“Geen vijanden”

tentofnationsrock

In haar boek Geen Vijanden vertelt de Nederlandse antropologe Anne de Jong over haar verblijf in Israël en de Palestijnse gebieden, alsmede over haar deelname aan de Gaza Freedom Flotilla in 2010. Ze wisselt vaak zeer persoonlijke inzichten moeiteloos af met korte uitweidingen over de politieke theorie achter het geweldloos verzet. Van Gene Sharp, de pionier van de theorie van geweldloos verzet in de 20e eeuw, tot Mary King, die in haar boek The Quiet Revolution de Eerste Intifada analyseert.

De centrale gedachte bij Sharp is dat gehoorzaamheid van de bevolking macht mogelijk maakt. Machthebbers, zelfs dictators, kunnen niet veel zonder medewerking van politie, leger, politici, zakenmensen, arbeiders, wetenschappers en anderen. Dat klinkt door in de bekende uitspraak van de historicus Howard Zinn dat burgerlijke gehoorzaamheid het grote probleem is. De bevolking als geheel vormt een formidabele macht die ook op geweldloze wijze verandering kan afdwingen. Er is daarom niets romantisch of geitenwollensokkkenachtigs aan deze bewegingen, ze zijn nuchter, pragmatisch. en vormen een reëel gevaar voor de heersende elite.

In sommige Palestijnse dorpen worden al sinds jaren vreedzame demonstraties gehouden, meestal op vrijdag. Er zijn verschillende overleggroepen van Palestijnen en joden die samen proberen het gemeenschappelijke te benadrukken. Voor velen die het Israëlische geweld dagelijks meemaken en zien dat er ondanks al dat gepraat alleen maar meer land wordt gestolen, alleen maar meer mensen worden verdreven, is het niet altijd makkelijk om daar het nut van in te zien. Spottend wordt dit wel “hugs en hummus” genoemd, elkaar blijven knuffelen zonder effect op een bezetting die steeds wurgender wordt.

De Jong is eerlijk over wat ze voelde tijdens de agressie en de vernederingen die ze moest ondergaan. Ook bij haar kwam er een moment dat ze woedend werd, ze wist zich te beheersen, maar ze leerde zo een kant van zichzelf kennen waar ze niet trots op was. Ze begrijpt dan pas echt hoe moeilijk het voor de Palestijnen is, die dit jaar in jaar uit moeten ondergaan, om niet te gaan haten. Haat is contraproductief, maar er zijn situaties waarbij het bijna een onmenselijke opgave lijkt om niet te gaan haten.

Tent of nations

Op het gebied van vreedzaamheid en geweldloosheid is er weinig te bedenken dat daar meer aanspraak op kan maken dan het project Tent of Nations bij Bethlehem. Daoud Nassar, een christelijke Palestijn, heeft hier een boerderij op land waarvan de eigendomsrechten terug gaan tot de Ottomaanse tijd. Hier kunnen joden en Arabieren, vredelievende mensen van elk geloof, meewerken aan een plek waar de liefde voor de grond boven elk conflict staat. Het is een educatief en ecologisch centrum.

Als je sommige Israëlische politici hoort praten over de door hen zo begeerde vrede, verwacht je dat dit initiatief goed gesubsidieerd en beschermd zal worden, juist door de bezetters die hun gedrag immers steeds rechtvaardigen met een verwijzing naar Palestijns geweld.

Maar niets is minder waar. Deze oase wordt al decennia belegerd door vijf joodse nederzettingen in de buurt, door het Israëlische leger en de Israëlische regering. In de omringende nederzettingen kan de hele dag gesproeid worden en glinsteren de zwembaden in het zonlicht. De familie Nassar daarentegen moet het zonder stromend water en elektriciteit doen. En toch blijft hun motto: “Wij weigeren vijanden te zijn“.

tentnationsmotto

Tent of Nations: We refuse to be ennemies.

De Israëlische autoriteiten hadden eerder al 13 slooporders uitgevaardigd, het was verboden nieuwe gebouwen neer te zetten (zelfs geen tenten) en de in- en uitgangen werden geblokkeerd met rotsblokken. Ook waren er in het verleden al bomen gerooid. Normaal zou je in 10 minuten in Bethlehem zijn, maar door de restricties op beweging voor de Palestijnen kost dit minstens een uur. Op elke denkbare manier probeert de bezetter ook hier het leven zo moeilijk mogelijk te maken voor de inheemse bevolking.

En deze week heeft Israël hier verschrikkelijk huisgehouden. Ongeveer 1500 bomen werden vernietigd bij een Israëlische inval met bulldozers. Een complete vallei met wijnranken, appel-, abrikozen-, amandel-, vijgen- en olijfbomen werd veranderd in een levenloze zandbak. En waarom? Er moet weer een weg komen om de joodse nederzettingen met elkaar te verbinden. Weer een weg die ten koste gaat van Palestijnse grond en waarvan de Palestijnen zelf geen gebruik mogen maken. Het labyrint van wegen, nederzettingen en checkpoints reduceert zelfs de meest hoopvolle Palestijnse initiatieven tot machteloze eilandjes.

tentnationsfields

Voor en na de komst van de Israëlische bulldozers. Ironisch genoeg gezien het oude zionistische mantra dat zij “de woestijn tot bloei hadden gebracht”. Toen al een leugen en nu nog steeds.

Deze sociocide zoals Johan Galtung het noemde, de vernietiging van het sociale weefsel van de maatschappij, komt tot uitdrukking in de moord op schoolkinderen deze week, de blokkade van de Gazastrook en het rooien van bomen die noodzakelijk zijn voor het levensonderhoud van de Palestijnen. Het lijkt wel of Israël, na elk nieuw rapport dat verschijnt over de misdaden van de joodse staat, met nog meer arrogantie de internationale gemeenschap uitdaagt: “Wij doen gewoon waar wij zin in hebben en trekken ons niets aan van wat jullie vinden. Aan mensenrechten hebben wij geen boodschap en nog minder aan mensenlevens.”

Zoals Anne de Jong besluit is het in wezen geen conflict tussen Israëliërs en Palestijnen: “Het is een dagelijkse strijd tegen angst, vooroordelen en haat.” Het moge duidelijk zijn hoe deze strijd door de zionisten wordt gevoerd. Deze week hebben ze wederom gezorgd voor meer angst, meer vooroordelen en meer haat.

Ondertussen bezocht onze minister van Defensie Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert de schurkenstaat om te praten over militaire samenwerking. De timing was weer eens perfect. Ze zal wel niet hebben gevraagd of Amsterdam veilig is voor de Israëlische kernwapens. Nee, het was ongetwijfeld een gezellig onderonsje, hugs en hummus met de blonde stoot die ons land naar de verdoemenis helpt. En wie zouden haar daarbij beter van dienst kunnen zijn dan de gewetenloze helden van het zionisme?

Engelbert Luitsz

Tent of Nations

Rijksoverheid, Minister Hennis bezoekt Israël

Jan Pronk over Geen vijanden van Anne de Jong

Anne de Jong, Geen Vijanden, Rainbow 2011

44 comments for ““Geen vijanden”

  1. May 22, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    Schelden en beledigen zal niet helpen.
    De familie Nasser heeft het begrepen.

  2. May 22, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Alleen met een streven naar vrede waarbij schelden en beledigen geen opties zijn
    probeert de familie Nasser haar familiebezit te behouden.
    Deze werkwijze dwingt in de hele wereld respect af en is een goed voorbeeld hoe het streven naar een palestijnse staat de meeste kans van slagen heeft.

    • Aleid Blink
      May 22, 2014 at 12:53 pm

      rjr, Als de houding van de familie Nasser en de vele andere Palestijnen respect af dwingen, waarom neemt u, i.p.v. ergerlijk smakeloze en beledigende opmerkingen die te debiteren, dit voorbeeld dan niet over?

      En waarom levert dat goede voorbeeld dat door velen in Palestina en daarbuiten al jaren gevolgd wordt, nog steeds niets op. In tegendeel zelfs, zoals blijkt uit dit artikel. Leest u deze artikelen eigenlijk wel en laat u de inhoud tot u doordringen? Dat blijkt nl. niet uit uw, veel te haastige, reacties.

    • May 22, 2014 at 12:53 pm

      Misschien toch eens de moeite nemen een stuk te lezen voordat u weer begint te raaskallen. Vreedzaam samenleven wordt met Israëlische bulldozers en kogels om zeep geholpen, met de actieve steun van mensen als u.

  3. Egbert Talens, Zutphen
    May 22, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    Ook Meta Floor, van ‘Vrienden van Sabeel Nederland’, kwam in actie n.a.v. dit opmerkwaardiglijkvreemde gebaar van de kant van Israel jegens het Palestijnse volk; immers, pleit Netanyahu niet voor de twee-staten-oplossing? Maar de Palestijnen merken daarvan tot dusver hélemaal níets. Toch? Wie iets wil doen voor de familie Daoud Nassar en hun vrienden, kan een gift overmaken naar Postbank NL33INGB0003276280, t.a.v. Stichting Vrienden van Sabeel Nederland te Culemborg, onder vermelding van Tent of Nations. Voor iedere € 10,– kan een nieuwe boom worden geplant.
    Ook ik heb langere tijd mijn hoofd gebroken over de uitspraak, dat de familie Nasser heeft begrepen dat schelden en beledigen niet zal helpen. [Het moet zijn de familie Nassar, maar dit terzijde; ik moet hier de eerste reactie van rjr nog tegenkomen, zónder spelfouten.] Ja, wat heeft de familie Nassar nu begrepen… Zij scheldt niet, en zij beledigt niet, tracht op allerlei vreedzame manieren een lans te breken voor betere relaties met (de) Israeliërs, en zie wat zij ervoor terug krijgt. Wij, en nog veel eerder de familie Nassar, willen niet weten wat níet zal helpen, rjr e.a., wij willen weten wat wél helpt. Enkel kreten slaken, daaraan heeft maar één partij behoefte: de politieke zionisten c.s.. Dus aan de bak, rjr, en kom met een antwoord dat niet voor tweeërlei uitleg vatbaar is; bijvoorbeeld door te vermelden dat rjr € 10,– heeft overgemaakt, of gáát overmaken, op vermeld rekeningnummer… Zoals ik zelf gisteren al heb gedaan, vwhwi.

  4. May 22, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    Als ik over een, in mijn ogen, rechtvaardige familie lees is mijn hart vol vreugde.
    Een vreugde die het ach- en weegeluid overstijgt.

  5. May 22, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    Ik weet niet of de familie Nasser wel geld wil hebben? Als ik ze een bankbiljet geef
    dan heeft de overheid een schuld aan hen. En willen ze wel dat die overheid hen iets schuldig is?
    Als ik weer naar Israel ga dan zoek ik ze wel op. dan geef ik ze een kostbaar voorwerp.

    • May 22, 2014 at 1:52 pm

      Het is jammer dat deze website geen prijzen uitdeelt, die voor de grootste hypocriet heeft u ten volle verdiend.

    • Aleid Blink
      May 22, 2014 at 3:23 pm

      Een kostbaar voorwerp kan van alles zijn, maar zouden zij niet veel liever een boom krijgen? Een boom die mag blijven staan en niet wordt ontworteld, zoals zijzelf ook ontworteld worden door die overheid met wie u zich op een of andere manier vereenzelvigt. Een boom die vrucht mag dragen die als voedsel dient en zich mag uitzaaien op de grond waar de familie Nassar al zolang gevestigd is. Een boom die schaduw geeft als het warm is, hout als het koud is, troost als iemand verdrietig is. Een boom als teken van leven, het leven dat de familie Nassar niet wordt gegund door die overheid met wie u zich vereenzelvigt.

      Een Palestijnse familie! Eentje onder vele, zoals niet tot uw selectieve brein door laat dringen. Wat zij zouden willen is een gift van iemand in wie zij vertrouwen kunnen hebben en niet van iemand die wil dat Palestijnse ouders hun kroost verbieden te protesteren tegen de onmenselijke behandeling van weer diezelfde overheid met wie u zich identificeert.

      • May 23, 2014 at 12:21 am

        Er is niets op tegen om te protesteren. maar dan graag zonder stenen te gooien, met of zonder slinger of ieder andere vorm van geweld of provocatie. Maar de lezer weet dus inmiddels wel dat ik er zo over denk.

  6. May 22, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    Waarom men zich hier nog druk maakt over reinejragolo, begrijp ik niet niet. Hij zoemt maar wat zonder argumenten. Hij heeft ergens verdriet over …

    Well hé’s a human fly
    It’s spelt F-L-Y
    He says buzz ,buzz, buzz, and it’s just because..
    He is a human fly and I don’t know why
    He’s got ninety six tears in his ninety six eyes.

    • Aleid Blink
      May 22, 2014 at 3:31 pm

      Arjan Fernhout, U heeft natuurlijk het grootste gelijk, maar er zijn velen van zijn soort en als je die onbelemmerd door laat zoemen, blijven ze besmettelijk. Aan het gezoem van een malariamug probeer je toch ook een einde te maken met een paar klappen.

      Vanmorgen ook nog geprobeerd een vlieg te verjagen. Deze was gelukkig minder drammerig.

      • Sjouke
        May 22, 2014 at 3:57 pm

        Dit is duidelijke taal en geen geitenwollensokken praat. Ik blijf je volgen.
        Ik maak wel een bijdrage over voor een nieuwe boom, goed idee.

      • May 23, 2014 at 12:24 am

        Een vlieg is een nuttig dier Aleid. Je moet het leven koesteren.
        Verjagen dus neen, Horregaas ja.

    • Egbert Talens, Zutphen
      May 22, 2014 at 4:13 pm

      Arjan; al geruime tijd reageer ik op rjr niet meer rechtstreeks. Mijn reactie van hierboven is ook duidelijk (toch?) een indirecte; om aandacht te wekken voor dat bankrekeningnummer, en om geïnteresseerde c.q. behulpzame lieden in de gelegenheid te stellen, iets te dóen, en niet enkel te buzzen. Nu buzzt rjr dat het overhandigen van een bankbiljet aan de fam. Nassar — rjr volhardt in Nasser; de hemel mag weten waarom — tot een schuld van de overheid aan die familie leidt; dit snapt déze idioot {E.T. uit Z.} niet, en als u, of iemand anders, dit weet uit te leggen, dan voel ik mij zeer verplicht. Mijn bankoverschrijving kan ik weliswaar niet meer ongedaan maken, maar als ik de familie Nassar ermee belast, dan wil ik dat wel graag weten. Ook interesseert het mij over wélke overheid rjr het in deze heeft. M.a.w.: hélp! [ Mocht rjr zélf tekst en uitleg willen geven, dan is daar natuurlijk niets tegen; in tegendeel zelfs. ]
      Er is nog iets. Rjr zegt, bij een volgende gang naar Israel, de familie Nassar op te zoeken. Maar deze familie woont helemaal niet in Israel, toch? Moeten wij rjr niet waarschuwen dat voor een bezoek aan die familie, en hun ‘Tent of Nations’, een ander land moet worden bezocht? Anders komt er (ook?) van het overhandigen van dat kostbare voorwerp misschien niets terecht; vooropgesteld dat de Israelische autoriteiten dit kostbare voorwerp niet in beslag nemen…

  7. May 22, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    De oplossing voor de Palestijnse ellende, door wie dan ook veroorzaakt is vrij simpel (net als de meeste reageerders hier, denk ik wel eens)…

    …willen de rabbijnen van het Hof hiermee duidelijk maken, dat het niet ‘nodig’ is om Joods te worden. In tegenstelling tot andere geloven gaat het Jodendom niet uit van het axioma, dat de olam haba (het hiernamaals) exclusief voor de eigen geloofsgroep is. Ook niet-Joden hebben een plaats in de olam haba zolang zij zich houden aan de zeven wetten, die aan Noach gegeven zijn. Wanneer iemand die niet Joods is, overtuigd raakt van de waarheid van de Thora hoeft hij of zij dus niet over te gaan tot het Jodendom om volgens de Thora te leven…

    `Heb de vreemdeling lief’

    Nadat hij/zij getest is en serieus lijkt, moet men hem/haar verder helpen. Het is een onderdeel van de mitsva om geriem lief te hebben. Zelfs iemand, die tijdens zijn niet-Joodse leven stevig ageerde tegen het Joodse volk maar later tot andere inzichten is gekomen, moeten we toelaten als proseliet bij gebleken ernst. Het bewijs hiervoor vinden we in de geschiedenis van generaal Nevoezaradan, die de eerste Tempel heeft verwoest en tienduizenden Joden heeft omgebracht. Toch werd hij aanvaard als geer.

    • May 22, 2014 at 5:48 pm

      Ik hoor het al, u heeft het ook niet makkelijk. Fijn dat ze u tenminste nog laten internetten, daar.

    • Egbert Talens, Zutphen
      May 22, 2014 at 6:35 pm

      Beste timmerark; bent u bereid vragen die verband houden met de Thora c.q. Tora, te beantwoorden? Iets specifieker: vragen over de waarheid van de Thora…; uw woorden.
      Ik vind wel dat u wat plompverloren op de proppen komt met deze post, maar dat hoeft de pret niet te drukken, om het enigszins oneerbiedig te formuleren.

    • piterfries
      May 22, 2014 at 7:34 pm

      Gentiles in Halacha
      http://www.daatemet.org.il/daathalacha/en_gentiles1.html

      The Jews Are Called ‘Man’
      Tzfi’a 3

      The Editorial Board
      President of the Editorial Board and Founder: Rabbi Moshe Segal OBM
      Rabbi Yisrael Ariel
      Moshe Asher
      Joel Rakovsky
      Amishar Segal
      Articles are the authors’ responsibility
      5749

      The Distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Torah
      Rabbi David Bar Chaim
      Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav

      Introduction

      Over the past few years, there has been a recognizable trend amongst different circles in the religious community — a humanistic/universal inclination. There are many who have written in praise of love, “for all men who were created in the image of G-d.” We have even been “graced” with a pamphlet of this name, Chaviv Adam Sh’nivra B’tzelem, composed and edited by Mr. Yochanan Ben Ya’acov, the Director General of the Bnei Akiva Youth Movement. The explicit goal of those who share this outlook is to prove that all men are equal, that it is forbidden to discriminate against any man on the basis of his race, and that anyone who claims the opposite is nothing but a racist, distorting the words of the Torah in order to fit them to his “dreadful” opinions.
      Here are two examples:

      1. A statement by Ms. R. Huberman:
      “…I never imagined that the Torah discriminates between one man and the next on the basis of faith, nationality, or race…on the contrary, it is our Torah which teaches that the blood of man is holy simply because he is man: ‘Whoever sheds man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of G-d made He man’ (Genesis 9)…in the Ten Commandments it is written: ‘You shall not murder’! There is no hint of a restriction, no hint that the prohibition applies to a Jew and not to a Gentile…”
      (“Between Blood and Blood,” Amudim, a monthly magazine of the Religious Kibbutz Movement, Tamuz 5745, pg.352).

      2. [Former] Member of Knesset (National Religious Party) Professor Avner Shaki:
      “The Jews of the State of Israel who received the Torah of Moses on Mount Sinai, where it was established that man was created in the image of G-d, have no need for any…law to teach us this fundamental basic of the Torah, that all men are born equal according to Judaism…man’s equality, man’s status before G-d and before his fellow man, is a primary and fundamental principle in the Jewish Torah…of course, we will not assist any type of racism which discriminates against man because of his color, religion, or nationality…”
      (an excerpt from his speech during a discussion in the Knesset on an amendment to the Basic Law of the Knesset and the Penal Law)
      We have something very clear before us: all human beings, Jew and Gentile, are equal.

      As will be further clarified, this outlook completely contradicts the Torah of Moses, and stems from an absolute lack of knowledge, permeated with foreign Western “values.” There would not be any need to respond were it not for the many who are mistaken and lead astray by it.

      This outlook has even been expressed by some rabbis whose goal is to show how great and important the stature of the Gentile is in our Torah, and who thereby violate the truth by taking things out of context and inaccurately interpreting the words of Chazal and the Rishonim.
      A large part of their efforts are centered (due to the “Underground” affair, of course) on an attempt to prove that the prohibition “You shall not murder” also applies to the killing of a Gentile.

      Here is an excerpt from Rabbi Yehuda Amital, shlita:
      “See the Ra’aban on the Gemara Tractate Bava Kama 113a, that the prohibition of ‘You shall not murder’ also applies to a Gentile, as is explicitly stated by Maimonides in The Laws of a Murderer, chapter 1, halacha 1. See Yere’im, paragraph 175, that the killing of a Gentile is a subsidiary to the prohibition against murder.”
      (From a letter published in Alon Shvut (Yeshiva Har Etzion), issue number 100. His words are cited in the pamphlet previously mentioned, Chaviv Adam Sh’nivra B’tzelem, in an experimental edition, pg.64)

      Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein shlita writes:
      “From Maimonides’s words (Mishna Torah, The Laws of a Murderer, chapter 2, halacha 11) it is clear that the prohibition ‘You shall not murder’ applies to a Gentile who fulfills the seven Noahide commandments, and the murderer is punished by death from the Heavens. So on one hand there is no difference in the prohibition of murder between a Jew and a Gentile…”
      (From a synopsis of a lecture published in Keshet B’Anan number 32, Gesher, and cited in the above mentioned pamphlet, pg.72.)
      The followers of these rabbis continue their path:
      “…’You shall not kill’! This is an absolute prohibition, an unambiguous command that does not distinguish between Jew and Gentile…”
      (Mr. Yochanan Ben Ya’acov’s words in his introduction to the above mentioned pamphlet, pg.1)
      Later on it will become clear how misleading and deceptive these matters are.

      Not only about this halacha are things written which are liable to mislead the public.
      For example, Rabbi Lichtenstein writes:
      “The field of the Torah…is also relevant to the world of the Noahide, but there is no doubt that as far as the extent is concerned…the study of Torah is much less in the world of the Gentile than in our world.

      Rabbi Meir’s words in Tractate Sanhedrin 59a and the beraitha in Torat Cohanim are well known: even a Gentile who sits and learns Torah receives reward…an additional emphasis on the great and exalted study of Torah being relevant to the world of the Gentile.” (From his essay, Bnei Adam, in the monthly publication Emda, Number 3, pg.16, and in the previously mentioned pamphlet, pg.74.)

      It is amazing that he forgot to point out everything said there on this matter, particularly the conclusion.
      How could he not mention that Rabbi Meir’s words were brought in order to disagree with Rabbi Yochanan who said: “A Gentile who studies Torah is punishable by death,1 as it is said: ‘Moses commanded us the Torah as an inheritance,’ for us it is an inheritance, and not for them”?

      The conclusion is most important — in order to settle the conflicting statements the Talmud answers, “In this case, he is engaged in the seven Noahide commandments” (He is engaged in the halachas of those seven commandments to be skilled in them — Rashi).
      He is permitted to study those specific seven Noahide commandments — and if he learned more than this, he is punishable by death.
      So the Tosaphot wrote in Tractate Avodah Zara 3a, s.v. sh’afilu, and Maimonides in The Laws of Kings, chapter 10, halacha 9, writes: “A Gentile who engaged in Torah is punishable by death.2 He should not engage in anything other than their seven commandments alone.” The distance between what was said in the Talmud and Rabbi Lichtenstein’s words is great.

      In the previously mentioned essay Rabbi Lichtenstein writes further:
      “The field of prayer also exists as a universal value…this has been said in connection to the Holy Temple at its inception (I Kings 8:41-43); this is part of the prophecy of the end of days: ‘For my house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations.’ There is also room for the Gentile to come and pray in the Holy Temple!”

      How is it possible to say such things? Indeed, we have learned a complete Mishna (Kalim, chapter 1, mishna 8): “…Inside the walls of the Temple Mount is holier, and therefore Gentiles and one who has been defiled by the dead cannot enter there…”thus Maimonides ruled in The Laws of the Holy Temple, chapter 7, halacha 16. There is no way for a Gentile “to come and pray in the Holy Temple”! The matter is clear: a Gentile can pray, even on the Temple Mount, but not in the Holy Temple.

      An additional proof of the Gentile’s stature, according to Rabbi Lichtenstein:
      “Animal sacrifices are conceived by us as being of authentic Jewish character, but they definitely belong, in the pure sense of the halacha, also to the world of the Gentile: a Gentile offers animal sacrifices not just on any altar…but in the Holy Temple” (from the above mentioned essay).

      Aside from what has been previously clarified, that there is absolutely no possibility of a Gentile entering the Holy Temple, much less of offering sacrifices there, this statement, like the one beit, does not reflect the position of “pure halacha” on this topic.
      There is a discrepancy between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosi the Galilean in the Sifra on the portion of Emor, parsha 7, halacha 1, and in the Tosephta, Shekalim, chapter 1, halacha 7 (Zukermandel and Leiberman editions, in the Vilna printing, halacha 3), and brought in Tractate Menachot 73b, concerning which sacrifices can be accepted from a Gentile. Maimonides ruled based on Rabbi Akiva3 (The Laws of Sacrifices, chapter 3, halacha 2): “Men or women or slaves can bring sacrifices.

      But from the Gentiles we only accept burnt offerings as it is said: ‘From the hand of a Gentile do not offer the bread of your Lord’…but we do not accept from them peace-offerings, nor meal-offerings, nor sin-offerings or guilt-offerings…” In connection to this we must add that even if a Gentile volunteered to donate money in order to have a part in the public sacrifices, we do not accept it from him, as it is cited in the Sifra, chapter 7, halacha 12, and in Shekalim, chapter 1, mishna 5, and Maimonides wrote in The Laws of Shekalim, chapter 1, halacha 7: “Everyone is obliged to give half a shekel…but from the Gentiles who gave a half shekel, we do not accept it.”

      Generally speaking — there is no equality of rights for a Gentile, not in their entrance to the Holy Temple nor in their offering of sacrifices there.
      It seems that these examples are sufficient to clarify the reason for writing this essay. Now let us consider a long list of sources that clearly contradict the previously mentioned opinions.

      First we will focus on halachic matters, and afterwards on the spiritual realm. It must be noted that I plan to deal only with halachot that illustrate the vast distinction the Torah makes between Jews and Gentiles.
      I do not intend to examine the topic of the status of Gentiles in the Torah in its entirety.
      For example, how and to what extent can the Gentile serve G-d according to the Torah, and what is his reward for this?
      What is possibilities are open for Gentiles residing in the land of Israel?
      What is the law for Gentiles who are at war with us or hostile towards us?

      I will not deal with these and similar matters — for this is not my purpose. (These matters are connected to specific situations and details, whereas the purpose of this essay is the overall, consistent distinction between Jew and Gentile.)
      The same is true concerning the second part of the essay, which will deal with the spiritual realm.

      1. Between Jews and Gentiles — In Halacha
      A. Killing a Gentile
      It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 24:17): “He who kills any man shall surely be put to death,” and it is also stated in the portion of Mishpatim (Exodus 21:14): “But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent, to slay him with guile, you shall take him from my altar that he may die.” On the latter verse it is stated in Mechilta (Masechta D’Nezikin parasha 4): “‘But if a man comes with intent’ — Why was this stated?
      Since it is stated ‘And he that kills any man…,’ perhaps this also speaks of one who kills on purpose, in error, and others: a healer who killed [his patient], one who inflicts [deadly] blows with permission of Beit Din, a father who tyrannizes his son or student [to death] — is this what it implies? It is taught: ‘But if a man comes with intent’ — to exclude [one who kills in] error, ‘man’ to exclude the minor, ‘man’ — to include the others, ‘his neighbor’ — to include the minor, ‘his neighbor’ — to exclude the others.” Isi the son of Akiva says: “Before the giving of the Torah we were warned concerning the spilling of blood. After the giving of the Torah, instead of being more severe, they were more lenient.
      In truth they said he is exempt from the rule of man, and his judgement is the hands of Heaven.”

      We learn from the Mechilta that a Jew who killed a Gentile with intent is not put to death by the Beit Din, as he would be had he killed a Jew.
      The halacha is the same concerning a ger toshav, as is explicitly stated in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on the above mentioned verse: “‘Upon his neighbor’ — with the exception of others, ‘his neighbor’ — with the exception of the ger toshav.
      Perhaps I ought to exclude the others, for they do not have commandments similar to the Jews, yet I ought not exclude the ger toshav who has commandments similar to the Jews.
      It is taught: ‘his neighbor’ — with the exception of the ger toshav.” Likewise it is written in Sifri on the portion of Masaei, paragraph 160, see there, and in Sifri Zuta on the portion of Masaei, 23: “Upon his neighbor — with the exception of the ger toshav.”4

      Similarly we learn in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin chapter 9, mishnah 2: “One who intended to kill an animal [and instead] killed a man, [intended] to kill a Gentile [and instead] killed a Jew, [intended to kill] a fetus [and instead] killed a child who is able to exist outside the womb, [he is] exempt.”
      These, too, are the words of Maimonides in The Laws of a Murderer and Saving Life, chapter 2, halachas 10 and 11 (in manuscripts it appears as a single halacha): “One who kills a Jew or kills a Cannanite slave is put to death for this. And if he killed unintentionally, [he is] exiled.
      A Jew who kills a ger toshav is not put to death for this by a Beit Din, as it is said: ‘But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent.’
      And it need not be said that he is not put to death for [the killing of] a Gentile.

      The same for one who kills the slave of another, or kills his own slave — he is put to death for this, for the slave has already accepted upon himself commandments and is [therefore] included in the inheritance of G-d,” and so the Tosaphot has written in the Talmud, Tractate Makkot 9a, s.v. k’savur.

      In contrast, a ger toshav (and all the more so a Gentile) who killed a Jew, even unintentionally, is put to death, as we learned in chapter 2 of Tractate Makkot, mishnah 3, and in the Gemara there (9a), and as Maimonides wrote in chapter 5 of The Laws of a Murderer and Protecting Life, halacha 4: “A ger toshav who killed a Jew without intent — even though he did it unintentionally, he is put to death.”
      However, it must be emphasized that one cannot take this as permission to kill a Gentile.

      In the aforementioned Mechilta it clearly states the opposite — “his [one who kills a Gentile] judgement is in the hands of Heaven” — so it is forbidden. See further in Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (Zukermandel edition, in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4): “On the spilling of blood, how? …a Jew [who killed a] Gentile is exempt,” for one who kills is exempt [from punishment by Beit Din], however [this action is] prohibited, and in Sanhendrin 57a on this beraitha it is stated: “There, how should we learn the bereitha, prohibited [for a Gentile to kill a Gentile or a Jew] and permitted [for a Jew to kill a Gentile]?

      Yet we have learned in a beraitha that Gentiles and shepherds of small cattle are not raised [from the pit] nor lowered [into it]?” — so there is a prohibition against the killing of a Gentile.
      However, we have not found in the words of Chazal a definition of the prohibition, and the Rishonim are in dispute on this matter.
      The opinion of HaRa’aban is that one who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of “You shall not murder” and these are his words in the commentary on Bava Kama paragraph 22 (page 74d)5: “…’You shall not steal’ is similar to ‘You shall not murder’ and ‘You shall not commit adultery’6 in that it refers both to Jew and Gentile.”

      This is not the opinion of Maimonides in the beginning of The Laws of a Murderer and Protecting Life: “One who kills a Jew transgresses a negative commandment as it is stated: ‘ You shall not murder’.”7 Maimonides also wrote something similar in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 289, and Rabbi David HaKochavi restated it in his Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 289. Likewise, it is written in Yere’im paragraph175 (Schiff edition, in other editions paragraph 248): “…and it is called murder only concerning a Jew, as it is written: ‘who murders his neighbor’ — the murder of one’s neighbor is called murder, but the murder of a Gentile it is not called murder.”
      And in the continuation of his statement: “Subsidiary [prohibition] of murder: not to kill a Gentile, as we learned in the beraitha in Avodah Zarah chapter 2 (page 26a): The Gentiles and shepherds of small cattle are not raised [from the pit] nor lowered [into it].”8 According to Maimonides, the Yere’im, and Rabbi David HaKochavi, one who kills a Gentile does not transgress the negative commandment ‘you shall not murder.’9

      Summary
      1. One who kills a Gentile, and even a ger toshav, is not put to death for this by the Beit Din, even if he kills him with intent. This is clearly stated in the Torah and in the words of Chazal.
      2. In the opinion of HaRa’aban, one who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of “You shall not murder,” and in the opinion of Maimonides, the Yeare’im, and Rabbi David HaKochavi, the murder of a Gentile is not included in this negative commandment. However, according to all opinions there exists a prohibition in this matter, as is clear from the words of Chazal.
      So the Torah differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile with regards to the killing of a man.

      B. Saving of Life
      Regarding the subject of saving a life, too, the Torah differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile. We learn in chapter 8 of Tractate Kippurim (Yoma) mishnah 45 (in the Vilna edition mishnah 47): “One upon whom the ruins of a building collapsed and there is doubt whether he is there or not, whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a Jew or a Gentile, we clear off [the rubble]. If they found him alive, they clear off [the rubble], if dead, they leave him there.”

      The Talmud explains on page 85a: “It is needless to say ‘there is doubt whether he is alive or dead’ if he is a Jew, but even if we are uncertain whether he is a Gentile or a Jew we clear off [the rubble],” and thus wrote Maimonides in chapter 2 of The Laws of the Sabbath, halacha 21 (in the Vilna edition, halacha 20): “If there was a courtyard with both Gentiles and Jews, even one Jew and a thousand Gentiles, and the ruins of a building collapsed upon them, we clear off the rubble from everyone for the sake of the Jew.
      If one of them moved to another courtyard and it collapsed upon him, we clear [the rubble] off him, for perhaps the one who moved [to the other courtyard] is the Jew and the ones who remained are the Gentiles.” Likewise in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, paragraph 329, section 3.10

      It must be pointed out that a Jew who wanted to engage himself in the saving of the life of a Gentile which involved a transgression of the Sabbath, and did so in front of witnesses and after being warned, is put to death by the Beit Din — this is self evident.

      C. Death by a Beit Din
      It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 19:15): “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any guilt, in !ny sin that he may commit: at the word of two witnesses, or at the word of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” And in the Sifri (Shoftim, paragraph 188) it is written: “Thus far we [learn] it with regards to the capital laws; from where do we learn it concerning monetary laws? It is written, ‘for any iniquity.’
      From where do we learn it concerning [transgression for which one must bring] sacrificial offerings? It is written, ‘or for any guilt.’ Where do we learn it concerning [transgressions punishable by] lashes [by a Beit Din]? It is written, ‘in any sin that he may commit’…”
      Maimonides wrote similarly in the beginning of chapter 5 of The Laws of Testimony: “No verdict of judgement may be made based on the testimony of one individual, neither in monetary laws nor in capital laws, as is written: ‘One witness shall not rise up against a man for an iniquity, or for any guilt’…”
      Likewise, one is not put to death by a Beit Din, even if there were several witnesses to his transgression, without forewarning, as we learn in the beginning of chapter 5 of Tractate Sanhedrin: “They [a Beit Din] would investigate them [the witnesses] with seven interrogations: Which week? Which year?…Do you recognize him? Did you warn him?…” and there in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 40b): “Ula said: From where [do we learn] forewarning from the Torah?

      As it is said: ‘And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness.’ Is this matter contingent on ‘seeing?’ Rather, until it is made perfectly clear to him [that sexual relations with her are forbidden to him -- Rashi]…In the school of Hizkiya they learn it thus: ‘But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent to slay him with guile’ — [this speaks of a case] when he was forewarned, yet he still came with intent.

      In the school of Rabbi Ishmael they learn it thus: ‘…those who find him gathering sticks,’ [it is mentioned in the present tense to teach us that] they forewarned him, yet he continued to gather sticks” (see there; in the Jerusalem Talmud there are other ways of learning the requirement of forewarning). Thus Maimonides wrote in the beginning of chapter 12 of The Laws of Sanhedrin: “How are capital cases judged? When witnesses come to the Beit Din…the judges say to them: ‘Do you recognize him? Did you forewarn him?’ If they say11 ‘We do not recognize him,’ or ‘We are not sure,’ or they did not forewarn him, behold, [he] is exempt.”

      This is the way concerning a Jew.
      With regards to a Gentile, however
      , it is taught in Sanhedrin 57b: “Rabbi Jacob bar Acha found it written in an Aggadic book from the school of Rav: a Gentile is put to death by one judge and by one witness, even if he was not forewarned, by testimony of a man and not of a woman, and even of a family member.
      In the name of Rabbi Ishmael they said: Even for [the killing of] a fetus.”

      Thus Maimonides wrote in chapter 9 of The Laws of Kings and Wars12 halachas 4 and 14 — these laws were stated concerning a Gentile, in contrast to the laws concerning a Jew. (A Jew is not put to death for killing a fetus as it is stated in chapter 5 of Tractate Niddah, mishnah 3: “A one-day old baby becomes impure by discharge…and one who kills him is liable…” and see the reason for this in Rashi on Sanhedrin there, s.v. af al ha’ubarin, and in the Gemara, Tractate Niddah there. Similarly, verdicts on capital cases where a Jew is accused may be made only by a Beit Din of twenty three members, as we have learned in Sanhedrin chapter 1, mishnah

      4. Likewise regarding the laws of testimony: the testimony of a family member is invalid for a Jew, as it says in Sifri, paragraph 280, on the verse: “Fathers shall not be put to death for children”: “…fathers shall not be put to death by the testimony of children, and children shall not be put to death by fathers. When it says ‘and children,’ it includes family members…”).
      We clearly see that the Torah is much stricter about the procedures of judgement when dealing with the life of a Jew than it is when dealing with that of a Gentile.

      D. Damage by a Gentile
      It is written in the Torah: (Exodus 21:35): “If a man’s ox injures his neighbor’s ox and it dies, they shall sell the live ox and divide the money received for it; they shall also divide the dead animal.”
      In the Mechilta (Tractate Nezikin section 12) it is said: “‘A man’s ox’ — to exclude the ox of a minor, ‘a man’s ox’ — to include the ox of others.’ His neighbor’s ox,’ to include [the ox of] a minor, ‘his neighbor’s’ to exclude [the ox] of a Gentile, the ox of a Samaritan, the ox of a ger toshav.”
      And in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai it is stated: “‘His neighbor’s,’ — to exclude others, to exclude the ger toshav.
      Is it possible no payment will be made to a Gentile or that a Gentile will not pay him?
      It is taught: ‘He shall surely pay,’ to include [the payment of] a Gentile and of a ger toshav. Is it possible that they pay for an innocent [ox] half the damage, and for a notorious [ox] full damage?
      It is taught: ‘His neighbors’ ox,’ the ox of his neighbor is dealt with in such a manner, and not [the ox] of others, concerning whom it is stated: ‘He appeared from Mount Paran’ (Deuteronomy 33:2), — [G-d] appeared disfavoring all the inhabitants of the world [in contrast to the Jews].”

      Furthermore, there is an explicit mishnah in Tractate Baba Kama 4:3: “An ox of a Jew who injured an ox which was dedicated [to the Temple] or a dedicated ox which injured an ox of a Jew is exempt, as it is written: ‘his neighbor’s ox’ — and not a dedicated ox.
      An ox of a Jew who hurt an ox of a Gentile13 is exempt.
      An ox of a Gentile who hurt the ox of a Jew — whether it is an ox who was harmless before or an ox which has been proven dangerous, [the owner] must pay the full damage.”
      A Jew who causes damage to a Gentile is always exempt, however a Gentile who causes damage to a Jew must pay the full damage in every case.

      And thus it is in Maimonides, chapter 8 of The Laws of Property Damage, halacha 5, and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, beginning of paragraph 406. The distinction between a Jew and a Gentile is clear.14

      It is appropriate to cite the words of Maimonides in his explanation of the mishnah in Bava Kama there: “If there was a legal case between a Jew and a Gentile, then the manner of judging between them is as I will explain: if we [i.e., a Jew] will win under their laws, we judge them according to their laws and say to them: this is your law!
      If it is better that we judge according to our laws, we judge them according to our laws and say to them: this is our law!15 And do not find it difficult, and don’t be surprised by it, just as one is not surprised about the slaughter of animals even though they have done no harm, for one in whom human characteristics are not complete is not truly a man, and his end purpose is only for ‘man’ [that is to say, the entire raison d’etre of the Gentiles is only for the benefit of the complete man – comment by Rabbi Y. Kapach shlita in his edition of Maimonides’s Commentary on the Mishnah], and the discussion on this matter requires a separate book.”

      E. Robbery and Theft of a Gentile
      With regards to robbery and theft from a Gentile, the Tanna’im disagreed, and subsequently so did the Rishonim, whether the prohibition is from the Torah or only Rabbinic.
      It is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 4 of Bava Kama, halacha 3: “It happened that the [Roman] kingdom sent two officials to learn Torah from Rabban Gamliel.
      They learned from him Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, Halacha, and Aggadah. In the end they said: your entire Torah is fine and praiseworthy, except for these two matters which you say — a Jewish woman should not be a midwife for a Gentile woman, but a Gentile woman can be a mid-wife for a Jewish woman, and a Jewish woman cannot breastfeed the son of a Gentile woman, but a Gentile woman can breastfeed [the child of] a Jewish woman with her permission; robbery of a Jew is forbidden, but robbery of a Gentile is permitted.

      At that moment Rabban Gamliel issued an edict that what is stolen from a Gentile is forbidden because of the desecration of G-d’s name.” According to the Jerusalem Talmud, that which is stolen from a Gentile is forbidden because of Rabban Gamliel’s edict and it is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Likewise it is written in Sifri on the portion of V’zot HaBracha, section 344, except that the edict of Rabban Gamliel is not mentioned there.

      This is also what is written in the Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (in the Zuckermandel edition; in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4): “…Regarding theft — a thief, a robber, one who takes a [captive] beautiful woman, and the like — these are things it is forbidden for a Gentile [to perpetrate] against a Gentile, or [against] a Jew, but it is permissible for a Jew [to perpetrate] against a Gentile.”

      Thus Rashi wrote on the aforementioned beraitha which appears in Sanhedrin 57a, s.v. yisrael b’goy mutar: “For ‘You shall not exploit your neighbor’ is written, and it is not written ‘a Gentile,’ but there is a Rabbinic prohibition, according to the one who says that robbery of a Gentile is forbidden because of desecration of G-d’s name in the last chapter ‘HaGozel’ [chapter 10 of Bava Batra].” Thus it also appears in Bava Metzia 111b: “And since the first Tanna learned the law from the phrase ‘his brother,’ what does he do with the phrase ‘his neighbor’? That phrase comes to teach something in his view also, as stated in the beraitha: ‘his neighbor’ — and not a Gentile.
      But isn’t it appropriate to learn that a Gentile is excluded from the phrase ‘his brother’?
      One [phrase] comes to permit exploiting him [a Gentile] and the other comes to permit robbing him, as he holds that robbery of a Gentile is permitted.”16 And so it is determined in the commentary attributed to the Ran on Tractate Sanhedrin 57a.

      Thus, too, ruled the Rama in Even HaEzer, paragraph 28, section 1, and also the Maharshal in Yam shel Shlomo on Bava Kama, paragraph 20.17
      In contrast, it is explained in Torat Cohanim on the portion of Behar Sinai, beginning of chapter 9 (and it appears in Bava Kama 113a with differences): “Rabbi Shimon says: from where do we learn that stealing from a Gentile is forbidden? It is written: ‘after he [a Jew] is sold [to Gentiles].’

      Perhaps one can take him by force and leave? [Take the Jew by force from the Gentile's house without paying, to steal him from the Gentile -- commentary attributed to Rabbi Simon Sens]. It is taught: ‘He shall be redeemed.’ Perhaps one can deceive him? [Fool the Gentile and treat him like an imbecile in order to buy his slave cheaply -- ibid..]
      It is taught: ‘He shall reckon with the one who bought him’ — to be precise with him… If the Torah is so strict in [forbidding] robbery of a Gentile, how much more so concerning robbery of a Jew.”

      It is explained that robbery of Gentiles is prohibited, and the plain meaning of the beraitha is that this prohibition is from the Torah, as the GRA wrote in his commentary on Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 8, and as the Radbaz wrote in his Responsa, part 2 paragraph 1276.18
      Thus it also appears in Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, section 266: “‘When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard’ — ‘your neighbor’s,’ to exclude others, ‘your neighbor’s,’ to exclude a vineyard dedicated to the Temple…” (‘To exclude others’ — that is to say, the vineyard of Gentiles, for concerning ‘your neighbor’s’ it is written: ‘But you shall not put any in your vessel’ — so in the vineyard of a Gentile it is permitted, and it is derived according to the one who says that view which states that generally robbery of a Gentile is forbidden… — commentary of Rabbeinu Hillel.)
      Thus it also appears in Tractate Bava Metzia 87b: “…in your neighbor’s vineyard and not in the vineyard of a Gentile. It is understandable according to the one who says robbery of a Gentile is forbidden, that is to say, we need this verse to permit a robbery to a worker…”
      According to these Tanna’im, robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah.

      Likewise it is stated in Seder Eliyahu Rabba (Tanna d’vey Eliyahu) chapter 16 (in the Ish Shalom edition, in other editions it is chapter 15), see there. See further the Tosephta on Bava Kama, chapter 10 halacha 15 (in the Vilna edition, halacha 8).
      Maimonides wrote at the beginning of The Laws of Theft: “Anyone who steals property worth the value of a prutah and above transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not steal’… no matter if he steals money from a Jew or the money of a Gentile idolater…”

      In The Laws of Robbery and Lost Items, chapter 1 halachas 1 and 2, he wrote: “Anyone who steals from a his fellow something worth a prutah transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not steal’…and it is forbidden to steal anything according to the ruling of the Torah.
      It is forbidden to rob or exploit even a Gentile idolater, and if one robs or exploits him, he must recompense him.”19
      This is also the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 2, and in the beginning of paragraph 359. Thus also ruled the Gaon of Vilna there, paragraph 348, subsection 8, and in Even HaEzer, paragraph 28, subsection 5, and the Ridbaz in the aforementioned responsum. (It is appropriate to note what the Ridbaz wrote: even though stealing from a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah, one does not transgress a negative commandment by doing it; it is also explained so in Likutei HaGRA on Maimonides, and according to this, once again there is no equality between a Jew and a Gentile).
      See Chidushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger, paragraph 359, where he proved that according to the view which holds that stealing from a Gentile is prohibited, the prohibition stems from the Torah.

      However, even according to Maimonides’s opinion that stealing from a Gentile is forbidden from the Torah and that consequently one transgresses a negative commandment by doing it, we find nevertheless found in his words a distinction between a Jew and a Gentile, for thus he wrote in The Laws of Robbery, chapter 6, halacha 7: “The Sages prohibited many things on account of robbery, and one who transgresses these matters is a robber according to their words — for example, pigeon racers and dice rollers,” and there in halacha 11: “one who plays dice with a Gentile does not transgress the prohibition of robbery, but he transgresses the prohibition of engaging in idleness, for it is not worthy of man to engage himself all the days of his life in matters other than words of wisdom and cultivation of the world.”
      That is, in this issue also a Gentile is not completely equal with a Jew.

      See in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 370 who brought the words of Maimonides and did not dispute him on this matter, and the SM’A in subsection 4 and in the Prisha in subsection 7. The GRA, in subsection 7, agreed with him.

      F. The Lost Item of a Gentile
      It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:2): “You shall not see your brother’s ox or sheep going astray and hide yourself from them. You shall surely bring them back to your brother.”
      It is also stated (Exodus 23:4): “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him.” In the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on the latter verse it is written: “‘Your brother’s ox’ — I only have [learned about] my brother, from where [do I learn about] my enemy? It is written: ‘your enemy’s ox’ anyway. Perhaps this is also the case concerning others?

      It is written: ‘your brother,’ as your brother is your partner, so too, any man who is your partner.” And in Tractate Bava Kama 113b: “Rabbi Bibi bar Gozla said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Chasida: robbery of a Gentile is forbidden… his lost item is permitted, similar to what Rav Chama bar Guryeh said in the name of Rav: from where do we know that the lost item of a Gentile is permitted?
      As it says: ‘In like manner shall you do with his ass; and so shall you do with his garment; and with every lost thing of your brother’s’ — every lost thing of your brother’s and not every lost thing of a Gentile. It was taught in a beraitha: Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair said, in any instance where there is a desecration of G-d’s name, even his [a Gentile's] lost item is forbidden…”20

      We learn in Tractate Machshirin, chapter 2 mishnah 8: “One who finds a lost item — if the majority [in the surrounding area] are Gentiles, he does not have to publicly announce his finding; if the majority are Jews, he must publicly announce it; if half are Gentiles and half are Jews, he must publicly announce.”

      Thus wrote Maimonides in the beginning of chapter 11 of The Laws of Robbery and Lost Items: “One who returns a lost item to a Jew fulfills a positive commandment, as it says: ‘You shall surely bring them back to your brother.’ One who sees a lost item of a Jew and ignores it and leaves it there transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not see your brother’s ox and hide yourself from them,’ and he also abandons a positive commandment. And if he returns it, he fulfills a positive command.”

      But in halacha 3 he wrote: “A lost item of a Gentile is permitted, as it says: ‘Every lost thing of your brother’s’.” Thus it is explained in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 266, section 1.

      In addition, it is explained in Sanhedrin 76b: “Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: one who marries his daughter to an elderly man, and one who marries his son of minor age to a woman, and one who returns a lost item to a Gentile, concerning him the verse says, ‘To add drunkenness to thirst: the Lord will not spare him’.” These are the words of Maimonides there, halacha 3: “If one returns a lost item [to a Gentile] to sanctify G-d’s name, in order that the Gentiles glorify the Jews, and know that they [the Jews] are a faithful people — this is praiseworthy.

      In a case where there is a desecration of G-d’s name, his [a Gentile's] lost item is forbidden, and he [the Jew] is obligated to return it…”. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote similarly there. (In regards to what Maimonides wrote “If he returned the lost item to sanctify…,” this is according to the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 2 of Tractate Bava Metzia, halacha 5 — but it is important to emphasize that one cannot learn general permission from this, as the Maharshal wrote in Yam shel Sholomo, chapter 10 of Bava Kama, section 20: “G-d desires a man’s heart [aspiration to worship Him], therefore [one may do it] if this is his intention [to sanctify G-d's name], however if his intention is that he, and not the faith of Israel, should be praised, or because he loves the Gentile and has mercy on him, it is forbidden [to return the Gentile's lost item].”)

      G. The Error of a Gentile
      The error of a Gentile [i.e., property of which he deprived himself due to an error] is permitted, similar to the case of his lost item.21 Thus it is explained in Bava Kama 113b: “Shmuel said: and his error is permitted.” However, the Rishonim disagree about whether it speaks of a case where a Gentile erred in his calculation on his own or if it is permitted to deceive him.
      In the opinion of Rashi, there (s.v. v’ivla lei zuza) it is permitted to deceive him, in accordance with Rashi’s opinion which was clarified above, that stealing from a Gentile is permitted.
      The Tosaphot also wrote there, s.v. ya’chol, that it is permitted to deceive a Gentile, however only if he cannot discover it and it won’t cause a desecration of G-d’s name. This is also the opinion of the Tur in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 3: “However, his error — that is, to deceive him in calculations or to raise his loan — is permitted, but only if it will not become evident to him — for in such a situation there is no desecration of
      G-d’s name.”22

      But this is not the opinion of Maimonides, who wrote in chapter 11 of The Laws of Robbery and Lost Items, halacha 4: “The error of a Gentile is similar to his lost item and is permitted — that is, if he erred on his own, but to deceive him is forbidden.” Likewise he wrote in the beginning of chapter 18 of The Laws of Transactions.
      This is also the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel (brought in Shita Mikubetzet; in Aruch, entry plez, it is brought without attribution) of the Rif, of HaRaviyah (brought in the Mordechai, paragraph 158, and in Or Zarua there on Bava Kama), of the Mordechai, and of the Nimukei Yosef.

      The Rama in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 2, brought both opinions and did not determine in this matter; however, the Maharshal ruled in Yam shel Shlomo (chapter 11 of Bava Kama, paragraph 20) that it is forbidden to deceive a Gentile, and this is the intent of the Gaon of Vilna there, subsection 13.

      In any case, the entire essence of this dispute is specifically concerning a Gentile, for with regards to the error of a Jew, everything must be recompensed, as it appears in a number of places, including Kiddushin 42b: “Rava said: anything concerning [faulty] measurements, weights or calculations, even if they are of minimal value, is also recompensed,” and so wrote Maimonides in the beginning of chapter 15 of The Laws of Transactions, and the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 232.

      H. Abduction
      It is written in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13): “You shall not steal,” and also there (21:16): “Whoever steals a man and sells him — if he is found in his hand, he shall be put to death.” In Mechilta, Yitro section 8 it is explained: “‘You shall not steal’ — why is this stated? Since it says ‘And he that steals a man, and sells him’ — his punishment is stated, from where do we learn a warning?
      It is written: ‘You shall not steal,’ this is a warning with concerning abduction.” In Deuteronomy 24:7 it says: “If a man is found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel and maltreating or selling him, that thief will die: and you shall eliminate evil from within you” — so it is clearly stated in the Torah that only for abduction of a Jew is one punished by death.

      In Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, paragraph 273: “Stealing any of his brethren — and not others” (that is, Gentiles — commentary of Rabbeinu Hillel). Thus we also learn in the beginning of chapter 11 of Sanhedrin: “These are the ones who are [put to death by] strangulation: one who hits his father and mother, and one who abducts a Jew…”
      And this is the wording of Maimonides in The Laws of Theft, chapter 9, halacha 1: “Anyone who steals a Jewish person transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not steal.’ And there in halacha 6: “No matter whether he abducted [one born] a Jew or a convert or a manumitted slave, as it says: ‘Any of his brethren,’ and these are considered our brothers in Torah and commandments.
      However, one who steals a slave or a man who is half-slave/half-free is exempt” — in any case, we learn that one who abducts a Gentile is exempt.

      I. One Who Injures His Fellow
      It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:2-3): “And it shall be, if the wicked man is worthy to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down, and he shall be beaten before him, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty lashes he shall give him and not exceed, lest, if he exceeds and beats him with more lashes than these, your brother shall be made vile before you.”
      In the Mechilta, Mishpatim section 5 on the verse “And he that smites his father or his mother shall surely be put to death,” it is explained: “We have heard the punishment, but a warning we have not heard. It is as written, ‘Forty lashes he shall give him, and not exceed,’ and the matter is an a fortiori inference: if one who is commanded to beat is warned not to [over]beat, one who is commanded not to beat is obviously warned not to beat.”

      All this is regarding a Jew, as Maimonides wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 300 (in Rav Kapach’s edition): “And from this negative commandment stems the warning not to beat any Jew: if concerning this sinner we are warned not to beat him, all the more so regarding any other man.” Likewise, he wrote in The Laws of Monetary Damages in the beginning of chapter 5: “It is forbidden for one to injure himself or his fellow.
      And not only the one who causes injury, but anyone who strikes a kosher Jewish person, whether a minor or an adult, whether a man or a woman, in any manner like fighting, transgresses a negative commandment, as it is written: ‘He shall not exceed to beat him’.” See further in The Laws of the Rebellious, chapter 5, halacha 8, and in chapter 16 of The Laws of Sanhedrin, halacha 12. Thus it is also written in Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 600 (in other editions, commandment 595).
      Furthermore, one who injures his fellow is obligated to recompense him, as we learn in the beginning of chapter 8 of Bava Kama: “One who injures his fellow is obligated in five categories: damage, pain, healing, rest, and embarrassment.”

      However, the obligation of compensation applies specifically to one who hit a Jew, as Maimonides wrote there, halacha 3: “One who hits his fellow a blow which does not have the value of a prutah is given lashes, for there are no payments appropriate to enable the paying off of this negative commandment.
      Even if he hits a slave of his fellow, giving him a blow which does not have the value of a prutah, he is given lashes, for he [the slave] is obligated in some commandments” — but one who hits a Gentile is not liable for any punishment.

      In contrast, it says in Sanhedrin 58b: “Rabbi Chanina said: a Gentile who hits a Jew is punishable by death, as it says: ‘And he looked this way and that, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian” (because [the Egyptian] had hit a Jewish man — Rashi, s.v. v’yach).
      Thus wrote Maimonides at the end of halacha 3: “And a Gentile who hit a Jew is punished by death, as it says, ‘And he looked this way and that…he slew the Egyptian’.” (However, in The Laws of Kings, chapter 10, halacha 6 he wrote: “And a Gentile who hits a Jew, even if he injured him slightly — even though he is punishable by death, he is not killed.” See there, in the Kesef Mishneh and the Ridbaz, for an explanation of why he is not put to death).

      J. Fraud
      It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 25:14): “And if you sell anything to your neighbor, or buy anything from your neighbor’s hands, you shall not defraud one another.” In Sifra on the portion of Behar Sinai, section 3, halacha 4 it is written: “‘You shall not defraud one another’ — this is monetary fraud.” Maimonides wrote in The Laws of Transactions, in the beginning of chapter 12: “It is forbidden for either the seller or purchaser to defraud his fellow, as it says: ‘And if you sell anything to your neighbor, you shall not defraud one another.’ Even though one [who does that] transgresses a negative commandment, he is not given lashes, for it can be recompensed. Whether he defrauded with intent or he did not know that the transaction was fraudulent, he is obligated to recompense.”

      However, regarding a Gentile the law is different.
      In Tractate Bechorot 13b it is explained: “They said: to your partner you return [something gained by] fraud, and you don’t return it to a Gentile.” Maimonides wrote in chapter 13, halacha 7: “A Gentile has not [been included in the transgression of] fraud as it says: ‘one another’ [literally, 'each his brother'].

      But a Gentile who defrauded a Jew must recompense him according to our laws — it should not be more severe than it is with a Jew.” Thus also wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 227 (in the Tur, section 30 and in the Shulchan Aruch section 26). In this matter also the inequality of a Gentile is obvious.

      K. Appointing a King and Other Authorities
      It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 17:15): “Then you shall appoint a king over you, whom the Lord your G-d will choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you, but you shall not set over you a stranger who is not your brother.” In Sifri, Shoftim, paragraph 157 it says: “Your brother, and not from others” (that is to say, Gentiles, for a Gentile king may not be appointed over Jews — Rabbeinu Hillel).
      And not just a Gentile, but also a righteous convert, considered a Jew in every matter, is disqualified for kingship, as is explained in Midrash HaGadol: “‘You shall not set over you a stranger ‘ — to exclude the convert… from here they said it is forbidden to appoint a king from the converts, even after a number of generations, until his mother is [one born] Jewish.”

      This is also the law concerning any position of authority, as explained in Kiddushin 76b: “We have learned: ‘Then you shall23 appoint a king over you from among your brethren,’ all appointments of authority that you make should not be [made]24 except from among your brethren.”
      Thus wrote Maimonides in chapter 1 of The Laws of Kings, halacha 4: “We do not appoint a king from amongst the converts, even after several generations, until his mother is [one born] Jewish, as it is written, ‘You will not set over you a stranger who is not your brother.’ Not only for kingship, but also for any position of authority in Israel, neither a general nor chief over fifty people, nor chief over ten people, nor even a person appointed to verify that the water is distributed to the fields. It is superfluous to talk about a judge or a nasi, who may not be other than [one born] a Jew, as is written, ‘one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you’–all the people whom you give positions of authority shall not be from other than your brethren.”

      However, regarding the possibility of appointing a convert to judge over Jews, the Rishonim are in disagreement.
      In the opinion of Rashi on Tractate Yevamot 102a, s.v. ger dan et chaveiro, a convert is allowed to judge a Jew on property matters, but not concerning capital laws (see also on Kiddushin 76b, s.v. kol mesimot.)
      However, in the opinion of the Rif at the end of chapter 4 of Sanhedrin, the Tosaphot on Yevamot 45b s.v. keivan and in Sanhedrin 36b s.v. chada, the Nimukei Yosef at the beginning of chapter 12 of Yevamot, the Ran on the Rif, end of chapter 4 of Sanhedrin, and the Meiri on Kiddushin there, a convert cannot judge a Jew, even on property matters, until his mother is [one born] Jewish. Thus Maimonides also ruled in The Laws of Sanhedrin, chapter 2 halacha 9: “A Beit Din of three [judges], one of them being a convert, is disqualified until his mother is [one born] Jewish.” Nevertheless, a convert may judge his fellow convert, as it is explained in Yevamot 102 and as Maimonides wrote in chapter 11, halacha 11. Also the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 7, wrote similarly.

      It is appropriate to mention the words of the Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 509 (in other editions 498) on this subject: “The root of this commandment is well known… one appointed to authority… must be, at the very least, from the seed of Israel, for they are merciful [people] the sons of merciful [people], in order that they have mercy on the nation and not oppress them in any matter. He must love truth, righteousness, and integrity; as is known, anyone from the family of Abraham possess all these good qualities…”

      It must be emphasized that this is an example of the distinction between one who comes from the seed of Israel and a righteous Gentile who converts to Judaism. Even though there may not be many such examples, this is not an exceptional case, as will be further clarified.

      L. Defamation
      It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:19-21) regarding defamation of one’s wife: “And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the girl, because he has defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he may not divorce her all his life.” In Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, section 238 it is written: “‘And give them to the father of the girl’ — with the exception of a female convert25 whose mother became pregnant before she converted, but gave birth after she converted; for [defaming] her daughter one does not pay a hundred shekels of silver.”

      Thus we learn in Ketubot, chapter 4, mishnah 3: “A woman who converted with her daughter and [the daughter, while engaged] had illicit sexual relations — she is put to death by strangulation [and not by stoning, for stoning is only in the case of a woman born Jewish].
      She need not be taken out of her father’s door [as is the law for an engaged woman born Jewish] and [her husband does not have to pay a fine] of one hundred shekels [if he defamed her, for this is only the law concerning a woman born Jewish]. If the mother became pregnant before she converted and gave birth after her conversion, she [the engaged daughter who had illicit sexual relations] is put to death by stoning, but [the law concerning] her father’s door does not apply to her, nor [the law concerning] one hundred shekels.
      If the mother both became pregnant and gave birth after her conversion, her daughter is considered a born Jew in all matters.”
      Thus Maimonides also wrote in The Laws of a Virgin Girl, chapter 3, halacha 8: “For any woman whose rape or seduction does not carry a fine, one who defames her is exempt from lashes and payments.
      So it is regarding a Gentile woman who converted and a maidservant who was manumitted under the age of three years; even if she was conceived before her mother converted and was born after she converted, one who defames her is exempt from lashes, as it says: ‘Because he has defamed a virgin of Israel’ — [this does not apply] until her conception and birth are in holiness.”

      M. You Shall Not Hate
      It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 19:17): “You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall certainly rebuke your neighbor, and not suffer sin on his account” — so it is clearly stated in the Torah that this prohibition specifically regards Jews.
      And so Maimonides wrote in The Laws of Mental States, chapter 6, halacha 6 (in the printed edition, halacha 5): “Anyone who hates a Jew in his heart transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart’.” Thus he also wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 302, and likewise it appears in Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 245 (in other editions 238).

      N. You Shall not Avenge or Bear a Grudge — And You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself
      It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 19:18): “You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” — here also the verse yells out “the children of your people.”
      In Torat Cohanim on the portion of Kedoshim, chapter 4, halacha 12: “You shall not avenge nor bear a grudge against the children of your people — but you can avenge and bear a grudge against others” (that is, against Gentiles — explanation of the Ra’avad).
      In the words of Maimonides in The Laws of Mental States, chapter 7, halacha 10 (in the printed edition, halacha 7): “One who avenges against his fellow transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not avenge’.” And there in halacha 11 (in the printed edition, the continuation of halacha 7): “What is considered vengeance? If one’s fellow said to him ‘lend me your ax’ and he answered ‘I will not lend it to you.’ The next day he needed to borrow an ax from his friend. He said to him ‘lend me your ax’ and the other answered, ‘I will not lend it to you, as you did not lend it to me when I requested.’ This is vengeance.”
      And there, halacha 12 (in the printed edition, halacha 8): “Also, anyone who bears a grudge against a Jew transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not bear a grudge against the children of your people.’ How is this?
      Reuven said to Shimon ‘rent me this house’ or ‘lend me this ox’ and Shimon refused. Later, Shimon needed to borrow or to rent and Reuven said: ‘See? I will lend it to you, for I am not like you and I will not pay you back for your actions.’ One who does so transgresses the commandment ‘You shall not bear a grudge’…”

      With regards to the second half of the verse, Maimonides wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot positive commandment 206 (according to Rav Kapach’s edition): “We were commanded to love one another…and my compassion and love to my brother in faith and religion shall be as my love and compassion to myself…” In chapter 6 of The Laws of Mental States, halacha 4 (in the printed edition, halacha 3): “It is a commandment for every person to love each and every Jew as he loves himself, as it says: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’.”

      O. One Who Sees Jewish Houses/Jewish Graveyards — Gentile Houses/Gentile Graveyards
      In Berachot 58b this beraitha appears: “The rabbis learned: one who sees inhabited Jewish houses says: ‘Blessed is He who establishes the border of the widow,’ [if he sees them] in their destruction he says: ‘Blessed is the true judge.’ On Gentile inhabited houses he says ‘The Lord will pluck up the house of the proud, but He will establish the border of the widow,’ in their destruction –he says, ‘O Lord G-d of vengeance; O G-d of vengeance, appear!’”
      Furthermore there: “The rabbis taught: one who sees Jewish cemeteries says: ‘Blessed be He who created you in judgement, and maintained you in judgement, and gathered you in judgement and in the future will raise you up in judgement.’ The son of Ravina concluded in the name of Rav Nachman the son of Isaac: ‘and knows all of your numbers, and in the future He will give you life and establish you in judgement; blessed is the reviver of the dead.’

      On cemeteries of the Gentiles he says: ‘Your mother shall be greatly ashamed; she that bore you shall be disgraced: behold the end of the nations is a wilderness, dry land, and desert’.”26
      The exact words of the Talmud appear in Maimonides, chapter 10 of The Laws of Blessings, halacha 11 (in printed editions, halacha 10) and in halacha 22 (in printed editions, halacha 19), and also in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, end of paragraph 224.27

      P. ‘You [Jews] Are Called Man’ — The Comparison of Gentiles to Animals
      In Ezekiel 23:20 it says: “There she lusted upon her paramours, whose members were like those of asses, and whose issue was like that of horses” (‘whose members were like those of asses’ — their sexual organs, ‘and whose issue was like that of horses’ — means excessive sexual relations, for horses engage in copulation more that any other male animals, ‘whose issue’ — spouting of semen like a stream of passing water — Rashi).
      This verse is a parable to the Gentiles, as is explained there, and the verse compares them to animals.
      This comparison is not by chance, as we will see further on, and it represents the foundation for a number of Halachic laws.

      Q. An Ox who Damages a Maidservant
      It is written in the Torah (Exodus 21:22): “If men fight and hurt a woman with child so that her fetus departs from her, and yet no further harm ensue, he shall surely be punished, as the woman’s husband will lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.” In Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and in the Midrash HaGadol it is stated: “‘If men fight — from here I only have [learned concerning] men, from where do I know that this includes two women or a woman and a man?
      It is stated: ‘…shall surely be punished’ — whether a man or a woman. What is taught by ‘men’? — men and not oxen.
      From here they said: if one’s ox injures a woman, [the owner] is exempt from payments for her offspring.” And in the Mishnah (Bava Kama, chapter 5, mishnah 5): “An ox which attempted to injure his fellow [ox] and [instead] hit a [pregnant] woman and she aborted her child — [the owner of the ox is] exempt from payment for her offspring.”
      And there in the Talmud (49a): “Rav Papa said: an ox who injured a pregnant maidservant and she had a miscarriage — [the owner of the ox] must pay her for her offspring. What is the reason?
      For he [the ox] has merely injured a pregnant she-ass, as the Scripture says: ‘Stay here with the ass,’ — the people who are like asses.” And in the words of Maimonides in chapter 1 of The Laws of Monetary Damage, halacha 4: “[Ones' ox] that injured a pregnant maidservant and she miscarried — [the owner of the ox] must pay for her offspring charges, for this is similar to injuring a pregnant she-ass.” Likewise it appears in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 405, section 3. (This exegesis, “A people who are like asses,” appears in a number of places in the Talmud; only this example has been presented in order not to prolong the discussion).

      R. The Impurity of a Gentile
      Concerning the matter of impurity caused by a dead person, it is written (Numbers19:14): “This is the law: when a man dies in a tent, all that comes into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.” In Yevamot 61a, and also in Tractate Bava Metzia 114b, this beraitha appears: “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: Gentile cemeteries do not defile as it says, ‘But you My flock, the flock of My pasture, are men.’
      You are called men, but the nations of the world [Gentiles] are not called men” (‘do not defile’ — that which overshadows them — Rashi in Yevamot).
      This is the wording of Maimonides, chapter 1 of The Laws of The Impurity of the Dead, halacha 13: “And a Gentile does not defile [objects within] a tent. This law is received from tradition.
      Behold, it says concerning the wars with Midian: ‘And whoever has touched any slain’ — and it does not mention there a tent. Also, a Gentile cannot become impurified by the dead. If a Gentile touched, carried, or overshadowed a dead body, he is considered as one who had not come in contact with it. Behold, to what is this similar? — To an animal who touched or overshadowed a dead body.
      Not only the impurity of the dead alone, but all impurities — Gentiles and animals are not defiled by them.” (The source for this law, that a Gentile does not become impurified, is in Tractate Nazir 61b and in Tosephta on Ohalot, chapter 1, halacha 4 [in the Vilna edition, halacha 2]:
      “A Gentile, an animal, a child born after eight months of gestation, clay vessels, food and liquids which came in contact with a dead body — utensils that touched them are pure.”) So agreed Nachmanides and the Rashba in their novellae on Yevamot, as did the Yere’im in paragraph 322, and the Raviyah in Hilchot Azharot HaCohanim M’tum’atan page 249 (explained also in Haga’ot Mimoniot Hilchot Evel, chapter 3 halacha 3 section 2, see there, where he states that this is also the opinion of Ritzba), and the Eshkol, end of Hilchot Tumat Cohaim.
      This is also the opinion of the Gaon of Vilna in Aderet Eliyahu on Chukat 19:18, and also of the Meiri in Yevamot and Bava Metzia there.
      However, Rabbeinu Tam determined that the Halacha does not follow Rabbi Shimon’s opinion regarding the impurity of the tent as the Tosaphot has written on Yevamot there, s.v. m’maga, and in Bava Metzia there (page a), s.v. mahoo, and so the Rosh wrote in Bava Metzia, and the SM”G in negative commandment 235 — but for our purposes this does not matter, for even according to the opinion of those who disagree, this foundation is a general one and determines the Halacha in other cases, as will be clarified further on.

      S. Gentiles and the Anointing Oil
      It is written in the Torah (Exodus 30:22) with regards to the prohibition of pouring the anointing oil: “Upon man’s flesh shall it not be poured, neither shall you make any other like it…or he who puts any of it upon a stranger shall be cut off from his people.” In the Midrash HaGadol it is stated: “One who pours it on himself or on others is guilty.
      Is it possible that even if he poured it on an animal and utensils, and upon Gentiles who are like animals, or poured it on the dead, he is guilty?
      It is written: ‘upon man’s flesh it shall not be poured,’ this excludes those whom I cannot call men.” In Kritot 6b it is written: “The rabbis taught: one who pours the anointing oil on an animal or utensils is exempt, on Gentiles and the dead, exempt. It is all right about animals and utensils, as it is written: ‘Upon man’s flesh shall it not be poured’; animals and utensils are not men. [One who pours on the] dead is also exempt, for once one has died, he is called ‘dead’ and not ‘man.’

      However, [one who pours on] Gentiles, why is he exempt? Aren’t they men? It is true, as it is written: ‘But you My flock, the flock of My pasture, are men’ — you are called ‘men’ and the nations of the world [Gentiles] are not called ‘men’.”28 In the words of Maimonides in The Laws of Holy Temple Utensils and Their Users chapter 1 halacha 6: “One who pours on utensils or on animals and Gentiles who are similar to them, or pours it on the dead,

      • Aleid Blink
        May 23, 2014 at 12:28 pm

        Piterfries, Ik heb nog niet het hele stuk gelezen, maar mijn oog viel hierop (“Between Blood and Blood,” Amudim, a monthly magazine of the Religious Kibbutz Movement …). Waarna de gedachte rees aan Ma’ale Adumim, een van de grootste, niet religieuze, nederzettingen aan de zuid-oostkant van Jeruzalem, waarvoor een bedouïenenstam moest wijken richting vuilstortplaats van Jeruzalem. Zo ga je daar om met mensen.

        Dit gebeurde n.b. in de periode dat de Oslo Akkoorden net waren getekend en het maakte duidelijk dat deze op zeer onbetrouwbaar ijs waren gebouwd en met het voorjaar op komst deze vredesovereenkomst alweer hard bezig waren begonnen te smelten.

        Als ik rjr was, zou ik nu met de opmerking komen dat gezien de grote behoefte aan water daar, dit precies was wat de Palestijnen nodig hadden. Maar hij weet praktisch zeker niet dat dit water in de grond zakt en Israël hen verboden heeft daar naar te putten. Een van de grootste reservoirs ligt onder Betlehem, maar ook de daar en in de omgeving wonende christenen, die rjr huichelachtig beweert lief te hebben, blijven daarvan verstoken en zijn dus afhankelijk van het beetje dat Israël hen gunt. Dit in cynische tegenstelling tot het aan de rand van de woestijn liggende Ma’ale Adumim met zijn gazons, zwembaden en lieflijk aangelegde parken.

        • May 23, 2014 at 10:25 pm

          Aleid ga maar een boompje ofzoiets planten waar geen water meer is.
          Dan bel ik wel bij zo’n kolonist aan of ik niet in zijn zwembad kan afkoelen.. Dat is best lekker daar op die brandende westbank.

      • May 24, 2014 at 3:49 pm

        Over blogvulling gesproken.

      • piterfries
        May 22, 2014 at 7:38 pm

        Excuus, ik dacht dat het hele verhaal was geweigerd vanwege de lengte.

  8. piterfries
    May 22, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    Historical summary

    Jews invaded (colonised) Muslim Palestine since 1880, Russian pogroms.
    These pogroms were organised, according to jewish phantasies, by Von Plehve, a Russian aristocrat, who did not like Jews reading communist articles, and spreading the word.
    Von Plehve was assassinated in 1904 after he had become minister of internal affairs in Russia.
    In reality the pogroms were spontaneous actions by Russian peasants, mainly against jewish usury and ruthless behaviour as landlords.

    In 1897 Herzl formulated Zionism, ‘back’ to Eretz Israel, from the Nile to the Euphrates.

    In 1917, during WW I, Great Britain made the Balfour declaration, on Jewish settlement in Palestine.
    The statement guaranteed the rights of the existing Palestinian population.
    The declaration was made for political reasons, Britain wanted to induce Russian Jews to make an effort for Russia continue it’s fight against Germany, the USA made the Balfour declaration a condition for rescuing Britain and France from defeat.
    Britain was desperate at the time, financially Britain was exhausted, and they knew that in November 1917 they had to capitulate, because of the successful German submarine war would by then would have run out of food, in Britain itself.
    Balfour himself also was motivated by biblical reasons; the Jewish British under-secretary of India was vehemently against, he saw the statement as anti semitic, insulting assimilated Jews like himself.
    The USA entered the war in March 1917, what importance Jewish pressure, the declaration, and Jewish financial interests, war loans to Britain, had, of course remains unclear.
    The Nye mid thirties congressional investigation, into the reasons why the USA entered the European war in 1917, did show that diplomatic negotiations between the USA and Britain had taken place about the Balfour declaration, prior to the USA entering the war.
    The conclusion of the Nye investigation was that war profits were an important motive for going to war.

    Prior to 1880 there were hardly any Jews in Palestine.
    The first armed conflict between Palestinians and zionists was in 1882, Petah Tikvah, zonist propaganda describes it as ‘clash with wandering Bedouins’.

    Reality was that zionists collaborated with Ottoman tax farmers, the Ottomans around 1870 had introduced ‘land reforms’, in fact measures to collect more taxes and conscript more men.
    Palestinian farmers did not register their land, to avoid both issues.

    Ottoman tax farmers, in then far away Beirut, then registered the land in their own names; ‘selling’ it to zionist immigrants.
    Thereafter the zionists, with help of the Ottoman bureaucracy, evicted the Palestinians from their land and their farms.

    Until around 1900 this colonisation was under German protection, the German Kaiser Reich was allied with the Ottoman empire.

    The Jews were in 1918, shortly after Great Britain had occupied Palestine, a mere 11 per cent of the population.
    After 1933 the stream immigrants increased until in 1947 the 65,000 Jews in Palestine of 1918 had jumped to 600,000. The Arabs had increased, too, but not by immigration
    In 1947 they were one third of it.

    From 1936 until 1939 Palestinians rose against the British, because of the Jewish immigration that forced Palestinians from their land and out of jobs; Jews fought with the British.

    In 1939, the British writer Bethel asserts, the Jews decided to fight the British in Palestine as soon as WW II ended.
    The attack began in May 1945.
    The most militant (terrorist) Jewish fighter group Irgun in 1946 blew up the British embassy in Rome.
    Lord Moyne, British High Commisioner in Egypt, was assassinated in Cairo.
    In May 1948 the British left Palestine.

    In 1947 the UN decided on a recommendation of partition of Palestine, some 50% for the Jews.
    At the time Jews owned 6 to 8% of Palestine; moreover in the partition plan the envisaged part for the Jews was the fertile part.
    It must be explained that the UN partition plan had nothing to do with ownership of land, just with establishing a political entity.

    The king of Jordan Abdullah had warned in an article published in USA media in 1947 that the Arabs denied an outside agency (the UN) the right to impose foreigners upon them; Arabs had no intention of becoming a minority in their own lands.

    The UN decided, the British withdrew in May 15 1948, and the Israeli state was established by the Zionists in Palestine; despite the fact that the Arab states had rejected the recommendation.
    UN decisions just are recommendations.
    Before May 15 most Palestinian towns already were in the hands of Jewish fighter groups like Irgun and Stern; atrocities by Jews against Palestinian civilians as in Deir Yazzin caused Palestinians to flee.
    Ben Gurion himself ordered Rabin and Allon the evict the 50.000 inhabitants of Lod and Ramle.
    The Arab countries came to the rescue after the British had left, and were defeated.
    Contrary to Zionist propaganda, the Jewish fighters outnumbered the Arab soldiers, were better trained (fighting in WW II) and had better weapons. Of course they also were more determined.

    Israel issued ‘laws’ forbidding the refugees, estimates vary from 400.000 to 700.000, to return, and seized ‘abandoned’ houses and land.

    Refugee camps were established in surrounding Arab nations.
    The Swedish UN mediator count Bernadotte, who wanted an unconditional right of return, was murdered in 1948 by Stern in Palestine; Syria asserts that Shamir at least was implicated.

    Nasser was one of the Arab leader who wanted to make peace with Israel.
    He broke off secret negotiations in Paris around 1954, and bought weapons from the USSR after Sharon killed, 1953, in ‘response’, some 40 Egyptian soldiers in Gaza Strip in 1955.
    The other reason was Mossad fire bombs in Cairo.

    There were many others who tried to make peace.
    Brigadier General Abdel Karim Qasem, before he seized power in Iraq in July, 1958, headed an underground organisation that sent a delegation to Israel to make a secret agreement.
    Ben Gurion refused even to see him

    After conspiring with France and UK, Israel, and it’s allies, attacked Egypt in 1956. Eisenhower stopped this colonial enterprise.
    At the time USA Jews obviously were not in control of the USA.

    In 1967 Egypt closed the Strait of Tiran, shipping from Eilath became impossible.
    This shipping meant nothing economically, but Israel made a great fuss about it.
    Israel asserts that Syrian and Jordanian armies went to offensive positions, other assertions are that they went to defensive positions.
    USA advice was to test the blockade with an international convoy; Israel in stead attacked, destroyed Egypt’s air force on the ground, conquered the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and attacked Syria, conquering the Golan Heights.
    Israel also attacked the USA navy ship Liberty.
    The USSR government warned the USA over the hot line that their bombers were ready on runways with bombs to destroy Israeli airfields.
    Israel stopped the war.

    In 1982 king Fawd made the same peace proposal as now in 2002: recognition of Israel by all Arab states, within it’s pre 1967 borders (thus ending the occupation of West Bank and Gaza Strip) and a solution tot the 1948 refugee problem.
    1982 also was the year in which Israel invaded Lebanon, against USA advice, on a fabricated pretext.
    Anyone knows about the massacres organised by Sharon in the Beirut refugee camps.

    Since 1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip have been continually occupied, despite many UN resolutions. Moreover, 400.000 Israeli’s now live there, also in violation of Geneva conventions.

    In 1987 Palestinians had enough of occupation, humiliation, land stealing, house bulldozing, poverty and settlement building and began the first intifada.
    Yitzak Rabin understood that a people determined not to be suppressed cannot be occupied any longer.

    In Oslo in 1993 a preliminary agreement was reached with the PLO, the representative of the Palestinians. A very limited form of autonomy began for the Palestinians.
    Alas after Rabin was murdered by an Israeli fundamentalist, Netanyahu did not continue the negotiations on further withdrawal, but became the best settlement builder.

    The 2000 93, 97 or 99% offer to Arafat just was a propaganda stunt, what was offered was not a state but four unconnected areas surrounded by Israeli territory, thus not a nation and not a viable economic entity.

    On 28 September 2000 Sharon visited provocatively the Temple Mount, and the second intifada began.
    The IDF actions on the West Bank were Sharon’s response to the 2002 Arab League peace offer, which again included recognition of Israel within the pre 1967 borders by all Arab states.
    Israel refused to let a UN investigation committee to look into the Jenin blood bath.

    I admire the Palestinians for keeping up resistance since 1948, left alone by virtually the whole world.
    The Jew who murdered Yitzak Rabin after the 1993 Oslo agreements should have a monument in the Palestinian state.
    Barak, Netnayahu, and especially Sharon, made the nature of the Israeli state clear to the world.

    • Egbert Talens, Zutphen
      May 23, 2014 at 12:59 pm

      Historical summary…

      Voor wiens rekening komt dit historische overzicht, waarin enkele zaken nadere toelichting c.q. enige correctie behoeven? Niet voor piterfries, mag gevoegelijk worden aangenomen, maar voor wie dan?

      Een paar kanttekeningen, vwhwi.

      ‘In 1917, during WW I, Great Britain made the Balfour declaration, on Jewish settlement in Palestine. The statement guaranteed the rights of the existing Palestinian population.’ Oef! Twee korte zinnen vol met onnauwkeurigheden, die ertoe dóen, echter. Ik laat het slechts bij deze observatie: the statement guaranteed the religious and civil rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Een scherpe waarnemer maakt hieruit op dat er geen sprake is van (de) politieke aanspraken van álle inwoners in Palestina; zoals precies de bedoeling was van degenen die deze verklaring in elkaar frommelden: namelijk de politieke zionisten zélf! Voor nauwkeuriger informatie kunt u in mijn boek, Ebr…, terecht.

      De vermelding over de moord op Lord Moyne, komt nadat het opblazen van de Britse ambassade in Rome (1946) wordt vermeld. [ In dit verslag ontbreekt het opblazen van een vleugel van het Koning David Hotel, 1946, in Jeruzalem (door de Irgun, van Menachim Begin), maar dit terzijde. ] Hierdoor lijkt het dat die moord op W.E.G. Moyne ook in dit jaar, 1946, of erna, plaats vond; hij werd op 5 november 1944 in Cairo vermoord, dus voorafgaand aan de hier vermelde aanval op de Britten, na WO-II.

      Opmerkelijk is het dat wel de ondergrondse verzetsgroepen Stern en Irgun worden genoemd, maar over de Hagana, een bijna officiële Joodse gevechtseenheid in Palestina, vanaf 1920!, wordt niets vermeld. Ook de Notrim blijven buiten zicht. Een ernstige omissie, nmbm.

      Het zou niet hebben misstaan als naast de moord op graaf Folke Bernadotte, ook het omkomen van de Fransman André Sérot zou zijn vermeld. Later werden excuses voor het per ongeluk omkomen van Sérot gemaakt, wat de zaak, impliciet en met betrekking tot de politiek-zionistische aspiraties, alleen maar door- c.q. ínzichtelijker maakt.

      De vermelding dat Sharon de massamoorden in de vluchtelingenkampen in Beiroet organiseerde, is een krasse. Dat Ariel Sharon, Israelische minister van defensie, die massamoorden faciliteerde, door steun aan de Libanese Falangisten te verlenen, is een andere zaak. En de genoemde ‘fabricated pretext’ i.s.m. de Israelische invasie in Libanon (1982) had wel nader uiteengezet kunnen worden. De aanslag op de Israelische ambassadeur in Londen werd immers opgevoerd, als noodzaak tot het ingrijpen in Libanon — waar de PLO van Yasser Arafat steeds grotere invloed kreeg — maar dat die aanslag het werk van de Mossad schijnt te zijn (geweest), kan met ‘goed fatsoen’ nauwelijks meer worden ontkend. Het valt onder vele andere wapenfeiten van die Israelische instantie; une mer á boire…

      Ook zou een iets nauwkeuriger uitwerken van de propaganda stunt die de Camp David besprekingen van 2000 opleverden, uiterst nuttig zijn geweest. Nu blijft die hele charade, waarbij Bill Clinton er niet voor terugschrok het mislukken van Camp David 2000 aan Yasser Arafat toe te schrijven, veel te veel onderbelicht.

      • Aleid Blink
        May 23, 2014 at 4:31 pm

        piterfries, Deze discussie brengt mij ertoe toch u aan te raden Egbert Talens gracieuze (en gratis!) aanbod van zijn boek aan te nemen en het te lezen. Het is zeer leesbaar, biedt alle noodzakelijke informatie in dezen en ondervangt een aantal heersende misvattingen die er inderdaad ‘toe doen.’

      • piterfries
        May 23, 2014 at 4:37 pm

        Hoeveel boeken en artikelen er zijn over het joods Arabische conflict, zeer veel.
        Dat dan in een kort verhaaltje elke nuance, en alle relevant geachte zaken meegenomen worden, kan moeilijk worden verwacht.
        Sharon’s rol in de massamoorden in Beirut staat in ‘From Beirut to Jerusalem’, Thomas L Friedman, 1989, New York

        • Egbert Talens, Zutphen
          May 23, 2014 at 6:22 pm

          Beste piterfries,

          Geen rancune, of anderszins ‘hard feelings’ mijnerzijds, n.a.v. uw woorden ‘een kort verhaaltje’ — verwijzing naar mijn boek Ebr… — maar mijn aanbod aan u trek ik bij deze in.
          Wat ‘From Beirut to Jerusalem’ van Thomas L. Friedman betreft: dit boek staat in Ebr.. op pagina 349 vermeld. Ik zie geen aanleiding ook maar een letter te veranderen aan mijn opmerking hierboven, over Ariel Sharon. En Friedmans boek staat op mijn boekenplank; uiteraard, zou ik bijna zeggen, maar ik vermeld het enkel for the record.

          Tenslotte: voor wiens rekening komt het door u opgevoerde historische overzicht van hierboven?

          Met vriendelijke groet,

          Egbert

          • piterfries
            May 23, 2014 at 6:58 pm

            Dank voor de verwijzing naar een boek, helaas ben ik van mening dat ik voldoende boeken over het onderwerp heb gelezen.
            Het idee dat Sharon niet verantwoordelijk was voor de moordpartij in Beirut lijkt me redelijk onhoudbaar.
            Over allerlei details van het zionistisch Arabisch conflict kan van mening worden verschild, mijns inziens doet dat aan de essentie niets af.
            Die is heel simpel, een groep mensen meende een land in bezit te kunnen nemen, onder etnisch zuiveren van de bestaande bevolking, op grond van heel oude verhaaltjes.

  9. Egbert Talens, Zutphen - {TuZ}
    May 23, 2014 at 10:40 am

    Waar ik al enige bedenkingen had, tegenover timmerark, lijkt mijn ‘vrees’ dat t. niet zou ingaan op mijn verzoek — vragen van mijn kant inzake de Thora c.q. Tora te willen beantwoorden — terecht te zijn. Maar misschien ben ik (te) voorbarig met mijn opmerking, en omdat het nog geen zonsondergang is, en de Sabbat nog niet is begonnen, zou t. alsnog met een reactie kunnen komen. Nog even afwachten dus. Overigens is het ook prima als t. pas ná de zonsondergang van morgen, zaterdagavond dus, van zich laat horen. [De] antwoorden op mijn vragen zijn altijd mogelijk, dus geduld oefenen, TuZ!

    • May 24, 2014 at 3:52 pm

      Voor mij gelden geen religieuze regels of wetten daar ik volledig ongelovig ben geboren en gebleven

      • May 24, 2014 at 3:53 pm

        Dus ik denk niet dan mijn antwoorden er toen doen, maar er zijn veel lappen text hier, waar staan de vragen van u, voor mijn nieuwsgierigheid…

        • Egbert Talens, Zutphen
          May 24, 2014 at 10:45 pm

          @ timmerark: waarom zou(den) uw antwoord(en) er niet toe doen? Goed van u in te gaan op mijn verzoek; ik heb nog geen andere vraag aan u gesteld, dan die m.b.t. uw bereidheid op mijn vragen te willen antwoorden. Die vragen houden verband met het Tora-hoofdstuk Be’midbar (In de wildernis) maar in de bijbel heet dit Numeri, dat u mógelijk bekender in de ‘oren’ zal klinken. Het feit dat u ongelovig bent (gebleven) maakt wel dat ik betwijfel of ik bij u aan het goede adres ben; eigenlijk is datgene wat u hier op 22 mei schreef, over rabbijnen, en Jodendom, en de spreuk ‘Heb de vreemdeling lief’, de aanleiding tot mijn vragen-actie. Maar toen wist ik nog niet dat u ongelovig bent. Kunnen we dit afspreken? Ik stel mijn eerste vraag, en daarna kunt u beslissen of u al dan niet verder wilt gaan met deze — toegegeven, vreemde — gang van zaken. Het is ook nog de vraag of onze gastheer, Engelbert Luitsz, wel akkoord gaat met mijn onderneming. Mocht EL ingrijpen, dan merken we dat wel; zijn wil is wet, want wij zijn zijn gasten hier..

          Eerst citeer ik een stukje tekst uit Numeri 3; dan voer ik een stukje tekst op met mijn eigen woorden, en aan het eind daarvan formuleer ik mijn vraag aan u.

          Citaat: “Numeri 3:46 t/m 48 Als losgeld voor de tweehonderd drie en zeventig eerstgeborenen der Israëlieten, die het getal der Levieten te boven gaan, zult gij voor ieder per hoofd vijf sikkels nemen, naar den heiligen sikkel zult gij het nemen — deze sikkel is twintig gera — en dat geld zult gij aan Aäron en zijn zonen geven als het losgeld voor diegenen onder hen, die het getal (der Levieten) te boven gaan. “ Einde citaat.

          In Numeri 3:50 staat een getal (bedrag) van één duizend drie honderd vijf en zestig (1365); dit bedrag ontstaat uit deze vermenigvuldiging: vijf (5) (sikkels c.q. shekels) maal het aantal, dat de Israëlieten de Levieten te boven ging, zijnde 273 Israëlieten: 5 × 273 = 1365 Toch? Verder maakt deze voorstelling van zaken (dus!) duidelijk dat het aantal Levieten minder moet zijn dan het aantal Israëlieten; immers alleen dan kan van losgeld gesproken worden. [Ik hoop dat u mij nog kunt volgen.] En met het getal 273 kan het niet anders, of het aantal Levieten in deze tegenoverstelling moet bestaan uit 22.000, omdat in Numeri 3:43 sprake is van dít getal: twee en twintig duizend tweehonderd drie en zeventig (22.273), zijnde alle mannelijke eerstgeborenen, overeenkomstig het aantal namen, van één maand oud en daarboven, zoals bij telling was gebleken. Dus 22.273 Israëlieten, tegenover 22.000 Levieten…

          Nu mijn (eerste) vraag aan u: waar staat dit aantal c.q. getal 22.000, dus twee en twintig duizend, vermeld?

          • May 27, 2014 at 12:14 pm

            Kunt u uw vraag niet gewoon stellen in de vorm van:
            Zijn die Joden niet slecht en die Palestijnen goed, want dan pas kan ik u volgen, denk ik…

            Ik probeer humor in mijn vraag c.q. antwoord te leggen, dat u dit weet.

      • Aleid Blink
        May 25, 2014 at 1:05 pm

        timmerark, Laat me niet lachen: uw nieuwsgierigheid? Nog nooit iets van gemerkt. Ik zie alleen maar op zand gebouwde oordelen.

        • May 27, 2014 at 12:09 pm

          Toch is het waar. Ik reageer ook helaas (vind ik zelf) te pittig op blogs als deze omdat ik andere motieven vermoed dan alleen maar hulp aan de Palestijnen, waar ik niets tegen heb. Dat is een fout van mij en deze staat een open discussie c.q. communicatie in de weg. Misschien kunnen we opnieuw beginnen?

          Mijn CV: Ik ben atheist, links, zeer tegen de pvv en voor de staat Israel en zijn bewoners en dus niet tegen de Palestijnen, wel tegen sommige van hun leiders en daden…en datzelfde gaat op voor Israel.

          • Egbert Talens, Zutphen
            May 27, 2014 at 1:30 pm

            Dit is een reactie op timmerark van 12:14 u. maar daar staat geen ‘Reply’-functie.

            @ timmerark: leuk geprobeerd, maar mag ik opmerken dat in mijn stukje tekst (over Levieten en Israeliërs — allemaal Joden c.q. joden, al noemden zij zich toen (nog) niet zo) van de Palestijnen geen spoor te ontdekken valt? En dat ik deze benadering van uw kant moeilijk anders dan als een uitvlucht, dan wel als een ontwijkingsmanoeuvre kan beschouwen?
            Ik probeer het nóg een keer, en ik maak het u iets gemakkelijker: het antwoord op mijn ‘vraag’ — laat ook ik het eens met humor proberen — zult u ook in Numeri moeten zoeken, en wel enkele versen eerder dan Numeri 3:43. Eigenlijk logisch, maar toch…

            Voor alle duidelijkheid: het gaat om dat getal 22.000, c.q. twee en twintig duizend. Weet u nog?

            PS: u heeft toch wel een bijbel? …

          • May 27, 2014 at 3:02 pm

            Ik lees alleen boeken waar ik iets aan heb. Ik sprak mijn dealer net en heb hem alle boeken over Mao, om maar een schurk te noemen, van zijn lijst aflaten halen, want het kan geen kwaad het slechte te benoemen maar van hem word ik zijn kleinheid alleen maar depressief.

  10. joost tibosch sr
    May 23, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    Van de overtuigde jood Jesjoea (heb het dus niet over christendom, dat bestond nog niet) hebben we nog een wereldbekend en onvergetelijk verhaal over een toen door joden geminachte Samaritaan. Samaritanen woonden tussen Judea en Galilea in en werden door joden gemeden (en vv). De Samaritaan van het verhaal brengt het er, als bekend zal zijn, menselijk heel wat beter vanaf dan de “beste” joden toen, priesters op weg naar de tempel. Dat verhaal werd hem toen niet in dank afgenomen. Gelukkig zijn er overtuigde joden die zelfkritisch met hun geloof wel aan ‘anderen’ durven denken.

    • piterfries
      May 23, 2014 at 7:03 pm

      Het betoog van drie rabbi’s, hierboven geplaatst, dat ingevolge Torah en Talmud alleen joden mensen zijn, heb je kennelijk gemist.
      Niet joden zijn dieren in mensengestalte, ‘het zou niet goed zijn als joden door dieren werden bediend’.
      Sic.
      Zie verder:
      Israel Shahak, ‘Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Weight of Three Thousand Years’, 1994, 2002, London

  11. Aleid Blink
    May 23, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    joost tibosch, Er wonen nog steeds Samaritanen vlak bij Nabloes. Zij hebben nooit gekozen voor Israël. Gelukkig wonen ook daar heel wat joden die boven die stam zijn uitgegroeid en zich men man/vrouw en macht verzetten tegen de zionistische, nationalistische aspiraties. Laten we hen hoog houden.

  12. Egbert Talens, Zutphen
    May 27, 2014 at 4:47 pm

    Het moge duidelijk zijn; de uitvoering van mijn 22.000-exercitie, met behulp van timmerark, is mislukt. Niet alleen lapt timmerark elke relevantie in deze aan z’n laars, ook onze gastheer, Engelbert Luitsz, kan er niet mee uit de voeten. Ik respecteer dit laatste volkomen, in tegenstelling tot het verstoppertje spelen van de kant van t. die ook in aanmerking kan komen voor de kwalificatie: angsthaas. Bijna had ik geschreven nuttige idioot, vanwege het feit dat t. mij onbedoeld op het spoor zette van een nog niet eerder door mij ontdekte bron, die een meer dan opzichtige uitvlucht weet te fabriceren, voor de rekenfout 22.000, ofwel de ongelukkige, want (niet intentioneel) afwezige, 300 tekort schietende Levieten in Be’midbar (Numeri) 3:39…

Comments are closed.