One of my favorite Dogbert lines of all time is, "If it weren't for lack of context, there would be no news." You don't have to know who or what Dogbert is too appreciate that line. There is a conservative Christian speaker who goes around to college campuses to challenge their liberal ideology and is a big supporter of the State of Israel. I saw a clip recently of a college student trying to prove to him how bad the Jews are by quoting statements from the Talmud to him. This speaker just sidestepped the issue by saying that he didn't believe the Talmud had any authenticity, but he loves the Jews. Yay.
I think, though, that we need to know the kind of charges that are being leveled and know how to answer them. Not to engage with them, but to quell our own doubts. I don't have any doubts at all that everything we have recorded from Chazal is a precious gem. But to really appreciate a gem you need to know what makes gems beautiful and then examine them. Then you can really appreciate their beauty.
The first challenge was actually quite easy: "It says in their Talmud that you don't have to return a lost object to a non-Jew." Sounds bad, no? This person certainly wants to paint our religion as, "Jewish finders are keepers and they make non-Jewish losers weepers." So, first of all, that Talmud absolutely does say that. In context, though, we know the Talmud is examining the positive Torah commandment to return a lost object. How far does that go? Check Returning Lost Property -- R' Chanina ben Dosa Style. Of course, R' Chanina ben Dosa went beyond the letter of the law. Nonetheless, that frames the discussion. Oh, and by the way, does a non-Jew have to return a lost object to anyone? Nope. So a more reasonable reading of the gemara is: The positive Torah commandment to return lost objects, and the lengths to which one must go, is when returning a lost object to another Jew. But it certainly does gives you an idea of how we view the importance returning property to its owner. Oh, and by the way, there are no laws or rules requiring a non-Jew to return lost property at all.
Here's another one: The Talmud says that only Jews are called people. So, this is a bit trickier. First, it is such a sloppy quote that it is a misquote. The Talmud ( Yevamos 61a; Bava Metzia 114b; Kerisus 6b) says (based on a verse in Yechezkel 34:31) says that the term אדם/Adam in many places -- such as tuma from a corpse in a tent/building refers to a Jewish corpse. There are many verses that use the word אדם/Adam to mean "Jewish person" in different setting. Here is a very nice article by R' Frand on that topic: Only You Are Called “Adam” -- Parshas Tazria Metzorah. (That article is from 20 year ago; which gives you an idea of how old this canard is.)
I'll just finish with a cute story I heard from R' Ezriel Tauber, ztz"l. He was lecturing at a college and student of the Reform Jewish Religion persuasion stood up and said, "Doesn't it say in your (sic) Talmud that the worst Jew is better than the best goy?!" R' Tauber didn't know of a statement like that off the top of his head, but was worried about some statement taken out of context and didn't want to give a definitive "no" just in case. Then, as he puts it, HaShem dropped the perfect answer into his head. "Of course it does," said R' Tauber, "everyone says that." The student was stunned (as was the intent) and R' Tauber continued, "According to the Christians, who is the best goy?" Answer obvious. "According to us, who is the worst Jew?" Again, answer obvious. "See? It's the same person and we all agree." General laughter, loaded question turned back on the antagonist. Next question.
Comments