Q&A: A Gentile Whom Jewish Law Did Not Recognize and the Reason for the Verse
A Gentile Whom Jewish Law Did Not Recognize and the Reason for the Verse
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Your view is well known regarding gentiles nowadays: since they are moral, they are not considered idol worshippers, and one may desecrate the Sabbath for them. But seemingly this involves deriving the reason for the verse, namely that every prohibition connected to idol worshippers stems from a rationale of lack of morality, whereas we hold that one does not derive law from the reason for the verse. How can this be reconciled?
Best regards
Answer
This can be answered in several ways: 1. When the reason is clear, we do derive from it (Tosafot HaRosh, Bava Metzia 90). 2. With regard to laws learned from exegetical derivations or interpretation, we do derive from the reason. It is only laws that are stated explicitly in the verse that we do not derive from the reason. After all, every derivation is based on some consideration of rationale. 3. It is impossible that because of a formal limitation we should harm people. When it comes to harming people, we do derive from the reason (so long as it is clear to us that this is correct).
Discussion on Answer
You’re discussing this as though it were a philosophical a priori question. According to the descriptions of the Hebrew Bible and the Sages, that was the reality. They were there and saw it. One can now think about why this happened, etc., and I think there are good answers, but that does not affect the facts.
With God's help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, and "on the eighth day his flesh shall be circumcised," 82.
Oren, greetings,
Recently I noticed that you’ve started taking an interest in stories from pagan mythology. Is there even a drop of morality there? In the days of the Sages, the "amusements" of the Romans, who saw themselves as the "height of culture," were crucifixions and cruel gladiator games.
To be sure, becoming monotheists did not refine them. On the contrary, the "amusements" received religious justification, and crucifixion was replaced by burning, since it was considered a "death without bloodshed."
The "progress" of Europe replaced religious justifications with various bizarre ideological ones. They took the murders out of the town squares and moved them to battlefields and concentration and extermination camps, where millions could be eliminated. Even "enlightened nations" that did not participate in the mass murder helped by blocking the way to refugees.
About 80 years ago, "Esau" had a mishap. Weapons of mass destruction, which a few pacifist Jews helped develop, created a "balance of terror" that locked the door against world wars; only on the periphery do wars happen here and there. The rest of the world watches them with indifference. Modern man does not need to go to the town square or the gladiator arena to watch horrors. The media brings him the "amusements" to his screen 24/7.
You can’t say humanity hasn’t progressed 🙂
Best regards, Panem et Circenses Modernum
They have even turned values themselves into something immoral, for example the value of "nonviolence." For instance, when an event host mocks the appearance of a woman suffering from an illness that causes hair loss. Instead of the event organizers immediately sending an usher to throw the offensive host out to hell and summoning the mocker of the sick woman the next day to a pre-dismissal hearing, the organizers kept silent in the face of the cruel offense, and were outraged דווקא at the sight of the justified slap that the injured woman’s husband gave the vile offender.
Violence is absolutely terrible in their eyes, but of "one who publicly humiliates his fellow is as though he sheds blood" they have never heard. What "morality"!
This is what "morality" looks like without Torah to shape and guide it~
Best regards, Ami'oz Yaron, may his Rock and Redeemer preserve him
One might think that the death penalties in Jewish law are not cruel. And if you say those punishments are rare, they still exist (even if only once in 70 years), and there are also other methods of killing such as "they may be raised up but not brought down," "zealots may strike him," confinement in a cell, and more. Not to mention cutting off limbs, noses, and so on, which great rabbis carried out in the past, tying people to poles, and more.
What’s more, burning in its literal sense also existed in Judaism at the hands of the Sadducees, and stoning is in my opinion no less cruel than burning. Maybe even more so, because in burning, if the fire is strong, a person dies fairly quickly.
In all cultures there were more horrifying death penalties and less horrifying ones, and one cannot judge people of earlier periods by today’s moral standards. Today even the most religious people would be horrified if these laws were carried out in our time, and rabbis, often with apologetic arguments, determine that these laws are not applicable nowadays.
And from where do we know that the idol worshippers of the past were immoral? After all, they too believed in a god who created the world, they too had systems of justice and morality (like the Code of Hammurabi), they too believed in reward for good deeds and punishment for bad deeds. Is it really just because they believed in a storm god who brings rain that this makes them immoral?