Israel and Humanity - Civil rights and religious non-Jews in the Holy Land
From English Hareidi
Pagans in Palestine.
RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS OF NON-JEWS IN THE HOLY LAND.
We have hitherto regarded the Gentile that the aspect of proselytizing, that is to say, as more or less completely converted to the religion of Israel. It is not separate us from our subject of study as its original form, the pagan, pure and simple, and to consider what is in this state the position that Jewish law has formed in Palestine.
We have seen that the sacrifices of the Gentiles were welcomed into the temple of Jerusalem, without one cherchât to inquire into the feelings and beliefs of those who offered them. Why would they have done elsewhere if it is true, as the doctors generally professed, that non-Jews (goyim ) does not commit sin by killing any being true to God in their worship? This acceptance, unconditionally, the sacrifices of pagans, perhaps, we have said in the old tradition, a trace of the application of this principle. The fact is that the pagan religious situation in Palestine makes us predict its provisions for civil position, or because the civil and religious laws in Israel do not form a single law - at least in the mind is One - they can not contradict itself, or because religion is among the Jews that is sacred, it is not presumed that civil law was less liberal it. The facts, few as they are, have a decisive importance. The pagan example, incredibly, had the right to purchase in Palestine, under the influence and protection of Jewish law, a Jew as a slave. The text of  which penalizes the law leaves no doubt in this regard and also the tradition which for us is inseparable from the Scripture is absolutely formal. Such a provision is undoubtedly remarkable is that we admit, is that we deny the revelation. In the first case the divine truth of the tradition is confirmed when we see it rise so high and so far the ideas and passions of the time, and in the second, what more beautiful sight than that which we offered by the Pharisees if maligned, when in moments of fierce fighting, they set aside their resentments and most legitimate claim to such laws! It was argued that Josephus and Philo in apologist advised, did not show the Greco-Roman world that the beautiful side of Judaism that they even intentionally heightened value. But the Pharisees who spoke and taught in the secret of the school and did not care to divulge their doctrines are free from any suspicion of this kind.
If the Gentile in Palestine could buy an Israelite, become the master and subject to all the slave work, provided, says the mosaic, sublime in this simple restriction, it did not hit as opprimât the eyes of his brothers , a fortiori it should be able to acquire buildings. If one thinks of what the ancient peoples abroad, the difficulties that existed previously and which are still found today in some modern states to obtain civil rights and also to abyss even deeper than the strict monotheism of the profession must necessarily widen between Jews and Gentiles idolaters, one can not but be struck by the ease with which the Jewish law to the Gentiles granted the right of ownership, something that seemed so natural that it did not even need to be explicitly mentioned.
There are, indeed, in the Talmud, a discussion between Baba and R. Eleazar about the faculty should be granted or denied to the Gentile ( goy ) to acquire property in the Holy Land . According to Rashi, it is not, in this dispute, whether the land purchase from a Jewish turn a Gentile must be regarded as holy ground therefore subject to the precepts associated; on this point the agreement between the doctors is  Complete: land in question covered by the very fact holiness first. The question is whether the purchase made by the goy has the effect of exempting the land during the time it remains in its possession to the obligation of tithes and all sampling on its products. According to Maimonides  On the contrary the rabbis would agree that the land in the hands of the Gentile is discharged to the provisions of the Act relating to the crops and the controversy would roll only on the question of whether, back in the possession of a Jew, this earth, all it is in reality Palestinian, must be considered as belonging originally to the Gentile and free from any religious charge  "It is the opinion of R. Meir, Maimonides adds that the goy has no right of possession in the Holy Land, but this is not the doctrine to be followed ( Alacha ), we must rather professerque Gentile has the right to buy property in the Holy Land, that people are free of tithes  ". The Jerusalem Talmud  The Caphtor vafarah commented on these words:" We must conclude that he is not allowed unlawfully detain or seize the land of goy as we can make those gher when he leaves no heirs, his title to the property is absolute. "
As for Maimonides the purchase made by the Gentile of land in Palestine has the effect of removing the ground for life's Jewish character by Raschi and the acquisition provides at least one non-Jew the absolute right of ownership. Finally, according to another opinion, it exempts the land, as long as it remains in the possession of goy , of all charges against the property of the Israelite. But this is not all that respect for human rights abroad is carried so far that it leads to consequences which seem implausible when we compare them to some other statutory provision not less established. What will there be  In fact if we say that the polytheistic worship itself was protected in Palestine, in the sense that the pagan temples enjoyed civil rights point to purchase an Israelite as a slave? It presents such a conflict with other biblical and rabbinic prescribing instructions continue relentlessly all traces of idolatry that we remain confused. Yet what emerges from the text of Leviticus on the right of the alien to acquire slaves: "If a stranger, who lives with you becomes rich, and your brother becomes poor beside him and sells abroad who lives with you or a family member from abroad  ". The word gher used in this circumstance and that we translate as someone is in fact applied by the Tradition to pagan worship. It was expected if a Jew would sell as a slave to a pagan temple, though not as accurate, but only as a servant, for example, say the ancient rabbis , to cut wood or fetching water. In this case as in all others, the rules enacted by the legislature must be observed. Not only the acquisition was deemed valid, but that the slave could regain his freedom, he had to one of his parents and redeem the redemption price was exactly based on the number of years remaining before Jubilee. The sentence recommending the accuracy in the calculation also points out that the Act forbids steal or deceive the Gentile, which only gives more value to the provisions we have quoted.
The Act, however, do not forget to protect the Israelite slaves against possible abuses of its pagan masters, be they priests polytheists. It provides as a cause of poverty and this sale makes it a duty for parents to buy it. Finally she prescribed drug  to treat non-Jewish Toma a simple mercenary, without harshness or violence, and the mosaic expression of the text: "He (the goy ) do with rigor under your eyes "seems to say to the Israelites that they must not allow the pagan protected by their laws in their own homeland, not content to become the master of one of their brothers, then gives the little tyrant like his morals civilized and religious hatred could push him.  Despite this, the legal condition of Jewish slave of a pagan in the Holy Land under Jewish government is much harder than it is made in the same conditions with another Jew. In the words of Leviticus  "If not redeemed any of those ways, he released the year of jubilee, he and his children with him," the rabbis have the comment: "The acquisition makes him recover his freedom, but not after six years  (as is the case for an Israelite slave who comes free after six years of servitude without waiting for the jubilee). If we were seen as a mere exaggeration rabbinical doctrine of the Talmud Torah outdoing would be the more remarkable. But it is not "He who has sold the pagan, Luzzatto said, do not go out free after six years of service, because the Act has enabled everyone to sell for more than six years. But the Jubilee is also free. "
This is the place to find, as follows from the laws we are studying right now, that Gentile property was inviolable in the eyes of the Jewish Torah, as there was no war, what means that the normal state of international relations, as conceived by Judaism, was a state of peace and justice. How to doubt when we see the Jewish law protecting the rights of the Gentile in Palestine on the ground and even on the Jewish people! The text mosaic  said: "You destroy all the peoples that the LORD thy God will deliver" It is forbidden to steal the Gentile, the doctors say it is possible to take advantage of what he lost. Where do we see the prohibition of theft? In these words: "You destroy all the nations which the LORD thy God will deliver" that is to say, when God will give you dominion over them? , precisely as happened during the conquest of Canaan, which had to be ordered by God, otherwise it would not have been permitted, which means that without a special provision of the Master of the world, is not permissible to touch the property of the pagans.
Thus, we repeat, according to the Hebrew conception, peace is the normal state between peoples, the war is an exception. This is exactly the opposite theory to that professed  the Romans. "The people, said the jurist Pomponius, with whom we do not build relationships of friendship, hospitality or affinity are not our enemies. But if a thing belonging to us falls into their power, they become owners in the case of free men, they become slaves and other nations are under the same conditions than we  ".
- ↑ Leviticus Chapter XXV, 47.
- ↑ Leviticus XXV, 53.
- ↑ Ghittin, 47 a. </li>
- ↑ Page 600 </li>
- ↑ <i> Teroumot, I, 10, 11; Biccourim , II, 15.
- ↑ Caphtor vafarah, 5.
- ↑ On Demai, Ch V, 9.
- ↑ Ghittin gives also the opinion of R. Meir another interpretation: "If R. Meir, "we read, said that the Gentile does not have the right to property in the Holy Land, it is only on the effect of freeing the land of the tithe, but as to the ownership itself R. Meir agrees with other doctors concede to the Gentile. "
- ↑ Page 601
- ↑ Leviticus XXV, 47.
- ↑ View commentary Rashi in the passage City
- ↑ V 53 Ibid.
- ↑ Page 602
- ↑ V. 54
- ↑ Raschi.
- ↑ Deut. VII, 16.
- ↑ Baba Kama, 113 b
- ↑ Page 603
- ↑ Leg. V. § 2 of Captivitate.