Judaism NonPersecutory No Credit to Jews Laursen

Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment, by John Christian Laursen (Editor), Cary J. Nederman (Editor). 1997

Judaism Non-Persecutory By No Choice. Medieval Rabbi Moses Maimonides, a Progressive for His Time: Punish Christians as Idolaters!

This work consists of a series of essays on the subject of religious tolerance. It refutes the argument that religious tolerance began in the Enlightenment, or that religious tolerance had been the creation of atheist or agnostic thinkers. (e. g, p. 5).

I focus on Gary Remer’s article (pp. 71-91), which is titled, Ha-Meiri’s Theory of Religious Toleration”. Gary Remer is currently an Associate Professor of Political Science at Tulane University. Much is his article is based on the work of Yaacov Katz. Please click on, and read my review, of Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Studies in Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (Scripta Judaica, 3).

JUDAISM BECAME NON-PERSECUTORY OWING TO CIRCUMSTANCES

One of the main reasons that Jews did not persecute non-Jews was the simple fact that Jews were a minority group, and were unable to do so. Remer quips that, (quote) In contrast, Judaism, despite its unity of realms, was not as actively intolerant as Christianity. IT COULD NOT be, because Jews, since the destruction of the Second Commonwealth in 70 C. E., lacked the coercive apparatus of the state that Christianity had…the Jewish community had no legitimate means of coercion to punish gentiles for religious crimes. (unquote). (Emphasis in original). (p. 76). However, some Jews did contemplate Judaism becoming a persecutory religion if Jews became a majority. For instance, see my discussion, below, of Maimonides on idolaters, in a resurrected Jewish state.

What about Jew-on-Jew persecution? Remer notes that, compared with Christianity, Judaism placed less emphasis on orthodoxy and more on orthopraxy. He adds that, (quote) For Judaism, toleration relates more to forbidden actions than to heretical ideas. (unquote). (p. 75). Even so, Judaism did pay attention to heresy. However, Jews did not usually impose harsh penalties on Jewish heretics within their community, even though such penalties were prescribed for certain heresies. According to Remer, this did not owe to a Jewish spirit of toleration. It owed to the following: As a minority group, Jews felt that they could ill-afford to present a picture, to the gentiles, of a divided community. (p. 82).

MOSES MAIMONIDES AND HIS AMBIVALENCE ON JEWISH UNIVERSALISM

This famous medieval Jew had an ambiguous attitude towards universalism. He sometimes taught that salvation could be attained by those gentiles who had proper knowledge of the Creator and who acted ethically. (p. 87). At other times, however, Maimonides (1135-1204) taught that the gentiles’ obedience of the Noahide laws was, by itself, insufficient for salvation. Gentiles also had to recognize that the Holy One had revealed the Torah to the Jewish people, through Moses, in order to be saved. (p. 87).

MOSES MAIMONIDES ADVOCATED PUNISHING CHRISTIANS AS IDOLATERS

Moses Maimonides believed that Christianity was clearly idolatrous. (p. 77, 78). Therefore, the Talmudic statements on idolaters applied to Christians. (p. 78). Earlier, I had noted that medieval Jews were in no position to persecute gentiles. What if the tables had been turned? Remer, quoting from the MISHNEH TORAH on Maimonides, comments, (quote) Had there been a Halakhic Jewish state during the Middle Ages, some gentiles might have been subject to persecution. Maimonides writes that, when Jews have achieved political power in the Holy Land, “it is forbidden to tolerate idolaters in our midst.” (unquote). (p. 87).

HA-ME’IRI ON THE TALMUD’S DUAL MORALITY

The following paragraph describes the antigoy portions of the Talmud which Rabbi Menahem ben Solomon Ha-Me’iri (1249-1316) reinterpreted as referring not to gentiles in general (including Christians), but only to ancient pagan peoples. The works of Ha-Me’iri, as quoted by Remer (p. 89), generally identify the tractate of the Talmud but are not more specific.

The author describes the dual morality of the Talmud as follows, (quote) According to the Talmud, the legal and personal status of gentiles is inferior to that of the Jews. [Remer adds that, “Many of these laws could not be applied in the Middle Ages because they presuppose Jewish sovereignty.” (p. 89)]. For example, gentiles are obligated to compensate Jews fully for any damage their animals cause to Jewish property; Jews, however, are exempted from compensating gentiles from the same type of damages…Other laws in which the Talmud vests Jews with superior legal status include the obligation to return lost property [BAVA MEZIA]; the obligation to save lives [AVODAH ZARAH]; the prohibition against overcharging [BAVA MEZIA]; punishment for murder [SANHEDRIN]; permission to break the Sabbath laws in cases where life is endangered [YOMA]; permission to teach children and to lodge animals [AVODAH ZARAH]; and permission to sell weapons. Finally, according to the Talmud, it is forbidden to “show [idolaters] grace” [AVODAH ZARAH 20a, based upon Deuteronomy 7:2] which includes praising any of their qualities or giving them presents. (unquote). (p. 79).

The Talmud [AVODAH ZARAH 26b] allows for the death penalty for apostates. (p. 91). Ha-Meiri reinterpreted “apostate”, so that it would not refer to a Jew who converted to Christianity, but only to a Jew who had discarded all religion. (p. 83).

EVEN IN DIALOGUE, JEWS AND CHRISTIANS SEE THE WORLD IN VERY DIFFERENT WAYS

Author Gary Remer sees a fundamental difference between the approach of Christian advocates of religious tolerance, and that of Ha-Meiri. The Christians thought of finding common ground with other religions in terms of shared metaphysical truths. In contrast, Ha-Meiri could not think this way, because he then would be forced to abandon the belief that Christians are idolaters. Instead, Ha-Meiri sought common ground with Christians in terms of the building of a peaceful and orderly society. (p. 84). [This sounds like a utilitarian move rather than a fundamental change in Jewish attitudes towards Christians.]

[I have searched, and, if I am not mistaken, Ha-Meiri’s writings are not available in English. If they were, I would study them in order to form my own opinion of Ha-Meiri. I hope that such an English-language translation soon becomes available.]