I was looking for the Meiri's position that further discusses Judaism and Morality. So to follow up on my previous post, found here, I wanted to translate a Meiri in Bava Kama that discusses this equality. He says (Bava Kama: 37B),
"An ox that belongs to a Jew that gores an ox of a non-Jew is exempt from paying from the law of neighbor and if a non-Jew's ox gores the ox of a Jew, whether it is a delinquent ox or not, pays full damages. This law only refers to a non-Jew that is not careful for the property of others (damaging them without care), therefore, we fine him that he, the non-Jew, should not become used to this type of action of damaging other people's property without care. This which is stated in the Gemorah only applies to nations that do not have laws and are barbaric people. For these types of people the Gemorah says that the non-Jews accepted upon themselves the seven Noahide commandments and if they are not followed then their property becomes unprotected by the law. However, all non-Jews that keep the seven Noahide commandments are considered like full fledged Jews."
First just to state the seven Noahide laws are:
1)Prohibition of Idolatry
2)Prohibition of Murder
3)Prohibition of Theft
4)Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity
5)Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6)Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7)Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.
With these ideas in mind it is clear to see what the Meiri is saying. If a state does not have just laws, like protecting people's property then their property, in turn, is not protected. These seven Noahide laws are very moral laws, I don't know why anyone would say they are not a just basis for a law. Thus, if a person is unjust and cheats and steals, the Gemorah tells us that you do not have to respect his protection under the law. Obviously, you can not make these decisions yourself, but there must be a court that decides this, a beis din.
With this idea from the Meiri in mind, it is clear to see that even a Jew that acts unjustly would fall under this category of the "non-Jew" that does not have protection under the law. Therefore, I see equality in the laws of the Torah. The non-Jew is protected just as much as the Jew. If a state is unjust then their rules do not apply, because they are unjust. However, in a country like America since the laws are just a Jew must follow them. Anyone who says otherwise clearly misses the point of the laws of the torah.
UPDATE*****
The Rambam on the same Gemarah as the Meiri (Bava Kama 37B) states a very similar Halacha as that of the Meiri. He says,
"An ox of a Jew that gores the ox of a non-Jew, whether it is a delinquent animal or not, is exempt. This is because the non-Jewish courts do not require a man to pay for the damage his ox does, therefore we judge this case like they would judge it. An ox of a non-Jew that gores the ox of a Jew, whether it is delinquent or not, pays full damages. This is a punishment that is enforced on non-Jews since they are not careful in the laws and do not try to prevent damage. For if they were not punished in this manner they would not watch their animals and they would let them damage everyone and everything."
This Rambam clearly tells us the qualifications of what is going on in this case. At first glance, one would think that a non-Jew is discriminated against. However, this is not the case. The only reason the non-Jew is treated like this is because he is not careful to prevent his ox from damaging other people's property. However, if he would treat his ox like a Jew treats his ox, namely trying to prevent his ox from damaging other people's property, then this non-Jew would be treated like a Jew.
Showing posts with label Equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Equality. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Morals of Judaism
In Judaism there are several laws that seem to discriminate against non-Jews. Unfortunately, these laws are sometimes abused by people to undermine Jew-Gentile relations. This is a corruption of the true ethics and morals of Judaism. Judaism is a religion of friendly relations and non-discrimination even though this may appear not to be the case in some instances. True, there are some occurrences in Jewish literature that appear to be discriminatory where it seems like the life of a Jew or the possessions of a Jew seem more important than those of a Gentile. However, I do not believe that the true meaning of these ideas are meant in this manner. In order to divulge the true meaning of the sages throughout the generations I think a view of man through the Bible is in order.
I think the reason for the apparent discrimination of the Gentile can be divulged through an excerpt from the book The Biblical View of Man. In it Rabbi Dr. Leo Adler discusses how the Bible views a man that does not believe in G-D. He says,
"On the other hand, Godlessness and lack of fear of G-D, in the biblical conception of man, indicate human depravity: ;The benighted man thinks There is no G-D; man's deeds are corrupt and loathsome, no one does good' (Psalm 14:1). Lack of fear of G-D is so clearly considered moral corruption that Abraham can justify passing off his wife as his sister with the claim that 'I thought surely there is no fear of G-D in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife' (Genesis 20:11)."
The Gentile that is discriminated against is referred to as a man that does not have a fear of G-D. This idea was referring to an era of human civilization where there was depravity and debauchery that was being done on a daily basis. The only force in the world, in this era, that could stem human depravity was a belief in G-D. Without this essential belief, man would act immorally. There were no exceptions as quoted from Abraham's experience, man without a fear of G-D was immoral and without limits. Otherwise, why would Abraham fear for his life, wouldn't moral people allow one to be married to a beautiful woman and not have to fear for his life? Thus, in the Bible, we see that a man without a fear of G-D is immoral and without constraint. This is the purpose of the Bible, to provide moral limits for man.
Therefore, we can see that in biblical times man without a belief in G-D is immoral and dangerous. Abraham had to fear for his life when he went to a city populated with immoral people. The Bible tells us that this situation justified his lie and turned an otherwise immoral act, lying, into a necessity for life. Thus, we see the basis for protecting people against immoral people even if it means acting in a, seemingly, immoral way.
This idea can be seen in the philosophy of Kant from this website where it discusses the repercussions of Kant's Categorical Imperative. It says,
"The second consequence follows from Kant's basic moral rule, the categorical imperative: 'Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.' In other words, you can only give yourself permission to a behavior ('act according to that maxim') which you simultaneously give everyone else the same permission to do (you 'will that it would become a universal law'). This means that if I steal from you, I give permission to everyone to steal from me."
In a sense, this is the moral code that the Bible is following. When a person acts immorally, he or she allows all those to act immorally towards them. This can be seen in the case of Abraham. The Bible seems to tell us that there are two types of people in its time, those who believe in G-D, the moral people, and those who do not believe in G-D, the immoral people. This does not speak of our current generation, but rather of the society of ancient times.
This idea is not just Biblical in nature, but it evolves into a Rabbinic principle as well. This can be found in a Tosephta, a Tannaic work, in Shevuot 3:6. It says,
"Rabbi Reuben met a philosopher in Tiberias, who asked him: 'Who makes himself hateful in the world?' Rabbi Reuben replied: 'He who denies his Creator.' 'But how does that make him hateful to men?' wondered the philosopher. Rabbi Reuben replied: 'Honor thy father and mother; though shalt not murder; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness. No man can break these laws without first denying G-D, no man can commit one of these cardinal sins without first ignoring Him Who gave these commands!'"
This Tosephta is explained by Rabbi Dr Leo Adler in the following manner. He says,
"He who sins against morality and ethics can do it only by denying G-D. Rabbi Reuben built his thesis upon a verse from Leviticus (5:21): 'When a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord by dealing deceitfully with his fellow, robbing him or oppressing him...' Here too, disloyalty to G-D is assumed to be the precondition for moral failure vis a vis man: whoever sins against men did so after first breaking faith with G-D. For the Bible, fear of G-D is the foundation of man's being, not a separate res religiosa (as it was considered by the philosopher who argued with Rabbi Reuben)."
It seems like from this Tosephta that the philosopher would be considered a moral person, although he was curious of the basis of the morality of the Bible. However, even at this point in history, in the rabbinic literature, man was still moral based on his belief in G-D. Without this belief man had no reason to act appropriately and compassionately. This led Jews to be persecuted as well as other minorities. However, at this point in history there was persecution from the pagan Romans and Zoroastrians against the monotheistic religions. This violated basic morals and thus allowed those being persecuted to act according to how Kant explained earlier in this post.
Throughout Jewish history we have seen that Jews have been oppressed and mistreated. During the years of Christian domination the Jews were constantly subjected to forced baptism, death or expulsion. These acts were clearly immoral. Under Islam, Jews were constantly demeaned and treated as second class citizens. Check out the sources listed in Wikipedia. Regarding the Islamic persecutions they mention a few,
"Islam and Judaism have a complex relationship. Traditionally Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands, known as dhimmis, were allowed to practice their religions and to administer their internal affairs, but subject to certain conditions.[205] They had to pay the jizya (a per capita tax imposed on free adult non-Muslim males) to the Islamic state.[205] Dhimmis had an inferior status under Islamic rule. They had several social and legal disabilities such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[206] Many of the disabilities were highly symbolic. The one described by Bernard Lewis as "most degrading"[207] was the requirement of distinctive clothing, not found in the Qur'an or hadith but invented in early medieval Baghdad; its enforcement was highly erratic.[207] On the other hand, Jews rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and they were mostly free in their choice of residence and profession.[208] Notable exceptions include the massacre of Jews and/or forcible conversion of some Jews by the rulers of the Almohad dynasty in Al-Andalus in the 12th century,[209] as well as in Islamic Persia,[210] and the forced confinement of Morrocan Jews to walled quarters known as mellahs beginning from the 15th century and especially in the early 19th century.[211]"
This would reveal that even under Muslim rule the Jews were discriminated against and so were other non-Muslims. Also, in Christian lands the Jews and Muslims were discriminated against. Thus, repeating Kant's morals, the Jews would have every right not to respect Muslim or Christian rights even though they do believe in G-D.
Just to recap everything that we have stated until now. Originally, the Bible tells us that people that did not believe in G-D acted immorally because they had no reason to act morally. Therefore, when the Bible discusses people that do not believe in G-D and how a person can act towards them, it is referring to an immoral person that acts with depravity and debauchery. Also, even a believer in G-D can act immorally, that has been seen in the 2000 years of Jewish exile culminating with the holocaust executed by Hitler in Germany.
What we see from all of this is that the Jewish commentators that discuss mistreating Gentiles are referring to the Gentiles that mistreat Jews or anyone else. According to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant this is an entirely moral and appropriate reaction. However, nowadays I do not think that these laws would apply in the same way. As we have disclosed, the person of the Bible that does not believe in G-D is a person that is immoral. The Bible does not disclose its feelings about a person that denies G-D's existence but is still moral and demands equality for all people. In my opinion, it seems like from the sources that I have quoted, that a person that does not believe in G-D, but is moral, should be treated morally and does not fall under the umbrella of an immoral idolater.
Therefore, my conclusion is that if a group of people condones immoral behavior towards another group, it would appear to be that the Bible and Rabbinic literature would say like Kant, that one treats them as they treat others. However, if a person is moral, regardless of whether he or she believes in G-D, they are to be treated morally and correctly, with love and compassion. The Rabbinic commentaries do not discuss mistreating a Gentile in general, but rather a Gentile that mistreats and oppresses Jews or other people in general. These people do not have to be treated morally since they treat others immorally. However, a Gentile that is moral must be treated with proper morals and a failure to do so would be considered a transgression against the Biblical commandments and Rabbinic tradition.
UPDATE:
Here is a link to Kant's ideas of morals spelled out in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Also, here is another link to a different page with more of Kant's ideas on more subjects like politics in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
ANOTHER UPDATE:
Here are the Rishonim that holds like what I am saying.
I think the reason for the apparent discrimination of the Gentile can be divulged through an excerpt from the book The Biblical View of Man. In it Rabbi Dr. Leo Adler discusses how the Bible views a man that does not believe in G-D. He says,
"On the other hand, Godlessness and lack of fear of G-D, in the biblical conception of man, indicate human depravity: ;The benighted man thinks There is no G-D; man's deeds are corrupt and loathsome, no one does good' (Psalm 14:1). Lack of fear of G-D is so clearly considered moral corruption that Abraham can justify passing off his wife as his sister with the claim that 'I thought surely there is no fear of G-D in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife' (Genesis 20:11)."
The Gentile that is discriminated against is referred to as a man that does not have a fear of G-D. This idea was referring to an era of human civilization where there was depravity and debauchery that was being done on a daily basis. The only force in the world, in this era, that could stem human depravity was a belief in G-D. Without this essential belief, man would act immorally. There were no exceptions as quoted from Abraham's experience, man without a fear of G-D was immoral and without limits. Otherwise, why would Abraham fear for his life, wouldn't moral people allow one to be married to a beautiful woman and not have to fear for his life? Thus, in the Bible, we see that a man without a fear of G-D is immoral and without constraint. This is the purpose of the Bible, to provide moral limits for man.
Therefore, we can see that in biblical times man without a belief in G-D is immoral and dangerous. Abraham had to fear for his life when he went to a city populated with immoral people. The Bible tells us that this situation justified his lie and turned an otherwise immoral act, lying, into a necessity for life. Thus, we see the basis for protecting people against immoral people even if it means acting in a, seemingly, immoral way.
This idea can be seen in the philosophy of Kant from this website where it discusses the repercussions of Kant's Categorical Imperative. It says,
"The second consequence follows from Kant's basic moral rule, the categorical imperative: 'Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.' In other words, you can only give yourself permission to a behavior ('act according to that maxim') which you simultaneously give everyone else the same permission to do (you 'will that it would become a universal law'). This means that if I steal from you, I give permission to everyone to steal from me."
In a sense, this is the moral code that the Bible is following. When a person acts immorally, he or she allows all those to act immorally towards them. This can be seen in the case of Abraham. The Bible seems to tell us that there are two types of people in its time, those who believe in G-D, the moral people, and those who do not believe in G-D, the immoral people. This does not speak of our current generation, but rather of the society of ancient times.
This idea is not just Biblical in nature, but it evolves into a Rabbinic principle as well. This can be found in a Tosephta, a Tannaic work, in Shevuot 3:6. It says,
"Rabbi Reuben met a philosopher in Tiberias, who asked him: 'Who makes himself hateful in the world?' Rabbi Reuben replied: 'He who denies his Creator.' 'But how does that make him hateful to men?' wondered the philosopher. Rabbi Reuben replied: 'Honor thy father and mother; though shalt not murder; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness. No man can break these laws without first denying G-D, no man can commit one of these cardinal sins without first ignoring Him Who gave these commands!'"
This Tosephta is explained by Rabbi Dr Leo Adler in the following manner. He says,
"He who sins against morality and ethics can do it only by denying G-D. Rabbi Reuben built his thesis upon a verse from Leviticus (5:21): 'When a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord by dealing deceitfully with his fellow, robbing him or oppressing him...' Here too, disloyalty to G-D is assumed to be the precondition for moral failure vis a vis man: whoever sins against men did so after first breaking faith with G-D. For the Bible, fear of G-D is the foundation of man's being, not a separate res religiosa (as it was considered by the philosopher who argued with Rabbi Reuben)."
It seems like from this Tosephta that the philosopher would be considered a moral person, although he was curious of the basis of the morality of the Bible. However, even at this point in history, in the rabbinic literature, man was still moral based on his belief in G-D. Without this belief man had no reason to act appropriately and compassionately. This led Jews to be persecuted as well as other minorities. However, at this point in history there was persecution from the pagan Romans and Zoroastrians against the monotheistic religions. This violated basic morals and thus allowed those being persecuted to act according to how Kant explained earlier in this post.
Throughout Jewish history we have seen that Jews have been oppressed and mistreated. During the years of Christian domination the Jews were constantly subjected to forced baptism, death or expulsion. These acts were clearly immoral. Under Islam, Jews were constantly demeaned and treated as second class citizens. Check out the sources listed in Wikipedia. Regarding the Islamic persecutions they mention a few,
"Islam and Judaism have a complex relationship. Traditionally Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands, known as dhimmis, were allowed to practice their religions and to administer their internal affairs, but subject to certain conditions.[205] They had to pay the jizya (a per capita tax imposed on free adult non-Muslim males) to the Islamic state.[205] Dhimmis had an inferior status under Islamic rule. They had several social and legal disabilities such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[206] Many of the disabilities were highly symbolic. The one described by Bernard Lewis as "most degrading"[207] was the requirement of distinctive clothing, not found in the Qur'an or hadith but invented in early medieval Baghdad; its enforcement was highly erratic.[207] On the other hand, Jews rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and they were mostly free in their choice of residence and profession.[208] Notable exceptions include the massacre of Jews and/or forcible conversion of some Jews by the rulers of the Almohad dynasty in Al-Andalus in the 12th century,[209] as well as in Islamic Persia,[210] and the forced confinement of Morrocan Jews to walled quarters known as mellahs beginning from the 15th century and especially in the early 19th century.[211]"
This would reveal that even under Muslim rule the Jews were discriminated against and so were other non-Muslims. Also, in Christian lands the Jews and Muslims were discriminated against. Thus, repeating Kant's morals, the Jews would have every right not to respect Muslim or Christian rights even though they do believe in G-D.
Just to recap everything that we have stated until now. Originally, the Bible tells us that people that did not believe in G-D acted immorally because they had no reason to act morally. Therefore, when the Bible discusses people that do not believe in G-D and how a person can act towards them, it is referring to an immoral person that acts with depravity and debauchery. Also, even a believer in G-D can act immorally, that has been seen in the 2000 years of Jewish exile culminating with the holocaust executed by Hitler in Germany.
What we see from all of this is that the Jewish commentators that discuss mistreating Gentiles are referring to the Gentiles that mistreat Jews or anyone else. According to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant this is an entirely moral and appropriate reaction. However, nowadays I do not think that these laws would apply in the same way. As we have disclosed, the person of the Bible that does not believe in G-D is a person that is immoral. The Bible does not disclose its feelings about a person that denies G-D's existence but is still moral and demands equality for all people. In my opinion, it seems like from the sources that I have quoted, that a person that does not believe in G-D, but is moral, should be treated morally and does not fall under the umbrella of an immoral idolater.
Therefore, my conclusion is that if a group of people condones immoral behavior towards another group, it would appear to be that the Bible and Rabbinic literature would say like Kant, that one treats them as they treat others. However, if a person is moral, regardless of whether he or she believes in G-D, they are to be treated morally and correctly, with love and compassion. The Rabbinic commentaries do not discuss mistreating a Gentile in general, but rather a Gentile that mistreats and oppresses Jews or other people in general. These people do not have to be treated morally since they treat others immorally. However, a Gentile that is moral must be treated with proper morals and a failure to do so would be considered a transgression against the Biblical commandments and Rabbinic tradition.
UPDATE:
Here is a link to Kant's ideas of morals spelled out in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Also, here is another link to a different page with more of Kant's ideas on more subjects like politics in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
ANOTHER UPDATE:
Here are the Rishonim that holds like what I am saying.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Equality Before the Law
In the book The Biblical View of Man it discusses justice. In this section it mentions an idea that one would think should be obvious. However, in this day and age it seems like this simple idea does not get proper attention. It says,
"Equality before the law is also proclaimed in order to protect the rich from the results of the poor winning unjustified sympathy. Thus, parallel to 'you shall not subvert the rights of the needy in their disputes' (Exodus 23:6) there is also the commandment 'nor shall you show deference to a poor man in his dispute' (Leviticus 19:15)."
This seems to be something that escapes people nowadays. People are always ready to demonize the person with the upper hand. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the poor man's rights should be protected, like mentioned in Exodus. However, it seems like for some reason that people are considered undeserving unless they are the underdog. This article can illustrate my point:
"Conversation at a South Side fire station heated up when the topic turned to affirmative action. 'White firemen are mad because blacks get extra points added to their tests,' declared a white lieutenant perched on the bumper of a fire truck. If it were not for department policies that favor minorities, he said, he would have had his silver lieutenant's bars sooner.
The white officer did not get any sympathy from his black coworkers. 'These white folks are mad because they won't have as many jobs,' said the station's captain, who is black. 'What about all those years they were leaving us out, when the promotions were 100 percent white? Whites thought everything was fine and never said a word.'
True, there were horrible conditions back in the day where blacks were discriminated against, but did these white officers discriminate against those blacks? No, it was the whites of several years ago. However, this station captain thinks it is fine to "payback" the whites. That seems like revenge and not equality. Is that the American way? Is that justice?
Another situation happened recently at another fire station. The article can be found here: "WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over whether a Connecticut city's decision to scrap a promotion exam for firefighters because too few minorities passed violates the civil rights of top-scoring white applicants.
As is often the case with closely fought social issues at the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to hold the key to the outcome. He seemed concerned that New Haven, Conn., scuttled the test after it learned that no African Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be promoted based on the results."
These issues reveal a very telling problem in our society, discriminating against the majority in order to give an advantage to the minority. How is that fair? Shouldn't everyone be equal? Just because there has been discrimination against minorities in the past, does that mean that the majority should be discriminated against in the future? Is that how to fix the problem? Or maybe the real answer is to make everyone equal, that way there is no discrimination. This is what the Torah is telling us. That real justice discriminates against no one and treats all equally.
"Equality before the law is also proclaimed in order to protect the rich from the results of the poor winning unjustified sympathy. Thus, parallel to 'you shall not subvert the rights of the needy in their disputes' (Exodus 23:6) there is also the commandment 'nor shall you show deference to a poor man in his dispute' (Leviticus 19:15)."
This seems to be something that escapes people nowadays. People are always ready to demonize the person with the upper hand. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the poor man's rights should be protected, like mentioned in Exodus. However, it seems like for some reason that people are considered undeserving unless they are the underdog. This article can illustrate my point:
"Conversation at a South Side fire station heated up when the topic turned to affirmative action. 'White firemen are mad because blacks get extra points added to their tests,' declared a white lieutenant perched on the bumper of a fire truck. If it were not for department policies that favor minorities, he said, he would have had his silver lieutenant's bars sooner.
The white officer did not get any sympathy from his black coworkers. 'These white folks are mad because they won't have as many jobs,' said the station's captain, who is black. 'What about all those years they were leaving us out, when the promotions were 100 percent white? Whites thought everything was fine and never said a word.'
True, there were horrible conditions back in the day where blacks were discriminated against, but did these white officers discriminate against those blacks? No, it was the whites of several years ago. However, this station captain thinks it is fine to "payback" the whites. That seems like revenge and not equality. Is that the American way? Is that justice?
Another situation happened recently at another fire station. The article can be found here: "WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over whether a Connecticut city's decision to scrap a promotion exam for firefighters because too few minorities passed violates the civil rights of top-scoring white applicants.
As is often the case with closely fought social issues at the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to hold the key to the outcome. He seemed concerned that New Haven, Conn., scuttled the test after it learned that no African Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be promoted based on the results."
These issues reveal a very telling problem in our society, discriminating against the majority in order to give an advantage to the minority. How is that fair? Shouldn't everyone be equal? Just because there has been discrimination against minorities in the past, does that mean that the majority should be discriminated against in the future? Is that how to fix the problem? Or maybe the real answer is to make everyone equal, that way there is no discrimination. This is what the Torah is telling us. That real justice discriminates against no one and treats all equally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)