Talmudic Racism Wrestled With Assaf

Untold Tales of the Hasidim: Crisis and Discontent in the History of Hasidism, by David Assaf. 2010

Not Only Christian Authorities Censored Jews: Jewish Authorities Also Censored Jews. Talmudic Racism Confronted

This work focuses on the often-disagreeable and sometimes violent antagonisms between different factions of Jews. This includes conflicts between the followers of different rabbis, and the conflicts between the Hasidim and mitnagdim, and those between traditional Jews and maskilim (enlightened Jews). Most of the events described in this book took place in the 18th and 19th centuries, in Eastern Europe.

CENSORSHIP OF JEWS NOT ONLY BY CHRISTIAN AUTHORITIES, BUT ALSO BY JEWISH AUTHORITIES

The author describes the suppression of unwanted information within the Jewish community, (quote) Books in disfavor with certain rabbis (or with activists closely associated with them) can therefore be banned and even burned or otherwise destroyed. But this is uncommon…memory-preserving mechanisms largely employ censorship; both external and internal…But the main method of censorship is self-restraint on the author’s part…This spontaneous self-censorship was grounded not in fear of revealing Torah secrets, but in the author’s piety and sincere desire to preserve the honor of zaddikim. (unquote). (pp. 15-16).

Nowadays, censorship of religious text is usually remembered, and lamented, as something imposed, by heavy-handed Christian authorities, on the Jews and their Talmud. In contrast, author David Assaf provides many examples—complete with pictographs–of Jewish writings that were freely censored (deliberately changed, as by retouching and airbrushing), not by Christians, but by other Jews, and solely for the Jews’ own purposes. (pp. 16-21).

USE OF JESUS CHRIST AS A DEROGATORY TERM

Author David Assaf describes the polemic of Hayyim Krauss against the real or supposed maskil, Yitshak Satanow (1752-1804). Krauss uses the term “that man” to refer derisively to Satanow, and Assaf identifies “that man” as usually referring to Jesus. (pp. 25-26).

VIOLENCE BY JEWS AGAINST OTHER JEWS

In the mid-19th century, the factional conflict between Bratslav Hasidism, and other forms of Hasidism, repeatedly became violent. (pp. 120-153). They were, in effect, Jew-on-Jew pogroms. Jewish violence against Bratslav Hasidim continued into the early 20th century. (pp. 149-150).

JEWISH RACISM IN THE TALMUD SQUARELY FACED

There is a very interesting chapter, in this book, about Rabbi Menahem Nahum Friedman (1879-1933), who was born in Moldava (Romania). Friedman wrote PERUSH MAN, which featured a heated discussion between Friedman and a modern Jew. The setting of this discussion was a train that was travelling from Ancona to Rome. (p. 182). In the opinion of author David Assaf, the discussion between Rabbi Friedman and the modern Jew was a projection of the Rabbi’s own troubling questions. (p. 183).

Here is a selection of the content of the discussion in PERUSH MAN:

(Quote) In response, his interlocutor posed a further question: how is it possible to explain the unethical attitude toward non-Jews evidenced in Talmudic sources and Halakha? In reply, Friedman quoted a plethora of citations indicating the low moral level and barbarism of non-Jews during the Talmudic period, also noting that the sages treated decent non-Jews and non-Jewish scholars with respect, and moreover demanded fair treatment for them. The conversation between the two unfolds over several pages, with the traveler posing thorny questions and the young rabbi providing apologetic answers. Friedman’s companion complained of the sages’ and the halakhists’ overt racism toward non-Jews, which contradicted his interlocutor’s claim regarding their intense humanity and morality. Behold, he noted, an animal can be saved from drowning, as the prevention of cruelty to animals is a Pentateuchal command, but Maimonides rules that a non-Jew drowning in a river is not to be rescued: “Is that love for humanity? Can such laws be considered ethical?” Menahem Nahum replied that this ruling was directed at ancient idolaters, who were baser than, and inferior to, animals. Because these bestial humans not only treated Jews with extreme cruelty but also saw their lives as forfeit, any ethical being would therefore agree with the principle of “if a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first” (Babylonian Talmud BERAKHOT 58a) applies to them. But regarding non-Jews who are not suspected of spilling blood, the rabbis displayed a high moral attitude and required that they be treated equitably, like all Jews. (unquote). (p. 185).

ANALYSIS OF THE FOREGOING TALMUDIC APOLOGETIC

This discussion, if nothing else, proves that Talmudic racism is not something that is imagined to be in the Talmud by anti-Semites. It is a real issue.

The quoted apologetic of Rabbi Friedman, to begin with, only has some plausibility if one accepts the argument that the Talmudic verses applied only to the peoples of Ancient times, and not to gentiles who lived in more recent times. In addition, it only has plausibility if one believes that Jewish universalist sentiments can ipso facto cancel out Jewish racist sentiments.

In terms of specifics, Rabbi Friedman’s Talmud apologetic is ad hoc and unconvincing, for at least these reasons:

1. Mind reading. The apologist supposes, but has no way of knowing, that the antigoy verses were directed only at very-immoral gentiles.

2. The apologist supposes, but has no way of knowing, the extremity of the circumstances (if any) at the time of the writing of the antigoy verses. Moreover, the “extremity of circumstances” argument skirts around the usage of these verses in more normal, non-extreme times.
3. The antigoy teachings presuppose that Jews are in a valid position to make summary judgments of the conduct of non-Jews. This, at very least, is a form of Jewish elitism.

4. The antigoy verses are of a sweeping nature, and, for that reason alone, are inescapably racist. Surely the rabbinical authors knew that a large fraction of gentiles, and not just a few individuals, were free from debauchery or gross immorality.

5. The antigoy verses reflect a self-righteous spirit among Jews. Surely the rabbinical authors, of all people, knew that Jews are not some kind of paragons of virtue. Furthermore, the authors of the Talmud certainly knew, or should have known, that Jews are capable of rivaling, and even exceeding, the debauchery of the heathen (e. g, 2 Kings 21:9; Ezekiel 5:6-7 and 16:47-48).

6. There is no evidence of a clear-cut dichotomy between the Jewish attitudes towards ancient peoples and the Jewish attitudes towards gentiles that lived in more recent, post-Talmudic times.