While walking through a Modern Orthodox institution recently, I was
chatting to a colleague who noticed I was holding a copy of the book; ‘To Heal
a Fractured World’, by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Being a great admirer of
Rabbi Sacks, I was rather taken aback when he asked why I was reading such
‘controversial literature’. Intrigued to find out what was so contentious about
the man, I discovered that in 2003, Rabbi Sacks was pressured into retracting
and deleting sections of his book; ‘The Dignity of Difference’.
Apparently, his own Beth Din said that parts of the book were “inconsistent
with basic Jewish beliefs.” And Rabbi Elyashiv said it was “contrary to our
faith in the Holy Torah”, and was unfit to be brought into the home.
What did Rabbi Sacks say that brought about such scathing attacks?
In the ‘censored’ version, he wrote; “G-d is universal, religions
are particular...G-d has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism
to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims... G-d is greater than
religion...He is only partially comprehended by any faith...He exists in my
faith, but also in yours.”
The sentence; “No one creed has a monopoly on spiritual truth”, has been
deleted.
Some felt that he had gone too far in accepting the ‘validity’ of other
religions.
I can understand why some felt he had gone too far. There are some major
and fundamental differences between Judaism and other faiths. Many of these
differences are theologically and philosophically irreconcilable.
However, as an intellectual exercise, and in the interest of freedom of
(Torah) expression, take a look at some very different perspectives on other
religions, by some of our leading rabbinical thinkers.
 |
| The Rambam |
THE RAMBAM’S VIEW ON OTHER RELIGIONS:
Rabbi Moshe Maimonides (1135-1204) writes that in general, both Christianity and Islam pave the way for universal acceptance of
Mashiach. As a result of the
emergence of both these religions; “the world has become full of the ideas of
Mashiach, Torah and commandments, which have spread to distant lands and
nations.”[1]
Notwithstanding this broad and sweeping statement, the Rambam considers Christianity to be a form of Idolatry. He says this in a
number of different places[2],
and is quite outspoken in his reference their houses of worship as “pagan
houses of worship without any doubt”.
His view on Islam is very different; “The Ishmaelites are not idol
worshippers at all and they worship the singular G-d properly and without
blemish.”[3] As a consequence of this view, Jews and Muslims have often shared the
same houses of worship.
Then, in a surprising and dramatic turn around, the Rambam adds a
caveat: When it comes to social and religious interaction with members of both
faiths, he says; “It is permitted to teach the commandments to Christians and
to attract them to our religion, while one should not do the same with
Ishmaelites.” This is because Christians accepted the authority of
the Torah and never denied its authenticity. Whereas Muslims, he says, although their books describe the giving of
the Torah to the Jews, consider every point of difference between them and Jews
to be a either a falsification of, or mistakes in, textual transmission on the
part of the Jews, and that they (the Muslims) indeed have the correct
tradition.
The Rambam’s view is clear albeit rather paradoxical: Christianity is
Idolatry. Islam is Monotheistic. Yet, theologically, Christians may be engaged
with in preference to Muslims because of their acceptance of the basic
authority of the Torah. Yet overall, both are indispensable in terms of core
principles and preparation for Mashiach.
Concerning his oft quoted and oft misunderstood statement that “the
pious of the nations have a share in the world to come” - this is only when they declare their commitment to uphold the seven
Noachide laws[4] before a Jewish Beit Din.[5] This, not being a common practice, puts a very different pragmatic spin
on the popular perception of this famous statement, and is indicative of the
Rambam’s uncompromising stance on the matter.
RASHBA:
The Rashba[6] , holding a similar view to the Rambam, says that Moslems are not idol worshippers, but; “all other gentiles are
considered to be idol worshippers”
THE MEIRI:
Rabbi Menachem Ha Meiri (1249-1315)[7],
on the other hand has probably the most radically liberal view on Christianity
and Islam that is to be found in all of Torah literature. He posits that the notion of idolatry has
absolutely disappeared from society (barring what he
refers to as some fringes or ‘extremities’ of civilization). Idolatry, in his
view has essentially become extinct, and replaced by more developed religions, with Christianity and Islam both falling under the broad banner of
monotheistic religions. He refers to them as ‘umot ha-gedurot
be-darcei ha-datot’, or ‘nations restricted by ways of religion’, as opposed to
the idolaters of old who thrived on total anarchy.[8]
Jewish law does contain several references to inequality between Jews
and non-Jews. For example; If a Jew’s animal damages the property of a Gentile,
the Jew is not liable. But if a Gentile’s animal damages the property of a Jew,
the Gentile is liable. According to the Meiri, the ‘non-Jews’ in such examples
of asymmetry in Jewish law, are specifically the ancient idolaters, who lost
their rights to be protected by the very laws they sought to undermine. He says of the ancient pagans; “All these people possess no
religion and submit to the fear of no divinity”. Contemporary Gentiles,
however, were to be treated no different from Jews, because their religions
gave them a sense of law and order.
He continues; “Discriminatory rules such as this were instituted in
times when those Gentiles were devout in their idolatry. But now their idolatry
has come to an end in most places, and there is accordingly no need to be
stringent with them as in the old regulations.”[9]
In a similar vein, the Meiri offers a remarkable explanation in his
commentary to a text in the Gemora; “A Notzri (Christian) may not be traded with”. He says; “This refers (not to
Christians but) to the (idolatrous) nation of Nevuchadnetzer , the Babylonian King.”[10]
Commenting on the Gemora in Bava Kama, he says; “All the people who are
of the nations that are restricted by the ways of their religion and worship
the divinity in any way, even if their faith is far from ours, are excluded from
the principle of inequality. Rather, they are like full-fledged Jews
with respect to these matters, with no distinction whatsoever.”[11]
Regarding the mitzvah of returning lost property, which only has to be
performed to “your brother”[12],
and not to Gentiles, the Meiri says; “The reference is to everyone who is
‘restricted by the ways of their religion’.”[13] Accordingly, the Meiri regards contemporary non-Jews to fall under the category of
‘achicha’, your brother, and ‘re’ehu’, your peer.
Again, commenting on Bava Kama, he says; “All those who follow the seven
laws of Noah are treated in our courts as we are treated in theirs, and we do
not accord ourselves favourable treatment. It goes without saying that the same
applies to nations restricted by ways of their religion.”[14] Amazingly, here the Meiri seems to regard contemporary non-Jews as having a higher
status than those who merely observe the seven Noachide laws.
As demonstrated, the Meiri differs spectacularly from the view of the
Rambam. So much so that some simply couldn't accept his radically tolerant
outlook and insisted that he wrote these commentaries
specifically for the censors in order to appease the non-Jews. The Chatam Sofer[15],
for example, wrote about a Meiri text; “It is a mitzvah to wipe it out, for it
did not emerge from his holy mouth.”[16] The implication here is not just that
the Meiri wrote to appease non-Jews but that his views on that
issue were outright forgeries.
The interesting thing though is that the Chatam Sofer never gave any
reasons for his sweeping statement[17].
And he never saw the writings of the Meiri on Bava Kama first hand, because he
only quoted them through secondary sources (such as the Shita Mekubetzet in the
above example). Also, he couldn't have been familiar with the Meiri on Avodah
Zara (where the “nations bound by religion” concept was formulated), because it
was only published in 1944, more than 100 years after his passing. Yet,
notwithstanding all this, from then on, the views of the Meiri
regarding non-Jews lost much of their credibility.[18]
 |
| R Moshe Isserless |
RAMO:
Rabbi Moshe Isserless[19] explains that in Jewish Law, the Trinity is considered to be “Shituff” or “partnering” G-d with another being. For a Jew, “Shituff” would be absolutely forbidden. The question is whether or not it is forbidden for a non-Jew. The poskim (halachik authorities) are divided on this issue. As we have
seen, the Rambam holds that it is forbidden even to a non-Jew, to the extent
that if he practices “Shituff”, he is considered an idolater. The Ramo, however
takes a different view. He maintains that partnering G-d with
another being is permitted to non-Jews.[20]
 |
| The Maharal of Prague |
MAHARAL OF PRAGUE:
The Maharal[21],
taking a similar tack, writes; “Anyone who accepts upon himself to
worship the First Cause, falls into the category of a ‘ger
toshav’[22] (a resident stranger), who is not discriminated against by the laws (as in Bava Kama 4,3).”
BE’ER HAGOLAH:
In a similar vein, R Moshe Rivkes[23],
commentating on the Shulchan Aruch, says that the discriminatory laws were only directed towards the “idolaters of earlier
times, who believed in neither the Exodus from Egypt nor Creation ex nihilo.
But concerning contemporary gentiles...since they believe in the Exodus,
Creation ex nihilo, and other fundamentals (these laws do not apply), since
their intent is to the Creator.”
 |
| R Zvi Hirsch Chayes |
TIFERET LE'YISRAEL
One of the first rabbinic authorities to actually acknowledge the Meiri
as a source text, was R Zvi Hirsch Chayes[24].
Fascinatingly, he is the only commentator in the Vilna Shass to hold a Ph.D. He
writes; “Christians, who believe in religion...Torah from Heaven and in the
existence of G-d, are absolutely regarded by us as ‘gerim toshavim’, and the seven Noachide laws are built into both Christian and Moslem legal
systems.”[25]
TORAH TEMIMAH
About fifty years later, the Torah Temimah[26] writes that the discriminatory laws;
“...do not apply to those nations who observe the seven Noachide laws, and
these are most of the contemporary nations, which are regarded as Jews in regard to these matters.”[27]
RAMACH:
R Chalfon Moshe HaCohen[28] ruled that; “The bans[29] only applied to the idolatrous
nations of ancient times. But today, when idolatry has ceased to exist in
almost all parts of the world, and all the Gentile nations
believe in the Creator...we make no distinction with regard to Jew and Gentile
in these matters.”
 |
| R Avraham Yitzchak HaKohden Kook |
CHIEF RABBI AVRAHAM YITZCHAK HAKOHEN KOOK:
The first Askenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, declared that Moslems and
Christians living in a Jewish society, are to be treated as ‘gerim toshavim’,
with full civil liberties, just like Jews.[30] He wrote; “The fundamental view is
the Meiri’s. Nations bound by descent customs
between man and his fellow, should be considered ‘gerim toshavim’.[31]
According to a 10th Century text from Tanna De'Vei Eliyahu (ch 9); "I call heaven and earth to witness that whether man or woman, whether servant or maidservant, whether Gentile or Jew, the Holy Spirit rests upon a person according to his deed".
According to a 10th Century text from Tanna De'Vei Eliyahu (ch 9); "I call heaven and earth to witness that whether man or woman, whether servant or maidservant, whether Gentile or Jew, the Holy Spirit rests upon a person according to his deed".
CONCLUSION:
It is well known that throughout our history, some sensitive texts had
to be emended because it was feared that the original texts would fuel anti-Semitism. However, no absolute certainty exists
as to exactly which texts were emended. We have taken a look at many texts spanning a period of almost a
thousand years. Some may have been written for ‘appeasement’. But by the same token, some must have been the authors genuine
interpretations.
If one does accept the authority of even just some of these texts, the
questions beg;
Would our modern day ‘censors’ who confronted Rabbi Sacks, similarly
want all these texts to be retracted retroactively?
Would these views also be branded as “inconsistent with basic Jewish
beliefs” and unfit to be brought into the home?
Submitting to the fact that our traditional opinions on other religions
do differ significantly and dramatically, surely we must also submit that they
all still exist within the broad framework of Torah thinking. One could find
many reasons to take umbrage to what Rabbi Sacks wrote. But one could also,
surely, make an argument that the Chief Rabbi was drawn to his way of thinking,
by much textual precedent.
I can also understand, as Rabbi Norman Bernhard used to say, that;
“There is salvation outside of the synagogue.” He told me he chose the term
‘salvation’ deliberately, because of its non-Jewish connotation. Non-Jews have
no need for Judaism and can and should perfectly function within their own
belief systems. If another religion is relevant to another creed, why can that religion not be valid for THEM?
In this sense, could one not also understand the context and tenor of
the Chief Rabbi’s pre-censored statements - remembering that he was
communicating with an international readership, including people of diverse
creeds, many of whom respectfully consider him to be a leading thinker of our
times?
He was speaking as a representative of Judaism to the widest of
audiences, and was taking full advantage of his honed ability to wax lyrical.
In the final analysis, considering that Rabbi Sacks was speaking
Hashkafa (theological philosophy), writing to ‘appease’, to create tolerance in
an age of intolerance, and not to formulate or pasken Halacha (religious
legalities) - was his
punishment not perhaps a little disproportionate to his ‘crime’?
[4] These seven laws are: The prohibitions of committing murder, idolatry,
theft, incest, blasphemy, cruelty to animals, and the injunction to establish
civil court of law.
[7] The Me’iri is one of the most monumental commentators on the Talmud.
Yet, interestingly, his work was largely unknown until recent times. This is
why its influence has been rather minimalised because it was left out of the
halachic process. Some authorities, although having great respect for him, will
not rely on his teachings because of this.
[17] See Kotzk Blog 48) ‘Contemporary Daas Torah’; where (unlike traditional
halachic rulings), according to the Daas Torah concept, no explanations are
necessary.
[18] Even the the Chatam Sofer Institute which published the Responsa
Anthology (1973), while quoting our abovementioned statement, added in a note;
“The words of our master ‘It did not emerge from his holy mouth’, are puzzling,
for the Meiri explicitly stated this view numerous times in his works.”
[20] Darchei Moshe 2 on Orach Chayim 156. (However see Nodah BeYehuda, who
says the Ramo holds that worshiping ‘beshituff’ is forbidden to a non-Jew.)
[22] An interesting halachik conundrum, however, is created when a gentile is
considered to be a ‘ger toshav’- because the prohibition against intermarriage
with them would shift from a Torah prohibition, to that of a rabbinic
prohibition. This of course would be halachically untenable, (unless the
distinction is made that a gentile is a ‘ger toshav’ only with regard to the
discriminatory laws, but not with regard to intermarriage, which would remain a
Torah prohibition.)
[24] Author of Tiferet LeYisrael, 1805-1855. Rabbi Berel Wein calls him the R
Samson Rafael Hirsch of Eastern Europe, and says he was; “simultaneously a talmid chacham and secular scholar. He aimed to fight
the haskala with its own weapons, but because of his time and place, he came
under suspicion as a maskil himself. The tragic story of this misunderstood
genius is the eternal story of the Jewish people, struggling to walk the
tightrope between Torah and modernity.”
[26] R Baruch HaLevi Epstein 1860-1941, a bookkeeper by profession, and
author of the Torah Temimah commentary to the Torah and Five Megilot.
[28] 1874-1950.A leading rabbi of the island of Djerba in Tunisia. In 1943 the Nazis came to Tunisia, and demanded
that Rabbi Moshe collect 50 kilos of gold in three and a half hours and hand it
over to them; otherwise they would bomb the Jewish communities of Djerba and
Tunis. The next day the Allies conquered Tunisia and the Nazis were gone from
Tunisia. The gold that the Jews managed to collect was not handed
to the Germans. He was a great Zionist and hatched a plan to establish a League of Nations and a World
Court, both of which would have their headquarters in Jerusalem.
[29] These refer to not having to return a Gentile’s lost articles and not
having to return funds overpaid in monetary transactions.
