Israel and Humanity - Attitude of Jews against Gentiles

 Share 

IV.

Attitude of the Jews to the Gentiles.

§ 1.

What are first prescribed in the rules Israelite forces when they triumph over the Gentiles? This is certainly the perfect moment to see how behave the Jews against the conversion of the Gentiles and how they understand. Everything is supposed to look for in those circumstances the expression of their true feelings, the usual reports of winners to losers, the example of other Semitic peoples as profoundly monotheistic Arabs, who have increased throughout the Koran at the end of their sword, give them a decisive importance. Deuteronomy instructs us about it and he in fact rule the destiny of the conquered peoples and the line of conduct imposed vis-à-vis them to Israel. Strange! You sound like instructions for a legislator to modern Europe, so the religious question is ignored. If the vanquished goes and says tributary, we let live in peace unless he submits a point and continues out war, then the text says: "Thou shalt smite every male in the sword "when it comes to other peoples of Canaan, for to them is the general extermination, which is decreed.

The Mosaic law, we see, does not in any way responsible for the religion of the vanquished; it does not solve anything other than political issue. how should this silence be interpreted? Is this indifference, tolerance, or simply forgotten? None of these assumptions seem acceptable. It makes us see a sense of tolerance in this attitude is partly true, but can not be accepted in an absolute manner. A monotheistic religion and morality so highly, placing its origin in Adam, the father of mankind, and who teaches a Providence equal for all, such a religion, we say, put in the presence of pagan religions as infidels that immoral, would never have pushed the tolerance to punish the protection granted to the conquered peoples revolting excesses to which they were engaged. The laws even the most liberal of modern nations, despite the fundamental principle of freedom of religion and conscience, could never allow religious practices that are, like most of these polytheistic cults, an impudent challenge to morality, to public safety, justice and charity. While few are concerned that our contemporary states in the value of religious doctrines, public order, the instinct of conservation, require them to impose restrictions on religious freedom. Is not this proof, if proof were needed, that civil society can never is completely indifferent to the religious question, because there will never religion that does more or less a good one bad influence on social life?

If the Pentateuch is therefore silent on the subject at hand, we must not hasten to conclude, which is unacceptable again that Judaism teaches nothing about it, but simply that the Bible, Written Law says nothing about it, because his role is almost exclusively deal with external relations, civil and political, peoples and individuals. On everything else, it is Tradition tells us that. We may even say that the silence of the Bible in a matter of such great importance in itself proves that there exists in Judaism another source of doctrine that the Scriptures. To this source, we have only to draw on this as on all others. Tradition indeed consider the problem of religious destiny reserved for the conquered peoples. What Israel should conduct he observed with regard to the religion of the Gentiles, when, after the victory, he has the power to impose its will? Here, we repeat, a crucial moment in the religious life of Jews.

Rabbi Elijah Mizrachi, in his commentary on Rashi, made this issue a long and careful consideration. It takes into account all data scriptural and rabbinic and conclusion he reaches is it. It must, he says, distinguishing between the peoples of Canaan and the other between the wars that are obligatory and optional. In the past, the bid is all that Israel has the right to require vanquished religion she was the rudest of polytheism, it must respect all that is idolatrous, without forcing anything either. As the wars ordered, ie those which Israel was to the Canaanites, the religious issue was not there neglected it is true, the winners would be concerned and be subject to specific terms, if losers wanted peace. But how the conditions were so noble and tolerant! The Israel so proud of his Mosaic, Mosaic that if full of his own greatness, confined themselves to small, almost nothing of what most civilized people would not hesitate to call today about a barbarian tribe: they did not ask anything other than the fulfillment of the Noachism, that is to say what least religion and morality which no company in the world can not happen ever, if it does not expose himself to become a hotbed of corruption and irreparably destroyed. We do not need us for the show. The author of which we speak, in its simple critic, with no other purpose than to achieve a purely objective observation of facts, we undertook before and better than us. The time and the place where he lived as well as his turn of mind, away from us to lend him any philosophical or humanitarian concern, to convince us otherwise it has been more surprised than any of his findings .

We confine ourselves only to see how the sacred text confirms all previous explanations. Why this conduct against the Canaanites? "That," said Moses, so they do not learn to imitate all the abominations that they do for their gods and you may not sin against the Lord your God? ". These words are clear and interpreted by Rashi is not less. "Deduced," he said, if they do penance, they are welcome. Note that the commentator speaks of repentance and no conversion to Judaism, it is only for those people returning to religion because they never give up, that is to say Noachism. That is what his side Nahmanides expressly.

So, in our opinion, the only way to reconcile an apparent indifference by Israel professes to respect the religion of the Gentiles, and the other, it reflects concerns in some cases this subject that one is merely relative to its affiliation with Judaism, they instead affect the fidelity of the Gentiles in the ancient religion of Noah, the only one that is mandatory for all those who are not Israelites. Without this necessary distinction, which is also pure conjecture, as it reflects a set of facts any more important than each other, everything is contradictory beliefs, laws and history of Israel. Also Friedenthal has he done echo everything Judaism when he said: "We do not hurry to enter the Gentile society of Abraham, our father, but at least this sublime mission that we inherited from our first patriarch, is to convert the Gentiles to the religion of "proselyte of the gate" that is polytheism to recant and to observe the seven precepts of Noah ". And it relies on a passage in the Talmud that says the same words: "We will force the Gentile to observe the seven commandments of Noah ".

§ 2.

It is because you understand the distinction we have just established between the two aspects of the Act, and the Mosaic Noachism, Renan could write, speaking of the Apostle Jacques, he would not one from raising proselytes. Strictly observant Jews would never have to applaud any conversion that would bring the Gentiles to their Noachism. But when Christianity claimed to reduce the Mosaic himself to the religion of Noah, remove any difference between priests and laity, between Israel and the Gentile world, not only do all humanity a single church, but in this Church itself abolish the priestly ministry of Israel with all its special duties, then, but then only the entry of Gentiles into the early Church, who could no longer be made otherwise than for the Jews, must have seemed a danger Judaizing Christians.

It was in effect in the presence of neo-Israelites, who not only undertook nothing to keep the law of Moses, but thought they were right to make even the abolition of the Jewish origin, Mosaic substituting the same time as a new religion Noachism was neither the one nor the other not even Noachism pure, since it was still under the name of Israel claimed that the Christian Church take the place of ancient Israel which she retained the title for best altering their character. In the name of Israel kept by the Christian Church as to sum up the general misunderstanding that has diverted so unfortunate if the movement of apostolic Christianity and especially Pauline, then bursts into effect with this claim, absurd and contradictory to become a Jewish humanity, a nation stripped of all his priestly duties and confused with other peoples, in a word and secularized priests laymen alike transformed into priests, denying two ideas necessary to the providential order and, more importantly, one by another. It is therefore not surprising that Jews who, while believing in Jesus did not intend to sacrifice the Act, however, will be alarmed by the conversion of pagans to the crowd on behalf of limitless freedom, came take place at the assemblies of Israel, claimed the title of brothers, and their ever-growing, threatening to destroy the institution mosaic rallying cry of the new Christianity: The Act is abolished!

This Act, like Jacques Judaizing Christians do not want to abandon, but faithful to its spirit, they did not intend to impose the Gentiles. Doctors of all ages have repeatedly declared in effect that the Mosaic Law is only for Israel, it is not a privilege but a burden, the evidence is that regardless of the Israelites by birth, is Israelite who wants, even if he calls the pagan his affiliation with Judaism. Listen to what this says about Maimonides summarizes the teaching of Tradition. "Moses our teacher has passed the law and the precepts that Israel only, for it is written: Here is the Law that Moses has commanded us: it is the legacy of the meeting of Jacob and of who the Gentiles will join the Jewish ". And that is why there is no proselytizing in Israel and the only mosaic that is ordered is that relating to Noachism; this follows also the statements of the Doctor: "As for those that do not require this affiliation, he adds, it does not require them to take on the law and precepts, because what our teacher Moses commanded us the name of God is only to oblige all those who come to world to undertake the precepts that were imposed on the son of Noah, and perish all those who do not accept! "

These last words can be explained if one thinks that the precepts Noachides in question are of such nature that the existence of any human society would be possible without them and that, therefore, whoever violates turns himself in rebellion against his fellows. But Maimonides would he here for a kind of international coercion imposed on Israel vis-à-vis the Gentiles to force them to accept the law on pain of extermination Noachide and is it sold in this, as has been suggested, the influence of ideas and practices of Islam with whom he came in contact? It may, the fact remains that when the Talmud states that "the Noachide is put to death for violating the seven precepts", it is more likely that the meaning of this proposal is that the tribunals will apply the death penalty on each Noachide who violate any of these precepts, blasphemy, stealing or committing a homicide. It is the sense conformable to the general spirit of Judaism.

A passage from Psalms can serve as a commentary on the words of Moses Maimonides quoted and confirms the interpretation: "It shows his word to Jacob, his laws and commandments to Israel. It has not done the same for all nations and orders, they do not know ". The rabbis of their side are not less formal. This heritage belongs to us, they say, and not to the Gentiles . The command of Moses only for ourselves. And with the exaggeration of language which is customary, they add that even the Gentile, without affiliation to Judaism, Judaizers, commits adultery, and if he deals with the law of Moses, it is worthy of death, because he should deal only with its precepts Noachides and only then can equal in merit the high priest himself , so that s it is idle on the Sabbath, he should be punished as the Israelite who works on the same day and finally it is forbidden to teach Torah to the Gentile who refuses to embrace Judaism.

All these statements seem to float in direct conflict with the provisions of the tradition of which we shall concern ourselves further and fit the Gentiles Noachides which have precisely the right to observe as they like such and such precepts mosaics. But in reality, who is aware of the rabbinic style, these awards, in their excessive form, have no purpose other than to insist on the idea that is the very purpose of this chapter, namely that the Law of Moses is only imposed on Israel and the Gentile, who does not fully embrace Judaism, must not allow himself to study and practice law for this incomplete neglect the performance of commandments which he is personally liable. If, on the other hand, we see indicates a desire to bring the Act to the attention of pagans, as for example in order to burn the Act stones within reach of all eyes and, as the rabbis, in several languages to facilitate intelligence is, say the doctors, because in the Act itself, we must carefully distinguish the legal part exclusive inheritance of Israel, the historical, theological, moral, which is the heritage of humanity. "There are such things in the Torah as the creation story, that of Exodus, the story of the patriarchs, the Israelites in the desert that is not only allowed but obligatory teach to all men, because all are subject to the law of Noah and they know the unity of God, Providence, rewards and punishments of another life for the preservation of all human societies. This is why the law of Moses insists upon it and so in a way so clear, so that we could translate that into all languages and all peoples should learn to fear the Lord, the name of God glorious and adorable. But as to the precepts, other people have no part. Wherefore, the outlines provided in confidence and with detailed knowledge of their true only for Israel, by way of tradition ".

So the tradition explained and justified by the nature of any particularistic Judaism, in its legal, outside, which means not only that it is a means of perpetuating the Jewish particularism, but it forms at the bottom with him one and the same thing. The first tradition is indeed the genius Hebrew interpreting his own creation, in other words, the tradition is the special ability that makes each more capable than any other people to understand their particular work. Among Jews, this faculty is at the service of another relative ability to practice and complements the theoretical understanding of their religion. Thus understood, tradition alone should remain the exclusive patrimony of Israel and the only prohibited item to the attention of pagans. And it is precisely the meaning and limitations under which the prohibition of teaching the Law to the Gentiles has been interpreted this ban applies only to the oral law only . Even those who applied to the Pentateuch were not inspired by any other reason than that we have indicated, namely that positive legal and Judaism is only for Israel. This pattern clearly appears in the following words of one commentator of the Talmud: "The prohibition does not watch Law of Moses and his commandments, which will directed toward Israel, but as for the Prophets and Hagiographers, this does not mean that it is forbidden to teach the Gentiles "