Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The
Weight of 2,000 Years
By Israel Shahak
Chapter 3
|
This chapter is devoted to a more detailed description of
the theologico-legal structure of classical Judaism.1 However, before
embarking on that description it is necessary to dispel at least some
of the many misconceptions disseminated in almost all foreign-language
(that is, non-Hebrew) accounts of Judaism, especially by those who
propagate such currently fashionable phrases as "the Judeo-Christian
tradition" or "the common values of the monotheistic religions."
Because of considerations of space I shall only deal in detail with the
most important of these popular delusions: that the Jewish religion is,
and always was, monotheistic. Now, as many biblical scholars know, and
as a careful reading of the Old Testament easily reveals, this
ahistorical view is quite wrong. In many, if not most, books of the Old
Testament the existence and power of "other gods" are clearly
acknowledged, but Yahweh (Jehovah), who is the most powerful god,2 is
also very jealous of his rivals and forbids his people to worship
them.3 It is only very late in the Bible, in some of the later
prophets, that the existence of all gods other than Yahweh is denied.4
What concerns us, however, is not biblical but classical Judaism; and
it is quite clear, though much less widely realized, that the latter,
during its last few hundred years, was for the most part far from pure
monotheism. The same can be said about the real doctrines dominant in
present-day Orthodox Judaism, which is a direct continuation of
classical Judaism. The decay of monotheism came about through the
spread of Jewish mysticism (the cabbala) which developed in the 12th
and 13th centuries, and by the late 16th century had won an almost
complete victory in virtually all the centers of Judaism. The Jewish
Enlightenment, which arose out of the crisis of classical Judaism, had
to fight against this mysticism and its influence more than against
anything else, but in latter-day Jewish Orthodoxy, especially among the
rabbis, the influence of the cabbala has remained predominant.5 For
example, the Gush Emunim movement is inspired to a great extent by
cabbalistic ideas.
Knowledge and understanding of these ideas is therefore important for
two reasons. First, without it one cannot understand the true beliefs
of Judaism at the end of its classical period. Secondly, these ideas
play an important contemporary political role, inasmuch as they form
part of the explicit system of beliefs of many religious politicians,
including most leaders of Gush Emunim, and have an indirect influence
on many Zionist leaders of all parties, including the Zionist left.
According to the cabbala, the universe is ruled not by one god but by
several deities, of various characters and influences, emanated by a
dim, distant First Cause. Omitting many details, one can summarize the
system as follows. From the First Cause, first a male god called
"Wisdom" or "Father" and then a female goddess called "Knowledge" or
"Mother" were emanated or born. From the marriage of these two, a pair
of younger gods were born: Son, also called by many other names such as
"Small Face" or "the Holy Blessed One;" and Daughter, also called
"Lady" (or "Matronit," a word derived from Latin), "Shekhinah,"
"Queen," and so on. These two younger gods should be united, but their
union is prevented by the machinations of Satan, who in this system is
a very important and independent personage. The Creation was undertaken
by the First Cause in order to allow them to unite, but because of the
Fall they became more disunited than ever, and indeed Satan has managed
to come very close to the divine Daughter and even to rape her (either
seemingly or in fact—opinions differ on this). The creation of the
Jewish people was undertaken in order to mend the break caused by Adam
and Eve, and under Mount Sinai this was for a moment achieved: the male
god Son, incarnated in Moses, was united with the goddess Shekhinah.
Unfortunately, the sin of the Golden Calf again caused disunity in the
godhead; but the repentance of the Jewish people has mended matters to
some extent. Similarly, each incident of biblical Jewish history is
believed to be associated with the union or disunion of the divine
pair. The Jewish conquest of Palestine from the Canaanites and the
building of the first and second Temple are particularly propitious for
their union, while the destruction of the Temples and exile of the Jews
from the Holy Land are merely external signs not only of the divine
disunion but also of a real "whoring after strange gods:" Daughter
falls closely into the power of Satan, while Son takes various female
satanic personages to his bed, instead of his proper wife.
The duty of pious Jews is to restore through their prayers and
religious acts the perfect divine unity, in the form of sexual union,
between the male and female deities.6 Thus before most ritual acts,
which every devout Jew has to perform many times each day, the
following cabbalistic formula is recited: "For the sake of the [sexual]
congress7 of the Holy Blessed One and his Shekhinah. . . " The Jewish
morning prayers are also arranged so as to promote this sexual union,
if only temporarily. Successive parts of the prayer mystically
correspond to successive stages of the union: at one point the goddess
approaches with her handmaidens, at another the god puts his arm around
her neck and fondles her breast, and finally the sexual act is supposed
to take place.
Other prayers or religious acts, as interpreted by the cabbalists, are
designed to deceive various angels (imagined as minor deities with a
measure of independence) or to propitiate Satan. At a certain point in
the morning prayer, some verses in Aramaic (rather than the more usual
Hebrew) are pronounced.8 This is supposed to be a means for tricking
the angels who operate the gates through which prayers enter heaven and
who have the power to block the prayers of the pious. The angels only
understand Hebrew and are baffled by the Aramaic verses; being somewhat
dull-witted (presumably they are far less clever than the cabbalists)
they open the gates, and at this moment all the prayers, including
those in Hebrew, get through. Or take another example: both before and
after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands, uttering a special
blessing. On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God, by
promoting the divine union of Son and Daughter; but on the other he is
worshiping Satan, who likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that
when he is offered a few of them it keeps him busy for a while and he
forgets to pester the divine Daughter. Indeed, the cabbalists believe
that some of the sacrifices burnt in the Temple were intended for
Satan. For example, the seventy bullocks sacrificed during the seven
days of the feast of Tabernacles9 were supposedly offered to Satan in
his capacity as ruler of all the Gentiles,10 in order to keep him too
busy to interfere on the eighth day, when sacrifice is made to God.
Many other examples of the same kind can be given.
Several points should be made concerning this system and its importance
for the proper understanding of Judaism, both in its classical period
and in its present political involvement in Zionist practice.
First, whatever can be said about this cabbalistic system, it cannot be
regarded as monotheistic, unless one is also prepared to regard
Hinduism, the late Graeco-Roman religion, or even the religion of
ancient Egypt, as "monotheistic."
Secondly, the real nature of classical Judaism is illustrated by the
ease with which this system was adopted. Faith and beliefs (except
nationalistic beliefs) play an extremely small part in classical
Judaism. What is of prime importance is the ritual act, rather than the
significance which that act is supposed to have or the belief attached
to it. Therefore in times when a minority of religious Jews refused to
accept the cabbala (as is the case today), one could see some few Jews
performing a given religious ritual believing it to be an act of
worship of God, while others do exactly the same thing with the
intention of propitiating Satan—but so long as the act is the same they
would pray together and remain members of the same congregation,
however much they might dislike each other. But if instead of the
intention attached to the ritual washing of hands anyone would dare to
introduce an innovation in the manner of washing,11 a real schism would
certainly ensue.
The same can be said about all sacred formulas of Judaism. Provided the
working is left intact, the meaning is at best a secondary matter. For
example, perhaps the most sacred Jewish formula, "Hear O Israel, the
Lord is our God, the Lord is one," recited several times each day by
every pious Jew, can at the present time mean two contrary things. It
can mean that the Lord is indeed "one;" but it can also mean that a
certain stage in the union of the male and female deities has been
reached or is being promoted by the proper recitation of this formula.
However, when Jews of a Reformed congregation recite this formula in
any language other than Hebrew, all Orthodox rabbis, whether they
believe in unity or in the divine sexual union, are very angry indeed.
Finally, all this is of considerable importance in Israel (and in other
Jewish centers) even at present. The enormous significance attached to
mere formulas (such as the "Law of Jerusalem"); the ideas and
motivations of Gush Emunim; the urgency behind the hate for non-Jews
presently living in Palestine; the fatalistic attitude towards all
peace attempts by Arab states—all these and many other traits of
Zionist politics, which puzzle so many well-meaning people who have a
false notion about classical Judaism, become more intelligible against
this religious and mystical background. I must warn, however, against
falling into the other extreme and trying to explain all Zionist
politics in terms of this background. Obviously, the latter's
influences vary in extent. Ben-Gurion was adept at manipulating them in
a controlled way for specific ends. Under Begin the past exerts a much
greater influence upon the present. But what one should never do is to
ignore the past and its influences, because only by knowing it can one
transcend its blind power.
Interpretation of the Bible
It will be seen from the foregoing example that what most supposedly
well-informed people think they know about Judaism may be very
misleading, unless they can read Hebrew. All the details mentioned
above can be found in the original texts or, in some cases, in modern
books written in Hebrew for a rather specialized readership. In English
one would look for them in vain, even where the omission of such
socially important facts distorts the whole picture.
There is yet another misconception about Judaism which is particularly
common among Christians, or people heavily influenced by Christian
tradition and culture. This is the misleading idea that Judaism is a
"biblical religion;" that the Old Testament has in Judaism the same
central place and legal authority which the Bible has for Protestant or
even Catholic Christianity.
Again, this is connected with the question of interpretation. We have
seen that in matters of belief there is great latitude. Exactly the
opposite holds with respect to the legal interpretation of sacred
texts. Here the interpretation is rigidly fixed—but by the Talmud
rather than by the Bible itself.12 Many, perhaps most, biblical verses
prescribing religious acts and obligations are "understood" by
classical Judaism, and by present-day Orthodoxy, in a sense which is
quite distinct from, or even contrary to, their literal meaning as
understood by Christian or other readers of the Old Testament, who only
see the plain text. The same division exists at present in Israel
between those educated in Jewish religious schools and those educated
in "secular" Hebrew schools, where on the whole the plain meaning of
the Old Testament is taught.
This important point can only be understood through examples. It will
be noted that the changes in meaning do not all go in the same
direction from the point of view of ethics, as the term is understood
now. Apologetics of Judaism claim that the interpretation of the Bible,
originated by the Pharisees and fixed in the Talmud, is always more
liberal than the literal sense. But some of the examples below show
that this is far from being the case.
1. Let us start with the Decalogue itself. The Eighth Commandment, Thou
shalt not steal" (Exodus, 20:15), is taken to be a prohibition against
"stealing" (that is, kidnapping) a Jewish person. The reason is that
according to the Talmud all acts forbidden by the Decalogue are capital
offenses. Stealing property is not a capital offense (while kidnapping
of Gentiles by Jews is allowed by talmudic law)—hence the
interpretation. A virtually identical sentence—"Ye shall not steal"
(Leviticus, 19:11)—is however allowed to have its literal meaning.
2. The famous verse "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" etc. (Exodus, 21:24)
is taken to mean "eye-money for eye," that is payment of a fine rather
than physical retribution.
3. Here is a notorious case of turning the literal meaning into its
exact opposite. The biblical text plainly warns against following the
bandwagon in an unjust cause: "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do
evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to
wrest judgment" (Exodus, 23:2). The last words of this
sentence—"Decline after many to wrest judgment"—are torn out of their
context and interpreted as an injunction to follow the majority!
4. The verse "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk"
(Exodus, 23:19) is interpreted as a ban on mixing any kind of meat with
any milk or milk product. Since the same verse is repeated in two other
places in the Pentateuch, the mere repetition is taken to be a treble
ban, forbidding a Jew (i) to eat such a mixture, (ii) to cook it for
any purpose and (iii) to enjoy or benefit from it in any way.13
5. In numerous cases general terms such as "thy fellow," "stranger," or
even "man" are taken to have an exelusivist chauvinistic meaning. The
famous verse "thou shalt love thy fellow14 as thyself" (Leviticus,
19:18) is understood by classical (and present-day Orthodox) Judaism as
an injunction to love one's fellow Jew, not any fellow human.
Similarly, the verse "neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy
fellow" (ibid., 16) is supposed to mean that one must not stand idly by
when the life ("blood") of a fellow Jew is in danger; but, as will be
seen in Chapter 5, a Jew is in general forbidden to save the life of a
Gentile, because "he is not thy fellow." The generous injunction to
leave the gleanings of one's field and vineyard "for the poor and the
stranger" (ibid., 9-10) is interpreted as referring exclusively to the
Jewish poor and to converts to Judaism. The taboo laws relating to
corpses begin with the verse "this is the law, when a man dieth in a
tent: all that come into the tent . . . shall be unclean seven days"
(Numbers, 19:16). But the word "man" (adam) is taken to mean "Jew," so
that only a Jewish corpse is taboo (that is, both "unclean" and
sacred). Based on this interpretation, pious Jews have a tremendous
magic reverence towards Jewish corpses and Jewish cemeteries, but have
no respect towards non-Jewish corpses and cemeteries. Thus hundreds of
Muslim cemeteries have been utterly destroyed in Israel (in one case in
order to make room for the Tel-Aviv Hilton) but there was a great
outcry because the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was damaged
under Jordanian rule. Examples of this kind are too numerous to quote.
Some of the inhuman consequences of this type of interpretation will be
discussed in Chapter 5.
6. Finally, consider one of the most beautiful prophetic passages,
Isaiah's magnificent condemnation of hypocrisy and empty ritual, and
exhortation to common decency. One verse (Isaiah, 1:15) in this passage
is: "And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from
you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are
full of blood." Since Jewish priests "spread their hands" when blessing
the people during service, this verse is supposed to mean that a priest
who commits accidental homicide is disqualified from "spreading his
hands" in blessing (even if repentant) because they are "full of
blood."
It is quite clear even from these examples that when Orthodox Jews
today (or all Jews before about 1780) read the Bible, they are reading
a very different book, with a totally different meaning, from the Bible
as read by non-Jews or non-Orthodox Jews. This distinction applies even
in Israel, although both parties read the text in Hebrew. Experience,
particularly since 1967, has repeatedly corroborated this. Many Jews in
Israel (and elsewhere), who are not Orthodox and have little detailed
knowledge of the Jewish religion, have tried to shame Orthodox Israelis
(or right-wingers who are strongly influenced by religion) out of their
inhuman attitude towards the Palestinians, by quoting at them verses
from the Bible in their plain humane sense. It was always found,
however, that such arguments do not have the slightest effect on those
who follow classical Judaism; they simply do not understand what is
being said to them, because to them the biblical text means something
quite different than to everyone else.
If such a communication gap exists in Israel, where people read Hebrew
and can readily obtain correct information if they wish, one can
imagine how deep is the misconception abroad, say among people educated
in the Christian tradition. In fact, the more such a person reads the
Bible, the less he or she knows about Orthodox Judaism. For the latter
regards the Old Testament as a text of immutable sacred formulas, whose
recitation is an act of great merit, but whose meaning is wholly
determined elsewhere. And, as Humpty Dumpty told Alice, behind the
problem of who can determine the meaning of words, there stands the
real question: "Which is to be master?"
Structure of the Talmud
It should therefore be clearly understood that the source of authority
for all the practices of classical (and present-day Orthodox) Judaism,
the determining base of its legal structure, is the Talmud, or, to be
precise, the so-called Babylonian Talmud; while the rest of the
talmudic literature (including the so-called Jerusalem or Palestinian
Talmud) acts as a supplementary authority.
We cannot enter here into a detailed description of the Talmud and
talmudic literature, but confine ourselves to a few principal points
needed for our argument. Basically, the Talmud consists of two parts.
First, the Mishnah—a terse legal code consisting of six volumes, each
subdivided into several tractates, written in Hebrew, redacted in
Palestine around AD 200 out of the much more extensive (and largely
oral) legal material composed during the preceding two centuries. The
second and by far predominant part is the Gemarah—a voluminous record
of discussions on and around the Mishnah. There are two, roughly
parallel, sets of Gemarah, one composed in Mesopotamia ("Babylon")
between about AD 200 and 500, the other in Palestine between about AD
200 and some unknown date long before 500. The Babylonian Talmud (that
is, the Mishnah plus the Mesopotamian Gemarah) is much more extensive
and better arranged than the Palestinian, and it alone is regarded as
definitive and authoritative. The Jerusalem (Palestinian) Talmud is
accorded a decidedly lower status as a legal authority, along with a
number of compilations, known collectively as the "talmudic
literature," containing material which the editors of the two Talmuds
had left out.
Contrary to the Mishnah, the rest of the Talmud and talmudic literature
is written in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, the latter language
predominating in the Babylonian Talmud. Also, it is not limited to
legal matters. Without any apparent order or reason, the legal
discussion can suddenly be interrupted by what is referred to as
"Narrative" (Aggadah)—a medley of tales and anecdotes about rabbis or
ordinary folk, biblical figures, angels, demons, witchcraft and
miracles.15 These narrative passages, although of great popular
influence in Judaism through the ages, were always considered (even by
the Talmud itself) as having secondary value. Of greatest importance
for classical Judaism are the legal parts of the text, particularly the
discussion of cases which are regarded as problematic. The Talmud
itself defines the various categories of Jews, in ascending order, as
follows, The lowest are the totally ignorant, then come those who only
know the Bible, then those who are familiar with the Mishnah or
Aggadah, and the superior class are those who have studied, and are
able to discuss the legal part of the Gemarah. It is only the latter
who are fit to lead their fellow Jews in all things.
The legal system of the Talmud can be described as totally
comprehensive, rigidly authoritarian, and yet capable of infinite
development, without however any change in its dogmatic base. Every
aspect of Jewish life, both individual and social, is covered, usually
in considerable detail, with sanctions and punishments provided for
every conceivable sin or infringement of the rules. The basic rules for
every problem are stated dogmatically and cannot be questioned. What
can be and is discussed at very great length is the elaboration and
practical definition of these rules. Let me give a few examples.
"Not doing any work" on the sabbath. The concept work is defined as
comprising exactly 39 types of work, neither more nor less. The
criterion for inclusion in this list has nothing to do with the
arduousness of a given task; it is simply a matter of dogmatic
definition. One forbidden type of "work" is writing. The question then
arises: How many characters must one write in order to commit the sin
of writing on the sabbath? (Answer: Two). Is the sin the same,
irrespective of which hand is used? (Answer: No). However, in order to
guard against falling into sin, the primary prohibition on writing is
hedged with a secondary ban on touching any writing implement on the
sabbath.
Another prototypical work forbidden on the sabbath is the grinding of
grain. From this it is deduced, by analogy, that any kind of grinding
of anything whatsoever is forbidden. And this in turn is hedged by a
ban on the practice of medicine on the sabbath (except in cases of
danger to Jewish life), in order to guard against falling into the sin
of grinding a medicament. It is in vain to point out that in modern
times such a danger does not exist (nor, for that matter, did it exist
in many cases even in talmudic times); for, as a hedge around the
hedge, the Talmud explicitly forbids liquid medicines and restorative
drinks on the sabbath. What has been fixed remains for ever fixed,
however absurd. Tertullian, one of the early Church Fathers, had
written, "I believe it because it is absurd." This can serve as a motto
for the majority of talmudic rules, with the word "believe" replaced by
"practice."
The following example illustrates even better the level of absurdity
reached by this system. One of the prototypes of work forbidden on the
sabbath is harvesting. This is stretched, by analogy, to a ban on
breaking a branch off a tree. Hence, riding a horse (or any other
animal) is forbidden, as a hedge against the temptation to break a
branch off a tree for flogging the beast. It is useless to argue that
you have a ready-made whip, or that you intend to ride where there are
no trees. What is forbidden remains forbidden for ever. It can,
however, be stretched and made stricter: in modern times, riding a
bicycle on the sabbath has been forbidden, because it is analogous to
riding a horse.
My final example illustrates how the same methods are used also in
purely theoretical cases, having no conceivable application in reality.
During the existence of the Temple, the High Priest was only allowed to
marry a virgin. Although during virtually the whole of the talmudic
period there was no longer a Temple or a High Priest, the Talmud
devotes one of its more involved (and bizarre) discussions to the
precise definition of the term "virgin" fit to marry a High Priest.
What about a woman whose hymen had been broken by accident? Does it
make any difference whether the accident occurred before or after the
age of three? By the impact of metal or of wood? Was she climbing a
tree? And if so, was she climbing up or down? Did it happen naturally
or unnaturally? All this and much else besides is discussed in lengthy
detail. And every scholar in classical Judaism had to master hundreds
of such problems. Great scholars were measured by their ability to
develop these problems still further, for as shown by the examples
there is always scope for further development—if only in one
direction—and such development did actually continue after the final
redaction of the Talmud.
However, there are two great differences between the talmudic period
(ending around AD 500) and the period of classical Judaism (from about
AD 800). The geographical area reflected in the Talmud is confined,
whereas the Jewish society reflected in it is a "complete" society,
with Jewish agriculture as its basis. (This is true for Mesopotamia as
well as Palestine.) Although at that time there were Jews living
throughout the Roman Empire and in many areas of the Sassanid Empire,
it is quite evident from the talmudic text that its composition—over
half a millennium—was a strictly local affair. No scholars from
countries other than Mesopotamia and Palestine took part in it, nor
does the text reflect social conditions outside these two areas.
Very little is known about the social and religious conditions of the
Jews in the intervening three centuries. But from AD 800 on, when more
detailed historical information is again available, we find that the
two features mentioned above had been reversed. The Babylonian Talmud
(and to a much lesser degree the rest of the talmudic literature) is
acknowledged as authoritative, studied and developed in all Jewish
communities. At the same time, Jewish society had undergone a deep
change: whatever and wherever it is, it does not include peasants.
The social system resulting from this change will be discussed in
Chapter 4. Here we shall describe how the Talmud was adapted to the
conditions—geographically much wider and socially much narrower, and at
any rate radically different—of classical Judaism. We shall concentrate
on what is in my opinion the most important method of adaptation,
namely the dispensations.
The Dispensations
As noted above, the talmudic system is most dogmatic and does not allow
any relaxation of its rules even when they are reduced to absurdity by
a change in circumstances. And in the case of the Talmud—contrary to
that of the Bible—the literal sense of the text is binding, and one is
not allowed to interpret it away. But in the period of classical
Judaism various talmudic laws became untenable for the Jewish ruling
classes—the rabbis and the rich. In the interest of these ruling
classes, a method of systematic deception was devised for keeping the
letter of the law, while violating its spirit and intention. It was
this hypocritical system of "dispensations" (heterim) which, in my
view, was the most important cause of the debasement of Judaism in its
classical epoch. (The second cause was Jewish mysticism, which however
operated for a much shorter period of time.) Again, some examples are
needed to illustrate how the system works.
1. Taking of interest. The Talmud strictly forbids a Jew, on pain of
severe punishment, to take interest on a loan made to another Jew.
(According to a majority of talmudic authorities, it is a religious
duty to take as much interest as possible on a loan made to a Gentile.)
Very detailed rules forbid even the most far-fetched forms in which a
Jewish lender might benefit from a Jewish debtor. All Jewish
accomplices to such an illicit transaction, including the scribe and
the witnesses, are branded by the Talmud as infamous persons,
disqualified from testifying in court, because by participating in such
an act a Jew as good as declares that "he has no part in the god of
Israel." It is evident that this law is well suited to the needs of
Jewish peasants or artisans, or of small Jewish communities who use
their money for lending to non-Jews. But the situation was very
different in east Europe (mainly in Poland) by the 16th century. There
was a relatively big Jewish community, which constituted the majority
in many towns. The peasants, subjected to strict serfdom not far
removed from slavery, were hardly in a position to borrow at all, while
lending to the nobility was the business of a few very rich Jews. Many
Jews were doing business with each other.
In these circumstances, the following arrangement (called heter
'isqa—"business dispensation") was devised for an interest-bearing loan
between Jews, which does not violate the letter of the law, because
formally it is not a loan at all. The lender "invests" his money in the
business of the borrower, stipulating two conditions. First, that the
borrower will pay the lender at an agreed future date a stated sum of
money (in reality, the interest in the loan) as the lender's "share in
the profits." Secondly, that the borrower will be presumed to have made
sufficient profit to give the lender his share, unless a claim to the
contrary is corroborated by the testimony of the town's rabbi or
rabbinical judge, etc,—who, by arrangement, refuse to testify in such
cases. In practice all that is required is to take a text of this
dispensation, written in Aramaic and entirely incomprehensible to the
great majority, and put it on a wall of the room where the transaction
is made (a copy of this text is displayed in all branches of Israeli
banks) or even to keep it in a chest—and the interest-bearing loan
between Jews becomes perfectly legal and blameless.
2. The sabbatical year. According to talmudic law (based on Leviticus,
25) Jewish-owned land in Palestine16 must be left fallow every seventh
("sabbatical") year, when all agricultural work (including harvesting)
on such land is forbidden. There is ample evidence that this law was
rigorously observed for about one thousand years, from the 5th century
BC till the disappearance of Jewish agriculture in Palestine. Later,
when there was no occasion to apply the law in practice, it was kept
theoretically intact. However, in the 1880s, with the establishment of
the first Jewish agricultural colonies in Palestine, it became a matter
of practical concern. Rabbis sympathetic to the settlers helpfully
devised a dispensation, which was later perfected by their successors
in the religious Zionist parties and has become an established Israeli
practice.
This is how it works. Shortly before a sabbatical year, the Israeli
Minister of Internal Affairs gives the Chief Rabbi a document making
him the legal owner of all Israeli land, both private and public. Armed
with this paper, the Chief Rabbi goes to a non-Jew and sells him all
the land of Israel (and, since 1967, the Occupied Territories) for a
nominal sum. A separate document stipulates that the "buyer" will
"resell" the land back after the year is over. And this transaction is
repeated every seven years, usually with the same "buyer."
Non-Zionist rabbis do not recognize the validity of this
dispensation,17 claiming correctly that, since religious law forbids
Jews to sell land in Palestine to Gentiles, the whole transaction is
based on a sin and hence null and void. The Zionist rabbis reply,
however, that what is forbidden is a real sale, not a fictitious one!
3. Milking on the sabbath. This has been forbidden in post-talmudic
times, through the process of increasing religious severity mentioned
above. The ban could easily be kept in the diaspora, since Jews who had
cows of their own were usually rich enough to have non-Jewish servants,
who could be ordered (using one of the subterfuges described below) to
do the milking. The early Jewish colonists in Palestine employed Arabs
for this and other purposes, but with the forcible imposition of the
Zionist policy of exclusive Jewish labor there was need for a
dispensation. (This was particularly important before the introduction
of mechanized milking in the late 1950s.) Here too there was a
difference between Zionist and non-Zionist rabbis.
According to the former, the forbidden milking becomes permitted
provided the milk is not white but dyed blue. This blue Saturday milk
is then used exclusively for making cheese, and the dye is washed off
into the whey. Non-Zionist rabbis have devised a much subtler scheme
(which I personally witnessed operating in a religious kibbutz in
1952). They discovered an old provision which allows the udders of a
cow to be emptied on the sabbath, purely for relieving the suffering
caused to the animal by bloated udders, and on the strict condition
that the milk runs to waste on the ground. Now, this is what is
actually done: on Saturday morning, a pious kibbutznik goes to the
cowshed and places pails under the cows. (There is no ban on such work
in the whole of the talmudic literature.) He then goes to the synagogue
to pray. Then comes his colleague, whose "honest intention" is to
relieve the animals' pain and let their milk run to the floor. But if,
by chance, a pail happens to be standing there, is he under any
obligation to remove it? Of course not. He simply "ignores" the pails,
fulfills his mission of mercy and goes to the synagogue. Finally a
third pious colleague goes into the cowshed and discovers, to his great
surprise, the pails full of milk. So he puts them in cold storage and
follows his comrades to the synagogue. Now all is well, and there is no
need to waste money on blue dye.
4. Mixed crops. Similar dispensations were issued by Zionist rabbis in
respect of the ban (based on Leviticus, 19:19) against sowing two
different species of crop in the same field. Modern agronomy has
however shown that in some cases (especially in growing fodder) mixed
sowing is the most profitable. The rabbis invented a dispensation
according to which one man sows the field length-wise with one kind of
seed, and later that day his comrade, who "does not know" about the
former, sows another kind of seed crosswise. However, this method was
felt to be too wasteful of labor, and a better one was devised: one man
makes a heap of one kind of seed in a public place and carefully covers
it with a sack or piece of board. The second kind of seed is then put
on top of the cover. Later, another man comes and exclaims, in front of
witnesses, "I need this sack (or board)" and removes it, so that the
seeds mix "naturally." Finally, a third man comes along and is told,
"take this and sow the field," which he proceeds to do.18
5. Leavened substances must not be eaten or even kept in the possession
of a Jew during the seven (or, outside Palestine, eight) days of
Passover. The concept "leavened substances" was continually broadened
and the aversion to so much as seeing them during the festival
approached hysteria. They include all kinds of flour and even unground
grain. In the original talmudic society this was bearable, because
bread (leavened or not) was usually baked once a week; a peasant family
would use the last of the previous year's grain to bake unleavened
bread for the festival, which ushers in the new harvest season.
However, in the conditions of post-Talmudic European Jewry the
observance was very hard on a middle-class Jewish family and even more
so on a corn merchant. A dispensation was therefore devised, by which
all those substances are sold in a fictitious sale to a Gentile before
the festival and bought back automatically after it. The one thing that
must be done is to lock up the taboo substances for the duration of the
festival. In Israel this fictitious sale has been made more efficient.
Religious Jews "sell" their leavened substances to their local rabbis,
who in turn "sell" them to the Chief Rabbis; the latter sell them to a
Gentile, and by a special dispensation this sale is presumed to include
also the leavened substances of non-practising Jews.
6. Sabbath-Goy. Perhaps the most developed dispensations concern the
"Goy (Gentile) of Sabbath." As mentioned above, the range of tasks
banned on the sabbath has widened continually; but the range of tasks
that must be carried out or supervised to satisfy needs or to increase
comfort also keeps widening. This is particularly true in modern times,
but the effect of technological change began to be felt long ago. The
ban against grinding on the sabbath was a relatively light matter for a
Jewish peasant or artisan, say in second-century Palestine, who used a
hand mill for domestic purposes. It was quite a different matter for a
tenant of a water mill or windmill—one of the most common Jewish
occupations in eastern Europe. But even such a simple human problem" as
the wish to have a hot cup of tea on a Saturday afternoon becomes much
greater with the tempting samovar, used regularly on weekdays, standing
in the room. These are just two examples out of a very large number of
so-called "problems of sabbath observance." And one can state with
certainty that for a community composed exclusively of Orthodox Jews
they were quite insoluble, at least during the last eight or ten
centuries, without the "help" of non-Jews. This is even more true today
in the "Jewish state," because many public services, such as water, gas
and electricity, fall in this category. Classical Judaism could not
exist even for a whole week without using some non-Jews.
But without special dispensations there is a great obstacle in
employing non-Jews to do these Saturday jobs; for talmudic regulations
forbid Jews to ask a Gentile to do on the sabbath any work which they
themselves are banned from doing.19 I shall describe two of the many
types of dispensation used for such purposes.
First, there is the method of "hinting," which depends on the casuistic
logic according to which a sinful demand becomes blameless if it is
phrased slyly. As rule, the hint must be "obscure," but in cases of
extreme need a "clear" hint is allowed. For example, in a recent
booklet on religious observance for the use of Israeli soldiers, the
latter are taught how to talk to Arab workers employed by the army as
sabbath-Goyim. In urgent cases, such as when it is very cold and a fire
must be lit, or when light is needed for a religious service, a pious
Jewish soldier may use a "clear" hint and tell the Arab: "It is cold
(or dark) here." But normally an "obscure" hint must suffice, for
example: "It would be more pleasant if it were warmer here." 20 This
method of "hinting" is particularly repulsive and degrading inasmuch as
it is normally used on non-Jews who, due to their poverty or
subordinate social position, are wholly in the power of their Jewish
employer. A Gentile servant (or employee of the Israeli army) who does
not train himself to interpret "obscure hints" as orders will be
pitilessly dismissed.
The second method is used in cases where what the Gentile is required
to do on Saturday is not an occasional task or personal service, which
can be "hinted" at as the need arises, but a routine or regular job
without constant Jewish supervision. According to this method—called
"implicit inclusion" (havla'ah) of the sabbath among weekdays—the
Gentile is hired "for the whole week (or year)," without the sabbath
being so much as mentioned in the contract. But in reality work is only
performed on the sabbath. This method was used in the past in hiring a
Gentile to put out the candles in the synagogue after the sabbath-eve
prayer (rather than wastefully allowing them to burn out). Modern
Israeli examples are: regulating the water supply or watching over
water reservoirs on Saturdays.21
A similar idea is used also in the case of Jews, but for a different
end. Jews are forbidden to receive any payment for work done on the
sabbath, even if the work itself is permitted. The chief example here
concerns the sacred professions: the rabbi or talmudic scholar who
preaches or teaches on the sabbath, the cantor who sings only on
Saturdays and other holy days (on which similar bans apply), the sexton
and similar officials. In talmudic times, and in some countries even
several centuries after, such jobs were unpaid. But later, when these
became salaried professions, the dispensation of "implicit inclusion"
was used, and they were hired on a "monthly" or "yearly" basis. In the
case of rabbis and talmudic scholars the problem is particularly
complicated, because the Talmud forbids them to receive any payment for
preaching, teaching or studying talmudic matters even on weekdays.22
For them an additional dispensation stipulates that their salary is not
really a salary at all but "compensation for idleness" (dmey batalah).
As a combined result of these two fictions, what is in reality payment
for work done mainly, or even solely, on the sabbath is transmogrified
into payment for being idle on weekdays.
Social Aspects of Dispensations
Two social features of these and many similar practices deserve special
mention.
First, a dominant feature of this system of dispensations, and of
classical Judaism inasmuch as it is based on them, is
deception—deception primarily of God, if this word can be used for an
imaginary being so easily deceived by the rabbis, who consider
themselves cleverer than him. No greater contrast can be conceived than
that between the God of the Bible (particularly of the greater
prophets) and of the God of classical Judaism. The latter is more like
the early Roman Jupiter, who was likewise bamboozled by his worshipers,
or the gods described in Frazer's Golden Bough.
From the ethical point of view, classical Judaism represents a process
of degeneration, which is still going on; and this degeneration into a
tribal collection of empty rituals and magic superstitions has very
important social and political consequences. For it must be remembered
that it is precisely the superstitions of classical Judaism which have
the greatest hold on the Jewish masses, rather than those parts of the
Bible or even the Talmud which are of real religious and ethical value.
(The same can be observed also in other religions which are now
undergoing revival.) What is popularly regarded as the most "holy" and
solemn occasion of the Jewish liturgical year, attended even by very
many Jews who are otherwise far from religion? It is the Kol Nidrey
prayer on the eve of Yom Kippur—a chanting of a particularly absurd and
deceptive dispensation, by which all private vows made to God in the
following year are declared in advance to be null and void.23 Or, in
the area of personal religion, the Qadish prayer, said on days of
mourning by sons for their parents in order to elevate their departed
souls to paradise—a recitation of an Aramaic text, incomprehensible to
the great majority. Quite obviously, the popular regard given to these,
the most superstitious parts of the Jewish religion, is not given to
its better parts.
Together with the deception of God goes the deception of other Jews,
mainly in the interest of the Jewish ruling class. It is characteristic
that no dispensations were allowed in the specific interest of the
Jewish poor. For example, Jews who were starving but not actually on
the point of death were never allowed by their rabbis (who did not
often go hungry themselves) to eat any sort of forbidden food, though
kosher food is usually more expensive.
The second dominant feature of the dispensations is that they are in
large part obviously motivated by the spirit of profit. And it is this
combination of hypocrisy and the profit motive which increasingly
dominated classical Judaism. In Israel, where the process goes on, this
is dimly perceived by popular opinion, despite all the official
brainwashing promoted by the education system and the media. The
religious establishment—the rabbis and the religious parties—and, by
association, to some extent the Orthodox community as a whole, are
quite unpopular in Israel. [As a challenge to this claim regarding the
unpopularity of Jewish Orthodoxy in Israel, please see "Gush Emunim:
The Tip of the Iceberg" by Ehud Sprinzak—web editor] One of the most
important reasons for this is precisely their reputation for duplicity
and venality. Of course, popular opinion (which may often be
prejudiced) is not the same thing as social analysis; but in this
particular case it is actually true that the Jewish religious
establishment does have a strong tendency to chicanery and graft, due
to the corrupting influence of the Orthodox Jewish religion. Because in
general social life religion is only one of the social influences, its
effect on the mass of believers is not nearly so great as on the rabbis
and leaders of the religious parties. Those religious Jews in Israel
who are honest, as the majority of them undoubtedly are, are so not
because of the influence of their religion and rabbis, but in spite of
it. On the other hand, in those few areas of public life in Israel
which are wholly dominated by religious circles, the level of
chicanery, venality and corruption is notorious, far surpassing the
"average" level tolerated by general, non-religious Israeli society.
In Chapter 4 we shall see how the dominance of the profit motive in
classical Judaism is connected with the structure of Jewish society and
its articulation with the general society in the midst of which Jews
lived in the "classical" period. Here I merely want to observe that the
profit motive is not characteristic of Judaism in all periods of its
history. Only the platonist confusion which seeks for the metaphysical
timeless "essence" of Judaism, instead of looking at the historical
changes in Jewish society, has obscured this fact. (And this confusion
has been greatly encouraged by Zionism, in its reliance on "historical
rights" ahistorically derived from the Bible.) Thus, apologists of
Judaism claim, quite correctly, that the Bible is hostile to the profit
motive while the Talmud is indifferent to it. But this was caused by
the very different social conditions in which they were composed. As
was pointed out above, the Talmud was composed in two well-defined
areas, in a period when the Jews living there constituted a society
based on agriculture and consisting mainly of peasants—very different
indeed from the society of classical Judaism.
In Chapter 5 we shall deal in detail with the hostile attitudes and
deceptions practiced by classical Judaism against non-Jews. But more
important as a social feature is the profit-motivated deception
practiced by the rich Jews against poor fellow Jews (such as the
dispensation concerning interest on loans). Here I must say, in spite
of my opposition to marxism both in philosophy and as a social theory,
that Marx was quite right when, in his two articles about Judaism, he
characterized it as dominated by profit-seeking—provided this is
limited to Judaism as he knew it, that is, to classical Judaism which
in his youth had already entered the period of its dissolution. True,
he stated this arbitrarily, ahistorically and without proof. Obviously
he came to his conclusion by intuition; but his intuition in this
case—and with the proper historical limitation—was right.
Notes
1. As in Chapter 2, I use the term "classical Judaism" to refer to
rabbinical Judaism in the period from about AD 800 up to the end of the
18th century. This period broadly coincides with the Jewish Middle
Ages, since for most Jewish communities medieval conditions persisted
much longer than for the west European nations, namely up to the period
of the French Revolution. Thus what I call "classical Judaism" can be
regarded as medieval Judaism.
2. Exodus, 15:11.
3. Ibid., 20: 3-6.
4. Jeremiah, 10; the same theme is echoed still later by the Second
Isaiah, see Isaiah, 44.
5. The cabbala is of course an esoteric doctrine, and its detailed
study was confined to scholars. In Europe, especially after about 1750,
extreme measures were taken to keep it secret and forbid its study
except by mature scholars and under strict supervision. The uneducated
Jewish masses of eastern Europe had no real knowledge of cabbalistic
doctrine; but the cabbala percolated to them in the form of
superstition and magic practices.
6. Many contemporary Jewish mystics believe that the same end may be
accomplished more quickly by war against the Arabs, by the expulsion of
the Palestinians, or even by establishing many Jewish settlements on
the West Bank. The growing movement for building the Third Temple is
also based on such ideas.
7. The Hebrew word used here—yihud, meaning literally
union-in-seclusion—is the same one employed in legal texts (dealing
with marriage etc.) to refer to sexual intercourse.
8. The so-called Qedushah Shlishit (Third Holiness), inserted in the
prayer Uva Letzion towards the end of the morning service.
9. Numbers, 29.
10. The power of Satan, and his connection with non-Jews, is
illustrated by a widespread custom, established under cabbalistic
influence in many Jewish communities from the 17th century. A Jewish
woman returning from her monthly ritual bath of purification (after
which sexual intercourse with her husband is mandatory) must beware of
meeting one of the four satanic creatures: Gentile, pig, dog or donkey.
If she does meet any one of them she must take another bath. The custom
was advocated (among others) by Shevet Musar, a book on Jewish moral
conduct first published in 1712, which was one of the most popular
books among Jews in both eastern Europe and Islamic countries until
early this century, and is still widely read in some Orthodox circles.
11. This is prescribed in minute detail. For example, the ritual hand
washing must not be done under a tap; each hand must be washed singly,
in water from a mug (of prescribed minimal size) held in the other
hand. If one's hands are really dirty, it is quite impossible to clean
them in this way, but such pragmatic considerations are obviously
irrelevant. Classical Judaism prescribes a great number of such
detailed rituals, to which the cabbala attaches deep significance.
There are, for example, many precise rules concerning behavior in a
lavatory. A Jew relieving nature in an open space must not do so in a
North-South direction, because North is associated with Satan.
12. "Interpretation" is my own expression. The classical (and
present-day Orthodox) view is that the talmudic meaning, even where it
is contrary to the literal sense, was always the operational one.
13. According to an apocryphal story, a famous 19th century Jewish
heretic observed in this connection that the verse "Thou shalt not
commit adultery" is repeated only twice. "Presumably one is therefore
forbidden to eat adultery or to cook it, but enjoying it is all right."
14. The Hebrew re'akha is rendered by the King James Version (and most
other English translations) somewhat imprecisely as "thy neighbor." See
however II Samuel, 16:17, where exactly the same word is rendered by
the King James Version more correctly as "thy friend."
15. The Mishnah is remarkably free of all this, and in particular the
belief in demons and witchcraft is relatively rare in it. The
Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, is full of gross superstitions.
16. Or, to be precise, in many parts of Palestine. Apparently the areas
to which the law applies are those where there was Jewish demographic
predominance around AD 150-200.
17. Therefore non-Zionist Orthodox Jews in Israel organize special
shops during sabbatical years, which sell fruits and vegetables grown
by Arabs on Arab land.
18. In the winter of 1945-6, I myself, then a boy under 13,
participated in such proceedings. The man in charge of agricultural
work in the religious agricultural school I was men attending was a
particularly pious Jew and thought it would be safe if the crucial act,
that of removing the board, should be performed by an orphan under 13
years old, incapable of being, or making anyone else, guilty of a sin.
(A boy under that age cannot be guilty of a sin; his father, if he has
one, is considered responsible.) Everything was carefully explained to
me beforehand, including the duty to say, "I need this board," when in
fact it was not needed.
19. For example, the Talmud forbids a Jew to enjoy the light of a
candle lit by a Gentile on the sabbath, unless the latter had lit it
for his own use before the Jew entered the room.
20. One of my uncles in pre-1939 Warsaw used a subtler method. He
employed a non-Jewish maid called Marysia and it was his custom upon
waking from his Saturday siesta to say, first quietly, "How nice it
would be if"—and then, raising his voice to a shout, ". . . Marysia
would bring us a cup of tea!" He was held to be a very pious and God
fearing man and would never dream of drinking a drop of milk for a full
six hours after eating meat. In his kitchen he had two sinks, one for
washing up dishes used for eating meat, the other for milk dishes.
21. Occasionally regrettable mistakes occur, because some of these jobs
are quite cushy, allowing the employee six days off each week. The town
of Bney Braq (near Tel-Aviv), inhabited almost exclusively by Orthodox
Jews, was shaken in the 1960s by a horrible scandal. Upon the death of
the "sabbath Goy" they had employed for over twenty years to watch over
their water supplies on Saturdays, it was discovered that he was not
really a Christian but a Jew! So when his successor, a Druse, was
hired, the town demanded and obtained from the government a document
certifying that the new employee is a Gentile of pure Gentile descent.
It is reliably rumored that the secret police was asked to research
this matter.
22. In contrast, elementary Scripture teaching can be done for payment.
This was always considered a low-status job and was badly paid.
23. Another "extremely important" ritual is the blowing of a ram's horn
on Rosh Hashanah, whose purpose is to confuse Satan. |
|
 Back
Back to For Catholics
Index
|
