 |
| Responsa by R. Chaim Benveniste, 1743 |
Introduction
This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Abraham Ofir Shemesh[1]—examines an extreme case of messianic immunity. In the sixteenth century, a medical doctor, R. Avraham Baruch haRofeh, under the influence of the Sabbatian messianic movement of Shabbatai Tzvi, felt he could administer harmful drugs to non-Jews in order to kill them. Because he believed he was living in the stirrings of the messianic era, he also believed he could do so with impunity—if not hasten the full awakening of the messianic age as he saw it unfolding before his very eyes.
While R. Avraham Baruch may have been an extreme case, unfortunately, due to the vicissitudes of a long and oppressive Jewish history, he did have some textual precedent to draw upon. We shall look at some of that precedent, but also show how many of the later rabbis contextualised those earlier rulings and declared that they were no longer applicable.
Early prohibitions against treating (and being treated by)
Gentiles
In pre-Talmudic and even Talmudic times, it was understood that there was a general prohibition against the medical treatment of non-Jews. This began to change in post-Talmudic times when circumstances had also changed and the Halachic authorities “dispensed with the prohibition almost completely” (Shemesh 2018:108). The Roman Empire and its polytheistic cult had been replaced by a different kind of Gentile, who adhered to the two Bible-based religions of Christianity and Islam.
Of course, there was fierce debate over which of these religions was closer to Jewish monotheism. The later rabbis needed to justify why these prohibitions had fallen away, and a common explanation emerged whereby the original prohibition applied only to idolaters. The rabbis then walked a Halachic tightrope as they debated just which religions were considered idolatrous and which ones were not.
Another contributing factor to the change in the old law was the practicality of applying it in a new age when there was urgent concern for animosity and harassment from the non-Jewish environment. But even this review and reframing of the old law did not make all semblance of the old texts and attitudes go away.
It must also be noted that it worked the other way round as well, in that Jews were also instructed not to receive medical aid from gentiles for both fear of being harmed and falling under foreign religious influence.
The ancient world was a very different place compared to today, where we seem to have largely risen above the need for such legislation. Still, it is important to study how it was—so that we don’t go back to the past.
Biblical period
The Torah does not appear to prohibit the medical treatment of gentiles. It tells of Elisha the Prophet, who cured Na’aman, the commander of the King of Aram (Syria), of his leprosy. This indicates that no such restrictions against treating Gentiles existed in biblical times.
Talmudic period
The Talmud period instituted severe restrictions against Jews treating non-Jews and being treated by them:
וְלֹא תִתְיַחֵד אִשָּׁה עִמָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת. וְלֹא יִתְיַחֵד אָדָם עִמָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל שְׁפִיכַת דָּמִים. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תְיַלֵּד אֶת הַנָּכְרִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּיַלֶּדֶת בֵּן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֲבָל נָכְרִית מְיַלֶּדֶת בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תָנִיק בְּנָהּ שֶׁל נָכְרִית, אֲבָל נָכְרִית מְנִיקָה בְנָהּ שֶׁל יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ
“And a woman may not seclude herself with gentiles because they are suspected of engaging in forbidden sexual relations. And any person may not seclude himself with gentiles because they are suspected of bloodshed. A Jewish woman may not deliver the child of a gentile woman, because in doing so she is delivering a child who will engage in idol worship. But one may allow a gentile woman to deliver the child of a Jewish woman. Similarly, a Jewish woman may not nurse the child of a gentile woman, but one may allow a gentile woman to nurse the child of a Jewish woman while the gentile woman is on the Jewish woman’s property” (Mishnah Avodah Zarah, 2:1).
מִתְרַפְּאִין מֵהֶן רִפּוּי מָמוֹן, אֲבָל לֹא רִפּוּי נְפָשׁוֹת. וְאֵין מִסְתַּפְּרִין מֵהֶן בְּכָל מָקוֹם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מֻתָּר, אֲבָל לֹא בֵינוֹ לְבֵינוֹ
“One may be treated by gentiles, provided that it is monetary treatment, but not personal treatment. And one may not have his hair cut by them anywhere, due to the danger that the gentile will kill him with the razor; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: In the public thoroughfare, it is permitted to have one’s hair cut by a gentile, but not when the Jew and gentile are alone together” (Mishnah Avodah Zarah, 2:2).
רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא הֲוָה מִסְתַּפֵּר מִגּוֹי בִּשְׁבִילֵי דִנְהַרְדְּעָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חָנָא, חָנָא, יָאֵי קוֹעָיךְ לְזוּגָא! אָמַר: תֵּיתֵי לִי דַּעֲבַרִי אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר
“Rav Ḥana bar Bizna was having his hair cut by a gentile in one of the side streets of Neharde’a. The barber said to him: Ḥana, Ḥana; Your throat is appealing to the razor. Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said: I have this coming to me, as I violated the ruling of Rabbi Meir, who stated that one may not have his hair cut by a gentile in any location” (b. Avodah Zarah 29a).
The Talmud is very suspicious of gentile doctors, in this case, a gentile doctor performing a circumcision on a Jew:
וְגוֹי לֹא יָמוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים
“But one may not allow a gentile to circumcise a Jew in any situation, because gentiles are suspected of bloodshed” (b. Avodah Zarah 26b).
Furthermore, R. Meir claimed that:
דְּזִימְנִין דְּמַצְלֵי לֵיהּ סַכִּינָא וּמְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ כְּרוּת שׇׁפְכָה
“there are times when a gentile might tilt the knife and render the Jew…unable to father children” (b. Avodah Zarah 26b).
Sometimes an exception was made to permit an expert gentile doctor to heal a Jew if there was no other option:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִם הָיָה מוּמְחֶה לְרַבִּים — מוּתָּר
“Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If the physician was considered a recognized expert, it is permitted for one to be healed by him” (b. Avodah Zarah 27a).
This highlights the fear, mistrust and open hostility between Jews and non-Jews in Mishnaic times. But there also seems to be two parallel narratives voiced in these Talmudic rulings. One is a theological concern, and the other is politically motivated:
“[T]hese restrictions did not stem only from a conflict between monotheism and polytheism. The gentiles presumed in sages’ texts were not only the advocates of an objectionable theology but the rapacious Roman occupying power with whom the Jews were also in a protracted struggle for political independence” (Shemesh 2018:110).
Post-Talmudic period
After the fall of the Roman Empire in 476, the post-Talmudic rabbis began to reappraise the situation, although they did not always speak with one voice. Some permitted the treatment of Gentiles, but only on a professional basis and for a fee. Ironically, as the rabbi’s views on treating gentiles were lightening up, a law materially forbidding Jews from treating Christians was enacted by Pope Eugenius IV in 1431. This was not just a once-off decree because it was endorsed by Nicholas V in 1447 and reinforced by Paul IV in 1555. Jews were also forbidden from studying medicine at the universities.
“The Ottoman Sultans not only allowed Jewish and Marrano immigrants to profess their religion but, unlike many Christian rulers in Europe, also permitted the physicians among them to treat non-Jewish patients. Moreover, the Muslim Sultans asked them to serve as court doctors” (Shemesh 2018:124).
It is interesting to note that throughout mediaeval times, in both Christian and Muslim societies, the patients preferred to be treated by their own religious medical practitioners rather than certified and university-trained secular doctors. In Islam, many chose their indigenous healers with religious training, particularly in prophetic medicine. In Christian Europe, medical services were provided by monks.
Which Gentiles are deemed closer to Monotheism?
R. Menachem haMeiri (1249-1306) deems Christians and Muslims to be bound by the dictates of biblical monotheism [See Kotzk Blog: 112) THE MEIRI TEXTS - LOST OR IGNORED?]. Maimonides (1138-1204), on the other hand, maintains that Muslims are closer to Judaism and monotheism than Christianity. The Radbaz (R. David ibn Avi Zimra, 1479-1573) ruled that Islam is idolatry. These differences would affect whether or not a Jewish doctor would (under earlier Talmudic law) be permitted to treat members of these two faiths.
As a rule, the later rabbis generally permitted providing medical treatment to Muslims. Maimonides’ view on this matter becomes very nuanced. In his Mishneh Torah, Maimonides rules sharply that:
“we are instructed neither to save the gentiles (goyim) from death nor to cause them to die” (Hilchot Milah 3:7).
Yet, we know that Maimonides indeed treated Muslims in his medical practice. He famously writes:
“When I return to Egypt [= Cairo] after half a day […] I find all the balconies full of gentiles, important people and non-important people, judges and officers. The masses know the time of my return to the city […] I bear the burden of treating the gentiles” (The Letters of Maimonides, Itzhak Shilat, ed., vol. 2, 550–552).
Maimonides is enigmatic in so much of his writings. When it came to treating non-Jews, he acted differently from what he had written in his Mishneh Torah. He wrote about the strict requirements of martyrdom during religious persecution, but in practice, he issued more lenient guidelines to Jews in such positions in his Iggeret haShmad to the Jews of North Africa. He also wrote that Jews should never live in Egypt, yet he clearly lived and worked in Egypt himself. He wrote that it is forbidden to read the books of the heretics, yet in his Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed), he admits to reading such literature.
R. Yoseph Karo (1488-1575), in his Kesef Mishneh commentary on the Mishneh Torah, maintains that Maimonides believed that the rabbinical prohibition against treating non-Jews had expired, as it only applied to the idolaters who lived during Talmudic times (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:2). However, in his Shulchan Aruch, R. Karo does not permit a Jewish midwife to assist a non-Jewish woman (Kutit=Samaritan—interpreted in this case as any gentile woman) in labour on Shabbat, even if it doesn’t involve the desecration of the Shabbat. Commenting on this, R. Avraham Abele Gombiner (known as the Magen Avraham, 1633-1683) writes that it is not permitted to treat Yishmaelim (Muslims), but it is permitted to treat Karaites (although they desecrate rabbinic law) (Orah Chaim, siman 330, 4-5).
Rabbi Chaim Vital (1543-1620), who was also a physician, describes a protective talisman to be worn during epidemics and cautions that its secret should not be revealed to non-Jews.
Not all rabbis agreed with these approaches, and the Italian rabbi, Yishmael Hacohen Modena (1724–1811), for example, wrote that these laws are insulting and would only provoke the animosity of the non-Jews who would believe that Jews considered them to be less than human (Responsa Zera Emet, III, Orach Chaim 32, on Hilchot Shabbat 301, 40:1).
R. Chaim Benveniste (1603-1673), an important rabbi from Izmir, Turkey, wrote that the prohibition of treating non-Jewish patients has expired for the same reason that it was intended solely to apply to idolaters. But he added that a ‘Torgami’—a Muslim of Turkish origin—could never be considered an idolater because Muslims practice monotheism. He wrote this in response to a question as to whether or not a Jewish midwife could assist a ‘Torgami woman’ giving birth on Shabbat. He added a proviso, however, that no activity may be performed that would desecrate the Shabbat.
Some scholars, like Amnon Cohen (1982:189),[2] explain that the inferior status of Jews under Muslim rule was the reason for Halachic authorities in Muslin lands to be more lenient in this regard. This was because if Jewish doctors did not respond to the Muslim population—or even if they made mistakes—repercussions would be brought to bear on the entire Jewish community.
Theory versus practice
Up to this point, we have looked at some of the theory behind the very difficult notion of not treating certain groups of people as prescribed in some of the classical literature. Fortunately, as is often the case in all law, there is a distinction between theory and practice on this matter, too.
It must be noted that, over the past centuries, European Halachic decisors have generally permitted the treatment of non-Jews on Shabbat—even if this required the desecration of the Shabbat. The reasons range from humanitarianism to the pragmatic fear that non-Jewish physicians might also refrain from treating Jews, in protest.
“The historical reality is certainly compatible with the widespread dispensation to treat non-Jews…The Responsa literature includes a fairly wide range of discussions dealing with halakhic questions submitted to rabbis by Jewish physicians concerning treatment of non-Jews. Interestingly, in these discussions the rabbis refer to the treatment of non-Jews as self-evident and do not refer to or comment on any prohibition, a fact that indicates the prevalence of the dispensation to treat non-Jews.” (Shemesh 2018:124).
Certainly, in our times, Jewish doctors can be seen throughout the world proudly and professionally treating all people of all faiths and hues. This is one of the principles of the Hippocratic Oath:
“Whatsoever house I may enter, my visit shall be for the convenience and advantage of the patient; and I will willingly refrain from doing any injury or wrong from falsehood, and (in an especial manner) from acts of an amorous nature, whatever may be the rank of those who it may be my duty to cure, whether mistress or servant, bond or free.”
The modern version of the Oath has been revised to read:
“I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient.”
One of the blessings of modern times is that Jews are no longer prohibited from treating non-Jews, and non-Jews are no longer prohibited from treating Jews. Although regretfully, there have been cases where some complications and disruptions have arisen, for the most part, an overarching fairness prevails.
Messianic ‘rulings’
In any body of religious literature, it is one thing to have an ambiguous precedent that can be applied or distorted when the practitioners feel the time is appropriate—but it is quite another when such decisions are fuelled by a sense of messianism.
A modern day version of such a ‘perfect storm’ can be found in the recently published ‘Halachic’ guidebook, ‘Torat haMelech’ (2009/2016)—which among other highly controversial rulings: places hostages at a distinct disadvantage (ch. 3); permits attacking targets at the risk of killing innocent civilians (ch. 5); and permits the killing of children "if they will grow up to harm us" (ch. 6) [see: 457) “Religion – the greatest cause of wars” (Gersonides) and Kotzk Blog: 507) The rise of contemporary Religious-Zionism]. It must be noted that many rabbis condemned Torat haMelech, saying it did not conform to Jewish law, but the controversy remains because others endorsed it. Obviously, not all Religious-Zionists subscribe to such ideas, but some elements do.
R. Avraham Baruch haRofeh
An earlier extreme example of this ‘perfect storm’ of textual precedent, lived experience and messianism, can be found in the Responsa (She’eilot uTeshuvot) of R. Chaim Benveniste. In 1665, the Sabbatian doctor, R. Avraham Baruch haRofeh, asked R. Chaim Benveniste if Jewish physicians were permitted to kill gentiles by administering dangerous drugs or to kill them indirectly by withholding medical treatment:
“Query: May our Rabbi teach us whether doctors who treat gentiles, Ishmaelites [=Muslims], Arelim [=uncircumcised, Christians], and Amalekites are permitted to give them terufot negdiyot [=counter medicines; medical compounds containing toxins that were used to cure snake bites and the like but could also cause death] so that they die, or to at least withhold treatment so that they die, or is all of this prohibited” (R. Chaim Benveniste, Responsa Baye Chaye, Yoreh De’ah 177, 129b).
The volatile fusion of textual precedent and fervent messianic expectation that served to underpin R. Avraham Baruch’s query must not be lost on us. This was one year before Shabbatai Tzvi was to manifest as the Messiah—and the vast majority of Jews, respected rabbis and Kabbalists believed that to be the case. This was at the peak of the greatest Jewish messianic movement in Jewish history.
“Abraham Baruch, appointed by Shabbetai Zvi as ‘king of Portugal,’ was descended from Portuguese crypto-Jews, and some of his family continued to live as crypto-Jews in France…[H]is hatred for gentiles in general and for Christians in particular was caused by his own life experience and by his messianic zeal. It is not surprising that such a man, who believed that the messiah had arrived and would redeem Israel and avenge its enemies, wanted to be an active part of that process” (Shemesh 2018:127).
In his response to R. Avraham Baruch, R. Chaim Benveniste summarised how he understood the Halacha to be in such cases. These were his findings:
1) According to R. Joseph Caro and others, one may withhold treatment from a gentile and even cause his death by administering counter-medicines, although this is optional and not a religious duty.
2) According to R. Yoel Sirkis (1561-1640)—known as the Bach after his work, Bayit Chadash—it is never permitted to cause the death of a non-Jew, even by inaction.
3) According to R. David haLevi Segal (c.1586-1667) —known as the Taz after his work, Turei Zahav—it is forbidden to kill a gentile directly, such as by administration of poison, but it is permitted to do so indirectly by inaction or by withholding treatment.
Because of these contradictory rulings, R. Chaim Benveniste recommends a ‘balanced’ approach:
“If the gentile is a person who harms Jews, it is permitted to harm him, even directly, in the guise of medical treatment. On the other hand, if the gentile does not harm Jews, there is no obligation to harm him and it is better not to do so, even indirectly” (Shemesh 2018:128).
Analysis
We have looked at some disquieting rulings that are not often discussed. Some of these rulings should, perhaps, be viewed within the context of mediaeval and pre-modern times, where this type of thinking was prevalent—and indeed practised reciprocally—in all societies. We have also noted how the consensus of more modern rabbinic opinion has moved diametrically away from the practical application of such ideas.
It is important to confront these discomforting issues,
especially in a cultural environment where popular messianism is (once again)
on the rise, and there is the danger of romanticising the type of messianic immunity
as exemplified by R. Avraham Baruch. This resurgence invites perilous
temptations to resurrect long-abandoned textual precedents, which history and
rabbinic prudence have already carefully worked out of the practical discourse.
Just as no serious Halachic authority would advocate for the revival of
public stoning for Shabbat desecrators—despite clear textual support—so
too should caution prevail in other areas as well.
[1]
Shemesh, A. O., 2018, ‘“I bear the burden of treating the gentiles”: Jewish
Halakhic Authorities’ Attitudes towards Treating Muslims in the 12th–18th
Centuries’, The Review of Rabbinic Judaism, no. 21, 108–133.
[2]
Cohen, A., 1982, Jews under the Rule of Islam, the Jerusalem Community in
the Early Ottoman Period, Yad Itzhak ben Zvi, Jerusalem. [Hebrew].
No comments:
Post a Comment