Talk:Talmud on gentiles

Controversial quotes

This page has been tagged as NPOV due to concerns over its neutrality. To address this, most of the quotes have been moved here so that the page can be rebuilt in a way that meets Wikiquote's requirements. Please refer to the NPOV discussion on this page.

The quotes were previously organized in the following manner:

• Killing
  • Sanhedrin 57a:16–17
• Robbery
  • Sanhedrin 57a:17, Sanhedrin 57a:22
• Torah study
  • Sanhedrin 59a:2–5
• War
  • Sanhedrin 59a:16, Soferim 15:10
• Law
  • Bava Kamma 113a:21
• Interpersonal aid
  • Bava Kamma 113b:8, Avodah Zarah 26a:16, Avodah Zarah 26b:6–7
• Business
  • Bava Kamma 113b:10, Bava Kamma 113b:12, Bava Batra 54b:5, Avodah Zarah 2a:1, Avodah Zarah 37a:1
• Status as a man/human
  • Gittin 47a:9, Avodah Zarah 3a:2, Keritot 6b:20, Berakhot 58a:15, Berakhot 25b:11
• Miscellaneous
  • Menachot 43b:17

Sanhedrin 59a:2–5

• ואמר ר׳ יוחנן עובד כוכבים שעוסק בתורה חייב מיתה שנאמר (דברים לג, ד) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה לנו מורשה ולא להם
  • Sanhedrin 59a:2
  • Translation:
    • Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A gentile who engages in Torah study is liable to receive the death penalty; as it is stated: "Moses commanded us a law [torah], an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that it is an inheritance for us, and not for them.
      • The William Davidson Talmud
  • Comments:
    • It is to be noted that Sanhedrin 59a:2–4 is a discussion containing points and counter-points, concluding with the positive statement "a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest" (Sanhedrin 59a:4). The negative statement in Sanhedrin 59a:2 is therefore refuted by the conclusion.

• וליחשבה גבי שבע מצות מ״ד מורשה מיגזל קא גזיל לה מאן דאמר מאורסה דינו כנערה המאורסה דבסקילה
  • Sanhedrin 59a:3
  • Translation:
    • The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as an inheritance, this prohibition is included in the prohibition of robbery, as a gentile who studies Torah robs the Jewish people of it. According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as betrothed, as the spelling of the Hebrew word for betrothed [me'orasa], is similar to that of the word for inheritance [morasha], the punishment of a gentile who studies Torah is like that of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, which is execution by stoning.
      • The William Davidson Talmud
  • Comments:
    • As with Sanhedrin 59a:2, Sanhedrin 59a:3 is refuted by Sanhedrin 59a:4.

Sanhedrin 57a:16–17

• והא כל היכא דאית ליה חיובא מיתנא קתני דקתני רישא על שפיכות דמים כותי בכותי וכותי בישראל חייב ישראל בכותי פטור
  • Sanhedrin 57a:16–17
  • Translation:
    • With regard to bloodshed, if a gentile murders another gentile, or a gentile murders a Jew, he is liable. If a Jew murders a gentile, he is exempt ... Rabbi Ḥanina says: A gentile who struck a Jew is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated when Moses saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew: “And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Exodus 2:12).
      • The William Davidson Talmud

Sanhedrin 57a:17

• התם היכי ליתני ליתני אסור ומותר והתניא כותי ורועי בהמה דקה לא מעלין ולא מורידין
  • Sanhedrin 57a:17
  • Translation:
    • With regard to robbery, the term permitted is relevant, as it is permitted for a Jew to rob a gentile.
      • The William Davidson Talmud
  • Comments:
    • Note that sentence "With regard to robbery …" is part of the English gloss added by modern commentators; it is not part of the Hebrew text.

Sanhedrin 57a:22

• אלא אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא לא נצרכה אלא לכובש שכר שכיר כותי בכותי וכותי בישראל אסור ישראל בכותי מותר
  • Sanhedrin 57a:22
  • Translation:
    • It is necessary only to teach the halakha of one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer; for a gentile to do so to another gentile and for a gentile to do so to a Jew is prohibited, but for a Jew to do so to a gentile is permitted.
      • The William Davidson Talmud

Sanhedrin 59a:16

• ולא והרי יפת תואר התם משום דלאו בני כיבוש נינהו
  • Sanhedrin 59a:16
  • Translation:
    • The Gemara asks: And is there not? But isn’t there the permission for a Jew to take a married beautiful woman, who was taken as a prisoner of war, to be his wife? For a gentile to do so is forbidden. The Gemara answers: There, the reason gentiles are prohibited from doing so is because they are not authorized to conquer. It is not permitted for gentiles to wage wars of conquest, and the halakha of marrying a beautiful woman is stated only with regard to a war of conquest. Therefore the fact that a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war is permitted only to a Jew and not to a gentile does not indicate that gentiles have a higher degree of sanctity.
      • The William Davidson Talmud

Soferim 15:10

• הטוב שבעובדי כוכבים בשעת מלחמה הרוג הטוב שבנחשים רצוץ את מוחו הכשירה שבנשים בעלת כשפים אשרי מי שהוא עושה רצונו של המקום׃
  • Soferim 15:10
  • Translations:
    • Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents. The most worthy of women indulges in witchcraft. Happy is he who does the will of the Omnipresent.
      • The William Davidson Talmud

Avodah Zarah 37a:1

• הואיל וראוי לביאה מטמא נמי בזיבה אמר רבינא הלכך הא תינוקת עובדת כוכבים בת ג' שנים ויום אחד הואיל וראויה לביאה מטמאה נמי בזיבה
  • Avodah Zarah 37a:1
  • Translation:
    • The Gemara explains the reason for this opinion: Since a nine-year-old boy is fit to engage in intercourse, he also imparts ritual impurity as one who experienced ziva. Ravina said: Therefore, with regard to a female gentile child who is three years and one day old, since she is fit to engage in intercourse at that age, she also imparts impurity as one who experienced ziva.
      • The William Davidson Talmud

Avodah Zarah 3a:2

• רבי מאיר אומר מנין שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יח, ה)
  • Avodah Zarah 3a:2
  • Translation:
    • Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? The verse states: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a person [HaAdam] do, and shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5).
      • The William Davidson Talmud

Keritot 6b:20

• לאיי דכתיב (יחזקאל לד, לא) ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם אתם קרויין אדם ואין העובדי כוכבים קרויין אדם
  • Keritot 6b:20
  • Translation:
    • As it is written: "And you My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are people [adam]" (Ezekiel 34:31), from which it is derived that you, the Jewish people, are called adam, but gentiles are not called adam.
      • The William Davidson Talmud
  • Comments:
    • Beyond its use as the name of the first man, adam (Hebrew: אָדָם) is also used as a pronoun, individually as "a human" and in a collective sense as "mankind".

Berakhot 58a:15

• כִּי הֲוָה נָפֵיק, אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַהוּא גַּבְרָא: עָבֵיד רַחֲמָנָא נִיסָּא לְשַׁקָּרֵי הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רָשָׁע, לָאו חֲמָרֵי אִיקְּרוּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר בְּשַׂר חֲמוֹרִים בְּשָׂרָם״. חַזְיֵיהּ דְּקָאָזֵיל לְמֵימְרָא לְהוּ דִּקְרִינְהוּ חֲמָרֵי, אֲמַר: הַאי רוֹדֵף הוּא. וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: אִם בָּא לְהׇרְגְּךָ — הַשְׁכֵּם לְהׇרְגוֹ. מַחְיֵיהּ בְּקוּלְפָא וְקַטְלֵיהּ.
  • Berakhot 58a:15
  • Translation:
    • As he was leaving, that man said to Rabbi Sheila: Does God perform such miracles for liars? He replied: Scoundrel! Aren’t gentiles called donkeys? As it is written: “Whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys” (Ezekiel 23:20). Rabbi Sheila saw that he was going to tell the Persian authorities that he called them donkeys. He said: This man has the legal status of a pursuer. He seeks to have me killed. And the Torah said: If one comes to kill you, kill him first. He struck him with the staff and killed him.
      • The William Davidson Talmud
  • Related passages: Yevamot 98a:3

Berakhot 25b:11

• אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: גּוֹי עָרוֹם אָסוּר לִקְרוֹת קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. מַאי אִירְיָא גּוֹי? אֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי! יִשְׂרָאֵל פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּאָסוּר, אֶלָּא גּוֹי אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ מַהוּ דְתֵימָא, הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב בְּהוּ ״אֲשֶׁר בְּשַׂר חֲמוֹרִים בְּשָׂרָם״, אֵימָא כַּחֲמוֹר בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִינְהוּ נָמֵי אִיקְּרוּ עֶרְוָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם לֹא רָאוּ״.
  • Berakhot 25b:11
  • Translation:
    • Rav Yehuda said: Opposite a naked gentile, it is forbidden to recite Shema. The Gemara asks: Why did Rav Yehuda discuss particularly the case of a gentile? Even with regard to a Jew it is also prohibited. The Gemara replies: Opposite the nakedness of a Jew, it is obvious that it is prohibited; however, opposite the nakedness of a gentile, it was necessary for him to say. Lest you say that since it is written about gentiles: “Their flesh is the flesh of donkeys” (Ezekiel 23:20), say that his nakedness is like that of a mere donkey and does not constitute nakedness. Rav Yehuda taught us that their nakedness is also considered nakedness, as it is written regarding the sons of Noah: “And their father’s nakedness they did not see” (Genesis 9:23). Although Noah predated Abraham and was consequently not Jewish, his nakedness is mentioned.
      • The William Davidson Talmud
  • Comments:
    • Here, the Ezekiel passage is understood figuratively, insofar as to argue that that the Shema may be recited in front of a naked gentile such as Noah.

Quotes about the Talmud

• Once upon a time, under pressure of censorship, printers would inscribe in the flyleaves of volumes of the Talmud: "Whatever may be written herein about gentiles does not refer to the gentiles of today, but to gentiles of times past." Today, the flyleaves of our books bear a similar inscription, albeit an invisible one: "Whatever may be written herein about Jews does not refer to the Jews of today, but to Jews who lived in other times." So we are able to sit down and study Torah, Talmud, books of ethics, or books of faith without considering their relevance to our lives. Whatever is written there does not apply to us or to our generation, but only to other people, other times. We must expunge from those invisible prologues the notion that the words are written about someone else, about others, about anyone but us. Whether the book is a volume of Torah, a tractate of the Talmud, or a tract of faith, the opposite must be inscribed: "Whatever is written herein refers only to me; is written for me and obligates me. First and foremost, the content is addressed to me."
  • From a public address by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, as quoted in Talks on Parashat Ha-Shavua (חיי עולם), Maggid Books, 2011. Also quoted in the preface of each volume of the Koren Talmud Bavli.

Unsourced quotes

• "The teaching of the Rabbis is : He who pours oil over a Goi, and over dead bodies is freed from punishment . This is true for an animal because it is not a man . But how can it be said that by pouring oil over a Goi one is freed from punishment, since a Goi is also a man? But this is not true, for it is written : Ye are my flock, the flock of my pasture are men (Ezechiel, XXXIV, 31) . You are thus called men, but the Goim are not called men.
  • Talmud: Kerithuth (6b p . 78)

• "The seed of a Goi is worth the same as that of a beast ."
  • Talmud: Kethuboth (3b)

• "It is permitted to deceive a Goi."
  • Talmud: Babha Kama (113b)

• "Even the best of the Goim should be killed"
  • Talmud: Abhodah Zarah (26b, Tosephoth)

• A Jew must not associate himself with gentiles because they are given to the shedding of blood ."
  • Talmud: Abhodah Zarah (22a)

BurningLibrary (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

On 8 October 2023, the user Ziran-Naturally made an edit that added some comments with regard to Sanhedrin 59a:2–4. The comments pointed out that the passage is a discussion which considers points and counter-points, but ends with a positive conclusion: "a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest" (Sanhedrin 59a:4). However, the comments were deleted in later edits. The summary of one edit read: "Refrain from using personal subjective commentary, leave text as is."

I have no wish to start an edit war, so I suggest that we discuss the topic here instead. I myself think that comments are in general a good thing. Given how cryptic some Talmudic passages can be, it is clarifying to provide some context, and comments make it possible to do just that.

There may be a discussion to be had with regard to how the comments are to be worded. Certainly, they should be brief, use neutral language, and be sourced properly (with links to Wikipedia if possible). Perhaps the proposed comments can be improved in this regard. But if so, this would be a discussion about how the comments are to be phrased, not whether they warrant inclusion.

That is what I think, anyway. I encourage others to contribute their own views on the topic. Let's all focus on being civil, and work on making this page as factually grounded as it can be. BurningLibrary (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Since no one has replied, I have taken it upon myself to re-add some of the comments contributed by Ziran-Naturally. I have changed the wording somewhat in order to make it more neutral. As I have stated previously, I think the point made is a clarifying one and that it therefore belongs. BurningLibrary (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

I believe that this article does not adhere to WQ:NPOV for the following reasons:

1. The quotes on this page are presented out of context, giving a false impression of the Talmud and of Jewish beliefs. For example, the quote that “If a Jew murders a gentile, he is exempt” has never been understood to mean that Jews may murder gentiles. “Exempt” here means exempt from punishment by a Jewish court, which does not have jurisdiction.

2. The quotes on this page sometimes treat the English gloss added by modern commentators as part of the text. For example, the entire quote about a Jew being permitted to rob a gentile is not found in the text of the Talmud itself.

3. Several quotes from Sanhedrin 59a are presented as entirely separate, when in fact they appear back-to-back in the text. This obscures the fact that the quotes are a dialogue. The idea that a non-Jew is liable to death for studying Torah is contradicted in the very next sentence, but by presenting the two quotes as separate, it becomes easy to point to only the first as if it were the authoritative view.

4. The commentary at the top of the page says that the Talmud is authoritative, but fails to mention that not every quote in it is authoritative. The text is a record of arguments between rabbis, and Jews do not accept every one of those arguments.

5. Quotes about Jesus in the Talmud should not be included here. The only reason I can see for them to be here is to paint a picture of the Talmud as hateful to Christians. It’s also misleading to include them without the context that the “Jesus” in question may or may not be Jesus of Nazareth,and that the entire episode is a fable rather than a literal teaching. Besides, Jesus was a Jew, so it’s off-topic.

6. The selection of quotes here is cherry-picked to give a negative impression of teh Talmud. For example, a few quotes here appear to compare gentiles to animals. But those quotes are refuted elsewhere in the Talmud, and yet those refutations are not quoted here.

7. The “quotes about the Talmud” section at the bottom contains a single quote, which has no relevance to the topic. It seems to be here only to try and tie modern Jews to the Talmud’s attitude towards non-Jews, which was a product of its time. I don’t think this section is needed at all.

8. The entire topic of what the Talmud says about non-Jews is very nuanced. It was written at a time when Jews could expect no justice from non-Jewish courts, and so laws were formulated to protect Jews. In my opinion, reducing this topic to quotes is bound to present a biased view. I’m not sure why this page needs to exist at all. At the least it should be folded into the existing page about the Talmud.

9. I’m concerned that this page’s non-neutral point of view may already be used to justify antisemitism.

I can go into more detail about the context that’s missing for other specific quotes, but hopefully this is enough context to explain why I think this page needs attention.

Template:Reflist-talk Aaronak (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aaronak: The idea is that by collecting these particular quotes in one place—here—the subject can, hopefully, be dealt with in some way that is nuanced and fact-oriented. It also takes some weight off of other pages, such as the Talmud page.

I’m not sure why this page needs to exist at all. At the least it should be folded into the existing page about the Talmud.

The thing is that this has actually been tried already. Most of the quotes listed here were originally part of the Talmud page. Adding them back would defeat the purpose.

But I do think you make thoughtful and well-sourced points on the whole. How do you feel about including some of these points into the page itself in the form of comments? Cf. earlier discussions on this talk page about providing context through comments.

To address some of your other observations:

Several quotes from Sanhedrin 59a are presented as entirely separate, when in fact they appear back-to-back in the text. This obscures the fact that the quotes are a dialogue.

I agree that these should be presented as a whole. They could be combined into a single quote, but such a quote might become rather long. An alternative, then, is to present the passage in the form of multiple quotes, but add comments to tie things together.

The commentary at the top of the page says that the Talmud is authoritative, but fails to mention that not every quote in it is authoritative. The text is a record of arguments between rabbis, and Jews do not accept every one of those arguments.

By all means, feel free to improve the wording of the page description if you think it omits essential context. The only thing to keep in mind here is that as a rule, the page description should not be too long, so its language should be concise and to the point. This applies to comments as well.

For example, the quote that “If a Jew murders a gentile, he is exempt” has never been understood to mean that Jews may murder gentiles. “Exempt” here means exempt from punishment by a Jewish court, which does not have jurisdiction.

I think this point should be clarified in a comment. Perhaps the following passage from the "The Jewish Attitude towards Gentiles" article may be cited in a footnote (with <ref>): "The reason is assumedly because the High Court doesn't have the authority to put someone to death if the victim wasn't someone who's totally protected under the High Court (the Gentiles living in Israel are not granted full citizenship)." In that way, the comment would point, with a footnote, to a source that discusses the topic in more detail. Of course, additional footnotes may point to other sources.

I don’t think [the “quotes about the Talmud” section] is needed at all.

I would like to keep this section, because it provides a way to provide additional context in the form of quotes discussing the Talmud. For example, the "The Jewish Attitude towards Gentiles" article could be quoted here.

Quotes about Jesus in the Talmud should not be included here.

I agree, we already have Jesus in the Talmud for this purpose. (You may also be interested in Toledot Yeshu.)

You make many other points that are also worth considering. My apologies for the late reply―I have not been involved with the page as of recently because I wanted to give others a chance to contribute to it. I don't think a page such as this should be dominated by any single person, although I am of course the page's main contributor and its creator. It should be a community decision what to do with quotes such as these, provided that we as a community are able to arrive at some consensus with regard to the best course of action. That is what this talk page is for.

In any case, thank you for your participation. I hope something comes of it. BurningLibrary (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)