Some BTs have backgrounds where pejorative words like goy and goyim in reference to non Jews were not a part of their vocabulary. In their new communities these words are used more frequently sometimes coming out of the mouths of Rebbe’s, Morahs and Rebbeim. Another challenge is that we sometimes want to distance our children from non-Jewish practices and we may be tempted to use a negative term to show the intensity of our dislike of these practices.
Do you refer to non-Jews in more negative ways since becoming a BT?
If you’ve still don’t use the pejorative words, what do you do when your children use them?
If you’re comfortable using these words, do you think it would be a Kiddush Hashem or a Chillul Hashem if your non-Jewish friends, neighbors and workers knew that you referred to them in such a fashion?
First published August 26, 2008
There’s nothing wrong with the words “goy” and “goyim”, since as others have stated, their connotations are neutral. If the word “goy” is used in a pejorative way, that’s a problem with the usage, not a problem with the word itself.
Personally I would say “non-Jew”, but then I generally try to avoid the unnecessary use of Hebrew words in English communication.
I disagree with Mr. Cohen because “goy” as used in conversation is nearly always pejorative.
As for Tanya, asserting that there is no room for interpretation based on context (or whatever) is a big stretch. Maybe Lubavitchers hold that way, but they are, after all, the Alter Rebbe’s disciples.
Mr. Cohen,
You’re not the one on the receiving end; you’re not in a position to determine whether or not the term, given a context and given a recipient, is or is not offensive. I make a point of having nothing to do with Jews who fling that particular word (or some of the coarser variants) around as though it were merely an inoccuous preposition).
Simple BT,
A thousand AMENs to you for flagging that aspect of the Tanya for what it is. Back when I was only a year and a half into Torah Judaism, I took a college course (taught by a local frum kiruv rav) on the Tanya. When we got to that part of it I asked for an elucidation: is that part to be understood literally? To be understood as holy writ? To be placed on a par with Tanakh and Mishnah and Gemarah? Or to be placed in the context of the Russian Empire in which it was written?
The rav in question insisted that Tanya is 100% literal and applies categorically, regardless of context.
Well, today–in the spirit of being open minded even to texts that heap slanderous refuse on my own family, I have a copy of the Tanya (Steinsaltz’s 3 English commentary volumes). But when I read passages in that book or any other about how certain folks are or are not capable of selfless acts, all I know for certain is that G-d has made it pretty scathingly obvious in my life that plenty of gentiles are absolutely capable of fully selfless conduct (I owe everything I am and everything I have–including my love for Torah Judaism– to the selfless acts of folks who happen not to be Jewish) and there are a disappointing number of Jews in this world who, whatever potential G-d may have imbued them with, would still be incapable of locating an altruistic impulse even if it was dropped on them like an anvil from the sky.
The word goy is NOT PEJORATIVE!
The non jews all know the term Goy and Goyim, they think its a negative term for sure. here is one example I encountered, which shocked me a bit… I was in a van with a group of colleagues on a biz trip, I had to put Teffilin on and so I did it in the van, as I have done before in front of the same colleagues. this time, after I took of the teffilin, one of the guys in the van said, “hey can I see that box thing that you have?” before I could utter a word, one of the other guys in the van said, in a joking manner, “Do you think he’s going to let a Goy like you touch his kosher box” they all laughed at this remark, but It felt weird to think that the non jews know the term and that they believe that we Jews look down at them as being lower than we are, or at least this is what they have been conditioned to think…
albeit, that if any non jew read any of our books, like the Tanya, their conditioned notions would be reinforced and strengthened.
Gary,
Thanks for your last two posts that provide some feedback to my earlier comments. I don’t have time to respond right now, but I wanted to let you know that I read them.
Take care,
Michoel
“And there are times, for example when my 8 year old is thrilled that a relative bought him a baseball jersey with the name of some famous gentile on the back, that I will tell him that this person is a “goy†and in all likelihood, he is not a person worthy of emulation.”
Professional athletes come in all religions and in all degrees of emulation-worthiness.
If one is okay with his son being interested in sports, then that person should do some research and find athletes (and there are some Jews among them) who have distinguished themselves in charitable actions. One can encourage one’s son to root for these athletes on and off the field.
If one prefers that his son not be interested in sports, one can inform the child of his parents’ preference that the son engages in Torah studies and mitzvah performance. It can be explained to him that this is a more constructive use of time than following sports.
I don’t think that one advances the cause of Torah observance by using a less than complimentary term to dismiss someone who many actually be a fine person of a different background.
“If a BT is a very hung up nervous, liberal, using a few choice pejoratives might be the best possible medicine for him!”
Is there a halachically correct political viewpoint that we baalei teshuvah need to learn?
On some issues I am a law and order conservative. On others I am a bleeding heart liberal. I do not feel that either point is advanced by using hateful speech to define my political “adversary” or any third party.
I am working very hard to eliminate racial, ethnic and other slurs, along with other perjoratives, from my vocabulary. We should all take it upon ourselves to do so, as part of our mission to be a light unto the nations.
Hi Michoel,
Nope. Those words weren’t meant for you specifically. I did reread your posts and knew that you had specifically said you didn’t do that.
Sorry that this wasn’t clear.It is hard sometimes to balance responding to specific comments as well as to making a more general point.
Best
Skeptical,
I saw some of the mekoros in the Meiri and Rav Kook in translation. I saw that some major acharonim suggested that the Meiri wrote what he did because of Church censors. That theory makes a degree of sense but at the same time I am skeptical (with a lower case s :-)). Why weren’t other G’dolim of the period concerned about the church censors? The Meiri expressed his shita in a number of places, as you demonstrated. He could have written it once or twice. Also, b’chlal, to suggest that a Rishon intentionally changed the intent of Chazal is very shver. Unless he felt that the risks of not doing so would mamash be a sakanas nefashos (which is entirely possible).
OK, whatever we are going to say in the Meiri, I am happy to leave this question as follows: The overall tendency of earlier and later m’forshim is that the issur of lo s’chaneim applies to all non-Jews that were not m’kabel shivas mitzvos bnei noach, and is nogea b’zman hazeh. There are clearly some poskim of recent times that allow one to praise moral non-Jews so one that wants to rely on them cannot be criticized. But to demand that this is now the normative halacha for klal Yisrael would require a great deal more support.
(and of course, each person should ask their own Rav)
Eric,
I’m not sure if your words at the end of post 149 regarding the G word were intended for me in particular. As I mentioned somewhere above, I do not use or advocate using the G word, in general. As often happens in blogs, related topics get chulented together sometimes.
Hatzlacha Raba
And Michoel, . . . re: a Gadol saying something I disagree with. While my first (and very human) instinct may be to believe I am in the right, I make no leap to conclude that he is wrong, and I am right, or vice versa, although like you say, I’ll lean towards suspecting either that I’m mistaken or I’m misunderstanding the Gadol’s view. Instead I seek to understand his view, seek to learn similar, or contrary views held by others, and I also seek to understand, iron out, and adjust my own view if required. I defer when I’m shown to be wrong, or when the preponderance of Halachic/Rabinnic Jewish opinion says I’m wrong, and yet I still don’t understand why. I feel myself under no obligation though to automatically and immediately defer to rabbi, reputation, majority, or tradition without due analysis and evaluation. If I felt being observant meant dispensing with critical thought, I wouldn’t be here.
Thanks again for the respectful dialogue.
Hi Michoel and Shunamit,
Thank you for your feedback.
M -I think discord and pain are certainly very crucial factors in determining what is moral, though not the sole ones.
Even if Men are commanded to have a child whereas women are not, and thus polygamy would be one way to fulfill this in the absence of a fruitful marriage, there is also a dispensation/concession/permission for a man and a wife to divorce for this reason. But for you to frame polygamy in this way is already to frame it as a permitted expedient, rather than an ideal -as a good thing. It sounds like a man has options, not commands. I think it is disingenuous to say that you’re not so sure it isn’t commanded. It isn’t.
Re: tzitis and other such non-commanded but commendable/desirable things: the fact is that we distinguish between things that are commanded and things that aren’t. Not everything that isn’t commanded is automatically bad -it just hasn’t been elevated to the highest level. But somethings in this mutar (permitted/tolerated) category are better or worse than other things. To compare polygamy and tzitzis is to compare apples and oranges.
I want to clarify that I wasn’t calling polygamy “immoral,” only saying that it wasn’t “moral.” -which is something quite different.
(If I seem to repeat things in the lines that follow, I’m just trying to be as clear as can be.)
In my prior post (93) I defined those terms the following way, “Hashem commands that which is Good (Moral) and forbids that which is Bad (Immoral); He permits or tolerates that which is neither wholly good nor bad; and heavily regulates and sets limiting conditions for that which is intrinsically bad, but which He has decided to permit (such as slavery or multiple wives), likely as a concession to human weakness. There is a final category: that which is intrinsically bad, but which Hashem commands, and thus, by virtue of Hashem’s commanding it, becomes good. The Akeidah –the sacrifice of Isaac, is the prime example of this. Kierkegaard calls this the “Divine suspension of the Ethicalâ€
Now admittedly I called polygamy “intrinsically bad,” but that was only in the state of things before Hashem regulated and permitted it: when done under G-d’s rules, it is no longer the same practice. It is solidly in the category of “permitted/tolerated/accepted” which means that it can’t be immoral. If it was immoral, it would be forbidden. If it was moral it would be commanded. So when I wrote that it was “clearly not good” I was saying it clearly wasn’t commanded, not that it was evil. And as observed above, I negelected to include a category within the neutral zone for things like wearing a four-cornered garment, that are considered worthy things though not obligatory.
So polygamy under G-d’s law is not intrinsically bad, but not moral either. It is in some in-between category. All one can be certain of is that it isn’t a true “good,” in the absence of being commanded.
The difficulty in discussing morality, is a lack of subtlety in terminology. We throw around terms like good, bad, moral, and immoral too freely. There is a moral middle ground between ultimate good and outright evil, and there are distinctions within this middle ground.
When I was secular, long before I was a theist or an Orthodox Jew, I developed a tool I called “The Moral Grayscale” to more precisely identify the moral quality of an action. Though it is imperfect, and imprecise, it works pretty well from a Jewish moral world view too.
The short version is this (and I realize this is already a lengthy post -sorry.): there are six general gradated tiers of morality that I identified. I distinguish between the moral (the highest level -corresponding with pure white on the gray scale.), the ethical, the responsible, the irresponsible, the unethical, and the immoral (corresponding with black on the gray scale, -emphatically with no racial connotations.) And just like an artist’s gray scale, the boundaries aren’t always easy to delineate but each tier is a distinct identifiable shade.
So while, as noted above, Hashem commands the moral and forbids the immoral, how humans actually reach for the moral, is something different, and invariably less than perfect.
In brief, for a human deed to be perfectly moral, it would have to be done with pure intent to do Hashem’s will; for the right motivation; to only want to do good, and to do no harm, the means would have to only be good and cause no harm, and the actual ends or consequences of the act would have to be perfectly good in all realms as well. Obviously
only Hashem is good, and humans are bound to fall short or perfect Good, so few human deeds are perfectly moral. (If a seemingly harmful or immoral deed has been commanded by Hashem, of course, like with the Akeidah, it ought to be obeyed, and can’t in actuality be bad. Short of Hashem’s command though, that which is moral is almost invariably non-harmful to any party.)
For something to be ethical, it will be an act done with the aim of doing Hashem’s will (or in the absence of a Jewish theistic framework, done with the intent of doing the right thing, the most beneficial and the least harmful to all parties involved or affected) but done with a lesser degree of perfection of intent, motivation, means, and consequences. In the Jewish framework, it might well mean striving to meet the baseline Halachic standards, but not necessarily aspiring to transcend them, or aspiring bu failing. (Incidentally, “ethics” is Greek, and “morality” is Latin, and they’re often used interchangeably, but I felt that “moral” speaks to a higher standard. If someone tells me someone is ethical, I’ll think he or she’s a good, trustworthy person, but if someone tells me someone is moral, I’ll think that he or she goes beyond what can be expected.)
For something to be responsible on this gray scale, the aim won’t necessarily be to do something good, nor even necessarily to serve G-d, but one takes the consideration to avoid and minimize harm to self and others.
Sliding over onto the dark side of the scale, when something is (morally) irresponsible, the aim is usually the pursuit of pleasure, gain, or convenience where one didn’t do their due dilligence to consider or minimize the harm to self or others. But the intent wasn’t to explicitly do harm.
For the unethical, the intent is usually to benefit one’s self, or to avoid due harm, through means that are unlawful and harmful, with little will for actual good in either intent, motive, means, or consequence, and certainly, without regard or in blatant disregard of Hashem’s will.
For a deed to be perfectly immoral, from conception to execution, the intent, means, motive, and consequences need to be purely harmful and malicious, and completely against Hashem, and his Torah. Obviously, few people are ever perfectly immoral.
This is just a sketch of the system, but by avoiding the false either/or dichotomy of good and bad and moral and immoral, It allows us to more accurately use language to describe acts of moral import. This facilitates calmer discussions and greater understanding of ourselves and of others, and permits us to find more common ground by diminishing the intensity of disagreement via harsh and meaning-distorted language.
If we take the time to ask ourselves about our own motivations, intentions, means, and ends, and if we then use our answers to find a coordinate realm on the grayscale, we can realize that though we may be far from perfect, we may be doing better than we think, and we can see what we need to do to improve. How much better (and truer) to recognize ourselves as having been morally irresponsible than as having been immoral; and how much better to realize that though much of our lives are lived responsibly, or even ethically, that we still have a lot of room to improve, and thus cannot be content with our attainments. How much better when we don’t label someone we perceive as doing something wrong as “bad” or “immoral” or “unethical” but see that more likely, they don’t quite fit in that category and are really just being irresponsible.
When it comes to looking at things like polygamy though, if we look at them with the knowledge that because they aren’t commanded, they can’t be “moral” we certainly needn’t lament that fact that we don’t practice these things today. And we needn’t contort and distort our moral sensibilities to call polygamy “good,” no matter that our ancestors practiced it.
And similarly with the G word and the S words: in the absence of command, and in the absence of any apparent consensus from Rabbeim, and in the acute personal awareness that using such terms in dismissive and dehumanising ways is harmful and hurtful, we ought not to use them in such a fashion.
Further though, if we look at the derogatory use of the G word via the scale, and honestly evaluate our intent and motive for using it, and honestly look at the consequences of doing so, I think you’ll find that it at best falls in the morally irresponsible side of the scale, and possibly even further down.
Hope I haven’t bored you.
“if you HAD a brother, would he like noodles?â€
PLEASE tell us the punch line!
And Michoel – be careful how easily you mention that expiration date. We might soon find new-age frum colleges for training women in high tech and cleaning!!
Shunamit,
BTW, I believe the takana of Rabbenu Gershom was originally for 1,000 years so it should be just about batel. But please ask your Rav before doing anything radical! :-)
Maybe it doesn’t work well because it is not done by Jews, who know how to treat their wives.
The point of morality is an important one. How do we look at the Torah’s message? Is it eternal or is something that we need to modify?
Moral or immoral, it doesn’t seem to work well b’zmaneinu. Although I have heard personal accounts of edot ha-mizrach families which were polygynous, especially in the “old country” for the purpose of protecting the second wife, and I actually don’t remember any horror stories.
Besides herem d’Rabbeinu Gershom,this is starting to sound like the old joke, “Well, if you HAD a brother, would he like noodles?”
Hi Shunamit,
I am no way advocating polygamy. But I am insisting that it is not “immoral”. (Of course, it can be practiced in a way that is immoral but it is not fundamentally immoral in the sense of a woman having two husbands, or homosexuality. It is not a perversion.
Michoel–I’m using sociology and not sources here, but I from what I see of polygamy among my Moslem clientele, it is a major cause of strife. Also, inlike in the past, a single woman can live an independent life, support herself, etc. Likewise female orphans are provided for by other means than polygamy. Certainly polygamy is not nearly as financially viable in a non-agrarian society.
My husband and I have been joking for years about finding a “second wife” who makes a really good salary in hi-tech and loves to clean. Cherem d’Rabbeinu Gershon aside, I doubt she’d accept us.
Eric,
Thank you for taking the high road in this discussion. I am learning from you.
How to understand the seeming moral failings of our predecessors is big subject. But I tend to assume that things cannot be understood only according to the simple p’shat.
You write that polygamy is not commanded. But I’m not sure this is true. We are commanded to marry and have children. We are not commanded to specifically take more than one wife but one clearly can fulfill p’ru u’rvu by taking a second wife. One is not commanded to wear a garment with 4 corners so that he can fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis but we all understand that it is a very meritorious thing for a Jew to do.
“Great as our forefathers were, their multiple marriages caused them and their also great wives great discord and pain.”
Hey, I don’t know of ANYONE with ONE wife that doesn’t have some discord and pain! But I bet they had a lot of great joy and depth as well.
But either way, discord and pain are not factors in determining morality.
“One can be a great human being, wise and worthy of respect,… and still be deeply flawed at some level and make errors of moral judgement.”
Right, but the question is: If I see that a gadol is saying something that I strongly disagree with, is my first thought to assume the he is wrong, or is my first thought to suspect that I am wrong? Out entire mesora is based on the assumption that the second choice is the correct one.
Hello Steg,
“Hindus actually (at least some types) believe that all of their “gods†are simply manifestations of One God — which would make them just as monotheistic as Christianity.”
For those of us who follow in the footsteps of the Rambam, it would also make them just as polytheistic as Christianity.
In any case, lacking the necessary bekius, I would tend to assume that there is some “raid” on your contention.
Hello Skeptical,
Thanks for all the info. Your comment about about Rabbi Miller was gratuitous. I used those titles for a specific reason. In any case, I was more interested in later acharonim (which you provided some of) than in further mekoros from the Meiri himself.
I’ll try to see those later authorities inside. I know Rav Kook wrote that Muslims are not ovdei avodah zara but I was not aware that said that of Christians as well and I did not know that he base himself on the Meiri. I’ll try to see it.
I spoke to a talmid chacham on Shabbos and he told me that he was under the impression that perhaps one could not rely on the Meiri since he lived in a time when the church burned talmudim and one had to pass the church’s censors. You are telling me that their are major late acharonim that don’t agree with this.
RE your comment in 126, I am not expert in Meiri but just based on his comment on the makor in Avodah Zora daf caf, it would seem that he does, in fact require monotheism.
Also if you can provide a clear quote to support this statement: “The Meiri clearly disavows the detestable idea that Jews are ‘better’”. If he paskens that the issur “lo s’chaneim” does not apply to contemporarly non-Jews, how does that show that he does not believe that Jews are better?
I never use schvartse and we teach our children not to. It is a word that has only has a negative connotation now. I use goy because I think it is sometimes neutral, and it is after all found frequently in the daily davening. It really depends on the context both in terms of to whom I am speaking and what I am saying.
I’m a little confused, Ron. Would you or would you not use goy or schwartze to refer to a non-Jew or a black person?
RC
I didnt make that mistake.
No question the Rambam was unique. Certainly these others don’t come close to his towering status. But the pt is that a major mainstreamer made that mistake! Hence the healthiness in not presuming mainstream anything has all the answers. Especially in Hashkafic matters.
Btw Ron, I liked your line abt ppl being “at their own risk when hewing to an understanding of an issue that departs from the mainstream.”
Viva such risks… l’shem shomaym!!
RC I wasnt mistakening “mainstream thinking” for “mainstreaming”.Since you brought it up though I do BelievE (I’ve even added it on as an extra ani maamin) that mainstream thinking does in fact affect the wheres and whys,on the social mainstreaming direction on an individual level for those that are looking to swim right along in a mainstream fashion.
There are some that dont understand,lose/miss opportunities and chances/misconstrue concepts/ cuz they went along with a certain misconstrued understanding of stuff, eventually, some get a headache and go right out those very same “own doors” you write so elqouently about.You know like the kind of stuff you read about on the “why I hate being a teshuvah girl” thread. though it seems that “no frum family” is the biggest concern out there.I believe that is the misnomer of the month.
Either way though, it just doesnt matter.
Happy Labor Day !
Yes, yy, ultimately we must make our choices as adults with their own minds. On the other hand, it is hard for me to believe that any of the controversial modern figures we have discussed will be vindicated as the Rambam was, and to the extent he was, not long after his life. But one is entitled to believe otherwise, I suppose.
JT, please do not mistake my issue of “mainstream thinking” on Torah issues with “mainstreaming” — the phenomenon of becoming part of a social mainstream, as has been discussed here many times because of its particular interest to BT’s who come through their own doors and struggle with whether, how and how much to integrate into the frum world socially. I don’t believe these issues are related.
Hi gang. Just peeking in. Jaded’s questioning of the authority of “mainstream” is seering. Even if we could clearly identify it, how does mainstream Orthodox thought assure us of G-d’s Will? Surely there have been many occassions throughout history when this has not proven true.
To take one very painfully clear example, the Ramba”m’s writings were once BURNED publically by very “mainstream” Orthodox figures, in particualr Rabbeinu Yona… who eventually repented on this for the rest of his life!
Thus we BT’s who tend to be keenly aware of the problems of mainstreaming must be extra careful to seek better definitions for identifying ratzon H’.
Well, I actually prefer tanning on the sandy parts of the beach as opposed to any kind of streams so ‘mainstream†is not even something I consider.
And when you say “depart from the mainstream” who decides what exactly is “mainstream†halachically speaking ?
Is Point Pleasant a mainstream beach?
Is Coney Island a mainstream beach? (until condominiums become the mainstream, architecturally speaking,so get all your thrills in before they close Astroland down).
How about Brighton Beach, Rockaway Beach, Bel Harbor’s beach or the beaches in Atlantic City right next to those sparkling fun casinos? Does the Tropicana orange juice branding help the Tropicana Casino’s branding and give it that mainstream wholesome vitamin c image ?
Would you consider NeverSink New York a mainstream town, the town that prevails in direction and just never sinks?
What would you consider the mainstream, most influential, amusement park?
I love Kings Dominion.
I also love Cedar Point (I could do without the way too friendly laid back Ohio mindset though, I grew up on stories of how much better Cleveland is than New York, I know New York is way better though).
But at one point Cedar point had the tallest and fastest roller coaster – Top Thrill Dragster. Now I believe the Six Flags in Jackson holds the record with Kingda Ka.
Anyway, my longwinded point, I have no idea what mainstream is, in terms of actual halacha?
And I type this with all the earnest ness I can muster.
Jaded, I think you agree with me? But to be clear, I didn’t say anything about subjectivity. Yes, regarding any body of knowledge or field of expertise, there are opinions that are within the mainstream and those that are beyond it, even allowing for competing schools of thought within the field. Lay people and those with less-than-expert levels of understanding in that field are at their own risk when hewing to an understanding of an issue that departs from the mainstream, and if they do so, they should at least be aware of that fact — especially if, in evaluating opinions, there is a possibility that their own bias toward a particular conclusion or approach could be playing a role as to which they find most satisfying.
I say this with the full understanding that it applies to every one of us, including myself.
Ron, your reasoning swings all six ways when you consider any single set of halachic responses on a given concept.
What makes Rabbis Avigdor or Shlomo Miller less subjective than Rabbi Louis Jacobs ?
And how pray tell is anyone supposed to know which “expert’s report†or sage halachic analysis is more objective than subjective?
It’s not that difficult to put together some good case law, random quotes taken straight out of context and the occasional original thou shalt not and sound more convincing than mysticism and martini mixer or an earnest pre-school frummie teacher.
When I analyze some of the halachic responses running around today, I get this whole new desire to train as a poseik, not that I could be a practicing one, according to halachic orthodox Judaism………
The stuff some inidividuals rely on with a straight face is beyond laughable.
It’s like writing a report when you have pre-formed your conclusions. Ideally, the conclusions would be the results of previous deep study and thought, but they’re not always that way in practice. We’re tempted to scope out a persuasive story and then gather whatever facts and quotations we can press into its service. Global warming, or at least a lot of the hot air about it, may be like this.
Good point, Steg. I am not suggesting anything about the merits of the argument, based on how mainstream the views cited may or may not be. I am only saying that when having any discussion about matters that depend for elucidation on expertise in Torah, and especially here where there is a very subtle interplay of halacha and hashkafa, we have to be wary about deciding what will be “our truth” — in the most earnest possible way — based on minority opinions, or the views of controversial authorities.
As you know, there are certain movements within Judaism that produce halachic responsa with a certain goal in mind, and even a boor such as myself can see how they get there via a process of slaloming through disparate and typically outlying opinions, often ignoring both the overwhelming contrary majority on a given issue or the contrary thrust of that that source’s overall views on the matter, or related matters.
Ron Coleman:
IIRC it was R’ Hershel Schachter of YU who said that if you don’t follow the Truth as you see it to the proper halakhic conclusions, but instead just go by “the majority” even though you know they’re mistaken, you’re not Orthodox.
In your community, the Meiri and similar shitot may not be considered “mainstream”; in other communities, the halakhic distinction between עכו”× and non-עכו”× Non-Jews is understood to be obvious and self-evident.
Michoel, you might also want to look at the view of the Sreidei Eish in
Scholars and Friends: R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg and Professor Samuel Atlas”, The Torah U-Madda Journal, VII, 1997
And to bring Rav Kook back into this, he states rather clearly (Iggerot Rayah 1, no. 99) that we follow the Meiri’s view of non-Jews, l’maaseh.
With respect to Michoel’s other observation, that the Meiri requires non-Jews to be monotheistically religious, that is also *not* true. See, for example, Beis HaBechirah to the first misha in the second Perek of AZ, to wit: “an idolater is one who is “immorally defiled in his deeds and ugly in his personality traitsâ€
Maarei m’komos on the Meiri for Michoel:
-intro to Beis HaBechirah in AZ (first few pages), the Meiri permits basically all commercial activities with non-Jews nowadays
-Beis HaBechira on Bava Metziah 59a, where he includes people possessing religion (contemporary non-Jews) in the phrase ‘amitekha’ used in many drushas.
-Beis HaBechirah in Yoma includes non-Jews in obbligation to save a life by violating Shabbos
-Beis HaBechirah in Brachot 58b, where he excludes contemporary non-Jews from the obligation to express contempt on seeing their houses of worship
-Gittin 61a, where the Meiri allows greeting non-Jews on their festivals, since they are “restricted by the ways of religion and believing in the existence, unity, and power of God even if they go astray with respect to some matters according to our beliefs.”
-Beitsah 21b where the Meiri allows preparation of food for non-Jews on yom tov since they no longer hold to “ancient idolatrous beliefs”
-Yevamot 98a, where the Meiri basically discounts the gemara’s discussion comparing idol-worshipers with animals as only relating to those “not within the realm of religion”.
-Shabbat 156a where the Meiri says the term ‘Israel’ in the phrase ‘ein mazel l’yisrael’ includes also those ‘who are restricted by the ways of religion’ and thus non-Jews have free will in every sense. Non-Jews are classified as part of Israel in this regard.
-And in his Hibbur Ha-Tshevuah he includes non-Jews among those for whom tshuva is an essential part of their relationship with God
There are probably other countless examples.
Unlike R. Miller, I don’t need to pile on honorifics to the Meiri, since he is a Rishon! The Meiri clearly disavows the detestable idea that Jews are ‘better’ or non-Jews ‘inferior’, God forbid. We differ only insofar as our missions and obligations differ.
I hope this will help you, Michoel, in re-examining your views on our non-Jewish brethren.
Michoel:
Hindus actually (at least some types) believe that all of their “gods” are simply manifestations of One God — which would make them just as monotheistic as Christianity.
I also would not lump atheists together with agnostics — while athiests specifically do *not* believe, agnostics take no such stance. I think actually today most people are somewhat agnostic in this era of no obvious miracles or prophecy. We believe (=trust), but there doesn’t seem to be any way to logically prove the existence of God or sanctity of Torah 100%.
This is another great post. I regret I missed out on getting into the mix while trying vainly to take this week “off.” My little pennies:
I am floored that someone brought up Lou Gehrig, as a Bais Yaakov teacher of my close acquaintance, who teaches talmidos his magnificent farewell address in her speeches unit in American literature, and I often express our wonder as to how you can avoid praising this man whose words seemed to embody mussar in such an extraordinary form. I remember learning this halacha in the gemara and finding the rishonim very firm on it, but I am glad to read that modern poskim give us something to work with.
As to Rabbi Miller z”l, he was an extraordinary man, and I have no difficulty finding much that is positive in his works, and some of what he has taught has markedly improved my outlook. But I think there is a good reason that he is really considered outside the mainstream of hashkofic guides of the previous generation, even if no one authoritative from what he would consider his own camp is prepared to diminish his honor posthumously by addressing this in writing. I also believe we must recognize that he was quite committed to communicating in an very controversial and provocative manner, largely to shock us out of sloppy or unsupported assumptions about life and the world around us.
Eric,
I read your whole thoughtful post. Thank you for your respectful tone. I can’t respond right now but maybe I will next week. Have a good Shabbos.
If Skeptical is still around, I would appreciate if you could direct me to some modern t’shuvos that rely on this Meiri. I saw it inside this morning and it aroused some thoughts. He discusses two categories of non-Jews; 1. those that you know (to not be oveid avodah zara), 2.those that you don’t know if they are isolators. But it is clear that non-Jews must be “modos” i.e. believe in Hashem. So one (presumably) would not be able to praise a gentile who is an atheist or agnostic, which is a large percentage of contemporary gentiles. (Unlike in the Meiri’s time when a stam gentile could be assumed to have a religious outlook.) And his din also would not apply to Hindus and some others.
Also, gentiles, although they may ascribe to a type of monotheism, if they are not g’durim as a result, it is not clear to me that the Meiri’s din would apply.
Please post any maarei m’komos that you consider relevant. Thank you.
Hi Michoel,
Thank you.
I have another post, 116, just prior to the one on Kook, which is awaiting moderation (due to its length, i think) which I hope you’ll get a chance to read when it goes up.
OK, very sorry to both Eric and Steg, for implying an association with something you don’t hold from at all. My error.
Michoel:
I’m not a follower of R’ Kook; I simply referenced an idea frequently quoted in his name as an example of a philosophy that identifies mitzvot as “pointing toward and ideal” and not necessarily the ideal itself.
I have seen some quotes from R’ Kook that resonated with my mesora, and others that did not.
R’ Kook, being a mystic, is also not a follower of the Rambam. For instance, the mystics (along with the “indigenous”) believe that each individual has multiple souls; the Rambam believed that each individual only has one soul.
Michoel,
While I expressed hopes that Rav Kook’s vegetarian vision of the Messianic era is the correct one, I strongly reject the revolting spiritual racism expressed in the quote on wikipedia. I also have significant issues with his legacy of Religious Zionism and the embrace of the secular state.
Steg, Kinneret, Skeptical and the others on this thread who have fought for the fair and kind treatment of the other. Thank you.
Michoel, thank you for your apology. Accepted, but unnecessary for me. I’m far less concerned with my own sensitivity than with the principle involved, and the victims are really all the human beings who are being hurt (Jews and non-Jews) (consciously and unconsciously) by the disdain encapsulated in the way far too many Jews use the G-word. Though we disagree Michoel, your posts have been honest, thoughtful, and thought-provoking.
Great as our forefathers were, their multiple marriages caused them and their also great wives great discord and pain. Just because they had them, doesn’t make it good. Just as just because the Jewish people came forth from the polygamy of Jacob, doesn’t make polgamy good, or any more than the fact of the Messiah being descended from Lot and his daughters and then from Yehuda and Tamar makes the Messiah’s procreative roots in incest and cavorting with one’s daughter-in-law disguised as a prostitute immediately after one’s wife’s death a prescription for how we ought to live. These are clearly not good things, and yet Hashem, in His mercy allows good to come forth from even our great moral failures.
One can be a great human being, wise and worthy of respect, capable of giving sage and sensitive counsel, and still be deeply flawed at some level and make errors of moral judgement. This holds not just for our Foreparents, but for contemporary Gdolim and Rabbis too. Some of our great contemporary Rabbis may use or have used the G word pejoratively, and speak or have spoken negatively of non-Jews. There may be significant streams of Jewish thought and culture that have developed over the centuries that are dismissive, disdainful, and dehumanising to non-Jews, and many of these may well have had an origin in the awful way non-Jews have treated us. Many people, even otherwise great and wise people, often are limited by the communal prejudices they’ve grown up with. We don’t have to take everything a great Rav says on every and any subject as Gospel truth, and this doesn’t have to diminish our kavod (honor/respect for them) dramatically across the board, anymore that the ugly and shameful fact that Washington and Jefferson owned black slaves need obliterate the merit and recognition of the great things that they did for America. We cannot forfeit our own responsibility to reason morally to others. We cannot let the due and necessary respect for our Rabbis and our forefathers become a form of idolatry, wherein they become Perfect and immune to any criticism or analysis. -even from people like us, who are far less learned.
Polygamy was permitted by the Torah, but it wasn’t COMMANDED. Same with slavery. Therefore, in the absence of commandment these things aren’t good -yet when practiced in accordance with Jewish law, they’re not downright evil either, and there may well be some mitigating ,beneficial, and pleasant aspects to them. And it is understandable that second and third marriages would be celebrated in communities where they’ve long been accepted, where people appreciate them and want them. But there’s a reason Rabbeinu Gershom banned polygamy 1000 years ago, and the wanting and enjoying of something, even by a whole culture, doesn’t make it good. And as said before, even the fact that the Torah permits something, doesn’t make it good.
I would like to impose on Eric, Steg and others who find Rav Kook’s writings to be moving and profound to please the Wiki on Rav Kook where they quote from Yair Sheleg. Of course, Rav Kook was prolific and may have many other statements the show a different face. Or if someone can show that the quote is inaccurate, I would sincerely like to know. The quote is completely NOT like the Rambam as explained by Steg above and the quote also cannot be attributed to context as perhaps quotes from Rabbi Miller can. It is a statement of the fundamental nature of Jews and Gentiles.
Again, maybe it is misquoted and if so I would like to be corrected.
Steg,
That is an exceedingly gross misrepresentation of Rav Miller who was about a zillion times bigger in loving humanity than most of us. Please, as a personal chesed, I do not want to be the vehicle for others to be oiver on being m’vazeh a talmid chacham, which is such a grave aveira.
I probably misrepresented him.
(But I can suggest that you see the sefer Jews Are Called Adam, by one of the Rebbeim at Mosad HaRav Kook Yeshiva.)
I personally think it’s revolting that little Steg, hugely puffed with self righteousness, dares to judge Rav Miller’s Ahavas Yisrael with such stomach turning Chutzpah.
Are there no red lines on BeyondBT? My family only uses the term “non-Jew”. And yet, I consider it far more disgusting to refer to a Tzaddik in the manner indicated above.
I think Michoel’s quoting of Rabbi Miller out of context was perhaps misleading.
I think we have to tried to understand the context in which Rabbi Miller made these statements. He was fighting a fierce battle against assimilation and he felt this was the proper approach for his time and place.
Our battles today are different, but I think we agree with his basic message that we are different and we have different roles and obligations.
We can hate the stupidities people (including us!) think or do without hating the people themselves.
Michoel:
Interesting. 90% of the time anyone says anything to me in the name of Rabbi Avigdor Miller, it’s “goyim are only worth as much as the benefit that we can exploit them for.” I tried flipping through one of his books once in order to look for the more positive messages that a few people (one of my main rebbeim included) have claimed are in there, and while i didn’t see the exact idea i qutoed above, it was filled with demonization of anything (science, literature, culture, etc.) having anything to do with Non-Jews.
As my brother has been known to say, ahavat Yisra’el which is predicated on sin’at haberiyot is a mitzva haba’a be‘aveira.
Steg, what do you have against strangers?
Bob:
Nothing. i just find nokhri a more polite term than goy. And the berakha is about thanking God for having more mitzvot, in case you were wondering.
Steg said, “However, there are some versions of the shelo’ ‘asani goy berakha that use nokhri instead (which is the version i say)”
Steg, what do you have against strangers?
Shunamit,
First of all, b’soros tovos!
I concur fully with everything you wrote.
Just to make clear…
Rav Miller held that every human was a Tzelem Elokim and of endless value. He treated all people with great respect. And he ALSO believed the Klal Yisroel was exceedingly great, much, much better than other nations. He never would denigrate for the sake of denigrating, Heaven forbid. But is his view of the needs of Klal Yisrael in these times, he felt that there was a huge tendency to look up to ways of the Gentiles and that this was terrible destructive to Jews.
Kinneret,
Is it respectful in a private place? If not, then I think your problem is with the Torah and not me. When Rashi writes “anashim schorim u’m’kuarim achim shel beni Kush”, was he being disrespectful? I don’t think you mean to say that. Assuming I am correct, where should these things be discussed? Should emotive Torah topics be kept completely secret and private? We see that writers published books (in various languages) that are readable to all of humanity.
So I am asking a serious question. Any non-Jew can go into a Jewish book store and read things that are more “controversial” then anything I have written. Should we have only nice books in seforim stores? If not, why not? What is the fundamental difference between a blog and a book store?
Michoel–It’s a complex issue. From a ruchani point of view, the Jew has vastly more power, for good or for better. As far as routine behavior and character goes, the Jews have a better average, and I say this as someone with a lot of truly decent non-Jewish relatives and friends, as well as a brother who is a real tzaddik (and who would let me have it but good if he knew I’d said that about him).
I was recently back in the States for my mother’s funeral, a”h. (Golly, wonder if that’s gotten me a little hypersensitive about respect for non-Jews.) I was definitely struck by a certain courseness of behavior and a harshness in everyday discourse. And this among relatively “nice” people!
I can’t say the Jews I know were any better or worse in terms of monetary honesty, and no better in matters of name-calling.
With the exception of my brother and his wife, and a very few other individuals, the level of decency in interpesonal relations was far lower among the non-Jews. My brother and sister were truly shocked at the number of condolence calls and e-mails I received, just as a matter of course, because that is what a Jew DOES. They were speechless at a series of phone calls I received from a family friend in Israel who INSISTED I take a loan from a fund he and his wife run for travelling aveilim. (“Food is expensive in America! You’re going to have to chip in for gas! We can’t have you going hungry at a time like this, or having to beg.”) I kept estimating borrowing a lower sum, but he kept “bargaining” me up, insisting that, for Heaven’s sakes, there would be no hurry to repay it.
In my mother’s obituary, we requested that donations be made in her name to certain charities. A not-so-close frum cousin of my husband’s sent a respectable donation; it was a little embarassing how few of my late mother’s good friends, well-off people, sent nothing. I had to explain that, well, Jews give charity in memory of the deceased; that’s just what you DO.
As far as my brother, I don’t know how he does it. Without Torah, mitzvot, and a lot of carefully cultivated and nurtured habits, G-d knows I’d be even more mean and obnoxious than I already am, but my brother appears to have absorbed all that without any religious affiliation or inclination whatsoever. I’d love to claim credit for influencing him, but as I said, I have a long way to go in my own middot. He has little interest in Jewish ritual, but he loves to hear about mussar and cheshbon hanefesh. He does much and says so little about it that most people have no idea how generous, long-suffering and compassionate he is. And he really thinks it’s no big deal, or shouldn’t be. I feel pain for him that he has to live in a culture where ingrained callousness and lack of spiritual refinement is such a fixture of life.
There, now I’ve done it. I’ve gone and praised a non-Jew in public. You can’t say I was trying to flatter anyone though, because, as I said, if my brother finds out, he’ll kill me.
Eric,
Please forgive me for any personal pain my words have caused you. It was not my intent to cause anyone pain. I see that you are deeper, sensitive sort of person.
When a man marries a second wife, he does so with sheva brachos, and a seudas mitzvah. It is very clearly NOT “clearly not good”. And I am pained (I should be more pained) by the implication that the Avos, David, Shlomo etc did something not good. It is not at all simple and clear-headed to say that. And it is not even simple and clear-headed to me to say that a few Temani Jews TODAY with more than one wife are doing something clearly not good. It is not simple to say it about the husbands OR the wives that accepted the kiddushin. They are holy Jews that are fully Torah observant and we have no right to think badly of them.
I am not as familiar with Rav Kook as I should be. The Hagadah states clearly that when we return to Yerushalayim we will eat from the z’vachim and p’sachim (or the opposite order). We say this as part of out declaration of longing for that time!
“‘Jews are vastly better’ is incredible.”
A fairly direct quote from Rabbi Avigdor Miller zecher tzaddik v’kadosh livracha, zchuso yagen aleinu, we should all merit to come to his ankles.
But if anyone strongly disagrees, I beg of you to be m’vazeh ME and not him.
Michael- you’re saying non-Jews are inferior beings in a public place. This is not respectful.
Eric- that was really wonderfully said. Thank you.
עכו”× is not an accurate description of most contemporary Non-Jews, since they don’t actually worship full-blown ‘avoda zara.
“Goy” became the standard term for Non-Jew in Hhazalic Hebrew, the dialect that our prayers were written in. However, there are some versions of the shelo’ ‘asani goy berakha that use nokhri instead (which is the version i say), and others that rephrase it in the positive as she‘asani yisra’el as was already pointed out.
Eric:
Thank you for saving the honor of God and the Jewish People with your words.
Eric (94) thank you. I think you articulated precisely the position that many modern communal rabbis find themselves in and precisely the reason why they turn to the Meiri.
Michoel’s statement that ‘Jews are vastly better’ is incredible. I think it’s time he finds some new ‘gedolim’ to follow, talmidei chachamim who understand that we are obligated to follow the views of the Meiri (and other Rishonim who laid the groundwork for his view) that law-abiding gentiles should in no sense be ‘looked down’ upon, God forbid.
“There are character traits the Klal Yisroel tends to be outstanding in, even those that are not at all Torah observant.”
See, I have to confess this bothers me too. Two halachic Jews have a son and a daughter. The son marries a woman with a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother; they have a child. The daughter marries a man with no Jewish ancestry; they have a child. Somehow the daughter’s child is superior to the son’s child? Has a superior spirit? Has superior personal qualities? The grandparents are supposed to feel one way about one grandchild and another way about the other grandchild? This really bothers me tremendously and I’d like to know how you all deal with it.
For the following reason, I think that the casual usage of the term “goy” should be avoided. I don’t have an answer as to why the nusach habracha in the Siddur uses the term but IIRC, there are other nusachos that convey the same meaning that one can find in some of the earliest editions of the Siddur such as Sheani Yisrael.
RHS has pointed out on many occasions that the term “goy” as used in our communities is a misnomer because Knesset Yisrael is the Goy Kadosh UMamleches Kohanim. The best term IMO to use is Gentile or “Akum”.
No, that’s not what I said.
Goyim who don’t use pejoratives and respect me – even if they disagree with me – get the same respect back.
Those still displaying prejudice towards me are not deserving of the same treatment.
That is self-respect, not “perpetuating the problemâ€.
I’m sorry, but this is a childish and wrong headed response. Out of curiosity, if a black person was disrespectful towards you, would you refer to him as a n—–? If a woman was disrespectful, would you call her a b—-? A Chinese person a c—- or a Japanese person a j–? Somehow I doubt it. I think the use of the word ‘goy’ among Jews is only tolerated because many Jews have a shtetl victim mentality and are bigotted towards non-Jews.
Just because someone is not deserving of your respect doesn’t mean that you should start acting like they do. One of the things I have gleaned from my Torah studies is that we are supposed to act above an animal who cannot control their instinctive responses.
This thread pains me enormously.
When I was eighteen, many years before I became religious, I spent three months living with my paternal great uncle and his wife in London. I’d never met them before, but they invited me to stay with them. My father’s father had fought in the British infantry in WWII, got caught, jumped off a POW convoy and was never seen again. My father came to America with his mother when he was 5 years old. His father’s brother, already well into his sixties, with six grown children of his own, and who is of Anglo-Irish Protestant descent, opened his home to me.
When I was 19, and had just quit college, and was driving across the country to Los Angeles, my car overheated in Fabens, Texas –near El Paso, and very close to the Mexican Border. I spent four lonely days over Christmas stuck in a motel off the highway in Fabens, waiting for my engine to be replaced. I’d watched the same three or four movies on HBO multiple times. The diner was closed. Christmas eve, I had a knock on my door. It was the janitor, a Mexican, and in broken English, he invited me to have dinner with his family. I somewhat gracelessly declined out of shyness and not wanting to impose. After he left, I felt bad, and wished I could have said yes. A couple of hours later, there was another knock on the door. He was back, with an enormous tray of hot Mexican food, “My wife, she make this for you.†I yearned for him to ask me to come to dinner again, but all I could do was say, “Muchas gracias. Thank you so much. Merry Christmas. Feliz Navidad.†To this day I wish I’d accepted their hospitality: it may well one of my biggest regrets. (I didn’t keep Kosher at the time.)
When I was 20, and had nowhere to go, the working class Polish parents of a friend I’d only just met, though I’d known his younger brother since middle school, invited me stay with them for an entire month, sharing their meals and lives with me.
I’ve had strangers return lost wallets with all the money still in them. I once caught six rides in eight hours heading up into Northern Maine from such kind and interesting people. When I was living in my car for six weeks in Los Angeles, when I was 19, I had people offer me beds and showers. I hold snapshots of moments of kindness and sensitivity from people to other people going back decades. I’ve seen the most incredible tenderness, patience, and love from my Italian brother-in-law for my sister. The love and care my paternal grandmother’s second non-Jewish husband shows her and the generous and creative way he cared for my sister and I when we were children awes me to this day.
Many writers such as George Eliot and Victor Hugo have affected me deeply with the range of their insight and empathy into the human condition. I’ve had friends, coworkers, roommates and correspondents of different races, creeds, and sexual orientations who have done and do many amazing deeds of kindness,
The tales of those who rescued and hid Jews at great risk to their families and their own lives, day in and day out, sometimes for months or years, during the Holocaust wreck me. Just how many of us would be willing to do the same for those who are outside our in-group, let alone those within it?
In short, and this should obvious and not need to be said, one needn’t be Jewish to be an amazing person, and in fact, many non-Jews are beyond amazing, and even beyond many Jews.The amount of kindness, generosity, and hospitality I’ve experienced since I became an observant Jew over five years ago is mind blowing. It is an inordinate blessing. And it is exceptional for a community of human beings. Nothing can match it. I love my fellow Jews. I love humans. Not uniformly. Not everyone. But these words, the G word, and the various S words are hideous and dehumanizing and coarsening: to both subject and object. They are contemptible. And they aren’t true. They’re as bad as kike or hebe, which dehumanize both the Jew and the anti-semite.
I’m embarrassed by this thread. I’m horrified to think that someone could google my name and they’ll find this shameful, unholy, unkind language and associate it to me. We need to set a standard. A standard of decency and respect that recognizes the essential humanity that we all share, and that does not corrupt our own souls and those of our children.
I don’t think it is at all problematic at all to see such things as slavery, multiple wives, animal sacrifices, or disdain for non-Jews as things which are clearly not good.
One simple, clear-headed way of looking at such things is the following formulation: Hashem commands that which is Good (Moral) and forbids that which is Bad (Immoral); He permits or tolerates that which is neither wholly good nor bad; and heavily regulates and sets limiting conditions for that which is intrinsically bad, but which He has decided to permit (such as slavery or multiple wives), likely as a concession to human weakness. There is a final category: that which is intrinsically bad, but which Hashem commands, and thus, by virtue of Hashem’s commanding it, becomes good. The Akeidah –the sacrifice of Isaac, is the prime example of this. Kierkegaard calls this the “Divine suspension of the Ethicalâ€
So nowhere in the Torah (to the best of my limited knowledge) will one find an obligation to have multiple wives or to own slaves: all of the laws for these things are contingent on IF one decides to do so, and if they were truly good, they would have been commanded rather than optional. And they are, as referenced in a previous post, actually discouraged. And for something like meat eating, which was forbidden for the first ten generations of humanity, and then permitted but restricted after Noah (and exegetically linked to murder), and then further restricted and limited for the Jewish people: limited in method, motive, and locale: it cannot be called “goodâ€: it is clearly a concession, and clearly in a suspect category, except in those very limited instances where it is explicitly commanded (e.g. the Korban Pesach –the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb.) Once again, if it was truly “Good†to eat meat at other times than this, it would have been commanded.
So things that are merely permitted but not commanded ought to be suspect as being things we ought to do. I’m personally glad that we don’t own slaves, don’t have multiple wives, and don’t have to make animal sacrifices, and though I long for the ingathering of the exiles and the Messianic era, I truly hope that Rav Kook’s vision of the Messianic age is the right one.
And as this painful and shameful conversation revolves around how to refer to non-Jews: if it were good to demean, ridicule, revile, or condescend to non-Jews, this would have been at least one of the famed 613, or at least one of the numerous unnumbered addendums. It isn’t. And even if it were truly obligatory not to praise gentiles, this gives no license for disparagement. The Jews were chosen not for themselves, but to be the priestly class to the world: to be a light unto the nations, and no one can inspire or lead those one looks down upon and disrespects. Disrespect, scorn for, and the dehumanization of the other is intrinsically wrong, simply in as much as it hurts the other: that it hurts us too, that it makes us meaner, coarser, smaller, less compassionate people –crucial though this fact is, is secondary. All human beings were made in the image of the Divine, are worthy of respect, and capable of elevating themselves through striving to imitate Hashem. When we try to excuse low, resentful, scornful, grudging, bigoted behavior with recourse to words of Torah, and with recourse to pointing the finger at others, and saying, “They did it first, and thus they deserve it;†when one is dismissive of entire classes of people without distinction –one is failing miserably at being a good, responsible Jewish human being.
Mark, anyone like Archie needed an attitude adjustment, but Archies were far less common than the show’s creator would have you believe.
…”If you see someone as inherently inferior, it’s much easier to slip into disrespecting everything about them.”
Again, a fair point. I am not a talmid chacham and even for a laymen, I not big in the Rambam-philosophy area. Partly from my chinuch as an adult, partly as a result of being a child of a Holocast survivor, my approach is to look very well at klal Yisrael and to look, relatively down on the rest of the world. But I don’t think that has caused me personally to treat non-Jews with disrespect in personal interactions. Just the opposite, I learned from my father who spent 4 years in the camps to treat everyone with great kavod.
There are character traits the Klal Yisroel tends to be outstanding in, even those that are not at all Torah observant.
Michoel:
The Rambam does not seem to have any such concept of a “nishmas Yisrael”. His discourse on the nature of souls and their health in his Introduction to Masekhet Avot makes no distinctions between Jewish and Non-Jewish souls, while it does mention distinctions between *species* — specifically, he mentions Humans, Donkeys, and Griffin-Vulture (nesher). And he uses examples from Tanakh without regard for Jewishness, talking about the Israelites of Yesha‘yahu’s time as well as Par‘o in discussing the idea of the removal of free will, for instance.
Also, he specifically attacks the idea of spiritual differences between Jews and Non-Jews in his Letter to Yemen, where he says that Non-Jews can also be Prophets of God, and the idea that any Non-Jewish prophet is automatically a False Prophet is wrong — it all depends on the message, not the messenger. (contrast this with R’ Yehuda Haleivi, who identifies the potential for prophecy as the “Divine Something” [‘inyan eloqi] that distinguishes the ‘Chosen’ from the ‘Non-Chosen’ of Humanity)
Why does the source of the distinction matter? There is a clear distinction.
The *source* and *quality* of the distinction matter, because they define how you look at people. Do you look at Non-Jews as inferior to you in their intrinsic qualities, or do you look at them as equal to you in humanity and simply lacking a 613-Mitzva-Covenant with God? If you see someone as inherently inferior, it’s much easier to slip into disrespecting everything about them.
The Rambam advocates that one should better drop out of society rather than live amongst sinners. We live in an extremely course society of low values, vastly worse then anything that existed in the Rambam’s time. And if someone doesn’t think so, they have been corrupted and their appropriate sensitivities and natural tznius have been destroyed.
If we are indeed talmidim of the Rambam, we should pack out and go live in the woods. But if we are not going to do that, we should at least make every effort to recognize the reality of the world we live in and mentally drop out. And we can still participate in those aspects of society that are beneficial without being part of it.
Bob, I think the Civil Rights movement hit its peak with the legislation passed by Johnson in 1965 and 1968, so I think the popularity of All in the Family in 1971 can be considered a reflection of this change in American attitudes.
I’m still a little confused by your attitude towards Archie Bunker. If you agree that it’s not a healthy attitude for a Jew, then I’m not that concerned about who created the character or speculation on what his motivation might have been.
The Archie Bunker character helps accentuate the lowness of what many people here would consider an unacceptable attitude.
Goyim who don’t use pejoratives and respect me – even if they disagree with me – get the same respect back.
How can you tell which people use pejoratives and which do not? If you know some non-Jews (and Jews for that matter) consider “Goyim” a pejorative, why do you use it to describe all non-Jews? I’m afraid I don’t see how using pejoratives is indicative of self-respect.
Whatever they are doing grows out of their real, lived experience of ongoing prejudice.
This is not necessarily true at all. There are a lot of individual bigots of varying ethnicities and religions who have never experienced much prejudice themselves. Very often it’s nothing more than “they’re different so we can hate them.” It’s utterly self-defeating.
No amount of liberal handwringing will undo the natural human tendency to generalize from particulars.
And no amount of “they started it” childish reasoning will change the fact that it is extremely problematic to do so. If only the liberals have figured this out- count me with them, please.
Good-hearted black people will have to prove themselves to people who have been called “Hymieâ€.
Don’t good-hearted Jews have to prove themselves to people who have been called “schvartze”? How is that to be done without rejecting pejoratives outright?
I put scare quotes around “African American†because the vast majority of people labeling themselves that way have never set foot in Africa (unlike my Ethiopian neighbors and coworkers here in Israel – so spare me the lecture about the existence of dark-skinned Jews).
The term African-American is used to denote people of African descent. It is no different than the phrase Italian-American, etc. It has nothing to do with having “set foot” in any given place. Nor does this change my point about the general perception of bigotry and the backhand slight against Jews of African descent.
The Jews seem to be the only “identity group†unable to make present claims based on past oppression. Oh, no – we should keep busy trying to *understand* those who hate us, and “rise above it all†by continuing to make excuses for their behavior.
No one is talking about “understanding people who hate us” or excusing bigotry. We’re talking about avoiding terms many people find feel are pejorative.
Why does the source of the distinction matter? There is a clear distinction.
Maybe I am not understanding your point.
Regarding the Mark Frankel
August 28th, 2008 14:45
Before Archie hit the tube in 1971, racial attitudes were already improving markedly, except among Black Power advocates who basically advocated re-segregation.
However, liberals had great disdain for ordinary people, and it showed in the idea that bigoted Archies were everywhere.
Please don’t oversimplify the Rambam. We could both quote from him for next month to show to prove that he was a “charedi religious fanatic” or a MO intellectual.
Does the Rambam somewhere say or imply that there is no concept of a nishmas Yisrael?
Mark:
i considered putting scare/sarcasm-quotes around “jewish” in the phrase “jewish philosophy” but didn’t want to mix conversations :-)
Michoel:
for those of us who follow in the footsteps of the Rambam, it is not “entirely appropriate” to make the claims that you just did. we believe that the only thing that distinguishes us from the other nations of the world is Torah, and how well we follow it.
And yes, I know that most non-Jews are decent people, some of them extremely decent. But Jews are vastly better.
Steg: Thanks for those examples. I’m not sure I would give every view the title of a jewish philosophy, it gives too much recognition, where it isn’t warranted.
I don’t see the issues of spiritual or halachic status as justifying poor treatment of non-Jews. But I do believe that one should treat with disrespect, that which is worthy of disrespect. Especially when the entire world is praising it as the height of culture. A m’nuval who abused a 21 years old Jewish girl in the White House, speaks to roaring cheers before thousands and is praised by the media. It is entirely appropriate to say “Goyim and Yidden are as different as night and day. They are low and we are elevated. And what they consider tolerable or even enviable, we consider revolting.” And if we don’t say so, at least to ourselves, our own appreciation of the greatness of Klal Yisrael stands to suffer. But that is not to say that we should speak like AB. Just the opposite. We should stress our own dignity.
Ben-David:
When you meet someone for the first time, or pass them on the street, what’s your starting default? Assuming that they respect you, and so you respect them? Or do you assume that they hate you, and therefore you disrespect them?
Mark:
some jewish philosophies claim that non-jews are inherently evil, or that non-jews only exist to service and be exploited by us. also, any explicitly hierarchical system can be used to justify it.
Steg, I’ve seen these differences articulated here
We have a different spiritual status.
We have a different halachic status.
We’ve been treated much worse throughout history.
We are currently treated worse.
Did you have other differences in mind that might lead someone to justify AB type behavior?
Kinneret:
You are just perpetuating the problem. You feel justified in using pejoratives to describe all non-Jews because some non-Jews use pejoratives to describe Jews
– – – – – – – – – –
No, that’s not what I said.
Goyim who don’t use pejoratives and respect me – even if they disagree with me – get the same respect back.
Those still displaying prejudice towards me are not deserving of the same treatment.
That is self-respect, not “perpetuating the problem”.
You write:
We all know perfectly well that the Jews to whom you are loath to give “bleeding-heart liberal†lectures about using “schvartze†and other such pejoratives are NOT using those pejoratives only to describe non-Jews who use pejoratives but all non-Jews.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Whatever they are doing grows out of their real, lived experience of ongoing prejudice.
No amount of liberal handwringing will undo the natural human tendency to generalize from particulars.
Good-hearted black people will have to prove themselves to people who have been called “Hymie”.
And good-hearted Jews will have to prove themselves to people who’ve been ripped off by other Jews – or top those who never have met a Jew.
Are there Jews who have not revised the old shtetl-era screw-the-bastards mentality to suit America, where Jews are treated fairly under law? Yes.
But there are still plenty of unreconstituted goyim out there.
Which is why I say: let THEM go first in improving things. Because it’s been them oppressing us all these years.
To which you say:
This is absolutely stooping to the lowest common denominator. You are saying your behavior is determined by others, including non-Jews. If they behave badly it gives you leave to do the same.
– – – – – – – – – – –
I am not behaving badly. I am simply not treating those who don’t respect me the same as those who do respect me.
People who don’t respect me do not get a pass. Because not respecting me should have consequences “on the street”.
This is self-respect.
Further:
Additionally, using the term “schvartze†or using danger quotes around the term African-American is especially ugly because not only does it smack of general racism and bigotry
– – – – – – – – – – –
I put scare quotes around “African American” because the vast majority of people labeling themselves that way have never set foot in Africa (unlike my Ethiopian neighbors and coworkers here in Israel – so spare me the lecture about the existence of dark-skinned Jews).
I use scare quotes because the term “African American” exemplifies the over-the-top PC victim-group politics that sees “racism” and “bigotry” everywhere.
The Jews seem to be the only “identity group” unable to make present claims based on past oppression. Oh, no – we should keep busy trying to *understand* those who hate us, and “rise above it all” by continuing to make excuses for their behavior.
Why is that?
In the case of eishet yefat to’ar, Chazal tell us very explicitly that it can cause problems. But without that explicit warning, we have to be very careful about suggesting what the Torah’s “preference” is.
I could imagine that in the time of Dovid Hamelech, after a large number of men died in battle, a very disproportionate number of women would be left without a potential husband. So the Torah’s allowing a man to marry multiple women was extremely merciful (particularly in a society were the need to get married was felt very strongly by women).
I think the consensus here is that Jews are different from Non-Jews in significant ways. The question is do these differences ever justify Archie Bunker like behavior?
Mark Frankel:
The answer may depend on what you think the difference is.
Actually I think much of America could not and does not relate to an Archie Bunker, although your comment implies that you do relate to Archie Bunker, so perhaps I’m misunderstanding how you are using the word relate.
I think the popularity of All in the Family might have marked a turning point in American History in the aftermath of the civil rights movement when bigotry became a dirty attitude.
Archie Bunker was a fictional caricature of people Norman Lear couldn’t relate to.
I think the consensus here is that Jews are different from Non-Jews in significant ways. The question is do these differences ever justify Archie Bunker like behavior?
Many feel that as Jews we need to rise above behaving like Archie Bunker.
Some felt that until they stop acting like Archie Bunker, we should act like Archie Bunker.
Some seem to argue that the halacha limiting situations where we praise non-Jews, might in some way justify limited Archie Bunker like behavior.
I think a counter question, would be if we G-d forbid lived in a society where the vast majority of people exhibited intense hatred and anti-semitism, would we be justified in exhibiting Archie Bunker like behavior.
I realize that the Archie Bunker metaphor highlights only one aspect of calling a non-Jew the G-word, but it helps me clarify some of the issues in my mind.
Michoel:
i’ve actually never really thought about that — thanks for bringing up the question about qorbanot la‘atid lavo’. Rambam talked about the Future World in many places, but i don’t remember ever seeing him connect his theory of sacrificial origins to his vision of the future.
after all, though, mitzvot are meant to be eternal — so i’d feel confident saying that there’s something built-in to the human psyche that craves the kind of physical spiritual ritual that sacrifices represent, and which also can be turned towards worship of the physical, i.e. ‘avoda zara.
Michoel:
My point is not that qorbanot are obsolete — although it’s frequently claimed in the name of R’ Kook that in Yemot Hamashiahh there will only be grain sacrifices and not meat sacrifices — but that Halakha takes human frailty into account. The laws do not define society in an ideal manner; sacrifices can be a concession to the human need to give life/death to God without being “temporary”.
The same thing with eishet yefat to’ar — just because it’s mutar, that doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. God took our human failings into account, and gave us a system which can be fulfilled and lived — but it’s *our* job to go lifnim mishurat hadin, and not be a naval birshut hatorah. Rambam says this by the laws of foreign slaves — just because you’re allowed to treat an ‘eved kena‘ani cruelly according to the laws of ‘avadim in certain ways, it doesn’t negate your obligation to treat them humanely because of the positive commandment to “walk in the ways” of God who is described as rahhamav ‘al kol ma‘asav.
Attn: Steg and other interested parties…
I was just thinking further about the stepping-stone concept brought up by Steg. It is very well m’kubal in our mesora that when Moshiach comes and the world will be full of the knowledge of Hashem, and we will have already been living in modern, animal-sacrifice-free societies for more than 1000 years… we are going to REINSTATE korbanos!
Why should that be? I am certain that the great m’forshim that Steg is referring to would have an answer, but I think it is a fair question.
Hello Steg (58),
I think you are making a fair point. However, I would argue that if there are m’forshim that used that line of reasoning in the cases that you mentioned and did NOT do so in the cases that I mentioned, perhaps they felt that this line reasoning did not apply. In any case, there are clearly a great deal of m’forshim that did not view korbanos as a stepping stone away from avodah zara, so my point would still apply. Being, a regular Jew in 5768 cannot come and rule against major rishonim that korbanos were a primitive need of the times.
Avraham did not want to marry Hagar and Hashem told him explicitly to do so. It just doesn’t sit with me well to suggest that this was looked at as temporary eitzah by Hakadosh Baruch Hu.
Although there may well be big hitters that say what you are saying, the entire line of reasoning is a bit difficult for me. The Torah demands many radical breaks from the cultures idol worship so why here is there a need for gentle measures?
I would like to tell you that although I sense that we are at opposite ends of the hashkafa spectrum, I enjoy your posts which show that you are a thinking person.
Skep,
“Michoel wants to abide by a view of non-Jews which is profoundly scornful…
I wouldn’t expect you or anyone else to read through an entire string of blog posts but I did already write that 1) I do not use the word goy 2) That I do, le’maaseh praise non-Jews. Declining to praise non-Jews is not the same as being scornful. One can be respectful and decent to them (and not use the word goy, for example) and just not praise them.
You think it is outrageous that I would even consider…
I have this strange idea that I picked up in yeshiva which I assume you have heard of but are skeptical of. I believe g’dolei Torah know better than me. So if something is not outrageous for Reb Moshe to even consider, it is not outrageous for me either. (It could be that Reb Moshe paskens like that Meiri, but it doesn’t seem that what from what I have seen.)
I would be disrespecting my father, who is not Jewish, if I referred to non-Jews in a pejorative manner. Besides, I don’t think insulting the people of the world is befitting of a group Hashem has selected to transmit His Torah. It seems hard to talk about Hashem and mitzvot out of one side of your mouth while saying hateful things out of the other.
It’s not sinking to the lowest common denominator to insist that one be respected by others as much as they respect you.
There is nothing wrong with insisting on respect. However, you are not going to get it by using derogatory terms for other people. You are just perpetuating the problem. You feel justified in using pejoratives to describe all non-Jews because some non-Jews use pejoratives to describe Jews, and some non-Jews feel justified in using pejoratives to describe Jews because some Jews use pejoratives to describe them.
We all know perfectly well that the Jews to whom you are loath to give “bleeding-heart liberal” lectures about using “schvartze” and other such pejoratives are NOT using those pejoratives only to describe non-Jews who use pejoratives but all non-Jews.
I couldn’t agree more – but y’know what: let THEM go first.
This is absolutely stooping to the lowest common denominator. You are saying your behavior is determined by others, including non-Jews. If they behave badly it gives you leave to do the same. Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t see how this has anything to do with self-respect.
Another problem with such language and behavior is it can be hurtful to Jews. Many Jews, especially BTs (including people who contribute to this site), have family who aren’t Jewish. Additionally, using the term “schvartze” or using danger quotes around the term African-American is especially ugly because not only does it smack of general racism and bigotry but it’s a direct insult to a rather sizable number of Jews who are Black.
Please, the word is vanilla.
It all depends on context and tone.
Michoel–Sorry to be so slow in responding. I have the Torah Temima (I don’t need an English translation, thanks to rabbanim and teachers with relentless expectations) and I plan to look up the pasuk in Va’etchanan with the relevant mefarshim.
Several respondents more learned than I have elaborated on interpretations that seem more relevant to present day reality. I hesitate to bring up the issue “min ha shorashim” with my teachers though, as I can guess what they’d say about paskening complicated issues from the Kitzur.
Kol tuv.
My mother, a giyoret, is a Pre-1-A teacher. Her students definitely use “goy” in a pejorative way. As in: you don’t keep Chalov Yisrael, you’re a goy! Or, when one bright boy explained the concept of infinity, another student responded with “That’s a goyish number, right Morah?” On Lag BaOmer, one of her students mocked an Indian kid playing in the park: Na, na, your not Jewish! My mother’s aide had to apologize to the parents.
My teachers when I was in school often weren’t always better than these students, with their use of Shvartza, dumb Pole jokes, and dumb Joe references. We even performed a song in an elementary school production which was disturbing in its treatment of “them”.
That said, we do sometimes use the word goy in our house, and as a child I had no feeling of goy carrying a negative context. I only noticed other Jews using it so pejoratively in high school, but I think that in my community, at least, things have worsened over time.
Ben-David:
As long as you take human beings on a case-by-case individual basis.
Rishona wrote:
Jews are supposed to function on a different, higher level — not stoop to the lowest common denominator.
– – – – – – – – – – –
It’s not sinking to the lowest common denominator to insist that one be respected by others as much as they respect you.
In our relationships with goyim, there is no precedent in Judaism for this communal-level “turning the other cheek” – itself a Christian notion. We have only had to swallow insults as a result of exile and forced subservience.
None of this has anything to do with whether goyim have souls.
It’s more to the point to note that goyim also have free will.
And Jews then have a right to demonstrate “lack of respect” for goyim who show their disdain for Jews.
Dressing a self-abnegating response up in rhetoric about how much *BETTER* we are – or should be – feeds into the unfortunate Jewish tendency to blame ourselves when we are mistreated.
So when you write:
If people could be more sensitive to the feelings of others (both Jews and non-Jews), then this would not even be an issue.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
I couldn’t agree more – but y’know what: let THEM go first.
I respond in kind to goyim who have changed the way they act towards Jews.
But I’m not going to deliver any bleeding-heart liberal lectures to Brooklyn Jews who still use “schvartze” to describe the goyim who still call them “Hymie”.
And when you write:
I mean since when do non-Jews set the standards for how a frum Jew should live?
– – – – – – – – – – – –
They certainly set the standard for how *they* will be treated by *me* – depending on how *I* am treated by *them*.
That’s not abdicating any standards – it’s self-respect.
If Hashem said that a man can have 5 wives, no-one can come and now say that it is immoral to 5 wives. The same for owning slaves (al pi halacha) and the same for the rest of the Torah.
That doesn’t seem to fit with the perspectives in our mesora that say things like “eishet yefat to’ar was just an outlet for uncontrollable urges, and leads to differential love and ben soreir umoreh“, or “qorbanot were meant as a stepping-stone away from ‘Avoda Zara”
I never use the word “goy” — it sounds offensive to me even when the person using it doesn’t mean anything negative by it. I’m probably a bit mahhmir on this, but i use “Non-Jew”, nokhri in Hebrew, and ha’umot when speaking in Hebrew about the [Other] Nations of the World in general.
The basic issue here is that YES, Jews are different than Non-Jews. We have a a particular Covenant with God. We have different responsibilities (i.e. mitzvot). But we are all human beings, created in God’s image. So while it may be important, as some people claim, to reinforce the differences between identities, *you can’t save your community by mutilating your own soul*. And that’s what happens when you denigrate and dismiss the humanity and worth in God’s eyes of other people.
Michoel should also see Tosfos at the top of Avodah Zarah 20a (the source of the Rashi he cited) and the Rosh also. In spite of Tosfos, the Rosh (at least with regards to neighbors), and the Meiri, Michoel wants to abide by a view of non-Jews which is profoundly scornful and inconsistent with the personal experience of most Balei Tshuva?
I think it is outrageous that Michoel would even consider the interpretation that the Shulchan Aruch (YD 151:14) is referring to regular non-Jews. I think there is a strong consensus among contemporary poskim that we can rely on the Meiri (who by the way was writing on the gemara in Avodah Zara right near to the one quoted by Rashi, Beis ha-Bechirah,
Avodah Zarah 26a) that law-abiding non-Jews are certainly not ovdei avoda zara. Particularly in a discussion where we are trying to decide whether certain words should or should not be used to refer to non-Jews, certainly that level of sensitivity would force us to embrace the Meiri’s position.
To bring a conclusion to all my posts above…
I received an email from a talmid chacham who is apparently good with a pc and digital t’shuvah seforim. He copied and pasted some relevant sections of t’shuvos for me. Many major contemporary poskim, including Reb Moshe and Rav Weiss, seem to learn that the prohibition of praising a gentile (lo s’chanein) applies b’zman hazeh. (see Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim beis, nun alef). However, very significantly, the Tzits Eliezer addresses this question directly and writes very clearly that one can and should praise a non-Jewish doctor or scientist that is so deserving. He learns that the Rambam holds that the issur only applies to a true Oveid Avodah Zara. It is a big discussion about who that includes, but according to the Tzits Eliezer it does not include a standard gentile “stam goy” b’zman hazeh. He does specify a doctor or scientist although according to principals he lay out, it would seem that the heter would apply to any gentile worthy of praise. (Shut T.E. chelek tes vav, siman mem zayin)
I hope this all sheds some light for the portion of the readership here that is more concerned with texts.
In our house, we believe fully that all people are loved by G-d and are to be treated respectfully. Whenever, a guest attempts to tell a joke referencing a group (whether Jewish or non-Jewish) we specifically make a point to our guests (and for the sake of our children) that any negative term towards a group is not acceptable and we believe against the values of Torah.
The usage of language is important and should not be ignored. We believe that Torah sees a role in Creation for all people, and we are obligated to lead by example.
By all means, get direction on this straight from a contemporary posek you follow.
And at least I am honest about the way I feel towards the goyim who murdered my grandparents and uncles in cold blood because we were Judes.
I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t lump those people in with the wonderful Polish Christians who risked their lives (and the lives of their children) to hide my husband’s grandfather and his parents, thus saving them from the Nazis and the AK. Such people deserve nothing but praise.
I will give up the g-word when “African Americans†give up “cracker†and “Hymieâ€.
I hope, upon reflection, you realize how problematic such an attitude is and what sort of example it sets.
Bob,
“Meah Achuz”. However, what some folks assume is a context which would compel us to be more lenient, might really compel us to be more strict. Or vice versa. If your point is that one should ask their Rav, I couldn’t agree more.
In any case, I don’t see that the Kitzur and the Chafetz Chaim are necessarily a different period then our own. Bli neder, I will try to see if Reb Moshe discusses this din in the context of America and says something different than the poskim from the beginning of the previous century.
In each time and place where we encounter non-Jews, the way the halacha tells us to relate to them may differ according to their level of monotheism, morality, attitude towards Jews, etc.
That’s why we can’t look at the piskei halacha of any past era in a vacuum. The poskim had to take prevailing conditions into account. They had no license to bend the halacha into a pretzel; however, the halacha itself is able to be applied appropriately to varied situations.
OK, DK.
Shunamit,
“Michoel–… because they always told me VERY specifically that I should praise my non-Jewish relatives for their virtuous actions…”
It is mentioned in some sources that one has a specific benefit in praising a non-Jew (to their ears) it is permitted. Perhaps keeping shalom or whatever other reason you rebbeim have, would apply.
(I am NOT comparing anyone to a murderer but just taking the argument to its extreme yet logical conclusion.)
That’s not being logical at all. That’s just being silly.
Not to belabor the point…
There is a pasuk in Chumash (written by G-d), that says Lo S’chanein. This is a negative commandment in the the Torah (again, written by G-d) which has certain halachos. One of the halachos, as brought down by the Rambam and Rashi (certainly quoting the gemorra), is to not speak the praise of non-Jews.
It is conceivable that there is a machlokes in the gemorra with the other opinion allowing praise of non-Jews and that there are significant Rishonim that pasken like that other opinion. An easy way to clarify would be to see the Torah T’mima (which is available in good English translation) on the pasuk that is the source, Parshas Eschanan, perek 7, pasuk 2 (I think). The TT will list the gemarros that discuss the pasuk. Bli neder I will look it up and post what I find, for those that may be interested.
If a murderer would say “I paskened not like the Rabbi that formulated the p’sak that it is assur to kill someone”, I am sure we would all agree that he is not being sincere or just has no clue. (I am NOT comparing anyone to a murderer but just taking the argument to its extreme yet logical conclusion.)
I would need to not pasken like G-d.
No. That is incorrect. I would need to not pasken like whichever rabbi formulated that psak.
I’ll take my chances.
“We Jews are not all shining examples of humanity. They are not either. ”
And we never will be, when we toss around the word “goyim” in a derogatory context, or when we use the shvartze expression towards black people. It’s embarrassing and humiliating. It has been one of the hardest things on my journey towards being a BT … knowing that I’m supposed to now hang around people who say disgusting things that the Reform Jews in my upbringing would never have said in a minute.
DK,
Did you actually read my post? The Kitzur is not the source of the halacha. In order to just ignore this din, I would need to not pasken like G-d. And so would you.
“I will give up the g-word when “African Americans†give up “cracker†and “Hymieâ€.”
“They did it first.” Do we accept that excuse from our children?
I see that a few readers may have misunderstood my intent in my comment #10 above. When one is praising Hashem for creating such an outstanding person, then it would be permitted (according to my reading of the Kitzur). This would apply whether one is praising his athletic ability OR his outstanding character, or any other aspect. But the point is that one is praising Hashem.
I never meant to say that praising athletic ability was more acceptable than praising character.
I hope that is clear now.
Leah: “And at least I am honest about the way I feel towards the goyim who murdered my grandparents and uncles in cold blood because we were Judes.”
So, all non-Jews are responsible for the non-Jews who engineered the Holocaust? They’re all just one undifferentiated mass in your mind, Leah? The nice little Catholic lady down the street isn’t worthy of being treated respectfully because somehow she was complicit in the Holocaust? I don’t quite grasp your logic here.
By that same logic, all of us Jews are responsible when a Jew swindles the government out of money.
Practically, I and my wife very often praise non-Jews. My boss, our child’s PT, my wife’s birth coach. Not just the job they did but their character. I don’t know how to square that with all the explicit sources that say one shouldn’t do it.
Maybe don’t pasken by the kitzur shulchan aruch?
“And at least I am honest about the way I feel towards the goyim”
And the Nazis were at least honest about how they felt about the Jews. You get no points for that.
But just a tip…most of the world…that 99.9% of gentiles out there….they don’t all identify as gentiles. Many of them don’t think about Jews or Judaism at all.
To get angry at all “goyim” over the Holocaust is pretty absurd. Are the Vietnamese “goyim” to blame? Are the Indian “goyim” to blame? What about the British, who fought against the Nazis? What about the Bulgarians? What about the Berbers?
When a tribe in the Torah is blamed for something they did to the Jews, that tribe and that tribe alone is held responsible. The Edomites are not held responsible for the Moabites. The Moabites are not held responsible for the Ammonites.
There is no “goyim,” the way Leah employs the term.
Just because a person is a goy, this does not make them a bad person. You can’t generalize against individuals. We may not follow the “goy-ish” culture, but, unless a person or a group of people are anti-semitic (or have proven to be), we have to treat this person or persons like a human being, for we were all created in Hashem’s image. If a person is bad, that’s how you judge them….if there good, judge them that way.
Marty
“Someone had better inform the gemara that Michoel says the Kitzur says it’s assur to praise a non-Jew such as Dama Ben-Netina.”
Shunamit, as a friend (“chaverim kol Beis Yisroel”), I have to tell you that you are being a bit superficial in your lumdus. See the kitzur yourself. It is siman kuf samech zayin, siman tes vav. It is also a Rashi on Chumash in Parshas Va’Eschanan in Perek Zayin (Pasuk beis I think). It is also brought down by the Chafetz Chaim in his Sefer Hamitzvos HaKatzar, lo saaseh kaf. That sefer I believe is based on the Rambam’s sefer HaMitzvos, and I’m pretty certain that both Rashi and the Rambam would be quoting the gemarra directly.
The point of the gemarra with Dama Ben Nesina is exactly the opposite of the way you seem to be learning it. EVEN THOUGH he was a non-Jew, he was so careful of his father’s honor. So certainly we Jews have to be.
I do agree though that one could ask a kashe from that gemorra with Dama Ben Nesina, that it still seems to praising his character. And if someone has a good answer I would sincerely like to here it. However, The Kitzur, Rashi and the Chafetz Chaim are still exceedingly clear to anyone honest that will see them inside.
I have a love-hate relationship with blogs. And one of the biggest issues I have with them is that one cannot say the truth (or even one’s own understanding of the truth) for fear of giving offense. And that is effectively censoring the D’var Hashem. Who are we to do that? It is as if we are saying we know better than Hashem what morality is. Baalei T’shuvah and gerim need to be aware of this. If Hashem said that a man can have 5 wives, no-one can come and now say that it is immoral to 5 wives. The same for owning slaves (al pi halacha) and the same for the rest of the Torah.
To be a giyores is a very high madreiga and I have enormous kavod for you. Perhaps you would be willing to daven for me and my family. I mean that very sincerely.
But if a person (a ger, BT of FFB) is only frum “al manas” that the Torah conforms with MY preconceived notions of morality, they never really accepted the ol of mitzvos.
Practically, I and my wife very often praise non-Jews. My boss, our child’s PT, my wife’s birth coach. Not just the job they did but their character. I don’t know how to square that with all the explicit sources that say one shouldn’t do it. I am struggling with this issue and trying to find the right path.
Don’t bother responding to me, because I will not look at BT blog anymore. Save your time for your goyish buddies.
Do my BBT friends count as “goyish buddies”? Cause if so, THAT’s pretty darn frum!
It is a delicate balance. One one hand, Gentiles are also the creation of G-d, and should be treated with respect. As the chosen people, Jews are required to behave in a holy manner towards anyone. We even have the laws of not causing animals any pain. But, on the other hand, we are not supposed to lose our separate identity. We have laws that protect that, for example we are not supposed to drink wine that a Gentile has touched unless it’s mevushal. We learn that one of the reasons why the whole purim saga began was because the Jews were drinking and celebrating with the Gentiles at the royal party, hence starting what could have been the annialation of the Jews in Shushan. So I guess G-d wants us to be respectful but to keep our separate identity, so as not to get too close to Gentiles which may lead to intermarriage. Just my thoughts.
Ben-David–“Hymie” is definitely offensive, but “Cracker”? Not even in the same league. I can guarantee you that nobody in my extended family would take “cracker” seriously, and we are, for the most part, definitely Premium Saltines.
Genetically though, we make top-notch mitnachlim–Check out the Original 13 Colonies, or better, Northern Ireland. Ain’t nobody throwin’ this yeer Jewish cracker out of Yehuda and Shomron.
Peace, love, and personal sidearms,
“Another Kosher Cracker for Hybrid Vigor”
While the point has been touched on already, I think it needs to be emphasized: the problem with words like ‘goy’, when used as a perjoritive, is the utter *hypocracy* of it. Not to detract from anyone else’s experience, as we are certainly not alone in this, but for a group of people who have had to deal with being hatred just because we exist, and then to turn around and foist it upon any other group is the height of hypocracy.
I cannot understand a racist or bigoted Jew. We all have to contend with the impact on our personal lives of famous Jews doing infamous things. When someone throws it up to us, we defend ourselves by saying that that guy is not typical, please don’t judge me, or the rest of us for that matter, by the least of us. But when a black guy mugs an old Jewish lady in Crown Heights, every black guy becomes a mugger.
I am not saying that we are not different from them, whoever you want ‘them’ to be. But since when is different necessarily bad? Different is just different.
We Jews are not all shining examples of humanity. They are not either. But if you only look at the flaws of a person or a group, everyone will be found wanting. I choose to look at the whole person. If their positive qualities override their negative qualities, then I judge them as good. Most people, and most groups of people, therefore, I judge as good.
I am no different. I’ve got my flaws, some serious, some not so serious. I constantly work on them, and it’s not an easy task. But I know I’ve also got my share of good characteristics.
When I was single, and people asked me what I was looking for in a wife, I responded, “Someone who can love me in spite of my flaws.” I apply the same principle to others. I say, “Every man is my friend until he gives me reason to think otherwise.”
It seems to me that the real trick is how to get Jews to value being part of their own community and value the uniqueness of being Jewish without resorting to the non-menschlich and spiritually dangerous method of cultivating a strong knee-jerk visceral aversion to anything that deviates from machaneinu.
Although assimilation is a very real problem, I think it’s important to realize that encouraging leitzanus, indifference, and distrust towards anyone, even outsiders, has a coarsening effect on our neshamos and comes with real spiritual costs that should not be ignored.
Rishona,
I agree that equal, understanding and sensitivity are some of the most important traits out there today.
Im also especially fond of fairness and the truth.
I disagree with your psychological thread analysis though. I for one,do not reek of insecurity;-).
Leah Anderson,
No need for name calling. Just wanted to point out ,that your rash assumptions & conclusions clearly suggest you may have misunderstood the sentences in the comment you are misconstruing.
Its also good to remember that in life, context does matter.
Bob Miller – What a good point!
Leah Anderson – Whoa! So the answer to the atrocities suffered in the Holocaust are to harbor all this anger. And what exactly does this accomplish. The Holocaust was absolutely tragic. But when you examine Jewish history it is just one of countless tragedies that have befallen the Jews. Do you not think Hashem knows about this?
Ben-David – What in the world? In my humble opinion, your approach is nothing less than poisonous; to yourself and your mishpacha. I was born a Black person, so I have gone through discrimination based on my race my entire life. I am sorry that it took you becoming “visibly Jewish” in order to see it (it was there all the time). However you have the Torah as your guide…while non-Jews do not. I am not making excuses, but Jews are supposed to function on a different, higher level — not stoop to the lowest common denominator. Jews are not the only ones with neshamot. Every single human on this planet is a creation of HKBH. Non-Jews are different than Jews in their purpose, but they are not inferior. The righteous of all nations surely have a share in the world to come.
I am sorry, but this whole thread just reeks of insecurity. If people could be more sensitive to the feelings of others (both Jews and non-Jews), then this would not even be an issue. I mean since when do non-Jews set the standards for how a frum Jew should live?
While we can justifiably criticize calling non-Jews names, we should focus on how so many Western Jews have been submerging themselves in the non-Jewish culture. That submersion and the assimilation that follows, and not our name-calling, is the really dangerous problem we face.
DK…you write “This is often offered as an excuse for disrespect and contempt towards gentiles.” You are obviously not a child of holocaust survivors. You are sympathetic to goyim and their feelings but not to mine. I find your comment very hypocritical. And at least I am honest about the way I feel towards the goyim who murdered my grandparents and uncles in cold blood because we were Judes. Don’t bother responding to me, because I will not look at BT blog anymore. Save your time for your goyish buddies.
If only “goy” was the worst thing coming out of my children’s (and their rebbeim’s) mouths. How about “shvartze” and other racist and derogatory terms for people of other races and cultures and no matter how much I try to discourage it, it’s hard to fight “city hall” when a large percentage of the frum community holds racist views.
I’ve been learning through the Shulchan Aruch, and the term “Goy” or “Goyim” is used quite frequently, albeit in a non-pejorative fashion. So my original unease with the term has become a bit muted.
That being said, I think there is indeed a problem with an underlying xenophobic world-view held by various Jews (religious or not) that has resulted in the word being used as a slur.
1) I will give up the g-word when “African Americans” give up “cracker” and “Hymie”.
My family definitely have received more anti-Semitic “hits” since becoming “visibly Jewish” – and got some of that treatment even before.
We use these terms because we’ve been the victims – and remain a minority.
Remember?
2) My relationship with most non-Jews still starts with the lingering and often-fulfilled fear that I will not be treated as an equal.
And being considered “special” or “holy” is also not “being treated as equal”. However well-intentioned, it also leads to people not seeing me as an individual person.
3) After living in an all-religious community in Israel for over a decade – gentiles really do seem… different. In a way they weren’t when I was growing up in their country/culture.
Michoel–
Yes, I know my rabbonim are “broad people who have exposure to a variety of opinions”. I shall have to enquire of them why someone might think it permissable to praise an athlete who has been trained and bred like a horse to excel in certain arbitrarily praiseworthy feats, but not to praise, say, my non-Jewish brother whose kibbud ha-av has rivaled that of Dama Ben-Natina. (Except that my brother has better financial sense.) Someone had better inform the gemara that Michoel says the Kitzur says it’s assur to praise a non-Jew such as Dama Ben-Netina.
G-d gives non-Jews freedom of choice to sacrifice their self-interest for a higher goal. Would that not be more significant than being beautiful or able to run fast?
Leah Anderson–No need to apologize to ME for the use of the term “goy”. No one knows better than I that there are basic, untraversable differences, even in regard to non-Jews of highly developed character. I just think the word should not be “shagur b’finu” in the vernacular, especially not under the false assumption that the goyim in question have no idea wha we’re talking about.
Michoel,
Im sure everyone knows that halacha is far from the average mister nice guy.
But is the kitzur shulchan aruch the last word on halacha ?
Its not even the first word on halacha in addition to being an abridged version of a different book.
Im sure there are arguments for whatevre source /opinion you cite.
I think it makes more sense to learn halacha from the actual sources as opposed to an abridged or non abridged index of halachic conclusions that a certain sage in a specific era compiled into a dandy concise halacha handout. His brilliance and erudition notwithstanding.
Sometimes context does matter.
And how is anyone even supposed to understand any halachic concept by reading a bunch of harsh sketchy or outrageous conclusions.
I second Leah’s point that this is certainly not limited to frum Jews. I did not grow up in a frum family or neighborhood and I heard the G word bandied about quite freely.
I’m not a posek but it’s probably contextually Nivul Peh (profanity). And, if for whatever reason, techncially not Nivul Peh, I see no harm in being extra careful.
For one, I can’t picture those we deservedly revere as being lax in such matters.
If one is accustomed to use it in private then it will slip in public. The public is probably aware of these words. Could that create a Chilul Hashem?
Michoel, I fail to understand how using those words could ever be “medicinal”.
Shunamit,
I am certain they have read the Kitzur and I’m pretty certain that they are broad people who have exposure to a variety of opinions and the wisdom to know when to apply ehich opinion.
I am not sure by what you mean by my muddy, somewhat racist logic. I would sincerely appreciate it if you would clarify because I didn’t intend to offend anyone.
In general, I don’t believe that anything is gained by censoring sources and trying to make the Torah “nicer”. Even in blogs.
DK,
I will bring it in tomorrow, b’ezras Hashem.
Michoel,
That concept sounds fundamentally flawed and misconstrued on so many different levels.
Also, according to the kitzur shulchan aruch, every single action/experience and activity a given individual engages in whether it be marrying, sex,studying,loving,drinking or drooling, should be done for the sake of Gd. Or in the hopes of “for the sake of Gd”.
Is this what you’re referring to ?
So they brought us up to be very mistrustful of non Jews.
This is often offered as an excuse for disrespect and contempt towards gentiles. While this may be understandable, it is also problematic.
I for one am tired of hearing the Holocaust offered as an excuse for poor behavior, whether personal, communal, or commercial.
Too much bad behavior.
In my post I did use the word “goy”. My apologies to those who were bothered by it. “Guest Contributor” writes “these words are used more frequently, sometimes coming out of the mouths of Rebbe’s, Morahs and Rebbeim.” If you mean that BT’s learn this word from our teachers and Rabbabim, I would just like to say that I learned this from my very own parents, who survived the holocaust. My father was orphaned, the only survivor of his entire family. So they brought us up to be very mistrustful of non Jews. My teachers and Rabbonim did not contribute to this attitude.
I just saw in the kitzur Shulchan Aruch where he writes very clearly (and in this you can feel free to ask me for proof!) that it is assur al pi din to praise a non-Jew.
Where?
Michoel–I guess my rabbanim haven’t read the Kitzur, because they always told me VERY specifically that I should praise my non-Jewish relatives for their virtuous actions. (Which, by the way, have been many and varied.)
On the other hand, I cannot see any value in encouraging the emulation of sports celebrities, unless it’s somebody like Lou Gehrig or Roberto Clemente.(You should ask Rav Aharon Rakeffet for a tape of his shiur on Joe DiMaggio.
Your muddy, somewhat racist logic is another reason I thank G-d I’m a gyoret and I don’t have to define Jewishness as a race, a cooking style, or a vocabulary of slang.
Personally, I am uncomfortable with the word “gentile” as well. Could be a miguided sensitivity, don’t know. Both in writing and in speaking I generally use “non-Jew.”
Hello I’mJewish,
I will give some thought to your comments because I am still working this through for myself quite honestly.
My thinking right now is not to stress that sports players aren’t worth emulating because of the relative unimportance of sports. My thinking is that wearing the jersey of a person that we have no idea what his character is, is just completely not appropriate for a Jew. And in fact, very many pro baseball players are highly immoral. Please don’t force me to bring proofs.
Yes, there could be aspects worthy of emulation. But Reb Moshe Feinstein also had a few aspects worthy of emulation. Of course this all has to be translated into “8-year-old”.
I just saw in the kitzur Shulchan Aruch where he writes very clearly (and in this you can feel free to ask me for proof!) that it is assur al pi din to praise a non-Jew. The only heter (according to the Kitzur) is to say things where the stress is on praising Hashem. Such as “Wow, This person Hashem created is so beautiful or such a great athlete”). So to wear a shirt where the clear implication is that one feels the name on the back is worthy of emulation, is probably assur.
“And there are times, for example when my 8 year old is thrilled that a relative bought him a baseball jersey with the name of some famous gentile on the back, that I will tell him that this person is a “goy†and in all likelihood, he is not a person worthy of emulation.”
There could be aspects of that person worthy of emulating — for example, good sportsmanship, hard work, teamwork, using wealth for charitable purposes, etc.
If, otoh, you wish to make the argument that sports players aren’t worth emulating in general because sports is relatively unimportant, then it seems to me it wouldn’t matter much if it were a Jewish or non-Jewish sports player.
Continuing Shunamit’s thought, tell your children for almost every Jew who survived the Shoah, there was a righteous gentile involved. That we, as a people who have been persecuted more then any other, should be more sensitive.
Up until, perhaps 9/11, I was a Liberal. While my politics may have changed, my appreciation for all people based on who they are internally, not what type of “package” they’re in, lives on. It’s a good thing – because working in civil service assures one that they’ll be in a highly multi-ethnic environment. While I’m grateful to come home to my ghetto, I’m also glad that I’m still in touch with all types of people. Most of the people who toss those words around have virtually no contact with anyone outside of their own insular world.
G–Surely you cannot be so foolish as to believe that the fact that, as you say, “not everyone uses [the word “goy”] in a perjorative way means that the word is not perceived as insulting by non-Jews.
Words like “darky”, “pickaninny”, “nigra”, “colored” and even “nigger” were once commonly used, and many people would argue vociferously that no offence was intended.
I would submit that the perceived insult, and frequently the intended insult, is similar in the use of the word “goy”. Moreover, the offence is compounded by the implication that one thinks the non-Jew in question is too stupid and out of it to assume what one is talking about.
Teach your children and yourselves sensitivity; there is no good excuse for this.
The fact that one changes language, makes it pejorative. If one was a Yiddish or Hebrew speaker, we would have to look at tone and context to know if it was pejorative.
Would it be a kiddush or chillus Hashem etc? They, in fact, don’t know. So I don’t see why that should be a primary question in our minds. To me, a more important question is simply does using such words impact positively or negatively on our children and ourselves. And and can hear good arguments both ways. If a BT is a very hung up nervous, liberal, using a few choice pejoratives might be the best possible medicine for him!
Personally, I avoid such words. We do, however, try to speak very highly about Jews and stress that a Jew and non-Jew are not the same. If some very frum looking Jews come to the door (a m’shulach most likely), my kids get excited and yell, Tatty, A Yid is at the door! Or, a Yid with a beard is at the door! Baruch Hashem!
And there are times, for example when my 8 year old is thrilled that a relative bought him a baseball jersey with the name of some famous gentile on the back, that I will tell him that this person is a “goy” and in all likelihood, he is not a person worthy of emulation.
I don’t detect any particular coarsening of my language over time. Our children have been careful about their speech.
We certainly need to understand where Jews stand relative to non-Jews, but that doesn’t have to lead to constant mockery.
Historically, in relation to us, non-Jews have run the gamut from supportive to murderous. They have often turned on us in a flash. All the more reason to be careful about them and around them.
“Why are you assuming that the word is by definition a pejorative/negative one?
Not everyone uses it in that way.”
Enough people do, however, that it has negative connotations. That’s enough for me. Why would I ever want to use terms that are commonly thought of as pejorative? It’s just as easy to say non-Jewish or to say black person.
Personally, I’m glad someone else had the guts to write this! Probably one of the things that irks me the most in the 25 or so years since I’ve been frum is exactly that! These words are used in a tone of voice that is clearly not the same as saying “nation”. The one that bothers me the most is a word that literally (from the German), means black, but is used in a way that is hardly any different then saying the N word. It’s usage is definitely banned in our home, but my family have often felt they’re swimming against stream when they’ve expressed disdain about its usage.
I try never to use the term “goy” when referring to a non-Jew. I’ve often heard people say that the word is not pejorative, it simply means “nation”. While technically true, the manner in which the word is most commonly used generally indicates disparagement and, at times, disgust. We usually use the word non-Jew in our house. Our kids do use the “G-word” from time to time and I’m sure they use it more often amongst their friends and in school.
“pejorative words”?
“negative term”?
“in such a fashion”?
Can we back the generalization truck up for a second? Why are you assuming that the word is by definition a pejorative/negative one?
Not everyone uses it in that way. Just as you do not feel it right for people to generalize about non-jews in this way (be it true or not) how is it better to generalize that everybody who uses this word does so in that way?