Britannia Radio

The dying state of Israel - a fractured state - and that's just the Jews

Daily telegraph

Israel fears a Jewish civil war

By Tom Gross in Jerusalem
Published: 12:00AM BST 02 Jul 2000

THE burning of a synagogue in Jerusalem, apparently perpetrated by
militant ultra-Orthodox Jews, has sent shockwaves through Israel's
secular majority - prompting talk of a "War of the Jews". Nobody was
hurt in last week's arson raid on Kehilat Ya'ar Ramot synagogue, which
belongs to the "Conservative" stream of Judaism. But the incident has
evoked images of Holocaust-era attacks and led to fears that Jewish
fundamentalists are increasingly mimicking the violent behaviour more
common among their counterparts in the Islamic world.

The attack was the gravest in a series of "Jew-on-Jew" incidents.
Opinion polls show that a majority of Israelis now think the "internal"
Jewish fundamentalist threat will soon be as dangerous as the "external"
Arab one. Fears are rising that, once the peace process with the
Palestinians is over, widespread violence and possibly even civil war
could break out between Israeli Jews.
Strictly Orthodox Jews see Reform and Conservative Judaism - the
movements to which most of the world's Jews, especially in America,
adhere to - as watered down versions that pose a threat to their way of
life by offering alternative, more liberal forms of the religion.
Although the culprits responsible for the latest attack have yet to be
caught, there seems little doubt that it was the work of ultra-Orthodox
fanatics. Witnesses reported seeing men in traditional religious dress
fleeing as the flames raged.
One long-standing member of the synagogue's congregation said: "This
conjures up images of the Nazis - only it is happening in Israel and the
perpetrators are Jews. If there is one evil that you wouldn't expect to
find in a Jewish state, it is anti-Semitic violence. "It must seem
bizarre to Gentiles that, after surviving 2,000 years of persecution at
the hands of others, and with peace with the Palestinians just around
the corner, the Jews are now turning on each other." The atmosphere in
Jerusalem has deteriorated following the attack. On Tuesday, several
dozen Reform Jews from Florida needed an equal number of policemen to
protect them when they held a prayer service at the Western ("Wailing")
Wall, Judaism's holiest site. Some women at the service wore skullcaps
and prayer shawls to the fury of nearby ultra-Orthodox worshippers who
believe that only men should wear such religious attire. The arson raid
was the second on Kehilat Ya'ar Ramot in less than a month. Three weeks
earlier, the front door of the synagogue, which had just been renovated,
was set alight and one of its walls daubed with threatening graffiti.
Public anger was expressed over the apparent reluctance among
politicians to condemn that attack. They were accused of being fearful
of alienating ultra-Orthodox voters.
The head of the Conservative movement in Israel, Rabbi Ehud Bandel,
said: "The lack of response by the authorities sent a signal to the
extremists that, in the Jewish state, you can set fire to synagogues,
and it's back to business as usual. Had the attack occurred elsewhere in
the world, Israeli officials would have taken great pains to condemn
it."
Jerusalem's mayor, Ehud Olmert, who failed to speak out following the
first attack, made a point of condemning the latest arson. But Mr
Olmert, a secular politician who relies on ultra-Orthodox parties to
maintain power in his governing municipal coalition, refrained from
calling it a hate crime or identifying a group that might be
responsible.
Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, one of Israel's leading clerics, also condemned
the second attack, but disappointed Conservative leaders by referring to
Kehilat Ya'ar Ramot as a "building" rather than a synagogue. Some
ultra-Orthodox members of the Knesset (parliament) failed to condemn the
attack at all - even suggesting that the Conservatives had set fire to
their own synagogue in order to "besmirch the religious public in
Israel". Hadas Bregman, a 29-year-old secular Jewish woman, said: "We
are approaching exploding point. I am all for 'live and let live', but
it seems they are not." Among recent decrees by ultra-Orthodox leaders
in Jerusalem is one forbidding women from using mobile phones in public
- "for fear that it might lead to prostitution". Modern Israel was
founded in 1948 as a secular state. The name of God was deliberately
excluded from its declaration of independence. Yet it has been
undergoing a process of increasing theocratisation in recent years. A
high birth rate among the ultra-Orthodox, who did not recognise the
state at first and played little part in its politics, has increased
their influence recently. In addition, Israel's liberal form of
proportional representation has given small religious parties
disproportionate bargaining power. Many secular Israelis came close to
despair last month when the ultra-Orthodox Shas party succeeded in
pressurising the prime minister, Ehud Barak, into ousting the secular
Meretz party from the governing coalition. "Are we living in a democracy
or in Iran?" asked Miss Bregman, who voted for an even more staunchly
secular party, Shinui, in last year's general election. The party was
formed only weeks before the poll, yet gained six seats in the 120-seat
Knesset. Its leader, Tommy Lapid, denounced Orthodox Judaism as being
"one big

Jerusalem Letters of Lasting Interest No. 371 2 Kislev 5758 / 1

December 1997

ORTHODOX AND NON-ORTHODOX JUDAISM: HOW TO SQUARE THE CIRCLE Daniel J.

Elazar Two Contrary Understandings of Judaism / The Problem Emerges and

Grows / Earlier Squaring of Circles in Zionist History / Resolving the

Present Issue: The Real Choices / A Final Word Once again, Israel and

the Jewish people have won a momentary respite from a head-on

confrontation over religious issues that could lead to a split in the

Jewish people. 

Finance Minister Yaakov Neeman, his committee, and the
parties involved have gone back to the negotiation table, if not to the
drawing board, for three more months to try to bring about what in
effect is a squaring of the circle of Judaism: the development of
operational ways to maintain Jewish religious unity in the face of the
confrontation of two binary opposite perspectives. At the root of the
problem is the fact that both the Israeli Orthodox establishment and the
American Conservative and Reform movements are right from their
respective perspectives. Worse than that, an objective observer would
probably also have to agree that both are right, at least in some ways.
Two Contrary Understandings of Judaism The Chief Rabbinate and the
Israeli religious establishment, and, for that matter, probably an
overwhelming majority of Israelis as well, regardless of their own
religious practices, understand Judaism to be an overarching structure,
an edifice erected over thousands of years, not simply based upon a
Divine plan but constructed through the Bible, the Talmud, the great
codes, and the great interpretations of those codes, as a complex but
standing structure that technically never changes but is only
reinterpreted in a limited way to function within changing realities.
For those who believe and observe, this edifice gives them their daily,
even hourly, marching orders. For those who observe less or do not
observe at all except perhaps at the very margins of the edifice, the
edifice still stands and they expect Jewish individuals, when they do
act in religious ways, to do so within it. To steal an example from
another religion, Judaism is like a great
  cathedral. It stands there and delivers its religious message whether
worshippers enter or not, and while there can be discussions about what
are the contents of that message, the character of the edifice is
unmistakable.
American non-Orthodox Jews, who are the vast majority in the United
States (the number of American Jews who identify with Orthodoxy at a
maximum is 10 percent, whereas something like 75 percent identify with
the various non-Orthodox movements), see Judaism from an American
religious perspective that has been shaped by the Protestant experience,
as a matter of personal spirituality and belief first and foremost;
which means that Jews must begin by personally accepting the fundamental
beliefs and traditions of Judaism in some way but then are free to apply
them operationally in ways that they find meaningful and satisfying.
True, Conservative Judaism accepts the existence of the edifice of Torah
and halakhah, but understands Torah more as a constitution than as a
detailed code, a constitution which can and must be reinterpreted in
every age according to its spirit and not merely according to the plain
meaning of the text or something close to it.
Reform Judaism formally does not even accept that. For it, halakhah is
not binding but is merely one of the sources of Jewish religious
tradition to which attention should be paid. True, Reform Jews have been
moving back to traditional observances for some 80 years now and some
even are calling for observance of traditions such as the laws of family
purity, whose observance Reform Rabbi Richard Levy, president of the
CCAR, the Reform rabbinical organization, has recently suggested ("The
Holy Makes Us Whole") should be considered by Reform Jews, something
that would surprise and gratify the most Orthodox. But Liberal Judaism
makes these issues matters of personal choice and also is prepared to
allow Reform rabbis to personally choose to officiate at mixed
marriages, although the Reform movement as a movement has just
reconfirmed its long-standing formal rejection of mixed marriage.
These two approaches to Judaism or religion in general not only are
fundamentally opposed in their theory, but have in recent decades been
driven further apart in reality by the attempt of the Orthodox right to
advocate even greater halakhic stringency than had been accepted in
Orthodox ranks in the immediate past (or perhaps ever), and by the
greater emphasis on freedom of choice among the American non-Orthodox in
their effort to adjust to and compete in the American religious
marketplace.
Hence, we have a confrontation between, on one hand, an Orthodoxy with
thousands of newly Orthodox coming from backgrounds in which they did
not grow up within Orthodox frameworks and thereby acquired the patina
of accommodation that living reality imposes on every legal system,
among whom observance of the letter of the law as most stringently
interpreted is an ever greater necessity, while, on the other hand,
among the American non-Orthodox, the existence of thousands of children
of Conservative and especially Reform Jews marrying non-Jews yet wanting
to maintain their connections with Judaism and the Jewish community has
necessitated the development of a whole series of accommodationist
strategies that, at the very least, are departures from traditional
Jewish norms. Both of these tendencies put extraordinary pressure on the
middle groups, those who had functioned as bridgers between Orthodoxy
and non-Orthodoxy over the past 200 years.
The Problem Emerges and Grows
When Israel was founded fifty years ago, it inherited the Orthodox
rabbinical establishment that had in part existed in the land since the
Ottoman conquest and in part had been reorganized under the British
Mandate. While many Israeli Jews prided themselves on having become
secular, almost none had adopted Reform or Conservatism. Indeed, the
only Reform Jews were a few refugees from 1930s Germany who had brought
German Reform with them and had two congregations, one in Jerusalem and
one in Haifa. There were no Conservative congregations since the
Jeshurun Synagogue, which had been established in the 1920s with half an
eye to becoming a Conservative congregation at a time when the distance
between Conservative and Orthodox Judaism was minimal, had long since
been absorbed into standard Israeli modern Orthodoxy.
For the first thirty years of Jewish statehood, there were few problems
of defining who is a Jew. They either involved groups of Jewish olim
such as the Bene Israel of India who did not fall fully within halakhic
Judaism, as understood in Europe, or individuals such as DeShalit (who
wanted his children registered as Jews although his wife was non-Jewish)
and Brother Daniel (a Jewish convert to Catholicism) who sought to gain
status as Jews, even though they violated certain basic Jewish norms
accepted by virtually all Jews in Israel, not only those required
halakhically. The Bene Israel were recognized as Jews and Brother Daniel
was not, even by the secular Israeli Supreme Court. Otherwise, problems
were few and far between. In no case did any group come forward and ask
for recognition as an alternative form of Judaism.
American Jews were busy building up their own Conservative and Reform
movements as part of their final steps toward full integration as
Americans. Either they were not interested in introducing their
movements into Israel or, while recognizing the utility of those
movements for their own situation in America, did not view them as
"authentic Judaism" and hence saw no good purpose being served by having
them introduced into the Jewish state. The few efforts that were made
failed because movements resting on voluntary funding could not attract
enough people willing to support such efforts in Israel.
It was only after the Six-Day War that small but meaningful groups of
Conservative and Reform Jews settled in Israel as olim and established
congregations and local institutions, partly for themselves and partly
to establish a movement presence in Israel. The Reform movement, which
was beginning to make a greater international effort at that time, even
established its international headquarters in Jerusalem. The issue of
who could perform weddings and conduct conversions began to emerge, but
it was still possible to deal with those issues in informal ways without
confrontations. The Chief Rabbinate granted selective permission to the
more halakhically learned Conservative rabbis to perform weddings in
Israel and others found ways to work jointly with recognized Orthodox
rabbis, since officiating was not the halakhic problem but witnessing.
Non-Orthodox converts to Judaism generally were converted before coming
to Israel or in a few cases were sent abroad
  to complete formal conversion after studying in Israel, but the numbers
were so small that the issue was a minimal one. Most important, aliya
from the West continued to be very small, even if more vocal than in the
past. It was only two decades later with the arrival of the mass aliya
from the Soviet Union and then former Soviet Union, which included many
half-Jews who claimed to be Jews but could not meet the halakhic
criteria, that the issue became a real one for Israel as well as the
diaspora. At the same time, Reform and Conservative pressure for
recognition was stepped up. In the interim, American Conservative
Judaism had moved further away from traditional halakhic interpretation
to develop more radical interpretations which they still claimed to be
within halakhah, including empowering women for all or virtually all
roles in Jewish life and allowing practices that Orthodoxy had ruled
were not halakhically permitted on Sabbaths and holidays. It was this
newly aggressive Reform and Conservative Judaism which confronted an
equally new, fervently Orthodox militant stance. Hence the problem of
squaring the circle arose in force to plague us all. No matter that the
  actual number of cases affected was small, even minuscule; matters of
deep religious principle were involved on both sides. Beyond that, the
issue also brought real pain to American Jews who wanted to live in
Israel and to be accepted by it as they are.
In many respects, the issue had come down to who was a rabbi. The
problem of who is a Jew could be solved in various ways by the Israeli
religious establishment if it chose to do so, but the demand of Reform
and Conservative rabbis for recognition was a whole different issue. Not
only that, but this demand was being used in non-Orthodox pulpits
throughout the United States to build up a case against the Israeli
religious establishment, which was not difficult for them to do, given
the American perception of religion as a personal matter and of radical
separation of church and state. The Jews, as a non-Christian minority in
Christian America, had embraced the latter position wholeheartedly, one
might even say religiously.
Earlier Squaring of Circles in Zionist History
This is not the first time the need to square circles has confronted the
Jewish people since the establishment of the state. From the beginning
of Zionism, the need to unite religious and militantly secular Jews in
the common enterprise involved squaring circles. This was done
pragmatically through a system of proportional allocation of resources
in every sphere of enterprise from governance to sports.
After 1948, the issue was raised as to how a Jewish state might affect
the status of diaspora Jews, whether it would create problems of dual
loyalty that were unacceptable to the other countries in which Jewish
communities had made themselves at home and had been accepted. This
problem also was worked out pragmatically because, fortunately, with the
exception of the period in the late 1940s when the Yishuv was struggling
with the British to gain independence, no Western democratic Jewish
community was ever put in a position where its Jewish loyalties, and the
ties to Israel which they brought, came into serious conflict with their
countries of citizenship and residence. (The admirable and brave stance
of British Jewry in those years deserves to be remembered.) Otherwise,
the only countries in which that issue was raised were totalitarian
states in the Communist bloc where Jewish identity itself was punished
and where the efforts of Jews to maintain their
  Jewish loyalties, including those to Israel, were applauded by the rest
of the world. Obviously, that issue disappeared after the collapse of
the Soviet Empire.
A more difficult problem was how could Israeli Jews and diaspora Jewry
work together in common projects, especially of aliya and
state-building. How could a politically sovereign state and voluntary
communities find ways and means to work together in a cooperative manner
without sacrificing either the political sovereignty of the state or
jeopardizing the Jews in the voluntary communities?
Israel's original efforts to solve that problem were quite heavy-handed.
It was assumed by Israel's founders that, as the Jewish state, Israel
naturally would speak for all of world Jewry. The President of Israel
would be looked upon as the President of the Jewish people. The Israeli
Chief Rabbinate would become authoritative for all of world Jewry. Even
the Knesset would have responsibilities beyond Israel's borders. Indeed,
the establishment of the Knesset with 120 members on the model of the
ancient Anshei Knesset Hagedolah, the assembly of the days of Ezra and
Nehemiah, was designed to symbolically reflect the whole people with its
120 members as the equivalent of a minyan for each of the twelve tribes.
In those naive salad days there were even discussions of how the Israel
Defense Forces could be used to protect Jews anywhere.
This Israeli view was emphatically rejected by the diaspora, especially
the North American diaspora. American Jewry even forced Ben-Gurion to
formally repudiate it in the famous Ben-Gurion/Blaustein letters of the
early 1950s, in which Ben-Gurion was compelled to write to the
then-president of the American Jewish Committee abjuring any special
role for Israel with regard to American Jewry, in order to retain the
support of the wealthy and influential American Jews. The operational
issue still remained. It was not settled until after the Six-Day War
with the reconstitution of the Jewish Agency as the instrumentality that
could represent the governing powers of both Israel and the diaspora
communities in the pursuit of common tasks. The new Jewish Agency
partnership meant that 50 percent of the Agency's governing institutions
would be in the hands of diaspora "fund-raisers," which, in North
America and a few other countries where the vast bulk of funds for
  Israel were raised, meant the Jewish community federations, locally
developed communal institutions, and their instrumentalities, including
the UJA. The "fund-raisers" were also, and perhaps even more so, leaders
of their communities, thus bringing the Jewish community federations of
the United States and Canada and some equivalent bodies in other
countries directly into the Jewish Agency to represent their
constituents. As far as Israel was concerned, representation was through
the "Zionist parties." No longer did state institutions claim a direct
role in world Jewish governance; rather, parties that stood in Israeli
elections as Zionist parties - that is to say, all but the separate Arab
parties, the Communist party of Israel that explicitly rejected Zionism,
and the ultra-Orthodox parties - were entitled to represent the Israeli
50 percent of the Jewish Agency partnership in the World Zionist
Organization. In JAFI those parties would form a wall-to-wall coalition
with seats allocated among them based on the results of the last Knesset
election, thus counting every Israeli Jew, with a few exceptions, as a
Zionist and giving their Knesset votes a double meaning (of which most
of them were unaware). This clever device established the
Israeli-diaspora partnership in the work of aliya, klita, and
state-building through the Jewish Agency. That partnership has lasted
until now and has some great achievements to its credit such as
organizing the mass aliya from the former Soviet Union, Project Renewal
in Israel, and the range of Zionist and Jewish educational activities in
Israel and abroad. Resolving the Present Issue: The Real Choices The
issue of relations among Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews
requires another clever step or set of steps to square that circle, an
even more difficult task. Within the reorganized Jewish Agency it was
possible for Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews to sit together, to
work on common programs, and even to support each other's institutions
without untoward difficulties because they did not have to recognize
each other religiously. Fortunately, since the very beginnings of the
Jewish people, the Jewish polity has recognized a separation of domains
into those of Torah, civil rule (in Hebrew, malkhut), and priesthood (in
Hebrew, kehunah). All three have their own halakhic and historic
legitimacy, so what could not be done within the domains of Torah and
priesthood because of differences in religious understanding could be
smoothed over in the domain of civil rule by representa- tives of the
same groups. That is what we did. Now, however, the
  challenge has come in the other two domains over the issue of who is a
rabbi and what interpretations of Torah are religiously legitimate. Here
is where the Neeman Committee's solution is so ingenious and important,
precisely because it does appear to square the circle to everyone's
advantage in some ways and to everyone's disadvantage in others. The
Israeli rabbinical establishment will have to give up its exclusiveness
by accepting Reform and Conservative involvement in common operational
matters such as training for conversion, performance of marriages, and
handling the provision of religious services to the Israeli Jewish
population. At the same time, by having a majority in every body making
decisions in those areas, they will keep control and be able to honestly
claim that the decisions are halakhic from their standpoint and based on
their standards. The Reform and Conservative movements and their rabbis
will win a measure of recognition as partners in the Jewish religious
enterprise, something that has been totally denied to them as movements
in Israel in the past, but they will in
  turn have to accept the ultimate Orthodox power in determining what is
halakhah in these matters. Orthodox Jews should be very pleased with
this because it will bring Reform Judaism back to the recognition of the
binding character of halakhah, at least in Israel, an achievement of no
small proportions if their interest is honestly religious and not merely
a question of who has political power. A step in this direction recently
was visible at the recent UAHC biennial in Dallas, Texas.
In fact, I would argue that the compromise should not only be agreed to
for Israel but for the rest of the world as well, thereby creating a
basic and halakhic uniformity for issues such as conversion and
marriage. That would be a great achievement, especially if in doing so
we also recognize that we do live in a world of plural expression. There
is no getting around that, not only with regard to Jews and non-Jews but
within the Jewish people itself.
Nor should anyone make the mistake of thinking that the alternative will
be the preservation of the present status quo. Professor Aharon Barak,
President of Israel's Supreme Court, wisely has attempted to keep the
court out of this issue and to press the political authorities in Israel
to work out a decision through negotiation and compromise. He well
understands two things: A court decision of any kind has to be a clear
yes or no decision and does not allow room for compromise once made,
and, most important, Israel as a democratic state, especially under the
Basic Laws enacted in 1992 providing for the protection of individual
rights, makes the character of the decision almost inevitable. The
Orthodox religious establishment will lose its monopoly and the door
will be opened for recognition of Reform and Conservative Judaism and
their religious leaders, independently of any Orthodox framework, to do
whatever their movements do. Hence, the Orthodox
  community does not have a choice between keeping the non-Orthodox out
or not, but only a choice between bringing the non-Orthodox into their
framework by expanding the framework or allowing them full leeway to do
what they will. By the same token, the Reform and Conservative may win
such a victory in the Israel Supreme Court, but it would be a pyrrhic
victory for them as well as for the Orthodox because of the religious
conflicts that would intensify as a result of it. I like to think that
this understanding is why there has been a reluctance on both sides to
cross the brink, but sooner or later we must bite the bullet and that
time has now come. The Neeman Committee has provided us with an elegant
way to do so. It would behoove all Jews to embrace that way for the
maintenance of Jewish solidarity which is so necessary for a small and
still in many ways embattled minority in this world. A Final Word
Over the past century or perhaps century and a half the Jewish world has
gone through tremendous upheavals, population movements, and
reconstitution, leading to the establishment of the State of Israel as a
Jewish and democratic state, along with the Jewish community in the
United States becoming probably the freest, most prosperous diaspora
Jewish community in history. Together the Jews in both communities plus
those in other diaspora communities have successfully undertaken
enormous tasks of rescue, relief, rehabilitation, and reconstitution
which have enabled Jews to reverse two millennia of loss and persecution
raised to unprecedented heights by the Holocaust.
We are now at the edge of completion of the great tasks of the past
century.. It would be nothing less than a tragedy if the successful
completion of those tasks caused the Jewish people to founder and split
apart on the shoals of what should be our greatest bond and our greatest
glory - Judaism.

* * *
Daniel J. Elazar is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs. He is the author of numerous books including People and Polity:
The Organizational Dynamics of World Jewry and Israel: Building a New
Society.voodoo".





http://roytov.com/refugee/talmud.htm

Details the exodus of Jewish communities in the middle east during the
2nd half of the 20th century. Site Info:
http://www.theforgottenrefugees.com/


Produced by The David Project for Jewish Leadership and Isra TV, "The
Forgotten Refugees" explores the history, culture, and forced exodus of
Middle Eastern and North African Jewish communities in the second half
of the 20th century. Using extensive testimony of refugees from Egypt,
Yemen, Libya, Iraq, and Morocco the film recounts the stories - of joy
and suffering - that nearly one million individuals have carried with
them for so long. The film weaves personal stories with dramatic
archival footage of rescue missions, historic images of exodus and
resettlement, and analyses by contemporary scholars to tell the story of
how and why the Jewish population in the Middle East and North Africa
declined from one million in 1945 to several thousand today.

"The Forgotten Refugees" has helped raise awareness about this important
period of Jewish and world history; an issue which has been tragically
ignored in the media, world politics, and educational programs. On June
19, 2007, a fifteen minute version of The Forgotten Refugees was shown
before the United States Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which
convened for a special hearing on the mass violations of human rights of
Jews under Islamic regimes in Arab Countries throughout North Africa,
the Middle East, and the Gulf Region.

On March 31, 2008, the first-ever Resolution recognizing the rights of
"The Forgotten Refugees" was adopted by the United States House of
Representatives. The Resolution asks the President to ensure that when
the issue of Middle East refugees is discussed in international forums,
U.S. representatives will ensure that any explicit reference to
Palestinian refugees is matched by a similar explicit reference to
Jewish and other refugees.

The Forgotten Refugees has been screened at over twenty international
film festivals, a dozen of television stations and numerous synagogues,
churches and campuses. "The Forgotten Refugees" won the award for Best
Documentary at the 2007 Marbella International Film Festival and the
Best Feature Documentary Award at the 2006 Warsaw Jewish Film Festival.

The David Project for Jewish Leadership has developed middle school and
high school curricula to familiarize students with the diverse cultures
of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa, their expulsion, and the
absorption of these refugees into Israeli society.


Posted by Britannia Radio at 20:17
Jewish Talmudic Quotes - Facts Are Facts
 From Acharya S
7-26-9

Talmudic Quotes

The decisions of the Talmud are words of the living God. Jehovah himself
asks the opinions of earthly rabbis when there are difficult affairs in
heaven.

Rabbi Menachen, Comments for the Fifth Book

Jehovah himself in heaven studies the Talmud, standing: he has such
respect for that book.

Tractate Mechilla/Me'ilah

R. Johanan said: A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it
is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance; it is our
inheritance, not theirs. Then why is this not included in the Noachian
laws? -- On the reading morasha [an inheritance] he steals it; on the
reading me'orasah [betrothed], he is guilty as one who violates a
betrothed maiden, who is stoned. An objection is raised: R. Meir used to
say. Whence do we know that even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a
High Priest? From the verse, [Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and
my judgments:] which, if man do, he shall live in them. Priests,
Levites, and Israelites are not mentioned, but men: hence thou mayest
learn that even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest! --
That refers to their own seven laws.

Sanhedrin 59a

To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be
equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach
about them, they would kill us openly.

Libbre David 37

A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books
contain anything against them.

Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17

We beg Thee, O Lord, indict Thy wrath on the nations not believing in
Thee, and not calling on Thy name. Let down Thy wrath on them and
inflict them with Thy wrath. Drive them away in Thy wrath and crush them
into pieces. Take away, O Lord, all bone from them. In a moment indict
all disbelievers. Destroy in a moment all foes of Thy nation. Draw out
with the root, disperse and ruin unworthy nations. Destroy them! Destroy
them immediately, in this very moment!

Prayer said on the eve of Passover (Pranajtis: Christianus in Talmudae
Judeorum, quotations from: Synagoga Judaica)

The Feast of Tabernacles is the period when Israel triumphs over the
other people of the world. That is why during this feast we seize the
loulab and carry it as a trophy to show that we have conquered all other
peoples, known as "populace"...

Zohar, Toldoth Noah 63b

When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves.

Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D

Resh Lakish said: He who is observant of fringes will be privileged to
be served by two thousand eight hundred slaves, for it is said, Thus
saith the Lord of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten
men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations shall even
take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with
you, etc.

Mas. Shabbath 31b

On the house of the Goy [Goy means unclean, and is the disparaging term
for a non-Jew] one looks as on the fold of cattle.

Tosefta, Tractate Erubin VIII

When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same
Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile
shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law,
belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize
it.

Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156

If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to
the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him
off the face of the earth.

Choschen Hamm 388, 15

Happy will be the lost of Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has
chosen from amongst the Goyim, of whom the Scriptures say: "Their work
is but vanity, it is an illusion at which we must laugh; they will all
perish when God visits them in His wrath." At the moment when the Holy
One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Goyim of the world, Israel
alone will subsist, even as it is written: "The Lord alone will appear
great on that day!...

Zohar, Vayshlah 177b

That the Jewish nation is the only nation selected by God, while all the
remaining ones are contemptible and hateful.

That all property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which
consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An
orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards
people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable
to himself or to Jews in general.

A Jew may rob a Goy, he may cheat him over a bill, which should not be
perceived by him, otherwise the name of God would become dishonoured.

Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat, 348

R. Hanina said: If a heathen smites a Jew, he is worthy of death; for it
is written, And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that
there was no man, he slew the Egyptian. [Ex. 2:12] R. Hanina also said:
He who smites an Israelite on the jaw, is as though he had thus
assaulted the Divine Presence; for it is written, one who smiteth man
[i.e. an Israelite] attacketh the Holy One.

Sanhedrin 58b
[In other words, if a non-Jew kills a Jew, the non-Jew can be killed.
Punching an Israelite is akin to assaulting God. (But killing a non-Jew
is NOT like assaulting God.]

If a goy killed a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew killed a
goy he is not responsible.

Tosefta, Aboda Zara, VIII, 5

Has it not been taught: "With respect to robbery -- if one stole or
robbed or [seized] a beautiful woman, or [committed] similar offences,
if [these were perpetrated] by one Cuthean ["Cuthean" or "Samaritan" =
goy/gentile/heathen/non-Jew] against another, [the theft, etc.] must not
be kept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that
of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained?" But if robbery is a
capital offence, should not the Tanna have taught: He incurs a penalty?
-- Because the second clause wishes to state, "but that of a Cuthean by
an Israelite may be retained," therefore the former clause reads,
"[theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean] must not be kept." But where a
penalty is incurred, it is explicitly stated, for the commencing clause
teaches: "For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an
Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an
Israelite, there is no death penalty?"

Sanhedrin 57a
[Translation: A Jew may rob a Goy, but a Goy may not rob a Jew. If a Goy
murders another Goy or a Jew, he should be killed, but a Jew will not be
incur the death penalty for killing a non-Jew.]

Kill the Goyim by any means possible.

Choshen Ha'mishpat 425:50

Everyone who sheds the blood of the impious [non-Jews] is as acceptable
to God as he who offers a sacrifice to God.

Yalkut 245c

Extermination of the Christians is a necessary sacrifice.

Zohar, Shemoth

Tob shebbe goyyim harog - Even the best of the Goyim (Gentiles) should
be killed.

Soferim 15, Rule 10
[NB: Hoffman says, "This passage is not from the Soncino edition but is
from the original Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud as quoted by the 1907
Jewish Encyclopedia, published by Funk and Wagnalls and compiled by
Isidore Singer, under the entry, 'Gentile,' (p. 617)." Another source
says this passage is at Avodah Zara 26b. We have not been able to verify
any of these references. It does not seem to be at Avodah Zara 26b of
the Soncino edition.]

What is [the meaning of] Mount Sinai? The mountain whereon there
descended hostility [sin'ah ] toward idolaters [non-Jews].

Shabbath 89a

The same has been taught as follows: If the ox of an Israelite gores an
ox of a Canaanite [non-Jew] there is no liability, but if an ox of a
Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite... the payment is to be in full,
as it is said: He stood and measured the earth, he beheld and drove
asunder the nations [Gentiles], and again, He shined forth from Mount
Paran...implying that from Paran he exposed their money to Israel.

Baba Kama 38a
[Trans: The property of the Israelite is more valuable than that of the
Gentile. Mount Paran refers to Deut. 33:2, where God offered the law to
the nations (Gentiles), who rejected it. The money of the Gentiles is
available to the Israelites.]

ONE SHOULD NOT PLACE CATTLE IN HEATHENS' INNS, BECAUSE THEY ARE
SUSPECTED OF IMMORAL PRACTICE WITH THEM. A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE ALONE
WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF LEWDNESS, NOR SHOULD A MAN BE
ALONE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF SHEDDING BLOOD. . .

Why then should we not leave female animals alone with female heathens?
-- Said Mar 'Ukba b. Hama: Because heathens frequent their neighbours'
wives, and should one by chance not find her in, and find the cattle
there, he might use it immorally. You may also say that even if he
should find her in he might use the animal, as a Master has said:
Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives, for R.
Johanan said: When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into
her.

Avodah Zarah 22a-b

He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty;
if over heathens or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to
cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: Upon the flesh of man
[adam] shall it not be poured; and cattle and vessels are not man. Also
with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since
after death one is called corpse and not man. But why is one exempt in
the case of heathens; are they not in the category of adam?-No, it is
written: And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are adam [man]: Ye
are called adam but heathens are not called 'adam. But is it not
written: And the persons [adam] were sixteen thousand? -- Because it is
used in opposition to cattle. But is it not written: And should I not
have pity on Nineveh [that great city, wherein are more than six score
thousand persons [adam]?--This too is used in opposition to cattle.

Mas. K'rithoth 6b
[This passage refers to anointing with oil. "Heathens," i.e., Gentiles,
are not "adam" or man but are equated with cattle]

An objection was raised: And the persons were sixteen thousand!--This is
due to [the mention of] cattle. Wherein are more than six-score thousand
persons that cannot discern between their right and their left
hand!--This is due [to the mention of] cattle.

Mas. Yevamoth 61b
[Again non-Jews are referred to as "cattle."]

All Israelites will have a part in the future world... The Goyim, at the
end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to
hell.

Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah, Lekh-Lekha

Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have
to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human
form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.

Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L

Everything a Jew needs for his church ritual no goy is permitted to
manufacture, but only a Jew, because this must be manufactured by human
beings and the Jew is not permitted to consider the goyim as human
beings.

Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaim 14, 20, 32, 33, 39

A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he
treats a piece of meat.

Hadarine, 20, B; Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348

A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl.

Gad. Shas. 2:2

A boy-goy after nine years and one day old, and a girl after three years
and one day old, are considered filthy.

Pereferkowicz, Talmud t.v., p. 11

Raba stated: With reference to the Rabbinical statement that [legally]
an Egyptian [Gentile] has no father, it must not be imagined that this
is due to [the Egyptians'] excessive indulgence in carnal gratification,
owing to which it is not known [who the father was], but that if this
were known it is to be taken into consideration; but [the fact is] that
even if this is known it is not taken into consideration.... Thus it may
be inferred that the All Merciful declared their children to be legally
fatherless, for [so indeed it is also] written, Whose flesh is as the
flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Yevamoth 98a
[Trans.: A non-Jew is "legally fatherless," regardless of whether or not
the father is known. Gentile children are essentially asses and horses,
i.e., animals.]

[The daughters of the heathens] should be considered as in the state of
<http://jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr4942.htm>niddah [separation?]
from their cradle...

Avodah Zarah 36b

They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it should cause
defilement by seminal emission so that an Israelite child should not
become accustomed to commit pederasty with him.... It is therefore to be
concluded that a heathen girl [communicates defilement] from the age of
three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the
sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux. This is obvious!

Avodah Zarah 36b-37a

R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may
be acquired in marriage by coition [intercourse], and if her deceased
husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of
adultery may be incurred through her; [if a niddah] she defiles him who
has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he
lies, as a garment which has lain upon [a person afflicted with
gonorrhoea].

Sanhedrin 55b

Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed
as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a
child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24
(24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy
with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the
minimum.

Sanhedrin 54b

Raba said. It means this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a
little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [three
years old], it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a
small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl
who is injured by a piece of wood.'...

Kethuboth 11b
[This debate concerns whether or not someone is a virgin. Virginity is
prized above all, such that it is believed that a girl under the age of
three will regain her virginity, even if a man has had intercourse with
her. (Fn. 7 says, in regard to putting "the finger into the eye": "I.e.,
tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to
the little girl under three years.") Since virginity is prized above
all, one could assume that this conclusion has allowed grown men to have
sex with little girls with immunity. A grown-up woman is not deflowered
by having sex with a small boy, however, since he is only like a "piece
of wood."]

It was taught: R. Judah used to say, A man is bound to say the following
three blessings daily: "[Blessed art thou...] who hast not made me a
heathen," ".... who hast not made me a woman"; and "... who hast not
made me a brutish man." R. Aha b. Jacob once overhead his son saying
"[Blessed art thou...] who hast not made me a brutish man," whereupon he
said to him, "And this too!" Said the other, "Then what blessing should
I say instead?" [He replied,]...h who hast not made me a slave." And is
not that the same as a woman? - a slave is more contemptible.

Menachoth 43b-44a
[A "prayer" or "benediction" to be said by a Jewish man every day:
"Thank God for not making me a Gentile, a woman or a slave."]

Do not save Goyim in danger of death.

Show no mercy to the Goyim.

Hilkkoth Akum X1

A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has
touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean.

Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122

And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be
valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every
vow which I may make in the future shall be null.1 [HIS VOWS ARE THEN
INVALID,] PROVIDING THAT HE REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW.

Nedarim 23b
[Essentially the "Kol Nidre" prayer said every year at Yom Kippur. Fn. 1
says: "This may have provided a support for the custom of reciting Kol
Nidre (a formula for dispensation of vows) prior to the Evening Service
of the Day of Atonement (Ran.). The context makes it perfectly obvious
that only vows, where the maker abjures benefit from aught, or imposes
an interdict of his own property upon his neighbour, are referred to.
Though the beginning of the year (New Year) is mentioned here, the Day
of Atonement was probably chosen on account of its great solemnity. But
Kol Nidre as part of the ritual is later than the Talmud, and, as seen
from the following statement about R. Huna h. Hinena, the law of
revocation in advance was not made public."]