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

Israel and the nations in the Ancient Rabbinic Traditions
K. Hruby

The Relationship between Israel and God.
All rabbinic authors look at the relationship between God and his people from the point of view of the biblical writings. They like to compare this relationship with that which exists between a devoted father and his eldest son. Furthermore, a noted master of the first half of the second century, Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, maintains that all Israelites have the right to bear the title 'the King's son" (Shab. XIV, 4). The fact that he has had to punish his children with exile is something which always causes God pain (Ben 3a).

Another favourite image employed in the rabbinic tradition and also of biblical origin (cf. Amos 2:21), is that of a betrothal between God and Israel. The present time is still the engagement period, and God would sometimes appear to be niggardly in the distribution of gifts. But when the time of the Messiah arrives, then at last, God will celebrate his marriage with Israel, and she will enjoy, from then on, a full share in the gifts of her Divine Spouse (Ex. R. XV, 31).
So central is the place of Israel in God's plan that rabbinic authors delight in asserting that the world was created for no reason other than for her. This is a relatively ancient concept; we find it already present in Esdras 4. For a long time, the world had deserved to be annihilated; only God's love for his people has shielded it until the present day from the divine wrath (Lev. R. XXIII, 3).

Israel and the Nations.
We have stressed that, in Scripture, the nations occupy the place of the adversaries par excellence of God and his people. In order to explain the underlying causes of this irreconcilable hostility, rabbinic tradition has recourse to mythological concepts which are also to be found in late biblical literature (c. Sir 17:17; Dan 10:13, 20 ff.; 12:1): each nation is supposed to have its own guardian spirit. In the Book of Jubilees, the nations are presented as being left to be ensnared by their guardian spirits into the sin of idolatry, while Israel avoids this through having the Lord as her only guardian. The Targum, though in a different context, presents things in a very similar way (1 Tgj of Deut. 32:8 ff.).

Nevertheless, rabbinical tradition avoids mythological images and prefers to interpret this hostility between Israel and the nations ethically: the nations are seen as rebelling against God's established order and drawing the Lord's anger upon themselves. From the start, in the person of the first man, all nations disobeyed the commandments given to Adam, and this is the reason why the Torah, which was originally intended to be revealed to Adam, was not revealed until later, at Sinai (Gen. R. XXIV, 5).

Rabbinical documents frequently rebuke all the nations for not having obeyed the "noachic commandments" (cf. Sifre of Deut 322 and Yeb. 48b), of which we will speak more particularly later, but the principal complaint against them is that they have deliberately rejected the Torah; God, according to the Midrash, had offered this to each of them in turn, but each nation had rejected it for one excuse or another (cf. Mekh. of Ex 20:20; 'A.z. 2b, etc.). Even after the Israelites had come into the land of Canaan, the nations were given a final chance of making the contents of the Torah their own, this being inscribed on the stones of an altar erected on Mount Ebal in seventy languages. But, once more, they rejected the law of God, and so decreed their own condemnation and cut themselves off from the world to come (Sotah VII, 5 and VIII, 5).

Of course, what we have here is Midrash and, therefore, legendary accounts, but what the rabbinical tradition is seeking to assert is its awareness that divine revelation is essentially universal. But the fact remains that, when we look at it in this way, there seems to be an anomaly in the gift of revelation to only a single people, and an attempt must be made to explain this. In order to do so, Jewish tradition approaches the question from different standpoints.

On the one hand, following an authentically biblical line of thought, there is an insistence on the absolutely free choice, on God's part, of a people to be his privileged instrument in his universal plan. On the other hand, there is yet a desire to stress the merit of the people which had welcomed God's law in a spirit of trust and humble submission, while the other nations had recoiled when faced with its demands.

The Attitude towards the Nations.
The picture emerging from ancient rabbinic literature of the attitude towards the nations in daily life, is shaped by this hostility. As the political situation gradually deteriorates, this becomes increasingly clear.

The masters of traditional teaching, without making an absolute principle out of their opinion, generally take the view that the nations, through their hostile attitude towards God and his people, have without exception deserved Gehenna. Of course, this view must be considered against its historical background, namely the occupation of Palestine by the Romans, the innumerable impositions of the occupying forces and the shattering experiences which the people had suffered, at every level, through the Roman administration. As a general rule, all non-Jews were looked upon as having three things constantly in mind: idolatry, murder and fornication.

The Danger of Contamination by Idolatry.
In the period of Mishnah and Gamara, the danger of being led into idolatry through the example of other nations was no longer as great as it was in biblical times, and particularly during the pre-exilic period. But contact with pagans continued to present problems, and especially in the realm of levitical purity.

It is the teaching of the masters of the tradition that it is essential to avoid especially any act which could even indirectly, work to the advantage of the pagans, since this would thereby be aiding idolatry. As always, there is room to interpret the relative severity of certain stipulations in the light of the concrete situation, without giving it an absolute value. It is true that it was never permitted to directly do a wrong to a pagan, for such an attitude would be a hillul ha-them, a failure in reverence towards the name of God, In fact, this would have made it appear that the Jews were a people not bound to a strict moral code which was universally binding on all men. But, to the extent that this was possible, there was an obligation to have nothing to do with the pagans, and to behave as if they did not exist.

It is easy to understand that such an "ideal" attitude was scarcely possible in a society which, following certain events and finally, the Roman occupation, was, in some parts at least — in Galilee, the Decapolis and towns like Cesarea. Tiberias and so on — becoming a "mixed society". Within this, it was impossible to avoid rubbing shoulders with the pagan element with whom commercial and, therefore, social connections were developed. In a situation like this, there is often the temptation to govern one's actions by epikeia, allowing many things which are forbidden in themselves le-ma 'an ha-shalom, "in the interests of peace".

The problem of levitical impurity, contracted through contact with pagans, had a particular importance in Palestine itself, while the Temple was standing, since the state of purity was required above all else in the realm of worship. As, theoretically, every physical contact with a pagan, even the fact of having remained under the same roof as he, made an Israelite impure (cf. Toss. of Shab. 14b), particularly delicate problems were posed for social life. Rabbinic literature frequently speaks of rules to be observed when eating at the same table as pagans. It is dear that this situation must have arisen quite often, in spite of the social barriers prescribed in the official legislation. Clearly, the needs of daily life took precedence over the theoretical prescriptions of scholars.

There was a very different position in the diaspora. For a start, it was possible to apply the rules of levitical purity here with less severity. Then, it goes without saying that, in the communities established at the very heart of the pagan world — and there were many of them — the symbiosis between the Jewish and pagan elements naturally tended to be far closer than in Palestine. This is more particularly true of the cultural order. In all the countries of the diaspora, and more especially in the hellenistic world, the Jews naturally adopted the language of their non-Jewish surroundings and, with the language, the culture.

The Attitude of Rabbinic Tradition Towards Greek Culture.
In view of the increasing importance of hellenistic civilization in the countries of the Middle East, from the beginning of the period of Alexander the Great and the Diadochoi, it is hardly surprising that the Greek language and culture, hokhmah yewanit, should have gained from the favourable view of the masters of the traditional teaching. Not only many Greek terms, but also ideas belonging to the Greek cultural heritage were imported into the rabbinic tradition.

But still, in this field also, things were subject to the pressures of changing events. Thus the study of Greek was forbidden on several occasions, although this prohibition remained virtually a dead letter in the face of the needs of daily life. In the hellenistic diaspora, Greek was frequently the mother tongue, and it was always the everyday language of Jews as well as non-Jews. It is interesting to know that it was even used in worship, that is for prayer and in the readings in the synagogues. What is more, the masters take the view that Greek is the only foreign language in which it is possible to make an adequate rendering of the contents of the Torah (cf. Meg. 1,8 and ibid. 9b).

This favourable attitude can also Abe seen in relation to the Septuagint version of the Bible, which at an early date was looked upon almost as an inspired work (Meg. 9a). Later on, a prudent reserve was maintained towards it, pointing out many inaccuracies in relation to the original Hebrew (cf. j. Meg. 1, 41, 71d). Meanwhile, the Septuagint version had been adopted by the Christians and so came about the final stage, when it was said that the day on which the translation was made was an ill-starred day for Israel (M. Sofr. 1,7; Meg. Ta'an. 13).

The "Noachic Commandments".
The shift in attitude towards the pagans, which we find in the rabbinic tradition, results directly from changing historical situations. Yet this tradition never loses sight of the fact that, in the last analysis, God's revelation is addressed to the whole of mankind. But still this recognition takes place at different levels and, at a certain stage in history, the accent is placed exclusively on Israel's own role and her witness, the object of which is to prepare the human race to accept God's truth.

Here, there arises very distinctly the question of knowing what the conduct of the nations should be during this period. Given that the Torah, and, therefore, revelation in its entirety, has been entrusted to Israel, what should be the mode of life of non-Jews for them to fit in with God's plan?

At this point in the reflections of traditional thinkers, there arises the concept of the "noachic commandments": at the time of the flood, and before choosing Israel as a privileged organ of his revelation, God gave all mankind a certain number of rules and, in order to live completely in accord with the place God had reserved for them in his plan, all men were to observe these. The idea of a universal revelation in Noah's day is an ancient one. It is to be found as early as the Book of Jubilees (7,20 ff.).

As a general rule, rabbinic tradition speaks of seven `noachic commandments" (shev'a mitrvot benei Noah) (cf. Sanh. 56a-b; Tos. 'A.z. VIII, 4). These are the laws:
1. The obligation of establishing legal institutions
2. The prohibition of blasphemy
3. The prohibition of idolatry (which does not imply a confession of pure monotheism)
4. The prohibition of fornication
5. The prohibition of murder
6. The prohibition of theft
7. The prohibition against eating meat taken from a live animal.

Despite all differences and all pessimism with which they were viewed by the nations, these "noachic commandments" determine a permanent religious relationship beteen Judaism and the surrounding world. The criterion of this relationship and the key to understanding it, is the concrete attitude of the non-Jew towards the Jewish concept of God and the moral ideal contained in the divine law. The non-Jew who submitted to this part of revelation which was given for him, acts in complete conformity with the will of God by making it his own. In this way he becomes one "who truly fears God", and a Jew must behave towards him just as he would towards another Jew.

Proselytism.
In the question of proselytism, too, we come across many differences of attitude among the masters of the tradition; if some are openly favourable, others display a great mistrust of it. Here again the explanation of these differences must be sought in historical circumstances. On the one hand, a proselyte is required to have an absolutely pure intention and a total commitment to the religion which he wishes to make his. By contrast, to win a proselyte is looked upon as a work of outstanding merit, the proselyte being seen as anticipating in his own person, as it were, the destiny which will belong to the just in eschatological times.

It is true that not all proselytes were of an equally high standard in their vocation. During the period of the persecutions, for example under Hadrian, in 135 AD., there were, here and there, some unpleasant experiences with certain proselytes who rapidly forsook Judaism in order to avoid anti-Jewish measures. This fact explains some very severe judgements which are to be found in rabbinic tradition. But even after these experiences, the general attitude of the masters, with regard to proselytes and proselytism, remained favourable.

The Salvation of the Nations.
Innumerable difficulties in daily life, coupled with the increasing hostility of the pagans towards the Jewish people, could not fail to influence theological reflection. Thus two masters of the first century, who had both witnessed the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in 70 A.D., discuss the question of the salvation of the nations. Both of them base their reasoning on Psalm 9:18: "The wicked shall depart to Sheol, all the nations that forget God". One of the masters concludes from this that all the pagan peoples are destined for damnation. But his colleague steps in at once to redress the balance, and brings out that the just of every nation will have a place in the world to come (cf. Sanh. 1056; Tos. ibid. XIII, 2). In this way, he becomes the authentic witness of a tradition which had never faded, despite the most calamitous experiences of history, the expression of biblical doctrine itself.

The Participation of Pagans in Temple Worship.
The fact that the Jewish attitude towards the nations was that of universalism, and that this was never contradicted, is given further proof in that, all the time the Temple was in existence, it was truly thought of a "a house of player for all peoples" (Is 56:7).
True, for reasons of Levitical purity, the pagans were not admitted beyond the limits of the court reserved for them, but sacrifices whichwere offered in their names were accepted at all times. Everyone was invited, for all time, to come to the Sanctuary and there adore the One God, creator of heaven and earth: the Father of all men without distinction. What is more, we know from reliable historical sources that kings and other notable personages from the pagan world frequently paid honour to the Temple with valuable gifts and had sacrifices offered there: Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, King of Egypt, and Seleucus IV, King of Syria, to name but a few. During the Roman occupation, a sacrifice was often offered for the emperor, and when the Zealots, at the beginning of the Jewish War (66 A.D.), opposed this, many moderate people saw in this a breach of a lawful tradition (cf. Flavius Josephus, B.J., II, 17, 2).
In its turn, rabbinic tradition stresses the importance of the character of the Temple as a place of universal worship (cf. Suk. 55b; Nomb. R. 1,3).

The worship which is offered to God in the Temple is in the name of the whole of humanity which, in turn, draws benefits from the special blessings which flow from it. This worship is of cosmic significance, and has a mediatory role for the well-being of the world.

Note: The references in this article are primarily from the Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud, Midrash and Targums.