Talmudic Dual Morality Oz

Jews and Word, by Amos Oz, Fania Oz-Salzberger (Goodreads Author). 2012

Insights Into Chutzpah, What “Whoever Saves One Soul” Really Means, and Talmudic Dual Morality

The authors are identified as a father and daughter–one a historian and the other a writer and literary scholar. (p. ix). This volume is a companion to the Posen Library of Jewish Culture and Civilization. (inside cover).

This book clearly adopts the liberal view that almost nothing of the Bible is historically accurate. However, it offers some fascinating insights into certain aspects of Jewish tradition, and I focus on these.

I encourage the reader to look up the quoted Talmudic passages in the Online Babylonian Talmud (the site includes halakhadotcom) as I did. It is a rewarding experience.

TALMUDIC ORIGINS OF THE TERM CHUTZPAH

The authors focus on the often-disputatious nature of Judaic discourse, and add that, “The word CHUTZPAH, by the way, stems from the Talmudic concept of an ‘impudent court of justice,’ BEIT DIN CHATZUF, where two laymen pass judgment on financial disputes, even though the sages decreed that three laymen are a minimal quorum for such decisions. Typically enough, the rabbis disagreed on the question of whether the impudent court’s rulings are acceptable. Some said yes. CHUTZPAH may be annoying, but it is here to stay.” (p. 17).

[The unmentioned Talmudic source, of the discussion surrounding BEIT DIN CHATZUF, is Sanhedrin 3a-b.]

SAVING A SOUL (HUMAN LIFE)–OF A JEW ONLY, OR ALSO THAT OF A NON-JEW?

The authors comment, “The Mishnah comments on Genesis crisply and lucidly: ‘Therefore man was created singly in the world, to teach you that whoever destroys a single soul [NEFESH], it counts as if he destroyed a full world; and whoever saves one soul, it counts as if he saved a full world.’ The Babylonian Talmud repeats this phrase with a small and vital change: ‘a single soul of Israel,’ it says. Today, some people quote the universal version and others quote the Israel-centered version, at times in edgy political contexts. So let us spell it out very clearly: we are dumping the Talmudic addendum. We are relegating it to the basement, to gather dust among other unwanted heirlooms. The Mishnaic phrase, by contrast, is part of our living room furniture.” (pp. 176-177).

Oz and Oz-Salzberger specify the sources of this ambivalent interpretation as follows, “‘Whoever saves one soul’ is in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5. The rephrasing into ‘soul of Israel’ is in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a.” (p. 221).

The fact that the authors are relegating the ethnocentric Jewish version to the cellar of history does not necessarily mean that other Jews are also following suit. In fact, their very statements quoted above alone show that the ethnocentric version is still very much in current use!

Moreover, this issue has unmentioned implications when it comes to the rescue of Jews, during the German-made Holocaust, by so-termed righteous gentiles. In fact, Yad Vashem includes the “universalist” Mishnaic quote on its medal of the Righteous for eligible awardees. However, to some, the term “righteous gentile” evokes suspicions of Jewish supremacism, in which a Jewish life is considered more valuable than the life of a GOY–especially in light of the ambivalent definition of the “soul” that is rescued. In addition, the term “righteous gentile” may imply that the righteousness of a GOY is defined in terms of his value to the Jew, and, furthermore, that a gentile who could not or did not rescue a Jew was necessarily unrighteous. This also maps into the never-ending Jewish complaints that “so few” Poles rescued Jews during the Shoah.

THE DUAL MORALITY IN THE TALMUD THAT GOVERNS JEWS AND NON-JEWS

The authors themselves criticize the Bavli, in this regard, as they quip, “The Babylonian Talmud distinguishes between saving Jews and non-Jews on the Sabbath in Yoma 84b. The rabbis debate detail several hypothetical groups of persons needing to be rescued on the Sabbath: nine Jews and one foreigner, as against nine foreigners and one Jew. NOT THE TALMUD’S FINEST HOUR.” (p. 221; Emphasis Added).