33

According to the Radioislam.org (pro-Palestinian site) page Jewish Racism towards Non-Jews as expressed in the Talmud, the Talmud contains the following verse:

"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
- Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

I googled to find the reference and went to this page. I couldn't find anything by searching the page. Does the Talmud say this?

unor
  • 1,143
  • 9
  • 23
Sakib Arifin
  • 15,705
  • 14
  • 63
  • 137
  • 1
    Relevant discussion on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ATalmud%2FArchive_2#Racist_Bias. It definitely doesn't answer the question, but it alludes to how complex the issue might be. – called2voyage Feb 16 '17 at 16:31
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/53762/discussion-between-mohammad-sakib-arifin-and-devsolar). – Sakib Arifin Feb 16 '17 at 17:05
  • 8
    Another question that is likely to get better answers at HermeneuticsSSE. Asking us to interpret the meaning of scripture with our rules against opinion-based answers isn't helpful. – Oddthinking Feb 16 '17 at 22:44
  • 1
    @odd Hermeneutics doesn't deal with the Talmud IINM. Mi Yodeya though could be appropriate but I think it's there already. – Double AA Feb 17 '17 at 03:01
  • 23
    Here we go http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/31053/759 – Double AA Feb 17 '17 at 04:09
  • 2
    @DoubleAA: Good find. I wish I could close as a cross-site duplicate. – Oddthinking Feb 17 '17 at 07:19
  • 2
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on Stack Exchange's Judaism network – Avery Feb 17 '17 at 23:45

3 Answers3

71

This is a situation in which inadequate understanding of terminology causes confusion.

In the referenced text, the Jews are called Adam, and the Gentiles are not called Adam. The Gentiles are the non-Jews. Adam literally translates to "Man" (hence its appearance in DevSolar's answer).

So the people who claim that it supports considering the non-Jews to be beasts are basing it on the literal translation...

... but the literal translation is incorrect, because context matters.

When referring to human vs animal, the term Bnei Adam is used, which means "Sons of Adam" (in this case, referring to the Adam of "Adam and Eve").

In this situation, "Adam" is actually referring to the people of Israel collectively as though it is a single being. And in the context, what it's saying is that the rituals are for the people of Israel (the Jews), not for the Gentiles.

For more information, see here.

One can see the actual context, with explanation, in another way, here. Notice that it is speaking of purity of dwellings. The Talmud is guidance, more akin to the Hadith of Islam, as opposed to the Torah, which is like the Quran. As such, much of its contents reference things found in the Torah. In this case, it's referencing usages of "man" such as that found in Numbers 19:14, which says "If a man dies in a tent". The source here clarifies that "man", here, only applies to Jews.

Also note that the phrase "They are beasts" (or rather, the equivalent in Talmudic Aramaic) does not appear. This phrase is a fabrication, added by those who wish to demonise Jews.

Glen O
  • 2,140
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 2
    Why is the literal translation incorrect? – Sakib Arifin Feb 16 '17 at 17:18
  • 19
    You should add that the point of the Talmud is to provide legal interpretations for specific contexts, not necessarily spiritual guidance. Hence "Adam" becomes a legal term derived from the Bible, rather than a philosophical claim. – Avery Feb 16 '17 at 17:18
  • 39
    @MohammadSakibArifin - rule of thumb: most literal translations are inaccurate in general. When it comes to esoteric religious texts with 50 layers of contexts, they are almost guaranteed to be. – user5341 Feb 16 '17 at 17:31
  • 15
    @MohammadSakibArifin For the same reason that the passage about Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai shouldn't be literally interpreted as him having horns: because Ancient Hebrew is not a literal language. – Mason Wheeler Feb 16 '17 at 19:00
  • 10
    I feel like this answer misses an important point: I can't read Hebrew script, but in the link you provide, "they are beasts" does not appear, and it is precisely this bit which makes the quotation sound so hateful - If Jews decided to use a word "man" as meaning "Jew" it would just men Jew and not man. The problem is if they call all non-Jews animals. – sgf Feb 16 '17 at 22:44
  • 6
    @sgf is correct: "they are beasts" does not occur in the original Hebrew. Sefaria (http://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.114b) has a helpful translation with the literal text in bold, explanations in roman type. – Aant Feb 17 '17 at 00:15
  • 1
    @MohammadSakibArifin - literal translations between languages often fail to pick up how the word is actually used. For example, in Japanese, "Chotto" literally translates to English as "A little bit"... but if you ask them "Eigo wa, hanashimasu ka?" (roughly "Do you speak English?") and they reply "Chotto"... it basically means "no". In Hebrew, *Adam* literally means "man", but not quite in the same meaning as "man" in English, and in context, it's used to refer to the Jewish community, not to humankind (as noted, they say Bnei Adam for general humankind). – Glen O Feb 17 '17 at 03:16
  • 2
    @sgf - It doesn't call non-Jews animals. It says they're not *adam*. The "They are beasts" is a complete fabrication. – Glen O Feb 17 '17 at 03:26
  • @Aant - thanks for the link - I think it's a good addition to my answer. – Glen O Feb 17 '17 at 03:26
  • Also in English, "Non-Jews are not men", sounds bad but "boys are not men" isn't so hostile. – gmatht Feb 17 '17 at 03:54
  • 1
    It's important to remember that the Talmud is the commentary on the Mishnah, which is the minutes of the discussion between the great rabbis about the Baraistas which are the oral law and of course were handed down accurately for a thousand years. Much of it is about resolving contradictions and working out ways of making things apply or not in a way to make such apparent contradictions all be correct. This is an example of someone using an obscure ruling to get someone else out of trouble for being somewhere they shouldn't. Since it's all precedent law, this can now be used in perpetuity. – Separatrix Feb 17 '17 at 10:30
  • 1
    @Glen O Well yes, but that should definitely be in the answer then. – sgf Feb 17 '17 at 11:18
  • @sgf, GlenO, etc. FYI the Talmud is not written in Hebrew but rather [Judeo-Aramaic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Aramaic_languages). – Daniel Feb 17 '17 at 18:03
  • 1
    @Daniel - Ah, this can be the downside of not knowing the topic in-depth and relying on sources - few sources bother to specify, when talking about these sorts of issues, which language variant is being used. I've chosen to use the term mentioned in the Wikipedia page, "Talmudic Aramaic", in place of "Hebrew" (edit happening now). – Glen O Feb 18 '17 at 16:59
  • well you really should correct your answer then, to add that it does not say they are beasts and that that is a fabricatino – barlop May 18 '18 at 18:55
  • @barlop - I'm confused - it says that, almost word-for-word, in the last paragraph of my answer. – Glen O Jul 09 '18 at 16:31
  • @GlenO The title asks "They are beasts." And you've waited till your last line before you address it. If anything you should be addressing that in your first line. Reading through your answer you even wrote "the people who claim that it supports considering the non-Jews to be beasts are basing it on the literal translation..." Which even suggests that the literal reading is "beasts" but it isn't. – barlop Jul 09 '18 at 20:13
  • @barlop - the part where I say "the people who claim that it supports considering the non-Jews to be beasts are basing it on the literal translation..." is referring to the first sentence, which (in the bad literal translation) says non-Jews are not humans. Even without the "they are beasts" part explicitly there, it's used by these people to suggest it. I answered the question in the order that the parts of the quote appeared. – Glen O Jul 10 '18 at 04:38
  • @GlenO First of all, you didn't write "the bad literal translation", you wrote "the literal translation". and Secondly, you could call it a literal translation up to a point, but since it adds "They Are Beasts", that is not translating, that is fabricating, and you only mention it in a note at the end, when the rest of your entire post from start to just before that last paragraph, has been affirming that that english in the question is "the literal translation". – barlop Jul 10 '18 at 10:53
  • @barlop - I didn't write "the bad literal translation" explicitly, but I did say that the literal translation is wrong. And I can't just go "it's a fabrication" at the start, because, as far as I know, it's common for exact phrasing to change when translating, in order to maintain meaning. If the correct meaning of "adam" found in the original Aramaic were "human", it may make sense to add a small bit to the English translation to clarify (for the same reason as why one shouldn't just use a literal translation). Anyway, it's beside the point, I concluded that it doesn't say what's asserted. – Glen O Jul 10 '18 at 12:21
  • @GlenO Does it ever refer to non-Jews as humans? We know it calls them not-Adam, but does it ever refer to them as humans? Bnei-Adam is the religious definition of humans for all three Abrahamic religions, in Islam, Bani-Adam is every human on earth. If the texts in Judaism call non-Jews as not-Adam, and they never call them humans, then it is implied that they are not human, no? Of course, if it does call them human then it's a wholly different matter and the context becomes an actual clarification. Hence my question. If that's the case, then such interpretations are pretty justified, no? – Everyone Aug 18 '22 at 11:27
  • @Everyone - I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if I'm reading you right, then you should try actually reading the link I provided, which goes into more detail. In another part of the Talmud, it very explicitly says that gentiles can buy land in Israel and, in that land, dig holes and caves, because the earth was given to "Bnei Adam" - in other words, gentiles are part of Bnei Adam. – Glen O Aug 18 '22 at 14:03
  • @GlenO I wasn't trying to say anything and you shouldn't assume I was. I just was asking a question whether or not non-Jews were ever referred to as humans and you just answered by the implicit statement that they are part of Bnei-Adam. I understand how extremist Jews would interpret things differently, but they are extremists not the mainstream so they shouldn't be taken seriously. Thanks for answering. – Everyone Aug 19 '22 at 15:11
7

In chapter 114b of Baba Metzi'a (page 404 of the linked PDF), I find these lines in the first paragraph to be closest to the claim:

The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men; only ye are designated ‘men’.

I cannot say what other translations make of these verses, and I might have overseen some other part of 114b. But as far as I can see, I would consider the claim false, or at the least significantly exaggerated.

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
DevSolar
  • 19,034
  • 8
  • 77
  • 74
  • 4
    It's been a long time since I studied these things but where it says things like "only ye are designated men" it's referring to some rule where "men" must or must not do something and its saying who are "men" such that this rule should apply to them. In this case it's saying that the graves of non-jews do not cause a priest to become unclean such that he wouldn't be able to serve in the temple, letting this particular priest off for being somewhere he shouldn't be, i.e. a graveyard. – Separatrix Feb 17 '17 at 10:01
  • 2
    If one takes the above too literally, then "And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men; 5 only ye are designated ‘men’" can be taken to mean "Men are sheep". To which I can only respond, "Bah!". :-) – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Feb 17 '17 at 16:43
  • @BobJarvis: But that is really the point of the big monotheistics, isn't it? Feel good as the "we", have a clear definition of "them", have holy rules that absolve thee of critical thinking or doubt when told to do your ruler's bidding (in the name of god-of-choice, of course), but follow your ruler meekly because that is how your god bids thee. That's why the monotheistics were so popular with monarchs and emperors, presidents and kalifs throughout time. Crusades, Jihad, ... -- so easy when your god has given you The Rules and a Shepherd to interpret them for you... "Bah" indeed. ;-) – DevSolar Feb 17 '17 at 18:48
  • 3
    @Separatrix exactly. This is even in secular civil statutes. If you are reading your local Motor Vehicle Code, the word "vehicle" in the rule "no vehicle shall be driven without headlights" actually means "vehicle that is subject to the Motor Vehicle Code". That means that spaceships, submarines, horses, and autogyros are "not vehicles" in that specific context as it relates to the interpretation of that body of law. That doesn't mean that a spaceship is not a vehicle in a philosophical sense. – Robert Columbia Feb 24 '17 at 05:12
  • @RobertColumbia, there's more to it than that in this case, but since it's been protected there just isn't the character count to explain this the way it should be told. It has to be done as a story, with a bit of performance, it doesn't work as dry academic translation and should never be taught that way. – Separatrix Feb 27 '17 at 19:13
4

TL;DR - the claim is false, partly a phrase taken (slightly) out of context (the first part) and partly a complete fabrication (the second part).

I've heard this claim before, and got intrigued, luckily, I can read Hebrew:

The text can be found here: https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%90_%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%93_%D7%91

It does not mention beasts, and doesn't really refer to gentiles in general but to polytheists ("Those who worship stars and constellations"), nor does it pertain to the humanity of persons of different faiths, it isn't even a canonical position but rather a record of a certain opinion, it can be roughly translated (my translation here is based on my reading of the source text) as "In the question of impurity caused by death, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochay argued that the body of a polytheist does not defile (which is a religious term that had religious impact and caused certain requirements), and this is because some verse in the bible that uses the term 'Adam' (man) in the context of Jews and another verse that uses the same word to tell us that the a dead body (of 'Adam') causes defilement". In other words, it is a suggested interpretation of another unrelated text, not related the the humanity of people in general, if said interpretation is held as true, its only effect is to relax the Jewish requirements for handling bodies of Polytheists.

Looking further (basically looking up the quoted Rabbi), is seems that this whole interpretation was done in the context of the Roman occupation in order to be able to clear some places that were suspected as defiled to be used. There is a long tradition of interpreting texts using convoluted logical interpretations to achieve practical positive results while claiming to be based on the original text (such as allowing loans, preventing a child from being labeled a bastard, etc.) this text seems to follow that tradition by defining a term in a non obvious way for a practical purpose.

Ofir
  • 1,304
  • 10
  • 16