5

Wikipedia claims that a Jewish yeshiva teaches that Jews have different souls than Gentiles. To support the claim, wikipedia says that one of their teachers quoted Abraham Isaac Kook as following:

The difference between the Jewish soul, in all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the soul of all the Gentiles, on all of their levels, is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal, for the difference in the latter case is one of quantity, while the difference in the first case is one of essential quality.

The given source is not available anymore. Other examples of the quote like this petition source it to Talmud Unmasked, which is an antisemitic book with fake or out-of-context Talmud quotes.

My main question would be if Kook wrote this, and if the quote represents what Kook believes, or if it is taken out of context. Secondary questions would be if the teacher quoted Kook approvingly, and if the yeshiva actually teaches that Jews and Gentiles have different souls.

tim
  • 51,356
  • 19
  • 207
  • 177
  • I think you are more likely to get a quality answer on Judaism.SE. – Oddthinking Dec 11 '17 at 12:41
  • 8
    Already discussed in [Judaism.se](https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/9371/do-gentiles-have-neshamot) – ugoren Dec 11 '17 at 13:22
  • The wikipedia page presents David Bar-Hayim as a scholar of the Merkaz Harav school, but that is quite the misrepresentation. While https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bar-Hayim did study there for a time, he hardly represents the school (frankly I suspect the school would or has 'disowned' him over his various legal positions) – Double AA Dec 11 '17 at 14:17
  • 6
    @ugoren and [again at Judaism.se](https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/34027/is-there-really-a-distinct-jewish-soul) – Henry Dec 11 '17 at 14:19
  • 1
    @Oddthinking Good point. I wasn't familiar with this concept at all. In case that it's just completely made up, antisemitic nonsense, I doubt that it would have been a good fit at judaism.SE, so I didn't want to risk that. It seems that it is instead a complex theological issue, which would indeed have been a better fit there (although as it seems it would have been a duplicate; my mistake was to google the exact quote instead of the broader question). – tim Dec 11 '17 at 17:17
  • 6
    Great point about taking quotes out of context. This is *very* common with Talmud quotes - one of the famous ones is the Talmud quote saying that non-Jews aren't people - the reality is that it does say that, but it says that in the context of interpreting specific Bible passages where God says that all "people" have to do something when that passages was really written specifically to Jews. – Robert Columbia Dec 11 '17 at 17:28
  • It's not clear to me why this is tagged antisemitism. Are you implying that the question itself is antisemitic in nature? – Jack Of All Trades 234 Dec 11 '17 at 17:45
  • 3
    @JackOfAllTrades234 - I presume the implication is that anti-Semitic people are fond of this claim - even that such might be the main context in which this claim would be encountered. – Obie 2.0 Dec 11 '17 at 19:17

2 Answers2

8

Something like that, yes; but like everything else religious it's complicated. The basic idea, as far as I understand it, is that Gentiles have less Nefesh (נפש) but all have Neshama (הנשמה). Note that both words translate to the same English "soul", and that according to most sources I saw it has no real practical meaning - we are all descendants of the same ancestors.

Read here. It's in Hebrew, you can try to translate it with Google.

Here is a translation of what Rabbi Uziel Eliahu wrote in 2004:

Everything created by G-d has a neshama. The Living have a living neshama, plants have a plant neshama, The people of Israel have an Israelite neshama and the Gentiles have a Gentile neshama, etc.

The word neshama includes various parts:
The nefesh (soul) part of the neshama.
The spirit part of the neshama.
The neshama part of the neshama.
The animal part of the neshama.
The unit part of the neshama.

But you must know that each part itself divides into five, and these parts divide themselves into five, etc. And what you have been told about the Gentiles might mean they don't have the this part (one of 25 or one of 125). But this is not practical and not relevant to our lives here and now.

In days past they could tell about a person which parts he has and which are missing, which are in transition and which need to be corrected, etc, but nowadays none of us knows what, why and if. And it does not matter.

Community
  • 1
Rsf
  • 2,844
  • 1
  • 12
  • 20
  • 1
    It would aid this answer if you copied the relevant parts (preferably translated) into the answer itself. Links rot. – Jamiec Dec 11 '17 at 12:44
  • 2
    I think you swapped Nefesh and Neshama. The OP's Rabbi Kook's quote talks about Neshama. – ugoren Dec 11 '17 at 13:28
  • I have fixed the markup a bit, but I was not sure if the last sentence is from you, and not part of the quotation. Please check, and add a line break if it's your words. – DevSolar Dec 11 '17 at 13:38
5

R (Rabbi) Kook did write this, it is in his work Orot. He speaks here of the highest level of the soul, kabbalistic ideas which are hard to understand for those who are not familiar with their context. This doesn't mean that he felt that Gentiles were inferior to Jews - just that they have have souls of a different nature (this is what is meant by "a different quality").

R Tamir Granot explains here

This passage was cited together with several other passages in order to show that Jewish thought is based on racism and essentialist discrimination. This unfortunate claim is based on misunderstanding (as is not infrequently the case). As we learned, the term “the Jewish soul” describes the internal-spiritual character, the essential mind and will of Knesset Yisrael [the Jewish nation] – as a nation, not as individuals. The expression “the soul of all gentiles” similarly refers to the national spirit of the gentile nations. In other words, Rav Kook does not attribute any personal differences to Jewish and gentiles, only differences between the spiritual personalities of [the Jewish nation] and the gentile nations.

The same R Kook also writes (in Orot ha-Kodesh vol. 4, p. 405; emphasis mine)

The highest state of love of creatures should be allotted to the love of mankind, and it must extend to all of mankind, despite all variations of religions, opinions, and faiths, and despite all distinctions of race and climate.

It is right to get to the bottom of the views of different peoples and groups, to learn, as much as possible, their characters and qualities, in order to know how to base love of humanity on foundations that approach action. For only upon a soul rich in love for creatures and love of man can the love of the nation raise itself up in its full nobility and spiritual and natural greatness.

The narrowness that causes one to see whatever is outside the border of the special nation, even outside the border of Israel, as ugly and defiled, is a terrible darkness that brings general destruction upon all building of spiritual good, for the light of which every refined soul hopes.

mbloch
  • 151
  • 1
  • 7
  • 4
    In (at least one subfield of) the economic sciences, "quality" is simply defined as all aspects of a good except the price, in particular, there is no inherent ordering on quality, there is no "better" or "worse", there is just different. It sounds like something like this is more the meaning intended in the quote. – Jörg W Mittag Dec 11 '17 at 13:56
  • 1
    "They have have souls of a different nature" isn't this exactly what lays the ground for supremacism? Once you open the door to "difference", you don't need to explicitly put an ordering on top of that. People will do it by themselves. Hitler did use a similar reasoning. Something along the lines of "I don't say they are worse. I just say they are different". Hence different people need different treatments, and the road to you-know-what is paved.… – Jivan Dec 11 '17 at 14:00
  • 10
    @Jivan The road's existence isn't fundamentally problematic. If people want to go do bad things they will always find a way. It's the responsibility of good people to not get to bad places by any road. In any event, we aren't here at Skeptics to judge the position, only describe it. – Double AA Dec 11 '17 at 14:12
  • 2
    @Jivan I think your logic is questionable. But apart from that, Hitler most certainly did not say "something along the lines of" that. Of course he considered Jews "worse". He [considered](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#Chapter_11_-_Race_and_People) Jews to be "the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil". Which is also why his goal was not "different treatments" but the "annihilation of the Jewish race". – tim Dec 11 '17 at 17:33
  • 5
    @Jivan As to why I find the underlying argument questionable: Take a different example. People who can hear, and people who cannot are different. That doesn't imply an order, but it *should* lead to different treatment in some areas. For example, I wouldn't gift a deaf person an audio book (but instead a paper book). Difference isn't a problem at all, different treatment isn't necessarily a problem, immoral or inhuman treatments are a problem. – tim Dec 11 '17 at 17:49
  • @tim I understand your point and agree with you on that. My comment was more of an open reflexion than trying to assert something in particular. – Jivan Dec 11 '17 at 17:51
  • 3
    Rationalize all you want, but if a European or American had written, "The difference between the **European** soul, **in all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing**, and the soul of all the Jews, on all of their levels, **is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal**", he'd be branded anti-Semitic, and pilloried so fast it would make your head spin. – RonJohn Dec 11 '17 at 22:28
  • @RonJohn - There's no doubt in my mind that a statement of the sort mentioned constitutes evidence of prejudice. But equally important here is the fact that anti-Jewish people are using this to make broad generalizations about Jews, which are in themselves indicative of prejudice. As with similar stereotypes generated from reading the New Testament or the Quran, and not from actually interacting with people, the validity of these ideas is, to put it kindly, dubious. – Obie 2.0 Dec 16 '17 at 19:41
  • @Obie2.0 at no time when I read John 18:31 did I ever think, "**The Jews** killed Jesus", when it was obvious that #1 Jesus was Jewish, #2 he had lots of Jewish adherents, #3 the 12 disciples, Paul, Mary, etc, and #4 **The Pharisees** wanted him out of the way. I've never been able to fathom any *sola scriptura* basis for anti-Semitism. – RonJohn Dec 16 '17 at 19:56
  • 1
    @Obie2.0 the relevant question here, though, is "how deeply ingrained in Jewish thought is that idea?" IOW, is it part of the crank fringe, or an ingrained part of Jewish thought? – RonJohn Dec 16 '17 at 19:59
  • @RonJohn - The relevant question here is whether some specific literal and metaphorical kook said something. However, trying to figure out whether something is “an ingrained part of Jewish thought” can veer into anti-Semitism *very* easily. – Obie 2.0 Dec 16 '17 at 20:19
  • @Obie2.0 you are **strongly** implying that I should stop asking a perfectly valid question (you say he's a kook, but I don't know that) out of fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. That's so wrong, it makes me think you're Antifa. – RonJohn Dec 16 '17 at 20:33
  • @RonJohn - Of course he's a Kook. Did you look at his name? ;) I'm not sure how you jumped to "Antifa" from the fact that I think a lot of people love to judge others based on their holy texts, not, you know, themselves. – Obie 2.0 Dec 16 '17 at 21:34
  • @Obie2.0 you keep stressing/obsessing how we shouldn't ask questions (aka you're trying to suppress free thought), because that might lead to an outcome you don't like. – RonJohn Dec 16 '17 at 21:40
  • @Obie2.0 as for why people categorize and generalize, it's quite simple: not only don't humans have the brain power to judge every new thing/experience on it's own, categorizing and generalizing **is how people learn**. It's why we're typing on computers instead of poking at termite mounds with sticks. – RonJohn Dec 16 '17 at 21:45
  • @RonJohn - If people are learning to judge people by by their holy texts, and not as individuals, they're being sub-optimal. Example: people who look at the Bible and say "Oh, look, Jesus told people he brought the sword, Christianity is eeeevil." – Obie 2.0 Dec 16 '17 at 22:38
  • @Obie2.0 of all the information and facts that you know, did you learn it all from first principals using observation and experimentation? No. You've taken other people's words for it, only adjusting what you've determined to be factually wrong. – RonJohn Dec 17 '17 at 00:17
  • @RonJohnson - I'm not sure precisely what your argument is, but if it involves approval of making broad generalizations about groups or pre-judging individual members of those groups based on some old texts (or even modern theological dictates), I don't agree. – Obie 2.0 Dec 17 '17 at 00:45