Israel coming against the Gentiles
peace
I think you previously addressed the following question here on the site, but I can’t find the same reference (are there search options here?).
Maimonides (Isuroi Be’a 12:10) writes:
But an Israelite who comes upon a female goat, whether a child of three years and one day old, an adult, a free woman, or a man’s wife, or even a child of nine years and one day old, because he comes upon a female goat with malice, the seven are killed because he came to Israel with a fault in his hands, like an animal. And this matter is explained in the Torah, as it says, “Behold, there were among the children of Israel in the matter of Balaam, and every woman who knew a man by lying with him, they killed his male.”
From his language, it seems that this is also the case when a Jew raped a Gentile, and it is very difficult to understand this halakha. Especially since the Rambam learned it himself, without any source. And what he brings from the daughters of Midian, the connection is not really clear, there was a special commandment to kill women who came to cause Israel to sin and bring disaster upon them, and as it is said there, “The vengeance of the children of Israel will be taken from the Midianites,” and what is the lesson from that for all Israel that comes upon the Gentiles?
Indeed, I remember it coming up here before. But I don’t remember where, or what I wrote.
It seems that this is a case of a crime and a disgrace, and that she is killed because of the disgrace. And it is true that it is written in the Book of Kings 5:57 and in the Book of Deuteronomy 11:11 that the law of rape is that she is judged like an animal that is brought to Israel and is killed because there is disgrace in it (see Sanhedrin No. 10 on the issue of crime and a disgrace). And it is true that the daughter of a foreigner who lives in a foreign land is not killed. And from this you will learn for today that Gentiles are not considered animals (bound by the customs of the nations) and that there is no place for this law.
Thank you.
Of course, the matter is because of a disgrace, as the Maimonides himself writes, who judges as if he were an animal. And it is this comparison that is very difficult for me.
I doubt to what extent the consolation we console ourselves with that at this time the Gentiles are not considered animals, since the Gentiles are surrounded by the manners of the nations, is correct in the opinion of the Maimonides. If the Maimonides and Meiri (the father of this idea) had been separated by a thousand years, there might have been a place to say so, but in the current situation, I fear that the Maimonides simply did not feel Meiri's words.
I didn't understand. What does this have to do with comfort? Even if Maimonides himself didn't think so, that's the law (in my opinion). I didn't come to comfort anyone.
Beyond that, even someone who doesn't think so could be because he doesn't imagine that there are enlightened Gentiles, meaning that bestiality is not essential to a Gentile. Anyone who meets normal Gentiles, in my opinion at least in practice, wouldn't act like that. How would he reason? Either directly (as an enemy) or indirectly (we can't attack, peaceful means, enmity).
By the way, in my article on the Meiri I wrote that the Maimonides is the source for his theory. The Maimonides writes (I think in two places) that the discriminatory treatment of Gentiles is because they behave like animals. In fact, this is explained in the Gemara 2:38a, “See also the Gentiles.” And see Piham Sh. 13:2: “If a case arises between Israel and a Gentile, then the manner of judgment between them is as I will explain to you: If we had the right in their law, we judged them according to their law and told them that this is your law, and if it were better for us to be judged in our law, we judged them according to our law and told them that this is our law.” And do not let this matter be difficult for you and do not be surprised by it, just as you would not be surprised by the slaughter of animals even though they did nothing wrong, since a person in whom human qualities are not complete is not truly human and his purpose is only for man, and the discussion of this matter requires a special book.
It is of course possible to say that in his opinion this is essential for the Gentiles and cannot be changed, but in light of the Gemara in that very place this is not reasonable.
Regarding what I mentioned about ‘Nechama’, it is a necessity (at least mine) when I encounter such strange and illogical halacha, and also lacking a clear source.
Regarding the Maimonides as a source for the Meiri, it is not really clear to me what would cause the Maimonides to decide that the law should be changed. I hope it is agreed that he did not perceive the Gentiles of his time as the Meiri did, but as he writes in the quote you quoted from him, otherwise he would have had to add some kind of clarifying note. And this despite the fact that he knew the Arab philosophers and probably respected them.
And what the Maimonides would say about our times, I do not know. We know some enlightened Gentiles, but also the Arabs around us and the Nazis and their helpers from other nations. So should we judge each Gentile individually? Probably not. It is more likely that the Rambam would say that nothing has changed (assuming he even believes that such a change would change the law).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
