Talmudic Apologetic Presented Katz

From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism, 1700-1933, by Jacob Katz. 1982

Includes an Inadequate Talmud Apologetic

This book is primarily about anti-Semitism, but the author’s treatment of the Talmud overshadows everything else. For this reason, as well as the fact that other reviews already inform the reader about the general contents of this book, I emphasize the Talmud in my review.

Otherwise, rhe author focuses on traditional Christian teachings against Jews (read: deicide). That is a given. However, he also presents interesting information on the anti-Semitism of leading atheists, including Voltaire (pp. 34-on), Wilhelm Marr (p. 207, 269), Eugen Duhring (p. 269), and others.

HOW KATZ UNDERSTANDS TALMUDIC INTERPRETATION

By way of introduction to this subject, Jacob Katz writes, (quote) Indeed, many sections of their books and even entire chapters were no longer regarded as valid and binding–not literally, at any rate. Dialectic and homiletic exegesis enabled those who grew up on Jewish sources to maintain the sanctity of the entire tradition on principle, despite the astounding laws and bizarre legends that were included. The Mishnah and the Talmud did not serve as guides for the daily behavior of the Jews, but as books for study. For guidance in daily life, the Jew relied on what he had been taught by his parents and teachers and on recent legal codes that adapted the requirements of the law to contemporary conditions and dominant ethical views. In the matter of theoretical concepts, beliefs, and opinions, no binding principles were ever established, although there were certain dogmatic assumptions that violation of which was considered heresy. Within the constraints of these assumptions, the faithful were free to interpret the tradition themselves; indeed, preachers in every generation devoted unbounded energy to making the sources–even the most bizarre legends to be found in them–correspond to the demands of reason. (unquote). (pp. 16-17).

The author places all this in the context of the changes in the environment of the Jews, from a pagan one to a Christian and, later, also Muslim one, as elaborated in his earlier book [See my detailed review of]: Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Studies in Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (Scripta Judaica, 3), which includes a Talmud apologetic. In my review of this item, I also critique Katz’ apologetic.

ANDREAS EISENMENGER AND HIS Entdecktes Judenthum: BROADER ISSUES

Katz would essentially have us believe that, the Talmud does not say what a straightforward reading of it would indicate, because halakhic rulings had long relegated the “offensive” Talmudic verses only to ancient pagan peoples. Thus, Katz asserts that Andreas Eisenmenger had a solid grasp of the content of the Talmud, but was also completely wrong about what it meant to Jews. (p. 14). That is because Eisenmenger, and other critics of the Talmud, were and are, according to Katz, reading it through the lenses of outdated interpretations. But how are we to determine the validity of Katz’ argument? Does Talmudic antigoyism magically disappear just because it had been redefined to apply to safely long-dead GOYIM?

HOW FAR DO HALAKHIC RULINGS GO?

There are numerous unmentioned problems with attempting to nullify the antigoyism of the Talmud by invoking medieval halakhic rulings on this subject. To begin with, there is no sharp boundary between the implications of rabbinical halakhic rulings and the implications of direct intervention of Christian censors. As for halakhic rulings themselves, some are based on sound halakhic principles, while others are an ad hoc concession to circumstances. One rabbi’s halakhic ruling does not have to be obeyed by, or even known to, another rabbi. Finally, Talmudic glosses act to distort the meaning of teachings–for instance, the arbitrary substitution of “Canaanites” for Gentiles, in BABA KAMA 113b, on the permissibility of not returning the gentile’s lost item or overpayment. For details on all this, and more, please see the following online article by David Goldstein, “A Lonely Champion of Tolerance: R. Menachem ha-Meiri’s Attitude Towards Non-Jews”.

OTHER LIMITATIONS OF HALAKHIC RULINGS ON THE TALMUD

The author touches on nonliteral statements, such as the ones about God studying the Torah or wrapping Himself in a prayer shawl. (p. 17). These are, or should be, intuitively obvious.

However, nonliteral interpretations must have a limit somewhere, and it is unclear where these limits are located. The author suggests that verses such as “a Gentile who observes the Sabbath deserves death” or “a Gentile who studies the Torah deserves death”, in Talmudic usage, were nonliteral. They mean nothing more than a severe condemnation. (p. 19). However, Katz leaves the reader hanging. On what basis was it decided that it was nonliteral, and who made that determination? [I am asking a probing question; I am not insinuating that Jews kill others.] In addition, there are other rabbinic interpretations that DO accept the literalness of the “death to Gentiles” verses. Finally, the antigoyism does not disappear by being designated non-literal. It is only softened.

The literal/nonliteral situation has other implications not considered by Katz. It adopts a pick-and-choose approach to ancient texts, and raises the question if “older” and “newer” interpretations can so easily be dichotomized. In addition, saying that something is nonliteral can be a facile explanation for the dismissal of any inconvenient verse. Finally, if the exclusivist or controversial verses in the Talmud are nonliteral, then what prevents the humanitarian teachings of the Talmud–at least theoretically–from also being nonliteral?

CONTRAINDICATIONS TO KATZ’ IDEAS ABOUT THE TALMUD

Katz’ apologetic for the Talmud is contradicted by quite a few Jews who, even in recent centuries, have testified that normative Jewish interpretation of the Talmud does in fact include some embrace of its Jewish supremacism and antigoyism. Was every single one of them untruthful? For Katz to be correct, the answer would have to be “yes”.

The informed reader probably realizes that there ARE informed Jews, even today, who accept the controversial Talmudic verses just as they are written. The best known of these is probably the late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, a Talmudic scholar who can hardly be accused of ignorance of the Talmud or of past halakhic rulings on gentiles and the Talmud. Yet he taught that the GOYIM are effectively donkeys that exist to serve Jews. The standard explanation is that Yosef was a singularity. Is he? How many other rabbis have similar views, but do not verbalize them, at least to non-Jews? If a researcher were to do an anonymous survey of Talmud-informed rabbis and ordinary Jews today, what percentage of them would more-or-less agree with Yosef? What would the corresponding percentages be for the Talmud-informed rabbis and ordinary Jews of 100 years ago? 500 years ago? 1,000 years ago?

Until the foregoing questions can be definitively answered, and backed up with solid evidence, the rather overgeneralized arguments of Katz should be treated by the reader with caution.

THE TALMUD DOES NOT GOVERN BEHAVIOR? REALLY?

Let me repeat part of my earlier quote of Katz, “The Mishnah and the Talmud did not serve as guides for the daily behavior of the Jews, but as books for study.” (pp. 16-17). This is an amazing assertion! Numerous authorities on the Talmud stress the fact that it most definitely DOES serve as a guide for Jewish conduct–even today. For instance, please click see: The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Talmud.

IMPLICATIONS OF KATZ’ IDEAS ABOUT THE TALMUD

Let us conclude, however, by assuming that Katz’ general reasoning is correct. If so, the reader will have to evaluate the implications of the following considerations, none of which are mentioned by Katz:

Halakhic rulings can only do so much. Literature does not have to be literally true, or to be precisely relevant to the present time, in order to be able to move the reader, and to create or reinforce prejudices. How can a Jewish person read the Jewish supremacist and anti-gentile verses in the Talmud and not be influenced by them–even if he/she believes that they are nonliteral, nonbinding, and inapplicable since ancient times?

In fact, this very consideration was tacitly recognized even in very recent times. In the 20th century, the relevant Jewish prayer, the Alenu, was deliberately changed, in Reconstructionist Judaism, in order to eliminate the admitted Jewish superiority and the admitted invidious contrast of Jews and non-Jews, which are partly based on the Talmud. See the reconstructionist: Sabbath Prayer Book.