an ox who
was harmless before or an ox which has been proven dangerous, [the owner] must
pay the full damage." A Jew who causes damage to a Gentile is always
exempt, however a Gentile who causes damage to a Jew must pay the full damage
in every case. And thus it is in Maimonides, chapter 8 of The Laws of Property
Damage, halacha 5, and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, beginning
of paragraph 406. The distinction between a Jew and a Gentile is clear.
It is
appropriate to cite the words of Maimonides in his explanation of the mishnah
in Bava Kama there: "If there was a legal case between a Jew and a
Gentile, then the manner of judging between them is as I will explain: if we
[i.e., a Jew] will win under their laws, we judge them according to their laws
and say to them: this is your law! If it is better that we judge according to
our laws, we judge them according to our laws and say to them: this is our law! And do
not find it difficult, and don't be surprised by it, just as one is not
surprised about the slaughter of animals even though they have done
no harm, for one in whom human characteristics are not complete is not truly a
man, and his end purpose is only for 'man' [that is to say, the entire raison
d'etre of the Gentiles is only for the benefit of the complete man -- comment
by Rabbi Y. Kapach shlita in his edition of Maimonides's Commentary on
the Mishnah], and the discussion on this matter requires a separate book."
E. Robbery and Theft of a Gentile
With regards to
robbery and theft from a Gentile, the Tanna'im disagreed, and subsequently so
did the Rishonim, whether the prohibition is from the Torah or only Rabbinic.
It is explained
in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 4 of Bava Kama, halacha 3: "It happened
that the [Roman] kingdom sent two officials to learn Torah from Rabban Gamliel.
They learned from him Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, Halacha, and Aggadah. In the
end they said: your entire Torah is fine and praiseworthy, except for these two
matters which you say -- a Jewish woman should not be a midwife for a Gentile
woman, but a Gentile woman can be a mid-wife for a Jewish woman, and a Jewish
woman cannot breastfeed the son of a Gentile woman, but a Gentile woman can
breastfeed [the child of] a Jewish woman with her permission; robbery of a Jew
is forbidden, but robbery of a Gentile is permitted. At that moment Rabban
Gamliel issued an edict that what is stolen from a Gentile is forbidden
because of the desecration of G-d's name." According to the Jerusalem
Talmud, that which is stolen from a Gentile is forbidden because of Rabban
Gamliel's edict and it is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Likewise it is written
in Sifri on the portion of V'zot HaBracha, section 344, except that the edict
of Rabban Gamliel is not mentioned there.
This is also
what is written in the Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (in the
Zuckermandel edition; in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4):
"…Regarding theft -- a thief, a robber, one who takes a [captive]
beautiful woman, and the like -- these are things it is forbidden for a Gentile
[to perpetrate] against a Gentile, or [against] a Jew, but it is permissible
for a Jew [to perpetrate] against a Gentile."
Thus Rashi
wrote on
the aforementioned beraitha which appears in Sanhedrin 57a, s.v. yisrael
b'goy mutar: "For 'You shall not exploit your neighbor' is written,
and it is not written 'a Gentile,' but there is a Rabbinic prohibition,
according to the one who says that robbery of a Gentile is forbidden because of
desecration of G-d's name in the last chapter 'HaGozel' [chapter 10 of Bava
Batra]." Thus it also appears in Bava Metzia 111b: "And since the
first Tanna learned the law from the phrase 'his brother,' what does he do with
the phrase 'his neighbor'? That phrase comes to teach something in his view
also, as stated in the beraitha: 'his neighbor' -- and not a Gentile. But isn't
it appropriate to learn that a Gentile is excluded from the phrase 'his
brother'? One [phrase] comes to permit exploiting him [a Gentile] and the other
comes to permit robbing him, as he holds that robbery of a Gentile is
permitted." And so it
is determined in the commentary attributed to the Ran on Tractate Sanhedrin
57a. Thus, too, ruled the Rama in Even HaEzer, paragraph 28, section 1, and
also the Maharshal in Yam shel Shlomo on Bava Kama, paragraph 20.
In contrast, it is explained in Torat
Cohanim on the portion of Behar Sinai, beginning of chapter 9 (and it appears in Bava Kama
113a with differences): "Rabbi Shimon says: from where do we learn that
stealing from a Gentile is forbidden? It is written: 'after he [a Jew] is sold
[to Gentiles].' Perhaps one can take him by force and leave? [Take the Jew by
force from the Gentile's house without paying, to steal him from the Gentile --
commentary attributed to Rabbi Simon Sens]. It is taught: 'He shall be
redeemed.' Perhaps one can deceive him? [Fool the Gentile and treat him like an
imbecile in order to buy his slave cheaply -- ibid..] It is taught: 'He
shall reckon with the one who bought him' -- to be precise with him… If the
Torah is so strict in [forbidding] robbery of a Gentile, how much more so
concerning robbery of a Jew." It is explained that robbery of
Gentiles is prohibited, and the plain meaning of the beraitha is that this
prohibition is from the Torah, as the GRA wrote in his commentary on Choshen
Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 8, and as the Radbaz wrote in his Responsa,
part 2 paragraph 1276.
Thus it also
appears in Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, section 266: "'When you come
into your neighbor's vineyard' -- 'your neighbor's,' to exclude others, 'your
neighbor's,' to exclude a vineyard dedicated to the Temple…" ('To exclude
others' -- that is to say, the vineyard of Gentiles, for concerning 'your
neighbor's' it is written: 'But you shall not put any in your vessel' -- so in
the vineyard of a Gentile it is permitted, and it is derived according to
the one who says that view which states that generally robbery of a Gentile is
forbidden… -- commentary
of Rabbeinu Hillel.) Thus it also appears in Tractate Bava Metzia 87b:
"…in your neighbor's vineyard and not in the vineyard of a Gentile. It
is understandable according to the one who says robbery of a Gentile is
forbidden, that is to say, we need this verse to permit a robbery to a
worker…" According to these Tanna'im, robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by
the Torah. Likewise it is stated in Seder Eliyahu Rabba (Tanna d'vey Eliyahu)
chapter 16 (in the Ish Shalom edition, in other editions it is chapter 15), see
there. See further the Tosephta on Bava Kama, chapter 10 halacha 15 (in the
Vilna edition, halacha 8).
Maimonides
wrote at
the beginning of The Laws of Theft: "Anyone who steals property worth the
value of a prutah and above transgresses a negative commandment, as it
says: 'You shall not steal'… no matter if he steals money from a Jew or the
money of a Gentile idolater…" In The Laws of Robbery and Lost Items,
chapter 1 halachas 1 and 2, he wrote: "Anyone who steals from a his fellow
something worth a prutah transgresses a negative commandment, as it
says: 'You shall not steal'…and it is forbidden to steal anything according to
the ruling of the Torah. It is forbidden to rob or exploit even a Gentile
idolater, and if one robs or exploits him, he must recompense him." This is
also the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat,
paragraph 348, section 2, and in the beginning of paragraph 359. Thus also
ruled the Gaon of Vilna there, paragraph 348, subsection 8, and in Even HaEzer,
paragraph 28, subsection 5, and the Ridbaz in the aforementioned responsum. (It
is appropriate to note what the Ridbaz wrote: even though stealing from a
Gentile is forbidden by the Torah, one does not transgress a negative
commandment by doing it; it is also explained so in Likutei HaGRA on
Maimonides, and according to this, once again there is no equality between a
Jew and a Gentile). See Chidushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger, paragraph 359, where he
proved that according to the view which holds that stealing from a Gentile is
prohibited, the prohibition stems from the Torah.
However, even
according to Maimonides's opinion that
stealing from a Gentile is forbidden from the Torah and that consequently one
transgresses a negative commandment by doing it, we find nevertheless found in
his words a distinction between a Jew and a Gentile, for thus he wrote in The
Laws of Robbery, chapter 6, halacha 7: "The Sages prohibited many things
on account of robbery, and one who transgresses these matters is a robber
according to their words -- for example, pigeon racers and dice rollers,"
and there in halacha 11: "one who plays dice with a Gentile does not
transgress the prohibition of robbery, but he transgresses the prohibition
of engaging in idleness, for it is not worthy of man to engage himself all the
days of his life in matters other than words of wisdom and cultivation of the
world." That is, in this issue also a Gentile is not completely equal with
a Jew. See in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 370 who
brought the words of Maimonides and did
not dispute him on this matter, and the SM'A in subsection 4 and in the
Prisha in subsection 7. The GRA, in subsection 7, agreed with him.
F. The Lost Item of a Gentile
It is written
in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:2): "You shall not see your brother's ox or
sheep going astray and hide yourself from them. You shall surely bring them
back to your brother." It is also stated (Exodus 23:4): "If you meet
your enemy's ox or his ass going astray, you shall surely bring it back to
him." In the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on the latter verse it is
written: "'Your brother's ox' -- I only have [learned about] my brother,
from where [do I learn about] my enemy? It is written: 'your enemy's ox'
anyway. Perhaps this is also the case concerning others? It is written: 'your
brother,' as your brother is your partner, so too, any man who is your
partner." And in Tractate Bava Kama 113b: "Rabbi Bibi bar
Gozla said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Chasida: robbery of a Gentile is
forbidden… his lost item is permitted, similar to what Rav Chama bar Guryeh
said in the name of Rav: from where do we know that the lost item of a Gentile
is permitted? As it says: 'In like manner shall you do with his ass; and so
shall you do with his garment; and with every lost thing of your brother's' --
every lost thing of your brother's and not every lost thing of a Gentile. It
was taught in a beraitha: Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair said, in any instance where
there is a desecration of G-d's name, even his [a Gentile's] lost item is
forbidden…"
We learn in
Tractate Machshirin, chapter 2 mishnah 8: "One who finds a lost item -- if
the majority [in the surrounding area] are Gentiles, he does not have to
publicly announce his finding; if the majority are Jews, he must publicly
announce it; if half are Gentiles and half are Jews, he must publicly
announce." Thus wrote Maimonides in the beginning of chapter 11 of The
Laws of Robbery and Lost Items: "One who returns a lost item to a Jew
fulfills a positive commandment, as it says: 'You shall surely bring them
back to your brother.' One who sees a lost item of a Jew and ignores it and
leaves it there transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not
see your brother's ox and hide yourself from them,' and he also abandons a
positive commandment. And if he returns it, he fulfills a positive
command." But in halacha 3 he wrote: "A lost item of a Gentile is
permitted, as it says: 'Every lost thing of your brother's'." Thus it is
explained in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 266, section
1.
In addition, it
is explained in Sanhedrin 76b: "Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: one
who marries his daughter to an elderly man, and one who marries his son of
minor age to a woman, and one who returns a lost item to a Gentile,
concerning him the verse says, 'To add drunkenness to thirst: the Lord will not
spare him'." These are the words of Maimonides there, halacha 3: "If
one returns a lost item [to a Gentile] to sanctify G-d's name, in order that
the Gentiles glorify the Jews, and know that they [the Jews] are a faithful
people -- this is praiseworthy. In a case where there is a desecration of G-d's
name, his [a Gentile's] lost item is forbidden, and he [the Jew] is obligated
to return it...". The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote similarly there.
(In regards to what Maimonides wrote "If he returned the lost item to sanctify…,"
this is according to the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 2 of Tractate Bava Metzia,
halacha 5 -- but it is important to emphasize that one cannot learn general
permission from this, as the Maharshal wrote in Yam shel Sholomo, chapter 10 of
Bava Kama, section 20: "G-d desires a man's heart [aspiration to worship
Him], therefore [one may do it] if this is his intention [to sanctify G-d's
name], however if his intention is that he, and not the faith of Israel,
should be praised, or because he loves the Gentile and has mercy on him, it is
forbidden [to return the Gentile's lost item].")
G. The Error of a Gentile
The error of a
Gentile [i.e., property of which he deprived himself due to an error] is
permitted, similar to the case of his lost item. Thus it is
explained in Bava Kama 113b: "Shmuel said: and his error is permitted."
However, the Rishonim disagree about whether it speaks of a case where a
Gentile erred in his calculation on his own or if it is permitted to deceive
him. In the opinion of Rashi, there (s.v. v'ivla lei zuza) it
is permitted to deceive him, in accordance with Rashi's opinion which was
clarified above, that stealing from a Gentile is permitted. The Tosaphot
also wrote there, s.v. ya'chol, that it is permitted to deceive a
Gentile, however only if he cannot discover it and it won't cause a desecration
of G-d's name. This is also the opinion of the Tur in Choshen Mishpat,
paragraph 348, section 3: "However, his error -- that is, to deceive him
in calculations or to raise his loan -- is permitted, but only if it will not
become evident to him -- for in such a situation there is no desecration of
G-d's name."
But this is
not the opinion of Maimonides, who wrote in chapter 11 of The Laws of Robbery and
Lost Items, halacha 4: "The error of a Gentile is similar to his lost item
and is permitted -- that is, if he erred on his own, but to deceive him is
forbidden." Likewise he wrote in the beginning of chapter 18 of The Laws
of Transactions. This is also the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel (brought in
Shita Mikubetzet; in Aruch, entry plez, it is brought without
attribution) of the Rif, of the HaRaviyah (brought in the Mordechai,
paragraph 158, and in Or Zarua there on Bava Kama), of the Mordechai, and of
the Nimukei Yosef.
The Rama in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph
348, section 2, brought both opinions and did not determine in this
matter; however, the Maharshal ruled in Yam shel Shlomo (chapter 11 of
Bava Kama, paragraph 20) that it is forbidden to deceive a Gentile, and
this is the intent of the Gaon of Vilna there, subsection 13.
In any case,
the entire essence of this dispute is specifically concerning a Gentile,
for with regards to the error of a Jew, everything must be recompensed,
as it appears in a number of places, including Kiddushin 42b: "Rava said: anything
concerning [faulty] measurements, weights or calculations, even if they are of
minimal value, is also recompensed," and so wrote Maimonides in the
beginning of chapter 15 of The Laws of Transactions, and the Tur, and the
Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 232.
H. Abduction
It is written
in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13): "You shall not steal," and
also there (21:16): "Whoever steals
a man and sells him -- if he is found in his hand, he shall be put to death."
In Mechilta, Yitro section 8 it is explained: "'You shall not steal' --
why is this stated? Since it says 'And he that steals a man, and sells him' --
his punishment is stated, from where do we learn a warning? It is written: 'You
shall not steal,' this is a warning with concerning abduction." In
Deuteronomy 24:7 it says: "If a man is found stealing any of his
brethren of the children of Israel and maltreating or selling him, that
thief will die: and you shall eliminate evil from within you" -- so it is
clearly stated in the Torah that only for abduction of a Jew is one punished by
death.
In Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, paragraph 273: "Stealing any of
his brethren -- and not others" (that is, Gentiles -- commentary of
Rabbeinu Hillel). Thus we also learn in
the beginning of chapter 11 of Sanhedrin: "These are the ones who are [put
to death by] strangulation: one who hits his father and mother, and one who
abducts a Jew…" And this is the
wording of Maimonides in The Laws of Theft, chapter 9, halacha 1: "Anyone
who steals a Jewish person transgresses a negative commandment, as it says:
'You shall not steal.' And there in halacha 6: "No matter whether he
abducted [one born] a Jew or a convert or a manumitted slave, as it says: 'Any
of his brethren,' and these are considered our brothers in Torah and
commandments. However, one who steals a slave or a man who is
half-slave/half-free is exempt" -- in any case, we learn that one who
abducts a Gentile is exempt.
I. One Who
Injures His Fellow
It is written
in the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:2-3): "And it shall be, if the wicked man is
worthy to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down, and he shall be beaten
before him, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty lashes he shall
give him and not exceed, lest, if he exceeds and beats him with more lashes
than these, your brother shall be made vile before you."
In the
Mechilta, Mishpatim section 5 on the verse "And he that smites his father
or his mother shall surely be put to death," it is explained: "We
have heard the punishment, but a warning we have not heard. It is as written,
'Forty lashes he shall give him, and not exceed,' and the matter is an a
fortiori inference: if one who is commanded to beat is warned not to
[over]beat, one who is commanded not to beat is obviously warned not to
beat."
All this is
regarding a Jew, as Maimonides wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment
300 (in Rav Kapach's edition): "And from this negative commandment stems the
warning not to beat any Jew: if concerning this sinner we are warned not to
beat him, all the more so regarding any other man." Likewise, he wrote in
The Laws of Monetary Damages in the beginning of chapter 5: "It is
forbidden for one to injure himself or his fellow. And not only the one who
causes injury, but anyone who strikes a kosher Jewish person, whether a
minor or an adult, whether a man or a woman, in any manner like fighting,
transgresses a negative commandment, as it is written: 'He shall not exceed to
beat him'." See further in The Laws of the Rebellious, chapter 5, halacha
8, and in chapter 16 of The Laws of Sanhedrin, halacha 12. Thus it is also
written in Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 600 (in other editions, commandment
595).
Furthermore,
one who injures his fellow is obligated to recompense him, as we learn in the
beginning of chapter 8 of Bava Kama: "One who injures his fellow is
obligated in five categories: damage, pain, healing, rest, and
embarrassment." However, the obligation of compensation applies
specifically to one who hit a Jew, as Maimonides wrote there, halacha 3:
"One who hits his fellow a blow which does not have the value of a prutah
is given lashes, for there are no payments appropriate to enable the paying off
of this negative commandment. Even if he hits a slave of his fellow, giving him
a blow which does not have the value of a prutah, he is given lashes,
for he [the slave] is obligated in some commandments" -- but one who
hits a Gentile is not liable for any punishment.
In contrast, it
says in Sanhedrin 58b: "Rabbi Chanina said: a Gentile who hits a Jew is
punishable by death, as it says: 'And he looked this way and that, and when
he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian" (because [the
Egyptian] had hit a Jewish man -- Rashi, s.v. v'yach). Thus wrote
Maimonides at the end of halacha 3: "And a Gentile who hit a Jew is
punished by death, as it says, 'And he looked this way and that…he slew the
Egyptian'." (However, in The Laws of Kings, chapter 10, halacha 6 he
wrote: "And a Gentile who hits a Jew, even if he injured him slightly --
even though he is punishable by death, he is not killed." See there, in
the Kesef Mishneh and the Ridbaz, for an explanation of why he is not put to
death).
J. Fraud
It is written
in the Torah (Leviticus 25:14): "And if you sell anything to your
neighbor, or buy anything from your neighbor's hands, you shall not defraud one
another." In Sifra on the portion of Behar Sinai, section 3, halacha 4 it
is written: "'You shall not defraud one another' -- this is monetary
fraud." Maimonides wrote in The Laws of Transactions, in the beginning of
chapter 12: "It is forbidden for either the seller or purchaser to defraud
his fellow, as it says: 'And if you sell anything to your neighbor, you shall
not defraud one another.' Even though
one [who does that] transgresses a negative commandment, he is not given
lashes, for it can be recompensed. Whether he defrauded with intent or he did
not know that the transaction was fraudulent, he is obligated to
recompense."
However,
regarding a Gentile the law is different. In Tractate Bechorot 13b it is
explained: "They said: to your partner you return [something gained by]
fraud, and you don't return it to a Gentile." Maimonides wrote in
chapter 13, halacha 7: "A Gentile has not [been included in the
transgression of] fraud as it says: 'one another' [literally, 'each his brother'].
But a Gentile who defrauded a Jew must recompense him according to our laws --
it should not be more severe than it is with a Jew." Thus also wrote the
Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 227 (in the Tur,
section 30 and in the Shulchan Aruch section 26). In this matter also the
inequality of a Gentile is obvious.
K.
Appointing a King and Other Authorities
It is written
in the Torah (Deuteronomy 17:15): "Then you shall appoint a king over you,
whom the Lord your G-d will choose: one from among your brethren shall you set
as king over you, but you shall not set over you a stranger who is not your
brother." In Sifri, Shoftim, paragraph 157 it says: "Your brother,
and not from others" (that is to say, Gentiles, for a Gentile king may
not be appointed over Jews -- Rabbeinu Hillel). And not just a Gentile, but
also a righteous convert, considered a Jew in every matter, is disqualified for
kingship, as is explained in Midrash HaGadol: "'You shall not set over you
a stranger ' -- to exclude the convert… from here they said it is
forbidden to appoint a king from the converts, even after a number of
generations, until his mother is [one born] Jewish."
This is
also the law concerning any position of
authority, as explained in Kiddushin 76b: "We have learned: 'Then you
shall appoint a
king over you from among your brethren,' all appointments of authority that you
make should not be[made]
except from among your brethren." Thus wrote Maimonides in chapter 1 of
The Laws of Kings, halacha 4: "We do not appoint a king from amongst the
converts, even after several generations, until his mother is [one born]
Jewish, as it is written, 'You will not set over you a stranger who is not your
brother.' Not only for kingship, but also for any position of authority in
Israel, neither a general nor chief over fifty people, nor chief over ten
people, nor even a person appointed to verify that the water is distributed to
the fields. It is superfluous to talk about a judge or a nasi, who may
not be other than [one born] a Jew, as is written, 'one from among your
brethren shall you set as king over you'--all the people whom you give
positions of authority shall not be from other than your brethren."
However,
regarding the possibility of appointing a convert to judge over Jews, the
Rishonim are in disagreement. In the opinion of Rashi on Tractate Yevamot 102a,
s.v. ger dan et chaveiro, a convert is allowed to judge a Jew on
property matters, but not concerning capital laws (see also on Kiddushin 76b,
s.v. kol mesimot.) However, in the opinion of the Rif at the end of
chapter 4 of Sanhedrin, the Tosaphot on Yevamot 45b s.v. keivan and in
Sanhedrin 36b s.v. chada, the Nimukei Yosef at the beginning of chapter
12 of Yevamot, the Ran on the Rif, end of chapter 4 of Sanhedrin, and the Meiri
on Kiddushin there, a convert cannot judge a Jew, even on property matters,
until his mother is [one born] Jewish. Thus Maimonides also ruled in The Laws
of Sanhedrin, chapter 2 halacha 9: "A Beit Din of three [judges], one
of them being a convert, is disqualified until his mother is [one born]
Jewish." Nevertheless, a convert may judge his fellow convert, as it
is explained in Yevamot 102 and as Maimonides wrote in chapter 11, halacha 11.
Also the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 7, wrote
similarly.
It is
appropriate to mention the words of the Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 509 (in
other editions 498) on this subject: "The root of this commandment is well
known… one appointed to authority… must be, at the very least, from the seed of
Israel, for they are merciful [people] the sons of merciful [people], in order
that they have mercy on the nation and not oppress them in any matter. He must
love truth, righteousness, and integrity; as is known, anyone from the family
of Abraham possess all these good qualities…"
It must be
emphasized that this is an example of the distinction between one who comes
from the seed of Israel and a righteous Gentile who converts to Judaism.
Even though there may not be many such examples, this is not an exceptional
case, as will be further clarified.
L.
Defamation
It is written
in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:19-21) regarding defamation of one's wife:
"And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the
father of the girl, because he has defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall
remain his wife; he may not divorce her all his life." In Sifri on the
portion of Ki Teze, section 238 it is written:
"'And give them to the father of the girl' -- with the exception
of a female convert whose
mother became pregnant before she converted, but gave birth after she
converted, for [defaming] her daughter one does not pay a hundred shekels of
silver."
Thus we learn
in Ketubot, chapter 4, mishnah 3: "A woman who converted with her daughter
and [the daughter, while engaged] had illicit sexual relations -- she is put to
death by strangulation [and not by stoning, for stoning is only in the case of
a woman born Jewish]. She need not be taken out of her father's door [as is the
law for an engaged woman born Jewish] and [her husband does not have to pay a
fine] of one hundred shekels [if he defamed her, for this is only the law
concerning a woman born Jewish]. If the mother became pregnant before she
converted and gave birth after her conversion, she [the engaged daughter who
had illicit sexual relations] is put to death by stoning, but [the law
concerning] her father's door does not apply to her, nor [the law concerning]
one hundred shekels. If the mother both became pregnant and gave birth after
her conversion, her daughter is considered a born Jew in all matters."
Thus Maimonides also wrote in The Laws of a Virgin Girl, chapter 3, halacha 8:
"For any woman whose rape or seduction does not carry a fine, one who
defames her is exempt from lashes and payments. So it is regarding a Gentile
woman who converted and a maidservant who was manumitted under the age of three
years; even if she was conceived before her mother converted and was born after
she converted, one who defames her is exempt from lashes, as it says: 'Because
he has defamed a virgin of Israel' -- [this does not apply] until her
conception and birth are in holiness."
M. You Shall
Not Hate
It is written
in the Torah (Leviticus 19:17): "You shall not hate your brother in
your heart. You shall certainly rebuke your neighbor, and not suffer sin on his
account" -- so it is clearly stated in the Torah that this prohibition
specifically regards Jews. And so Maimonides wrote in The Laws of Mental
States, chapter 6, halacha 6 (in the printed edition, halacha 5): "Anyone
who hates a Jew in his heart transgresses a negative commandment, as it
says: 'You shall not hate your brother in your heart'." Thus he also wrote
in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 302, and likewise it appears in Sefer
HaChinuch, commandment 245 (in other editions 238).
N. You Shall
not Avenge or Bear a Grudge -- And You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself
It is written
in the Torah (Leviticus 19:18): "You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge
against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as
yourself: I am the Lord" -- here also the verse yells out "the
children of your people." In Torat Cohanim on the portion of Kedoshim,
chapter 4, halacha 12: "You shall not avenge nor bear a grudge against the
children of your people -- but you can avenge and bear a grudge
against others" (that is, against Gentiles -- explanation of the
Ra'avad). In the words of Maimonides in The Laws of Mental States, chapter 7,
halacha 10 (in the printed edition, halacha 7): "One who avenges against
his fellow transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not
avenge'." And there in halacha 11 (in the printed edition, the
continuation of halacha 7): "What is considered vengeance? If one's fellow
said to him 'lend me your ax' and he answered 'I will not lend it to you.' The
next day he needed to borrow an ax from his friend. He said to him 'lend me
your ax' and the other answered, 'I will not lend it to you, as you did not
lend it to me when I requested.' This is vengeance." And there, halacha 12
(in the printed edition, halacha 8): "Also, anyone who bears a grudge
against a Jew transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall
not bear a grudge against the children of your people.' How is this? Reuven
said to Shimon 'rent me this house' or 'lend me this ox' and Shimon refused.
Later, Shimon needed to borrow or to rent and Reuven said: 'See? I will lend it
to you, for I am not like you and I will not pay you back for your actions.'
One who does so transgresses the commandment 'You shall not bear a
grudge'…"
With regards to
the second half of the verse, Maimonides wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot positive
commandment 206 (according to Rav Kapach's edition): "We were commanded to
love one another…and my compassion and love to my brother in faith and religion
shall be as my love and compassion to myself…" In chapter 6 of The Laws of
Mental States, halacha 4 (in the printed edition, halacha 3): "It is a
commandment for every person to love each and every Jew as he loves
himself, as it says: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'."
O. One Who Sees Jewish Houses/Jewish
Graveyards -- Gentile Houses/Gentile Graveyards
In Berachot 58b
this beraitha appears: "The rabbis learned: one who sees inhabited Jewish
houses says: 'Blessed is He who establishes the border of the widow,' [if he
sees them] in their destruction he says: 'Blessed is the true judge.' On
Gentile inhabited houses he says 'The Lord will pluck up the house of
the proud, but He will establish the border of the widow,' in their
destruction --he says, 'O Lord G-d of
vengeance; O G-d of vengeance, appear!'" Furthermore there: "The
rabbis taught: one who sees Jewish cemeteries says: 'Blessed be He who created
you in judgement, and maintained you in judgement, and gathered you in
judgement and in the future will raise you up in judgement.' The son of Ravina
concluded in the name of Rav Nachman the son of Isaac: 'and knows all of your
numbers, and in the future He will give you life and establish you in
judgement; blessed is the reviver of the dead.' On cemeteries of the
Gentiles he says: 'Your mother shall be greatly ashamed; she that bore
you shall be disgraced: behold the end of the nations is a wilderness, dry land,
and desert'." The exact
words of the Talmud appear in Maimonides, chapter 10 of The Laws of Blessings,
halacha 11 (in printed editions, halacha 10) and in halacha 22 (in printed
editions, halacha 19), and also in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, end
of paragraph 224.
P. 'You
[Jews] Are Called Man' -- The Comparison of Gentiles to Animals
In Ezekiel
23:20 it says: "There she lusted upon her paramours, whose members were
like those of asses, and whose issue was like that of horses" ('whose members
were like those of asses' -- their sexual organs, 'and whose issue was like
that of horses' -- means excessive sexual relations, for horses engage in
copulation more that any other male animals, 'whose issue' -- spouting of semen
like a stream of passing water -- Rashi). This verse is a parable to the
Gentiles, as is explained there, and the verse compares them to animals.
This comparison is not by chance, as we will see further on, and it represents
the foundation for a number of Halachic laws.
Q. An Ox who Damages a Maidservant
It is written
in the Torah (Exodus 21:22): "If men fight and hurt a woman with child so
that her fetus departs from her, and yet
