Outros artigos deste número | Versão em inglês | Versão em Francês

Israel and the Nations in the Post'Talmudic Tradition
K. Hruby

In the post-talmudic period, that is, from the 6th or 7th century on, the particular situations in which the relationship between Israel and the nations was a problem, were for all practical purposes, either Christian or Moslem society, since the vast majority of Jewish communities had established themselves in countries where either Christianity or Islam prevailed.
We shall proceed first to examine the relationship in terms of principles which had to be faced by the two religious (and political) systems. From there, we shall go on to analyze the attitudes which resulted from this in daily life.

Judaism in the Face Christianity.
We must pass over in silence here all the earliest Jewish—Christian conflict and its development in the first centuries of the Christian era. The Christianity which Judaism had to face in the post-talmudic period was no longer the same as it had been when Christianity was beginning. As far as Judaism and the Jews were concerned, it was characterized by an almost exclusively polemical and anti-Jewish attitude, which was favoured by most of the Fathers of the Church, many of whom made their mark in writing in the style "Adversus Judaeos". This outlook, known as the "theory of substitution" sees Christianity, the "new Israel" establishing itself in the place of the "old Israel": from now on, the latter's only religious significance will be a negative one in favour of Christian truth. By refusing to admit the situation which has thus been created, and to draw the only possible conclusion (that is, to embrace Christianity) the Jews, who were already collectively responsible for the death of Jesus, incurred the further guilt of unforgiveable stubbornness, hardness of heart and blindness. As John Chrysostom put it, for example, they became "the enemies, from birth, of Christ and his Church".

When it came to making rules governing the lives of Jews dwelling in its midst, Christian society put this ideological attitude into practice in daily life. From the Edict of Milan (313), the Christians had developed from a periodically persecuted minority to the predominant element in the Roman Empire. From then on, the legal system which had permitted the Jews a great measure of freedom of religious practice and community organization was at an end. Now restrictions were piled onto them unremittingly, and always under the influence and pressure of the ecclesiastical authorities.

Judaism's Judgement of Christians and Christianity.
At first, the Jewish—Christian controversy brought about an internal problem for Judaism: was it possible to accept the teaching of Jesus and remain within the bosom of the Jewish community? Jesus' teaching, in this context, is the Church's kerygma, with its strongly accentuated Christocentricism.

Very early on, probably as early as 80 AD., the Jewish religious leaders decided the question in the negative, thus bringing about the decisive split between the Jewish and Christian communities.

Rabbinic literature, clearly founding its judgement on the whole upheaval which had taken place, meanwhile, laid the blame on Jesus personally, principally charging him with causing the apostasy of many Jews and with leading them on to commit acts of idolatry. To the Jewish mind, when the Christians declared Jesus Son of God they incurred the guilt of shittuf, tat of extending the Godhead to other powers, thus offending against the basic tenet of Judaism, the oneness of God. In this way, they became kofrei ba .'iqqr "those who, dispute the basic principle (of Judaism)".

What was more, Christians also claimed that Jesus had come to "fulfil the law", and looked upon a great deal of the Mosaic law as outmoded and void while, in Jewish eyes, the law of Moses was a berit 'darn, an "eternal covenant", valid for all time and not open to any modification.

It is obvious from this that a Jew who acknowleged Christian doctrines would be kofer ba'iqqar, would become, by that very fact a poshe'a Yisrael, an apostate, and, if he took part in Christian worship, he would become guilty of idolatry. This, it is true, was a subjective judgement, made within Judaism, and only concerned a Jew who became a Christian.

However, things were very different in the case of a pagan who had turned Christian. In view of the fact that the Jewish religious law considered Christianity to be the equivalent of idolatry, had a pagan who became a Christian to be regarded as an idolater?

It must be acknowledged that the answer to this question is complex. The judgement on it adopted by the Jewish authorities varied through the centuries, and was strongly influenced by the contemporary attitudes of the Christians in their relationships with the Jews.

We have seen that the only requirement which the Talmudic law made of the non-Jew was that he should observe the "noachic commandments", and one of these was that he should abstain from any idolatrous act, although this did not require him to make a confession of monotheism after the formal, strict Jewish pattern. In return for this, the non-Jew was considered ger toshav like a foreigner with citizenship rights, given a status equivalent to that of a Jew. If, for a Jew, Christianity was an 'avodah zarah, idolatrous worship, it was nothing of the sort for a non-Jew. The dispute with Christians in the ancient rabbinical tradition was only concerned with Jewish—Christians. It was, therefore, a dispute confined to Judaism, which had nothing to do with non-Jews, as the Talmud says explicitly (Hul. lib)) "There are no minim (heretics) among the non-Jews".

As to Christian doctrine, it is easy to see that, in its view of the nature of God, it was a shittuf The pagan who embraced Christianity was free and for him, Christianity was certainly not idolatry. In the same way, the Christian abandonment of a considerable part of the Mosaic law was only the concern of the Jewish—Christians. As non-Jews were not obliged to keep the law, Christianity must be given the credit for giving them a knowledge of it, and of viewing it as an authentic divine revelation.

In the life of the Church, things took a different turn. We find that Christian churches became filled with pictures and, later on in the west, with statues. The cross is given a central place in the veneration of the faithful, and from there, honour begins to be paid to relics, all of this being formally at variance with that part of the Torah which the Christians themselves professed to honour and observe. Was this not purely and simply a return to 'avot kena'an, tothe "abominations of Canaan", to the idolatrous practices explicitly rejected by the Bible? Was this not a 'irbuvya, a hopelessly confused jumble of biblical doctrines and pagan practices? From the point of view of worship, was it not inevitable that the Christians should be looked upon as idolaters, since it was obvious that they adored idols in their churches? Judaism was far too realistic a religion to allow the subtle distinctions of Christian theology to intrude into the picture. It looked at the facts and based its judgement on them. It would be a long time before a more positive appreciation of Christianity would take over from the purely doctrinal assessment.

Judaism and Islam.
Like Christianity, Islam is a religion with a claim to universality, addressing its message to all men to teach them submission to, "Islam", to the will of the one God who, by his legate, has restored the original, universal revelation, and also the religion which Abraham "the father of believers" practised long ago.

Unlike Christianity, the development of Islam in its early stages was not linked to a doctrinal dispute at the heart of the Jewish community. In this respect, it was, from the start, a foreign phenomenon. It was true that Mohammed, too, wanted to win the Jews to the religion whose phophet he proclaimed himself to be. In his attitude towards the Jews, it is possible to discern two extremely dissimilar stages (seven centuries later, the same would be seen in the case of Luther): in the first stage, at Mecca, Mohammed gave many indications of favour towards them, and introduced many features, borrowed from Judaism, into the religion which he preached. In a second stage, at Medina, he became convinced of the fact that the Jews were not wavering in their position, and rescinded these measures and instead became merciless and vicious towards them. Later on, Moslem jurists found it very hard to reconcile two such different attitudes.

Unlike Christianity, Islam did not simply look for the end of Judaism. While it certainly invited the Jews to embrace the religion of its prophet, it still recognized that both Jews and Christians have an authentic divine revelation in their possession, which makes them ahl alkitab, "the people of the book", and also confers on them the status of dhimmi, "protected ones", in the heart of the umma, Moslem society.

It is true that the Jews rejected the Moslem claim that they too were involved in the message of the Koran. But, when that had been said, Judaism was prepared to recognize Mahommed as having an authentic mission to his own people: all the evidence showed that, unlike Christianity, Islam preserved intact the basic tenet of the Torah, the confession of a single God. It was, therefore, beyond reproach, and no one ever dreamed of looking upon it as idolatry. Seen in this way, Islam appeared to be superior to Christianity, which the Jews saw as worshipping three divine powers and accepting the worship of images.

What was more, Islam remained very close to Judaism in many respects, and took its inspiration from her in a very considerable way. Thus Israel could more easily see herself in Islam than in Christianity, which had developed in such a way as to practically cut itself off from its Jewish roots.

It is true that Moslem principles of tolerance were not always put into practice in the course of history towards the Jews nor towards the Christians and there were to be some bloody persecutions in Islamic countries. Nevertheless, these usually remained isolated instances. On the contrary, over a long period, a mutual development took place between Jews and Moslems at the cultural and intellectual levels. Very quickly, Jews came to adopt Arabic as the language of everyday use, acquainted themselves with ancient philosophies by means of Arabic translations of the great Greek philosophers and also adopted as their own the methods of the kalam, Moslem theology.

In some places more especially in Spain, in the caliphate of Cordova, very deep intellectual exchanges developed between the Islamic umma, a society made up of many different ethnic elements, with their common faith as the only ground of unity, and Judaism. This was something never known between Judaism and Christian society which could not, as a matter of religious principle, accept the Jew. It was in the light of the attitude of the umma towards herself that Israel was to form her judgement of Islam.

The Practical Attitude of Judaism towards Christians and Moslems.
Matters of Principle.
The root of the problem was always the question of how to look at the Christian and Moslem "nations" from the point of view of the rabbinic law, and what practical attitude should be adopted towards them. (As regards the Moslems, it had been established that they could not be looked upon as idolaters). In the first place, there was a halakhic, a juridical, problem: was it necessary to apply the rules regarding 'akkum, the idolaters of earlier times, to relationships with Christians and, in other respects, to those with Moslems?

While a question of principle was at stake, the great Jewish authorities of the Middle Ages tended mainly to adopt a pacific attitude. The most typical example of this is Maimonides (11351204), the greatest Jewish thinker of this period.

In his role as a religious philosopher, Maimonides looks at the unfolding of history from a religious point of view. Within his eternal plan, it is the will of God to lead all peoples to recognize his universal Lordship. He gave the Torah to Israel and entrusted his people with the mission of giving witness. But, in the course of time, first Christianity and then Islam appeared on the stage of history. Compared with the religions of antiquity, these two systems have the advantage that each of them, in its own way, sought to lead the nations to the service of the one God. To a certain extent, each of them took its inspiration from the Torah, which each of them, in its own way, acknowledged as possessing a revealed character.

This being so, it was dear that there must be recognized in these two religions a providential role in the preparation for "messianic" times: "All the events (concerning Jesus)", wrote Maimonides, "and even those concerning the one who came after him (Mohammed), are nothing but the preparation for the king Messiah" (Mishneh Torah, HiIkh. Melakhim, XI, 4).

In this, Maimonides comes to the same conclusion as another author of the same period, Judah Ha-Levi (about 1080-1145), who speaks in a similar way in his Sefer ha-Kusari (1165).

In other writings, Maimonides does not fail to underline the vocation to salvation of all men without) idistinction. He warns very strictly against any attitude of partiality or of disloyalty towards the non-Jews (cf. Hilk. Mekhirah, XVIII, 1: comment. de Kel. XII, 7).

A persecution which some fanatical and diehard Moslems unleashed against the Jews gave Maimonides an opportunity to express himself more clearly on the subject of Islam. He insists more strenuously than ever that Islam can in no way be looked upon as idolatry. (In certain Jewish centres, there were attacks on the Moslems' veneration for the Ka'aba and against certain rites conducted there). The assertion of Mohammed's prophecy contained in the Moslem creed was a secondary detail, as everyone knew that he was a false prophet. If one were faced with the choice of embracing Islam as a matter of form, or of dying, then Islam should be chosen. Maimonides recalls by way of conclusion that one is only obliged to choose martyrdom in three cases: idoltry, incest and murder (Iggeret ha-shmad).

In this context, we should say that rabbinic authorities have always maintained that, in the face of enforced baptism, martyrdom must bechosen, as very many communities have done down the ages, particularly in the Rhineland, during the first Crusade (1096).

Of course, even a great soul like Maimonides could not always abstract from particular events. And so it is that, in his Letter to the Jews of the Yemen (Iggeret Yemen), written on the occasion of a persecution of the Jews in that country, he goes so far as to refer to Mohammed as navi meshug'a, "a mad prophet". But, as soon as things become normal again, Maimonides returned to his peaceful approach and takes his stand once more against the idea of some people that Islam should be regarded as idolatry (for the reasons given above).

As to Maimonides' attitude towards the Christians, a distinction must be drawn between the principle which he gives in Mishneh Torah, recognizing that they have a positive role in God's plan and his statement of certain precautions which must be taken in daily life, because of certain features of 'Christianity, which create serious difficulties for a Jew. In this Maimonides tends rather to consider them idolatrous because of all that is contained in Christian worship.
In order to understand this attitude, it must be recalled that Maimonides had lived in Islamic territory and that, in his theological thought, he had been very much influenced by Moslem theology, which places a strong emphasis on the duty to recognize the tauhid, the oneness of God, and which considers a breach of this principle as shira (shittuf).

Yet, Maimonides acknowledged that the Christians were superior to the Moslems in their knowledge of Sacred Scripture. Thus, they could be taught, for example, the biblical commandments of reward and punishment.

In his Letter to the Jews of the Yemen, Maimonides makes a sort of general assessment of the situation, saying that, on the whole, Christianity had done less damage to Judaism than had Islam, seeing that its expansion had mainly taken place among the pagans, and this despite the fact that Jesus' message had been addressed at the very beginning to the Jews of his day.

The Development of the llalakhah (Religious law)
Despite everything, Maimonides is too onesidely influenced by the Moslem situation, and so we must have regard to the presentation of the masters who lived and taught in Christian countries. The trend of their thought is quite clear: that Christians cannot in any way be compared to idolaters.

Thus, the greatest commentator of all time on the Bible and the Talmud, Rashi (Rabbi Soloman Yitzhaqi of Troyes, 1040-1105), again declares that any question of heresy is simply a Jewish matter and cannot concern non-Jews in any way.

His grandson, Rabbi Samuel ben Meir of Ramperupt ("Rashban"), also takes up certain remarks of Maimonides which are unfavourable to Christians, and asserts: "The non-Jews of our time are not idolaters, butare (simply) following the traditions of their ancestors".

Likewise, in the school of Rashi, they are at pains to emphasize that an oath taken by a Christian in the name of a saint must be held as binding, as the intention of the Christian is directed towards God. As to the reproach of shittuf which was levelled at Christians, it is expressly stated that Christians, as indeed all non-Jews are not bound to a pure monothism, so that nothing should be held against them on that score.

In his celebrated Sefer Hassidim, Rabbi Judah ben Samuel of Regensburg (about 1200) gives exactly the same ruling and goes on to saythat all the masters of the Talmud thought it right to say that the question of idolatry had no relation whatsoever to Christians.

From then on, virtually all the great authorities in the field of rabbinical jurisprudence made a point of stressing that the talmudic legislation on idolatry in no way concerned the peoples among whom the Jews were living at that time, and therefore applied neither to Moslems nor Christians.

Rabbi Joseph Karo (16th century), the author of Shahan 'Arukh, a collection of rabbinical jurisprudence which was to be authoritative from his time, confirms this approach to judging "the nations":
"The gentiles of the present time", he says, "must not be looked upon as idolaters with reference to the restitution of lost objects and in any other matter" (cf. Bet Yossef of Tur Hoshen Mishpat, 266; Tur Yoreh De'ah, 148).

If we look at the situation of the Jews of this period in practically all Christian countries, and also in many Moslem countries, it is impossible not to marvel at the serene way in which the masters of rabbinical teaching made themselves abstract from the general situation, and to take no account of it in stating their principles. If, in the concrete situation of daily life, the attitude of Christians towards the Jews was the very opposite of the Gospel principle of loving one's neighbour, still this did not prevent the masters from judging the intrinsic value of Christianity and, mutatis mutandis, of Islam, equitably.