In
"
Judaism's
Culture of Death," I pointed out that the punchline of a well-known
Jewish joke about the Jewish holidays would more accurately be rendered as
"We killed them. Let's eat." My point was that at the heart of the
narratives of
Purim,
Passover, and
Hanukkah are the deaths of many non-Jews and that this culture of death
is related to the violence of Zionism.
In my "
Response
to M.," I quoted the late Israel Shahak:
The existence of an important component of Israeli policy, which is
based on "Jewish ideology," makes its analysis politically imperative.
This ideology is, in turn based on the attitudes of historic Judaism to
non-Jews ... Those attitudes necessarily influence many Jews,
consciously or unconsciously. Our task here is to discuss historic
Judaism in real terms.
...
Although the struggle against antisemitism (and of all other forms of
racism) should never cease, the
struggle against Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism, which must include a
critique of classical Judaism, is now of equal or greater importance
[emphasis added].
Today, I propose to discuss evidence of "Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism"
in "classical Judaism" that is much more recent than the narratives of
Jewish holidays but which has its roots in those ancient texts and related
ideas. This source comes to me from
Jewish
History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years by
Israel Shahak. Because I found Shahak's arguments so hard to believe when I
first read them about three years ago, I obtained a copy of the actual book
discussed below.
According to Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg,
Jewish Medical Law (Jerusalem and Anaheim, CA: Gefen, 1980)
represents "the essence of the medically pertinent
halakhic decisions that are
dispersed among the thirteen volumes of my
responsa texts entitled
Tzitz Eliezer and my other books
which the Almighty has graciously assisted me in writing and publishing" (p.
vii).
Jewish Medical Law (
JML)
was edited by Avraham Steinberg, M.D. and personally approved by Waldenberg.
Until
his death last year,
Rabbi Waldenberg was a
leading Orthodox authority on
halakhah,
i.e. Jewish religious law, specializing in medical questions. He was a judge
on the Israeli government-sponsored
High Rabbinical
Court and
Rabbi of
the Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem. In the "Overview" section
of
JML we learn that "In the field
of medicine and
halakhah, Rabbi
Waldenberg has published more responsa and
articles than any other
halakhic
authority" and he was awarded many honors, including the
Israel Prize for
Torah literature (pp. 18-19).
So, having established that Rabbi Waldenberg was well within the mainstream
of Judaic thought and Israeli society let's see what he has to say about
Jewish medical law and how it applies to non-Jews. First, we return to Dr.
Steinberg's "Overview" to learn that "It is a
mitzvah, namely the physician's
Biblical obligation, to heal Jewish patients." The reason for the inclusion
of the modifier "Jewish" will become clearer as we go through
JML.
The following quotes come from "Part II. The Sabbath" of
JML:
[10] It is forbidden to delay the desecration of the Sabbath in
instances of danger to life ...
[11] ... the Jewish physician should not refrain from desecrating the
Sabbath in such circumstances [when a Jew's life is in danger] (p. 30)
... [18] According to the ruling stated in the Talmud and Codes of
Jewish Law, it is forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath--whether violating
Biblical or rabbinic law--in order to save the life of a dangerously ill
gentile patient. It is also forbidden to deliver the baby of a gentile
woman on the Sabbath. (p. 41)
Got that? If you're Jewish and have a life-threatening condition then your
Jewish doctor is commanded to violate the Sabbath to care for you but if
you're not a Jew then, according to Jewish law, your Jewish doctor is
forbidden to care for you on the Sabbath even if your life is in danger.
But wait. "[19] However, today it is permitted to desecrate the Sabbath on
behalf of a gentile ..." And, why is that? It's not because non-Jewish lives
are of equal value with Jewish lives. Oh, no. The reason stated in the rest
of paragraph 19 is "... for by so doing one prevents ill feelings from
arising between Jew and gentile." Doc, take care of that sick Gentile on the
Sabbath because, well, it's
good for the
Jews. To amplify this point, I quote from paragraph 21:
In order to avoid any transgression of the law, there is a legally
acceptable method of rendering treatment on behalf of a gentile patient
even when dealing with violation of Biblical law. It is suggested that
at the time that the physician is providing the necessary care, his
intentions should not primarily be to cure the patient, but to protect
himself and the Jewish people from accusations of religious
discrimination and severe retaliation that may endanger him in
particular and the Jewish people in general. With this intention, any
act on the physician's part becomes "an act whose actual outcome is not
its primary purpose" (melakhah
sheeinah tzerikhah legufa) ... (pp. 41-42)
There, does that make you Gentiles feel better about your observant Jewish
physician? If anyone knows of any parallel to this in the contemporary
religious law of other religions then please feel free to apprise me of it.
Some Zionists like to brag about how multicultural/multiethnic Judaism and
Israel are. What they don't know or don't speak about is the fact that many
non-European Jews are religiously suspect and subject to
discrimination
in Israel. Concerning Jews from India, Ethiopia, and Portugal,
JML says:
[14] It is permitted to desecrate the Sabbath in order to save the life
of a member of the sect called
B'net Yisrael [or
Yehudim Chavashim or
Shomrei Shabbath], for they
may be Jewish. This applies on
the condition that they are Torah
and Sabbath observant. If, however, they behave like
Karaites and deride Jewish
belief, it is forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath on their behalf. (p.
40)
In other words, let 'em suffer or die if they don't meet the religious
tests. These, of course, do not apply to non-observant Ashkenazi and
Sephardic Jews.
Moving right along, in Part II, Chapter 7 of
JML we learn that "
Eating
kosher food cooked by a gentile was prohibited by rabbinic decree in
order to prevent Jews from socializing with their gentile neighbors, thus
deterring intermarriage" (p. 61). In the same section, it is explained that
if a Gentile cooks for a Jewish patient on the Sabbath then the
cooking utensils are
tref, i.e. ritually unclean,
for 24 hours unless they are immersed in boiling water (pp. 61-62). If a Jew
did the food preparation then no immersion or waiting period is required (p.
62).
Now, let's talk money. An "observant physician may not want to accept
payment for services rendered on the Sabbath" and he is permitted to decline
payment (p. 73). Except, "It is forbidden for a physician to benefit from
the Sabbath fee of a gentile patient. He should either destroy the money ...
or give it to charity. Under no circumstances should he treat gentile
patients for free on the Sabbath" (p. 73).
The focus of this post is on the racism or chauvinism in Judaism but in Part
IV, Chapter 1 of
JML we learn a bit
about sexism in "classical Judaism:"
[1] A woman is forbidden to use contraceptive measures without the
consent of her husband.
[2] If the husband has not yet fulfilled the
mitzvah of procreation and his
wife may not become pregnant because of danger to her health, he should
divorce his wife rather than permit her to use contraception. (p. 94)
Part IV, chapter 2 of
JML says that
abortion is permissible when the pregnancy is life-threatening or just
detrimental to the health of the Jewish mother-to-be, or if the Jewish
mother-to-be is still nursing another child. Provided, the abortion is
carried out within the first three months of pregnancy (pp. 102-104).
Certain
eugenic abortions, however, are permitted for Jewish women "up to the
seventh month of pregnancy" (p. 103).
The
only permissible reason for a
"gentile woman" to have an abortion is if "there is a life-threatening
danger to the mother" (pp. 104-105). In all instances, the "consent of the
husband" should be "procure[d]" and a "Jewish physician is preferable to a
gentile physician." Mordechai Halperin, M.D., of the above-mentioned Shaare
Zedek Medical Center,
suggests that the penalty, under
Noahide law, for Gentiles who perform abortions is death.
Semen donors and physician who use donated semen "are violating the severe
prohibition against masturbation" (p. 106) but "Artificial insemination
performed with semen from a gentile donor is a greater desecration of Jewish
morality than artificial insemination performed with semen donated by a Jew"
(p. 107). In fact, "There exists the possibility that [the use of semen
donated by a Gentile] would permanently proscribe sexual relations between
husband and wife" (p. 107). A child which results from artificial
insemination using semen from a Gentile "is a
pagum (literally, blemished)" (p.
108).
So, there you have it: Jewish medical law in all its glory. Now, I don't
believe that most American Jewish physicians know about, let alone adhere,
to these rules. The point, though, is that these are not ancient, fringe
texts. These rules were derived from
Torah, in its broadest sense, by a leading, mainstream Rabbi in
the Jewish state where "
Orthodoxy
is the only movement that is formally and legally recognized ..." The
concern is that, to quote Israel Shahak, these rules reflect "the attitudes
of historic Judaism to non-Jews ... Those attitudes necessarily influence
many Jews, consciously or unconsciously" and from such racism sprang
Zionism.
