So far my problem with daf yomi is that if I want to make it through a full page of Talmud a day, I barely have time to read the footnotes, let alone look up interesting passages or words. But, given my inspiration from John's post (and with spring break in sight) I went for it.
Basically, John asks why the rabbis make a distinction between killing a Jew and killing an idolater? Isn't murder still murder regardless of the victim's status?
So, I looked at the passage in the Hebrew on 40b4 where the rabbis describe one of the questions they ask witnesses in order to determine whether or not they will try the case:
Makirim atem oto? Nochri harag? Yisrael harag?Did you recognize [the victim]? That is, Did [the accused] kill an idolater or did he kill a Jew?
The term used for idolater is not ha'oveid avodah zara, the term used in the Mishnah passage on 40a1. Instead, the term is nochri. When I first read the text I thought it said notzri, which would have totally changed the meaning of the passage, suggesting that the rabbis were sanctioning murders of Christians! Nochri clearly is not the same word as notzri, but I still wondered what this term means and if it really referred to idolaters.
Jastrow defines nochri as a stranger or gentile which in some editions could be changed into: ovdei cochavim u'mazelot, goy, kushi, or kuti.
THEN, I arrive at the best reference you could possibly imagine. Jastrow sends me to... wait for it... CHULLIN 13b!
If you don't immediately understand my excitement that is because this is literally one of the three or maybe four talmudic references I know (thank you agray!).
Chullin 13b teaches us that nochrim are not idol worshippers because they are simply following the customs of their ancestors. This is an important distinction because it asks the question, what is idolatry and why is it so horrible? The use of this term suggests that idolatry has to do with intention, not just action. This is even more interesting considering the context of our baraita.
Is a witness really expected to tell the difference between an idolater and one who is simply going through the motions because it is what his father did?
Perhaps the text is moving toward a teaching that would suggest all non-Jews (not just intentional idolaters) fall under the category of victims that a Jew can murder and not be tried for it in court.
My sense (though I'm not sure) is that the translation of "idolater" is maintained in order to guide one away from this kind of reading. It doesn't seem so bad that the Jews could get away with murdering idolaters, but when you expand that notion to include all non-Jews, it doesn't make the courts look very good.
This is great. So how are you treated differently if you kill a Jew versus if you kill an idolater? Maybe I missed that (or it's yet to come).
ReplyDeleteIsn't it nice when texts you learn in different contexts start to come together? As time goes on, the more you know the more you will know because of the additional learning you'll have to draw upon.
ReplyDeleteI just want to make a point about the terms used for non-Jews. You're to be commended for thinking to go beyond the printed text to Jastrow (for Talmudic Aramaic, I also suggest Michael Sokoloff's Dictionary of Babylonian Jewish Aramaic. He also has one for Palestinian Jewish Aramaic). But when it comes to terms for non-Jews, we really need to go behind the printed text and look at the manuscripts--which fortunately are largely (although not entirely) available on-line. The reason is that these terms were altered in the interest of not offending the non-Jewish majority, whether by pre-emptive self-censorship or otherwise. So one needs to look at the manuscripts and other "textual witnesses" (as they're called), and do one's best to see what the original term used may have been. Your instinct to check this out further was spot on. At a later date, if you all like (you too, John!) I'd be happy to give you a primer on accessing and using Talmudic manuscripts.
thanks for the comments... i think it's interesting that they might have altered certain parts of the texts as self-censorship but not others... a lot of what we have read so far seems like it might be offensive to a non-Jewish majority!
ReplyDeletecan't wait for the primer!