Return to Homepage.
Michael Kadish
While in Yeshiva on Kibbutz Malei Gilboa last year, HaRav Bigman explained to us the different views on the concept of �� �����, The Chosen People. According to him there were three views. All three involve the Midrash of ���� �����,1 but interpret it differently. The first view, according to Harav Bigman is that, because the Jews accepted the Torah on such fantastic terms, God gave them the Torah, and basically, as he put it, "Put them on the inside track." This insured that the Jews would be around until the end, that they would always be facing unusual circumstances, and that they would play an important role in society, as they were the light unto the nations.
The second view, the plainest of the three, says that the Jews are not so much The Chosen People, as they were the chosen people. They put in the winning bid, so to speak, and were given the Torah and it mitzvot to follow. Some in this school of thought add to the Midrash, saying that by the time God approached the Jewish people, he was so desperate that he literally picked up, and held Mt. Sinai over the heads of the Jews and asked menacingly, "Will you accept the Torah, or not?" According to this interpretation, it was only to the question posed in such a form, that the Jews would have given their answer. This means that the other nations are no worse, but they were simply not the last people asked, and therefore weren't chosen. The do not have the responsibility of the Torah.2 But that doesn't mean that there is any inherent difference
Harav Bigman went on to describe the third set by warning, "There is a third perspective that I wish wasn't here, but it is. Fortunately, the racist perspective is very small, and held only by a few." From what I have seen, it is not so small.
The "Racist view," actually is comprised of two groups. Both completely disregard the version of the Midrash where God put a mountain over the heads of the Jews, and instead say that God asked the Jews last because he was certain that they would accept, but he felt it fair to offer the other peoples first. The first of the two groups in this school of thought says that the Jews received the Torah because they were better than any other nation. The second group says "no, it's not that the Jews are better, every Nation has its own set of qualities (teachers of this thinking offer some, but I refuse to repeat the "set of qualities that the X group has over the Y group.), but that the Jews' qualities were such, that they were the best choice for the Torah."
Both of these views, either by claiming superiority, or by officially branding stereotypes, are racist. Both of these are also abundantly taught. This is from a text book I used while at Yeshiva Machon Meir in Jerusalem.
A Ironically, one of the reasons for the high rate of intermarraige is that Gentile women prefer Jewish men, knowing that they make more faithful husbands.] 3
Such a view could be considered detrimental to the Jewish people. If in the twelfth century Harav Yehuda Halevi could say "Even a rebellious member of the people which received the Torah is preferable to one who has no share in the Torah�.Even if he were given the choice, he would never choose to join the ranks of those who were not given the Torah. No more would a sick, painracked person accept the choice of being a horse, or a fish, or a bird in order to be happy and pain-free, at the cost of surrendering the intelligence which allows him to approach the divine,"4 (regardless of whether it has been shown numerous exceptions) then was it inconceivable that a German non-Jew, a little more than eight hundred years later would make a statement to the reverse effect? Hitler's actions were probably the most detrimental action to the Jews in its approximate four thousand year history. Anti-Semites have also pointed out the Jewish racism, as an attack on the people.
But, despite the negative effects that can come from this racist view, it is the most honest, (its followers hold steadfast to their beliefs) and might actually be less injurious to the "non-Chosen Nations" of the world.
According to Halacha, Bikuach Nefesh, the act of saving a life as an excuse for violating a commandment only holds true if the life in question is a Jewish life. Rabbis have since decreed, that so as not to encourage anti-Semitism, it is necessary to save any life, irrespective of to whom they belong. However, this is only considered a temporary rabbinical decree, one that will eventually go away when Jews are no longer threatened with persecution from the gentiles.
When this situation arises, an interesting situation will occur. Judaism would still technically shun potential converts, but Jews could simply sit back and watch people die, until the people individually converted. In most religions, there are missionaries who attempt to convert people from the "unbelieving masses," so that these others may be allowed a better life, or after life. In Judaism, it would appear that the Jews believe that they will be able to offer a better life or afterlife, but�they don't want to.
There is not a mainstream branch of Orthodox Judaism that seeks nor encourages people to convert. No mainstream branch will shun converts, but in try to start the act of doing so, one is discouraged. If however, Jews maintain that they are better then the gentiles, and a gentile agrees, he has been, to an extent, proselytized, and converted. After conversion, the threat of him losing his life will Halachically allow anybody to break any commandments, to help him.5
If the racist view is not taken, then the Jew, it would seem, is either a sadist, or is out to destroy the other nations, for he offers no hand at all to the endangered gentile. When the Halacha will be changed back, the only differences between the hypothetical scenarios described here, and Charlemagne's forced conversions of the nomadic Barbarian or Pagan tribes of Europe6 would be that Charlemagne's choice of death or conversion was direct, it did not wait until a situation showed itself, and second, that in the choice of death or convert, Charlemagne wasn't saying, "Oh, you don't really want to convert."
So, it seems, that while racism is a very ugly thought process, it's better than the alternative.