bananabrain said:
WHAAAAT??? i've never heard that. where's your source? if it's the jesus story you quote, maybe he's doing some teaching there about derogatory language and teaching that woman she doesn't have to be treated like a second-class citizen; in which case i entirely approve.
there are plenty of rude terms for non-jewish people in the Talmudic literature which is more or less contemporary to jesus; ranging from "akum" (acronym for "star-worshipper", or a pagan) to "min" ("sectarian", usually how christians are referred to) but although it's often uncomplimentary, we're just as rude to each other, talking about how scholars shouldn't mix with an "am ha'aretz" (ignorant peasant) and so on. of course over time more unpleasant words have arisen, but they are generally considered to be unacceptable, like "yok" or "shiksa", which i will not have said in my presence, although it hasn't happened often. "goy", however, isn't actually rude, although it is often used as a term of abuse: "goyische" meaning approximately the same as the russian "ne-kulturniy" if you ask me. and, before you ask, sephardis are just as bad as ashkenazis if not worse!!
b'shalom
bananabrain
As per BB and Faustus' suggestions, I presented my "references" as to how I came to understand that non-Jews were considered less than human. What I received was an education in how things can be misconstured, twisted, or faked by others with angendas. I also realize that those who "taught" me in my youth, were also fallible in their understanding of things. The following is the result of my dialogue with BB on the issue (re-printed with his permission):
BB
fair dos... i am certainly not arguing that calling someone a dog is anything other than pejorative!
Q
My references come from the New Testament (naturally), the Old Testament, and the Talmud.
BB
OK - well anything the NT says that jews say about non-jews is not really something i want to get into, because it can be essentially considered propaganda from my PoV; let's stick to stuff from my own sources.
Q
the latter, I find often conflicting within itself, and will point out my reasons for such.
BB
the Talmud itself contains both majority and minority opinions and it rarely points out which is which. furthermore, even if something is a majority opinion in the Talmud, it does not necessarily follow that it translates into halacha (religious law) or contemporary opinion - ie, i may not be required to believe it, or i may not be required to act on it, or i may not be required to believe/act on it *any more*, or it may simply - as is most common - refer to a *difficult* or *exceptional* case where "common sense" cannot be followed
.
Q
Psalm 22:16 "For dogs have compassed me: a company of evil-doers have enclosed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.
BB
here it is referring to an *act* - ie a metaphorical set of dogs as a "pack of wild animals" that attack you. if someone doesn't behave in such a way, the verse does not refer to them.
1 Samuel 24:14 and 2 sam 9:8 are david talking about himself self-deprecatingly.
2 Kings 8:13 is hazael doing the same.
2 Samuel 3:8 is abner feeling insulted.
16:9 refers to the insulting behaviour of shimei, who is a supporter of saul, towards david.
Ezekiel 23:20 is the prophet being rude about the sinful behaviour of israel.
Q
Baba mezia, 114b "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
BB
i reviewed this daf (page) and couldn't find this sentence anywhere on it. where did you hear this?
Q
Egeret Raschi Exod. 22 30 "The Akum is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the dog more than the Akum" (non-Jew).
BB
an "akum" is an idol-worshipper. it's not to be understood as a general term for non-jews, although it sometimes was erroneously used as such. if you want to insult someone, you call them an "akum" - it's like calling them a heathen. either way this isn't an accurate translation of what rashi says. go and look here:
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/rashi...t.asp?AID=15564 in the commentary on the relevant verse and you'll see that this is a discussion of kashrut - it's not terribly polite, but it's not an out-and-out insult and is what you might call a "augmentio ad extremis" simile, which highlights the relevant difference by using an extreme example.
Q
Midrash Talploth, p.255, Warsaw 1855 "Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form."
BB
this is merely the opinion of some C19th polish rabbi and no doubt his experience of the local non-jews bore out this experience. it's not "law". people in unpleasant circumstances often bitch out people that treat them badly. there are a lot of similar sources - maimonides, for example, although allowing that they are not idol-worshippers, dislikes christians and muslims intensely - and you only have to look at what they did to his family and community to see why.
Q
Schene Luchoth haberith, p. 250 b "Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
BB
Q
Choshen hamischpat 405 "A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
BB
i'm sure this isn't right, but i can look into it. here, context is everything. do you have some context? it sounds like it's describing a particular case where a decision has to be made.
Q
Jore dea 377, 1 "If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, on should not express sympather to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace your loss, just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"." (Reference is made to Ezekiel 23:20)
BB
i think this comes under the idea that all jews are to be considered as essentially family.
yoreh deah and choshen mishpat are two of the parts of the shulchan aruch, the major halachic compendium accepted by everyone in the C16th. it's strictly concerned with laws, so which law is being discussed is extremely relevant; without context it's extremely open to misinterpretation, as should be apparent!
Q
Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b "The souls of non-Jews come from impure spirits and are called pigs."
BB
never heard of this book - a google search only brings up christian references to it, no jewish ones! you should be aware that there are some fake books out there, but again, like i say, if you expect there to be no insults in a 3000-year literature you'll be disappointed. i am aware that there are strands within chasidisim that maintain that the soul-structure of non-jews is different and not as spiritual; i believe the phrase they use is that the souls of non-jews "derive from the kelippot" - which is kabbalistic terminology and uncomplimentary to boot, but nonetheless does not allow for discriminatory behaviour. also, chasidic mystical theology is not really representative of judaism as a whole, although i am sure the attitude filters through sometimes.
Q
Tosaphoth, Jebamoth 94b "If you eat with a gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
BB
this is be a reference to the fact that non-jews and dogs do not have dietary restrictions - it's rude, but it is nonetheless not actually untrue! it's another hyperbolic example.
Q
Talmud Sanhedrin 74b "Sexual intercourse between gentiles is like intercourse between animals."
BB
this is a similar point, non-jews not having such a comprehensive set of rules governing sexual behaviour - again, hyperbole, but making a point about us being more concerned with the sexually permitted and forbidden than others - which should certainly be obvious.
the positive statements are, in general, the ones that should be followed - many of them are making points that judaism is not about what you fundamentally *are* but how you behave (which is why chasidic thought, though influential, is actually in conflict with the mainstream) - this is why chasidim have to come up with all sort of tenuous mystical explanations to explain why people convert, they say it's because the convert had a jewish soul trapped in a non-jewish body and so the soul impels the body to "improve" itself - although, if this was a consistent approach they'd have to be a lot more understanding of homosexuality and transgender issues, for a start! you will generally find that the *older* an opinion, the more authoritative. thus aharonim (anyone later than mediaeval, like the shulchan aruch) are not as authoritative as rishonim (like the ga'onim of babylonia) are not as authoritative as the Talmud is not as authoritative as the Mishnah is not as authoritative as Nakh which is not as authoritative as Torah. what confuses people is when later authorities appear to overrule earlier authorities even though the earlier are more authoritative! what is being overruled, however, is the interpretation, not the principle, if that makes any sense.
Q
tractate Avos 4:3, Rabbi Ben Azzai "Do not despise any man."
BB
this is from the Mishnah and lays down some fundamental principles - because the sages did have a tendency to be rude about the "ignorant" amongst the jewish people as well; this was to rein them in.
Q
Talmud, Baba Kama 38a, Avoda Zorah 3, Sanhedrin 59 "...a non-Jew who studies Torah is equal to a high priest."
BB
Q
Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 13 "The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come."
BB
this is actually the most fundamental sentence in interfaith work as far as judaism is concerned - it's the reason we do not seek converts.
Q
Talmud Gittin 61a "We are obligated to feed the non-Jewish poor in exactly the same way as we feed the Jewish poor."
BB
it is another fundamental principle of jewish law that the richer you are the more of a social obligation you are under.
Q
And I do understand that the root word Goy, can have several different meanings, such as non-Jew, nation, troop of animals
BB
i'm not aware of the "troop of animals" meaning - but israel too is referred to as a "goy", a "goy kadosh" (holy/separate people) or a "goy ehad" (unique people), so the word itself is value-free in its original.
Thanks BB for your time and information.
v/r
Quahom
