 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
If we look at the Mosaic revelation as an historical phenomenon, it seems intended specially for Israel. But our quest for truth must not be satisfied with outer appearances; it must also consider the entire sphere which Mosaism embraces, its entire range of implications. In other words, since Jewish belief in a unique God is incontestable (whenever this belief may have attained its definitive form), and Jews therefore have not had a number of divine codes, particularized and ethnic in character, but rather a single supreme and universal Law, we must ask whether the Mosaic revelation, obviously addressed to Israel, implies the rejection of the Gentiles, their abandonment to a sort of outlaw status.
There are, however, innumerable scriptural texts following the election of Israel which portray God speaking and acting as the God of all mankind, watching over the destinies of every people. They amply refute such a supposition, which, moreover, would subvert the most essential characteristics of a unique God. Such a radical forsaking by God of virtually the entire human race in order to attach Himself exclusively to a tiny people is a hypothesis as monstrous as it is improbable.
If, then, the divine plan aspires toward the oneness or unity of mankind, there are only two solutions to the problem of its realization:
In the first hypothesis, we would have an apparently universal religion, but one whose very constitution would tend to pre dude Jewish individuality. In the second, we would assuredly have a religion of truly universal character, for it would embrace all of mankind, even while preserving Jewish individuality; nor would this be an Israel to whom all the other peoples were subordinated, but rather an Israel in the service of mankind, which would be altogether in keeping with its vocation of priest-people. But in such a case, what kind of code to embrace Gentiles would Judaism ascribe to Providence?
The Mosaic Law in its essence must categorically reject the notion that all peoples should submit themselves to it, for the most salient features of Mosaism all bear the stamp of Jewish particularism. It is the individual Jewish life which breathes in it. In Mosaism are reflected the history, the interests, the hopes of Israel. Not, indeed, that this particular life is not linked to the universal life of mankind. To the contrary, it is in this link that the grandeur and noblest aspirations of Judaism can be found. But mankind, at all events, is not destined to be absorbed into it, any more than the life of Israel must dissolve into that of mankind at large. The most intimate union must exist between the two, though without either's being submerged in the other.
This separateness, the preservation of the distinct ethnic identity of Mosaism, is no doubt compatible with the limited affiliation of a small number of proselytes, but it is firmly opposed to the mass conversion of the entire human race. The history of Christianity shows this clearly. Because they lacked understanding (or, at any rate, suitable appreciation) of the dual religion which Judaism presupposes-the lay, or Noachide religion of mankind, and the priestly religion of Israel- the founders of Christianity, desiring in spite of everything to fulfill the promises of universal religion which fill the Sacred Books, at first hesitated for some time between the two extreme courses: imposing Mosaism upon everyone, or abolishing it even for Israel. But the first of these possible schemes must inevitable have miscarried, and after ascertaining their failure on that score, there remained to the Christians only the alternative of declaring the abolition of Judaism and expunging it, as it were, from history.
If one reflects carefully on the matter, one notices an intrinsic contradiction in this program of abolition: It is Hebraism denying Hebraism. For such a paradox to have been possible, the name "Hebraism" must be understood to denote what was in fact a dualism, the two elements of which, particularism and universalism, the religion of Israel and that of the Gentiles, which had hitherto been united, now splitting apart so decisively that the second was able to repudiate the first. But the bond which connected the two religious conceptions in Judaism was not perceived by the first Christians, any more than Christian theologians or rationalist critics understand it today. This bond is the hierarchical organization of the human race into priests and layman. It is not a question of merging but of harmonizing the two distinct entities.
It is occasionally claimed that the Jews were incapable of conceiving universal religion in the form of a grand human brotherhood, that in fact for them universal religion was nothing other than a dominion which they would exercise over the entire world. But such a conception is alien to Judaism. To be sure, at certain periods Jews have indeed nourished chimerical hopes of universal domination, but Judaism is not responsible for these patriotic dreams. Rather, it is the dreams which imply the existence of a more reasonable doctrine, one so elevated that it was bound to degenerate, among the less refined spirits, into something more flattering to the national pride.
This coexistence of two different expressions of a single code-or, if one prefers, two forms of a single religion-has as precedent a religious phenomenon earlier than Mosaism, which historians have found in many places. Then, too, there was a dual law: one law for the generality of men, another for the elite, the priests, the most wise and pious men among the Gentiles. Now just as this latter law reminds us of what would later be Mosaism, to which it is in a sense the prelude, so the other law differs significantly from Mosaism.
The very existence of a dual religious code among the Gentiles is itself quite instructive. The differences between the two laws are no less than the differences between Mosaism and Noachism, and seem to demonstrate firmly that there is a tendency in human culture for lay law and priestly law to exist sumultaneously. Even in Mosaism itself, alongside the common law of the Israelites there is another, which is especially for the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron; and even in this priestly law there is still another, more particularized yet, for the high priest, which sets him apart from the other priests of Israel just as the entire Mosaic Law sets off the Jews as priests of mankind. So symmetrical and harmonious a structure can scarcely be the result of chance. From the Jewish perspective there must be an inner force which systematically regulates the entire religious edifice, from its base to its summit. Mosaism is a particular expression of authentic religion. It is no more intended for all of mankind than the priestly code of Israel was intended for all Israelites, or that of the high priest for the entire tribe of Levi.
The ethnic and sectarian character of Mosaism is evident. Some of its laws depend upon the climate and geographical situation of Palestine. The date of Passover, for example, is linked to the Palestinian spring. It could not be otherwise, with each man regulating the celebration of the holy day for himself according to the particular conditions of his place of residence; for this would be contrary to the supreme Law established by Moses, which entails uniformity of religious observance.
I shall not recount in detail the many precepts which are related to the territory of the Holy Land. One has only to open the Thlmud, or the later rabbinical writings, to find an exhaustive discussion of them. But the assertions of Moses himself constitute decisive testimony.
Answer for yourself: What is the meaning of the often-repeated promise that God would establish His dwelling-place in the Holy Land, in the midst of Israel?
Answer for yourself: How, indeed, are we to understand the sanctity which was attributed to the soil of Palestine, the reverence in which it was held (which even death could not cancel, since Jews aspired to be buried there), if not by reference to the conviction that the religion of Israel was made for the land of Israel, for Jerusalem, and that Jerusalem and Israel were made for that religion?
In the Midrash, the sages even declared that to fulfill various mitzvot of the Torah while in exile is to recall and commemorate the past, or to anticipate the future-a way of remembering how to obey these divine commandments and of being prepared to resume the ancient practices in the ancestral land on the day that God will choose. This notion may seem extravagant, but the doctrine behind it is surely true, and excludes the possibility that Jews should nourish, as a religious ideal, the conversion of non-Jews to the Mosaic Law-a law which, in the view of its observant, loses its full efficacy (though not necessarily its authority) outside the borders of the land of Israel.
But here is an equally remarkable fact. If there were no way to salvation available to Gentiles outside the Mosaic Law, we should certainly expect to see in Judaism a much more pronounced tendency toward proselytism, and not only a peaceful proselytism which exhorts much more by means of the word than by act, and still more by example than by word, but also an ardent proselytism of conquest, which would never tire of promising eternal damnation to all who fail to convert to the only true religion. What we find, however, is something radically different. The cautious reserve with which Israel addresses the Gentiles is incompatible with the conviction that it alone possesses the means of salvation. Its respect for other beliefs may seem even to verge on indifference, and some superficial observers have not hesitated to conclude from this that the Jews know nothing of proselytism. This local, ethnic quality of Mosaism and its nearly total absence of organized proselytism are ample proof that the religion of Israel is not destined to become the universal religion. Yet Israel insists on declaring that certain general principles are obligatory for every human creature, a code of laws which cannot be evaded with impunity, whose observance is required by divine justice.
Answer for yourself: Can we doubt that Israel believes itself in possession of a religion which is universal in a way that Mosaism is not, a religion whose basic substance appears even in its Scriptures?
Answer for yourself: Can there be any doubt that here indeed is that other aspect of the Law, which addresses all men and all epochs?
Let us start by recalling the rules which are prescribed for the Israelite armies when they overcome pagan peoples. Here, surely, we may see how Jews are expected to behave with regard to conversion of Gentiles, and how they understand the matter. In these particular circumstances we shall find the expression of their true feelings. The customary relations of victors and vanquished-the example of other profoundly monotheistic peoples, such as the Arabs, who carried the Koran everywhere on the tip of their sword-remind us how decisively important such circumstances are for our present purpose. Deuteronomy is illuminating here, in regulating the treatment of conquered peoples and instructing Israel how to deal with them (Dt 20-21). Oddly enough, the religious question is passed over in silence. If the conquered people surrenders and accepts a subordinate status, it will be allowed to live in peace.
The Mosaic Law is not at all concerned about the religion of the vanquished. It does not propose to regulate anything other than the political relation.
Answer for yourself: What does this silence mean? Is it indifference, tolerance, or merely oversight?
None of these hypotheses seems admissible. A monotheistic religion, and one so conspicuously ethical, which traces itself back to Adam, father of mankind, and which teaches that Providence is the same for all-if such a religion found itself in confrontation with pagan cults which were as ungodly as they were immoral, it would never have been able to push tolerance so far as to extend its protection of conquered peoples to the point of giving sanction to the revolting excesses in which they had indulged. Even the most liberal laws of modern nations, despite our basic principles of freedom of worship and of conscience, could never authorize religious practices which-like most of these polytheistic cults-would be an affront to morality and public safety, to justice and to charity. lIowever little our contemporary states may be interested in the value of religious doctrines, public order and the instinct of self-preservation oblige them to impose restrictions on religious liberty.
Answer for yourself: Is this not proof, if one were needed, that secular society will never be able to be entirely indifferent to the religious question, because there will never be a religion which does not exert either a good or a bad influence on the life of society?
If, therefore, the Pentateuch is silent on the subject which occupies us, it is because its role consists in regulating the external relations, civil and political, of peoples and individuals. On all other matters, it is to the Oral Tradition that we must turn.
Rabbi Elijah Mizrahi examines this question at length and in detail. Taking into account all the scriptural and rabbinical materials, he says: "We must distinguish between the Canaanite peoples and the others, between the obligatory wars and those which are optional." In these last, surrender is all that Israel has the right to exact of the vanquished. Even if their religion is the most crass kind of polytheism, it must be respected, and its adherents put under no obligation of any sort. As for the obligatory wars-that is, those which Israel was commanded by God to wage against the Canaanites-this people, so proud of its Mosaic Law, imbued with its own grandeur, was in fact satisfied with very little, with what modern civilization indeed would not hesitate to demand of a barbarous tribe:the fulfillment of the Noachide Law, the minimal code of religion and morality which any society requires in order to survive. This was the minimum.
Answer for yourself: Why this exceptional policy with respect to Canaan? According to Moses: "Lest they lead you into doing all the abhorrent things that they have done for their gods and you stand guilty before the Lord your God" (Dt 20:18). These words are straightforward enough, and Rashi's interpretation of them is equally clear: "We can deduce from this that if the Canaanites do penance, they will be accepted." Let us note that Rashi speaks of penance, not conversion. What is needed is for these peoples to return to the religion which they ought never to have abandoned, that is, Noachism, as Nachmanides asserts.
Here, then, in our opinion, is the only way to reconcile the apparent indifference which Israel professes with respect to the religion of the Gentiles, with its intense concern in the case of the Canaanites. The indifference has to do with conversion to Judaism; the concern is for Gentile observance of the ancient religion of Noah, the only religion which is incumbent on all who are not Israelites. Without this essential distinction, Jewish beliefs, laws, and history are beset with inconsistencies and contradictions. Thus Friedenthal was echoing the tradition of Judaism when he said:
We do not press the Gentile to enter the community of Abraham our father, but our sublime mission, inherited from the first patriarch, is to convert Gentiles to the religion of the "proselyte of the gate," which consists of abjuring polytheism and observing the seven mitzvot of Noah (M.B. Friedenthal, Yesod ha-Dat (in Hebrew), vol. 2 (Breslau: Loeb Sulzbach, 1823), pp. 122, 4.
And he relies on a passage in the Talmud which says the same thing:
"The Gentile will be obliged to observe the seven commandments of Noah." (Sanhedrin 57a)
Because he failed to understand this distinction between the two aspect of the Law, Mosaism and Noachism, Renan was able to write of the apostle James that he did not approve of the conversion of proselytes. Strictly observant Jews could only have applauded any conversion which would lead Gentiles to their Noachide Law. But when Christianity claimed to reduce Mosaism itself to the religion of Noah, to suppress all differences between priest and laity, between Israel and the Gentile, and not only to embrace all mankind in a single church but in this church itself to abolish the priestly ministry of Israel, with its very special duties-then and then only, the entrance of pagans into the newborn church must appear a danger to the Judaized Christians.
In fact, these latter found themselves confronting neo-Israelites who not only lacked any feeling of commitment to observe the Law of Moses, but rather considered themselves entitled to bring about its abolition even for the native Jews, substituting for both Mosaism and Noachism a new religion which was neither, not even pure Noachism, since it was in the name of Israel that the Christian Church claimed to have replaced ancient Israel. The great misapprehension which so regrettably distorted the development of apostolic, and above all Pauline, Christianity is epitomized in the church's appropriation of the name of Israel. Here indeed, in this demand for a mankind become totally Israelite, while the priestly people itself is deprived of all its functions and merged with the other peoples, we see the negation of the two concepts required by the providential order; and what is more, the denial of one by the other. Thus it is not surprising that those Jews who, while believing in Jesus, still did not intend to give up the Law for him, were alarmed by the conversion of that mass of pagans who, in their ever-increasing numbers, threatened to destroy Mosaism with the rallying cry of the new Christianity: "The Law is abolished!"
The Jewish Christians like James did not wish to abandon this Law, but, faithful to its spirit, neither did they intend to impose that part of the Law that pertained only to Jews upon the Gentiles. In all periods, in fact, the sages never ceased declaring that the Mosaic Law is intended for Israel, that it constitutes not a privilege but a responsibility. Recall what Maimonides says on this matter, summing up the teaching of the Oral Tradition:
Moses our teacher conveyed the Law and commandments to Israel, as it is said, "the heritage of the congregation of Jacob" (Dt 33:4), and those of other nations who are willing to be converted, as it is said, "The same ritual and the same rule shall apply to you and to the stranger who resides among you" (Nm 15:16). But no coercion to accept the Law and commandments is practiced on those who are unwilling to do so. 1-lowever, Moses our teacher was commanded by God to compel all human beings to accept the commandments enjoined upon the descendants of Noah. Anyone who does not accept them is put to death (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakim 8.10).
To understand these last words, we should remember that the Noachide Laws are essential to the existence of human society, and therefore that whoever violates them thereby puts himself in revolt against his fellow men.
A passage from Psalms can serve as commentary on the words of Moses which Maimonides has quoted, and it confirms his interpretation of them:
He issued His commands to Jacob, His statutes and rules to Israel. He did not do so for any other nation; of such rules they know nothing. (Ps 147:19-20)
If we find, nevertheless, an effort to communicate the Law to the pagans-as, for example, in the command to engrave it on stones which will be accessible to all eyes (and, according to the rabbis, in several tongues to facilitate its comprehension)-this, say the sages, is because in the Law itself, the legal part, Israel's exclusive inheritance, must be carefully distinguished from the historical, theological, and ethical materials, which form the patrimony of all mankind.
There are in the Torah such things as the account of creation and that of the Exodus, the history of the Patriarchs and of the Israelites in the desert, which we are not only allowed but obliged to teach to all men, for all are subject to the law of Noah and ought to know about the oneness of God, Divine Providence, the rewards and punishments of the other life, for the sake of preserving human society. Here is why the law of Moses has emphasized this obligation, insistently and unequivocally. But as for the great cycle of mitzvot, the other peoples have no share in them. This is why Scripture reveals them summarily and with reserve, imparting them in their fullness of detail to Israel only, by way of the Oral Tradition (Leone Modena, Magen ve-Zinnah, ed. A. Geiger (Breslau, 1856), p. 42).
A people's tradition is that special aptitude which makes it more capable than any other of understanding its own particular task. For the Jews, this faculty is put at the service of another aptitude, more directly practical, which completes the theoretical understanding of their religion.
When Mosaism is born, Noachism forms the first step of a ladder which the Israelite must climb before attaining the Mosaic Law. Thus, when Israel went out of Egypt, it was first of all introduced to the Noachide Law, and only after this preliminary initiation did it receive the law of Moses.
"Moses went and repeated to the people all the commands [divrei] of the Lord and all the rules [mishpatim]." (Ex 24:3)
Of this verse, the sages say:
The commands of the Lord are the ordinances relating to the proper behavior which the people had to observe while waiting at the foot of Sinai; the rules are the seven precepts of the sons of Noah (Rashi on Ex. 24:3)
This sequential conception of the relation between Noachism and Mosaism is quite different from the relation which developed between Judaism and Christianity. We can hardly imagine the Christian bishops introducing pagans to Jewish practices and beliefs before accepting them into the church by baptism.
In the Jewish doctrine relating to sacrifices, we find an implicit statement on the subject of the Noachides. It is the principle that sacrifices offered in the Temple by Gentiles ought to be accepted, whereas those brought by apostate Israelites must be refused. This obviously assumes that the mitzvot of the Mosaic Law are not binding upon Gentiles, for no special authorization would be needed for a practice which was not only a right but an obligation. When a Gentile offers such a sacrifice, he is observing part of the Law voluntarily.
Maimonides expresses this same idea when he declares that if the Noachide, while observing his own code, wishes to fulfill some of the precepts of Judaism, he should not be prevented (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakim 10.10)
Thus, Judaism is clearly not conceived to be the single religion intended for everyone, as its practices are optional for all who are not Jewish by birth.
Answer for yourself: How could one suppose for an instant that the sages believed Mosaism to be obligatory for all, in view of the rites which they established for the conversion of Gentiles? It was the story of Ruth which suggested to them the procedures which became the norm for conversion. Among the questions and instructions which were to be addressed to the aspirant, we find this cautionary assertion:
As long as you do not accept Mosaism, you are not liable for punishment if you eat forbidden foods; likewise, if you violate the Sabbath, you incur no punishment (Yevamot 47a).
The same thing is said with respect to all the other mitzvot. The meaning of course is that so long as the Gentile does not submit freely to the obligations of Mosaic Law, he is in no walv required to observe them.
The ancient rabbis are explicit on this point, the later sages no less so. According to the author of the Kuzari, "Moses invited only his people and those of his own tongue to accept his law."" Maimonides is equally categorical.
How little Mosaism was thought of as a universal religion may be seen in the way its strictness, even on a matter of altogether fundamental importance, may relax when it is a question of mankind in general. Although Judaism abhors any dilution of its monotheism, it nevertheless declares that Noachides do not commit blasphemy if in their worship they associate other beings, forces, or divinities with God, the Sovereign Creator; for according to the Jewish formula which we cited earlier in speaking of Jewish monotheism, "The Noachide has not been forbidden to link other "gods" to the worship of the One God."
Therefore, not only are the prescribed observances of the Mosaic Law optional for the Gentile, but in matters of faith as well, he enjoys a flexibility which is denied to the Jew.
Let us add a final thought, which seems to us of great importance. Rationalist critics would like every religion to distinguish between that part of its doctrine which is universal and common to all religions, and that which is peculiar to itself; but such critics doubt that a religion can do this without damaging the faith of its followers. Hebraism, however, has done this, by its affirmation of the Noachide Law, the universal code of mankind, alongside the special Law of the Jews, which is Mosaism.