Talmudic Dual Morality Fraade

From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy, by Steven D. Fraade. 1991

Talmudic Dual Morality Governing Jews and the GOYIM: “It Depends on Whose Ox is Gored”

The foregoing teaching appears not only in the Talmud, but in other rabbinical literature. By way of introduction, author Steven D. Fraade writes, “There the context is the interpretation of the mishnaic rule (BABA QAMMA 4:3) that an Israelite is not culpable if his ox gores the ox of a gentile, whereas a gentile whose ox gores that of an Israelite must pay full damages regardless whether or not the gentile’s ox was a habitual gorer.” (p. 52).

RATIONALIZING THE DOUBLE STANDARD ON THE TREATMENT OF JEWS AND NON-JEWS

Much of this book is a discussion of the means that the rabbis, of Talmudic times, had attempted to warrant the inequality of Jews and the GOYIM in Jewish law. Of course, none of them actually justify the denial to the gentile of basic fairness, such as indemnifying him for a gored ox, or returning his stolen property! Rather, they appear to be religious ways of justifying the racist notion that a Jew, by virtue of being a Jew, is entitled to various privileges that the GOY is not. However, I provide some examples of the rationalizations for the interested reader.

There was the argument that gentiles had rejected the Torah and the Noahide laws. (p. 52). According to the Babylonian Talmud (BABA QAMMA 38a), a Jew could appropriate the property of the gentile because, after all, the GOYIM had rejected the Torah and Noahide laws, one of which prohibits stealing, and so God “loosened” their property to Israel. (p. 216). In addition, the property of a gentile is “fair game” to the Jew because the gentile is not included in “his fellow” as specified in Exodus 21:35 (Bavli BABA QAMMA 38a). (p. 216). Still another Talmudic teaching (Bavli BABA QAMMA 113a-b) normally disallows the stolen property of a gentile, but allows for his lost property. (p. 217). In MEKILTA TO DEUTERONOMY, God proves his greater love to Israel by allowing the Jews to possess the lost, but not stolen, belongings of the gentiles. (p. 217).

There was probably no “evolution” in attitudes towards gentiles: Different views of the propriety of stealing form a gentile coexisted in different discursive settings. (p. 218). Finally, the stealing of property from the gentile was forbidden if, using modern language, it would be bad public relations for the Jews. (p. 225).

NO CLEAR REASON FOR ASSUMING THAT JEWS ARE MORALLY SUPERIOR TO NON-JEWS

The gentiles-rejected-Torah rationalization is internally inconsistent. For instance, a passage in MEKILTA states that God had never intended for the nations to receive the Torah, as they would never be able to fulfill it. (p. 197). [Parenthetically, does this not imply a bit of Jewish self-righteousness, in that it implies that non-Jews cannot keep the Torah while Jews are presumably morally superior because they can?] There are also contradictory views on whether the nations have no share [HELEQ] in the Torah, or if they do. (p. 201). In fact, SIFRE has an acknowledged “exclusivist attitude towards the nations” (p. 214) that strongly opposes the nations studying the Torah. (p. 214).

There is also internal inconsistency in the usage of the doctrine of the Noahide laws. Fraade quips, “These two somewhat conflicting views of the Noahide laws—that their authority derives from divine fiat or from human acceptance—are found elsewhere in rabbinic sources.” (p. 198). [So how can the GOYIM be legally mistreated, in accordance with Jewish law, because of something over which they even had no choice?] The vacuous character of the Noahide-laws argument is further shown the following: According to the SIFRE, the nations rejected the seven Noahide commandments that they had previously accepted. (p. 227).

NO JEWISH MORAL SUPERIORITY EVEN NEEDED

Commentaries in the SIFRE and TOLEDOT ADAM speak of an arbitrary Jewish status that is independent of any presumed superiority of moral conduct of the Jews. Fraade comments, “Incidentally, it should be stressed that our commentary does not so much credit Israel with having fulfilled the commandments as with having accepted, and continuing to accept, them. Israel may also include murderers, adulterers, and robbers, but it knows that such behavior does not accord with the covenantal obligations it bears.” (p. 198).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The author provides a variety of interesting information. For instance, he suggest that stories of meetings between rabbis and Roman officials serve as confirming foils for rabbinic self-understandings. (p. 215).

The content of this book overlaps that of another involving author Steven F. Fraade. See my detailed review of:

0814779905