And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A gentile who engages inTorah 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 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 Torahrobs 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 Torahis like that of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, which isexecution by stoning.
In another instance, the Talmud says that a Gentile who learns Torah is liable for the death penalty. This as well, like the previous cases, isn't a ruling of actual execution but that he is merely worthy of Capital Punishment. The reason for this is because the Torah is considered a special gift to the Chosen Nation and was directed to them.
The only part of the Torah that a gentile is permitted to study is the seven Noahide mitzvot. A gentile who studies other parts of the Torah is liable to receive the penalty of death at the hand of Heaven. The court warns him of this and punishes him as it sees fit, but does not sentence him to be executed (Rambam Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Melakhim UMilĥemoteihem 10:9, and Kesef Mishne, Leĥem Mishne, and Radbaz there).
Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, commentary on the Koren Talmud Bavli (Noé Edition), vol. 30, "Tractate Sanhedrin, Part Two", p. 66
Comment. This is Adin Steinsaltz' commentary on the Talmud, but not necessarily Steinsaltz' own opinion. Rather, Steinsaltz is summarizing what rabbinic literature has to say on the topic, and providing references to such literature.
Some commentaries ask how a gentile robs the Jewish people by studying Torah, as he does not in fact take anything away from them. One suggestion is that by reaching novel understandings of Torah before the Jewish people do, he is considered to have robbed them (Ya'avetz).
Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, commentary on the Koren Talmud Bavli (Noé Edition), vol. 30, "Tractate Sanhedrin, Part Two", p. 66
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.
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".
It is regards to the impurity of touching a corpse of a dead "person" (Leviticus 19:14)—that this statement was said. The law applies exclusively to a Jewish corpse and not that of a Gentile. … Perhaps we can compare it to term "person" that is mentioned within every countries code of law, in which the term very frequently is limited to the citizens of that country, despite that "person" as a definition refers to all humans as well. Similarly, when the Torah speaks of a corpse of a "person," it is referring to the people whom the Torah is addressing.
The Merciful One dispossesses the male gentile of his offspring, as it is written with regard to Egyptians: "Whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys, and whose semen is the semen of horses" (Ezekiel 23:20), i.e., the offspring of a male gentile is considered no more related to him than the offspring of donkeys and horses.
Rabbi Sheila ordered that a man who had relations with a gentile woman be flogged. That man went to inform the king and said: There is one man among the Jews who renders judgment without the king's authority [harmana]. The king sent a messenger [peristaka] for Rabbi Sheila to bring him to trial. When Rabbi Sheila came, they said to him: Why did you order flogging for this man? He said to them: Because he had relations with a female donkey.
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.
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 context of Ezekiel [23:20] is a rebuke to the Jewish People for practicing adultery with their Gentile neighbors. The context speaks in metaphoric terms and it can be argued that the term "their skin is the skin of a donkey" is likewise. … The explanation is that the Gentile woman was likened to a donkey because of her foreign martial relationship with the Jewish man and can be likened to the foreign martial relationship to a donkey.
One might think that this verse [Berakhot 25b:11] teaches us that gentiles are like donkeys. … However, R. Yehudah teaches, that is not the case at all. Gentiles are people and not merely animals and the verse in Ezekiel [23:20] does not mean that gentiles are animals. To understand the verse literally, the Talmud says, is to misunderstand the verse. Gentiles are unquestionably human, created in G-d's image, and Jewish law recognizes this as do the rabbis of the Talmud.
But isn't it taught in a baraita that with regard to a gentile, and likewise with regard to Jewish shepherds of small livestock, who were typically robbers, one may not raise them out of a pit into which they fell, and one may not lower them into a pit? In other words, one may not rescue them from danger, but neither may one kill them ab initio.
It is prohibited to raise a gentile from a pit even in exchange for payment, because one can say an excuse to him, such as: My son is standing on the roof and I must go use this ladder to help him down from the roof. Alternatively, he can say to him: A time has been appointed for me to appear in the courthouse [bei davar] and I must attend to this matter. Since the Jew can provide a legitimate excuse for refusing to aid the gentile, there is no need to extract him from the pit.
אמר מר היו מורידין אבל לא מעלין השתא אחותי מחתינן אסוקי מיבעי אמר רב יוסף בר חמא אמר רב ששת לא נצרכא שאם היתה מעלה בבור מגררה דנקיט ליה עילא ואמר לא תיחות חיותא עלויה
[I]f there was a ledge in the pit, a Jew scrapes it off so that the one in the pit cannot ascend from it, as the Jew employs a pretext and says that he is removing the ledge so that animals do not descend upon the one in the pit while he is trapped in the pit.
[I]f there was a stone at the mouth of the well that one had fallen into, a Jew covers it and says that he is covering the opening in order to pass his animals over it. Ravina said: One can learn from here that if there was a ladder in the pit, a Jew removes it and says: I require the ladder to lower my son from the roof.
There is an argument as to whether these passages mean that there is no obligation to help a gentile in danger, or that there is a prohibition against helping them.[1]
Perhaps the most astonishing law pertaining to Gentiles is this that we need/do not save a Gentile in a situation when he is in danger. There is an argument amongst the commentators whether there's merely no obligation or that one should specifically not save them. … We'll start off with saying that this rule no longer applies today when the Gentiles are more moral than what they used to be. … Back in the days, the vast majority of Gentiles were anti-Semites and immoral beings.
From where is it derived that it is permitted to retain the lost item of a gentile? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to the mitzva of returning a lost item: "With every lost thing of your brother's" (Deuteronomy 22:3), indicating that it is only to your brother that you return a lost item, but you do not return a lost item to a gentile.
Rav Ashi was traveling on the road and he saw a branch of a grapevine in an orchard, and there were clusters of grapes hanging on it. He said to his attendant: Go see to whom these clusters belong. If they are owned by a gentile, bring some to me, but if they are owned by a Jew, do not bring me any. A certain gentile who was sitting in the orchard overheard Rav Ashi's instructions. The gentile said to him: Is it permitted to steal the property of a gentile? Rav Ashi said to him: A gentile takes money for his grapes, and I intended to pay for them, but a Jew does not take money for his grapes and I did not want to take them without paying for them.
The Gemara relates: Rav Huna purchased land from a gentile. Another Jew came and plowed it slightly. Rav Huna and that Jew came before Rav Naḥman, who established the property in the possession of the latter. Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: What are you thinking in issuing this ruling? Is it because Shmuel says that the property of a gentile is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it has acquired it?
Halachically speaking, there is no legal obligation to return the lost object of a Gentile (in contrast to a Jew). The reasoning is that just like if they would have found a lost object it is almost established that they wouldn't have returned it, we too are not obligated to return their lost object. … Additionally, if he is to return it, there's the high possibility of the Gentile accusing the Jew (because most Gentiles were anti-Semitic back in the days) to have stolen the item (or some of the money/items in the case of returning a lost wallet or package).
Shmuel says that it is permitted to financially benefit from a business error of a gentile, i.e., it need not be returned. The Gemara notes that this is like that incident where Shmuel purchased a golden bowl [lakna] from a gentile in exchange [bemar] for the price of an iron bowl, which was four dinars, and Shmuel included one additional dinar in the payment so that the gentile would not realize his mistake.
Ravina and a gentile purchased a palm tree together in order to chop it up and split the wood between them. Ravina said to his attendant: Hurry and precede the gentile so that you can bring my share of the wood from the trunk of the tree, which is thicker than the upper part of the tree, as the gentile knows only the number of logs that he is due to receive and will not realize that you are taking thicker pieces.
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.
There is a law in Leviticus 19:13 that prohibits paying workers late (i.e. overnight). This was a laborer's right granted in the Torah that protects them from possible mistreatment by their employers. … This is the true intent of the Talmud when it speaks about "withholding" a non-Jew's salary.
In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew.
But wherever there is liability for capital punishment, this tannateaches it; as it is taught in the first clause: 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. Evidently, the term liable is used in the baraita.
Sanhedrin 57a says murdering a Gentile is not punishable by death (but if a Gentile murders a Jew, he is put to death). … There are so many instances in which it is forbidden to murder another, but if done—the murderer isn't punished as a Capital Crime. 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). … Murdering a Gentile is certainly under the prohibition of "thou shall not murder," except that in regard to putting the violator to death—we need authority over the victim (of whose protection is fully under the High Court who must therefore avenge his blood).
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.
The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: "Let us differentiate." Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of "let us differentiate" between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world. … The difference of the inner quality, however, is so great that the bodies should be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews: "their bodies are in vain." … An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness. … A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" [Genesis 1:1] means that [the heavens and the earth] were created for the sake of the Jews, who are called the "beginning."
מתני׳ לפני אידיהן של עובדי כוכבים שלשה ימים אסור לשאת ולתת עמהם להשאילן ולשאול מהן להלוותן וללוות מהן לפורען ולפרוע מהן רבי יהודה אומר נפרעין מהן מפני שמיצר הוא לו אמרו לו אע״פ שמיצר הוא עכשיו שמח הוא לאחר זמן׃
On the three days before the festivals of gentiles the following actions are prohibited, as they would bring joy to the gentile, who would subsequently give thanks to his object of idol worship on his festival: It is prohibited to engage in business with them; to lend items to them or to borrow items from them; to lend money to them or to borrow money from them; and to repay debts owed to them or to collect repayment of debts from them. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may collect repayment of debts from them because this causes the gentile distress.
The Tur and Shulĥan Arukh write that this was the halakha only in the talmudic period, but nowadays it is permitted. The halakhic authorities explain that the prohibition no longer applies either because in the present time gentiles do not engage in idol worship or because they are no longer so devout or familiar with the worship. Furthermore, even if they give the money to their priests, it would not be used for idol worship itself. Another reason the prohibition no longer applies is that there is a fear that it might cause hatred of the Jews who are living among the gentiles and have to conduct business with them throughout the rest of the year (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Avoda Zara 9:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De'a 148:1, 12).
Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, commentary on the Koren Talmud Bavli (Noé Edition), vol. 32: "Tractate Avoda Zara, Tractate Horayot", p. 7
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.
Perhaps the most famous quotation, this quote is justified when put in its context. Its context is in a war against a Gentile enemy. … This morality in war is justified (to the soldiers and not innocent civilians) and was the rules of battle especially in the times that this statement was said.
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.
"[T]he bodies [of Jews and non-Jews] should be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews: 'their bodies are in vain.'" (Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Gatherings of Conversations)
Through the generous support of The William Davidson Foundation, these translations are now available with a Creative Commons non-commercial license, making them free for use and re-use—even beyond Sefaria. […] The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, was released with a CC BY-NC license by Koren Publishers.
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments1 person in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
I have moved a number of quotes to this talk page so that we can work on commenting them better before, eventually, including them in the main page in a way that is fair and balanced. I suggest that we use this talk page as a drafting space. BurningLibrary (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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:
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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]
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][4]
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]
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,[6]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]
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.[8]
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.
@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.
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.
Update. I have removed the NPOV tag, as the page now includes both positive views and other views. Quotes from the William Davidson edition of the Talmud use bold text to distinguish original text from the English gloss.
The "Quotes" section of this talk page contains a number of quotes that may be considered for inclusion. While some attempts have been made at contextualizing difficult passages, the page is probably in need of an accompanying Wikipedia article that can explain things better.
For the time being, I recommend focusing on growing the "Positive views" section. If there are positive views about gentiles in the Talmud, let this page show it.
↑"There is an argument amongst the commentators whether there's merely no obligation or that one should specifically not save them." "The Jewish Attitude towards Gentiles", Jewish Belief Reimagined, 2018-12-02.
