The Jewish Attitude towards Gentiles

Overview: What is the Jewish approach to non-Jews and the way they are to be treated. Explaining why in a few cases different civil laws apply to Jew and Gentile.

Almost every religion on earth preaches elitism of its members. This concept is not exclusive to the Jewish religion as is depicted in many anti-Semitic works. As elaborated upon earlier, the “superiority” (advantage) of the Jews is not that of race—which is why converts are accepted—and it does not extend beyond spiritual and religious superiority. Meaning to say, as far as respect, dignity, and human rights is concerned, all mankind was “created in the image of the Lord.”[i]

Various measures were implemented for the sake of separating Jew and gentile in the social arena for concerns of negative culture and religious influence. This concern still applies today and perhaps to an even greater extent. This includes the famous rabbinic prohibition of drinking the wine of a gentile that was a measure focusing on limiting partying with gentiles.[ii] This is not racism; it is the mere preservation of Jewish values. Similarly, the Torah forbids intermarriage with gentiles for precisely this same reason.[iii] In fact, even the great King Solomon was influenced by the many non-Jewish women he illegally married.[iv] This law against intermarriage is nothing linked to racism, which is why it is permitted to marry converts. In fact Moses, “king of the Jews,” married a black woman as described in Numbers 12:1.

As per the question of distinctive civil laws to the Jew and to the gentile found within Jewish law itself—we shall soon address them at length, each individually. As a general approach it can be said that the sages, just like the rest of society of that time, had subconscious racist tendencies that influenced their legislation and remarks on gentiles. There is nothing theologically wrong with recognizing the sages’ human aspect and how their society’s influenced their words. However, in the upcoming discussions we will attempt to give another approach for why the sages said what they said and legislated what they legislated.

What is the purpose of non-Jews in God’s plan?

All mankind has a purpose in Creation. Each human being, no matter what race, has a unique connection with God. We were all “created in the Image of the Lord”[v] and were created in order to build a relationship with God as discussed at length in “What is the Purpose of Creation.” In that chapter we also discuss the different roles between the Chosen Nation and all the other nations of the world.

Libre David 37

A popular quote found on the internet is of a book named “Libre Dovid” who apparently is a rabbinic writer who says that “to communicate anything to a goy (gentile) about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if they knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly… If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Whoever will violate this order shall be put to death.”

Despite being quoted on many anti-Talmud and anti-Semitic works, there’s no trace of such a book to have ever existed. The book might have just been a complete fabrication of an anti-Semite attempting to spread lies about Judaism. If this book and statement ever existed is one question, but a prominent spokesman for rabbinic Judaism—he certainly is not.

But the truth of the matter is that the quote here is not entirely inaccurate. It is true that Judaism does look at the Jewish people specifically as the Chosen Nation—something which can anger many Gentiles. Also, a superficial look at some Talmudic statements can be taken out of context and be misunderstand. That is perhaps what the author of this statement, if he existed, had in mind. But it wasn’t that he actually viewed Judaism as racist, God Forbid.

One thing is certain: the author of this statement did exactly what he preached against. He was trying to avoid Gentiles viewing our religion as racist; but instead, due to his thoughtless statement, caused the very opposite. He is now being quoted as a source that Judaism is racist.

Gentiles as slaves to the Jews in the Messianic Era

Judaic sources, including from Tanach and the Talmud, speak of the Messianic Era in which Gentiles will serve the Jewish People.[vi] Many understand this to be a supremacist Torah perception of Gentiles. What a misunderstanding, not only by the anti-Semites slandering the Talmud but even by many innocent Jews.

First of all, the Hebrew term eved (used in many of the sources) can mean “servant” and is not limited to the more derogatory term of “slave.” It just so happens to be that the Jews as well are called servants (eved) of the Lord multiple times throughout the Torah and in the Talmud.[vii] The logic is simple: we are God’s servants in the service of His desire of making this world a more spiritual place. In fact, every single creation is by default a servant of the Lord. Except that some are more direct servants and some are less direct. Because the Jewish Nation is the Chosen Nation, they therefore are the more direct servants of God. The Gentiles are also servants of the Lord except in a less direct way. That is what is intended with this teaching. When the Messiah shall come, the Gentiles will recognize and embrace their task in this world. They will ensure that God can have his special relationship with His Chosen Nation, perhaps by prioritizing Jewish community services or the like. But of course this is not to undermine the relationship that God pursues with non-Jews as well, as discussed in “What is the Purpose of Creation.”

Let it be noted that many Gentiles might indeed be “slaves” in the literal term as they indeed deserve it. This includes all the anti-Semites and persecutors of the Jewish Nation of whom the Torah says that “God thy Lord shall place these curses upon thy enemies and haters who chased you.”[viii] Let it be noted as well that at the time of the Talmudic statement (and throughout most of history) regarding the Gentiles, there was a significantly higher anti-Semitic rate amongst the nations and physical violence against the Jews.

The source the Talmud brings for this teaching is from Zachariah 8:23: “This is what the Lord Almighty says: “In those days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.'” This seems to be voluntary submission; any Gentile who does not wish to do this, will not.

You are called “man”

The Talmud[ix] calls the Jewish People with the title “person” and specifically says that Gentiles are not “human.” Sounds horrific, right?

But once again, the context explains it all. It is regards to the impurity of touching a corpse of a dead “person” (Leviticus 19:14)—that this statement was said. The law applies exclusively to a Jewish corpse and not that of a Gentile. It is not speaking in the broader context of whether we consider the Gentiles to be subhuman, God Forbid. Perhaps we can compare it to term “person” that is mentioned within every countries code of law, in which the term very frequently is limited to the citizens of that country, despite that “person” as a definition refers to all humans as well. Similarly, when the Torah speaks of a corpse of a “person,” it is referring to the people whom the Torah is addressing.

There are clear Talmudic teachings that specifically state that Gentiles are considered “people,” in contrast to this slanderous claim.^[x]

Their skin is the skin of a donkey

“Their skin is the skin of a donkey” is a description of Gentiles brought in the Talmud[xi] quoting from Ezekiel 23:20. The context of Ezekiel is a rebuke to the Jewish People for practicing adultery with their Gentile neighbors. The context speaks in metaphoric terms and it can be argued that the term “their skin is the skin of a donkey” is likewise. It would be a term to describe how foreign (just like a donkey is foreign to humans) a Gentile should be (sexually) to the Jews, who are biblically forbidden to intermarry with Gentiles. Another possibility is that the derogatory term is because of the evil activity practiced by the Gentiles who practiced paganism and lived highly immoral lives. Be as it may, there is certainly nothing discriminatory about the verse in Ezekiel.

Now, the verse is quoted in the Talmud as well on multiple occasions that we shall now address. It is brought in tractate Berachos within a story (beyond the scope of this work to address). The explanation is that the Gentile woman was likened to a donkey because of her foreign martial relationship with the Jewish man and can be likened to the foreign martial relationship to a donkey. Did he lie? Perhaps slightly but it was for the sake of a greater cause—to execute a proper judgment on this man, and to save himself from the Roman death penalty. He later smit the Jewish man to death in order to avoid the possibility of this man snitching to the authorities and having thousands of Jews killed.^[1]

The quote is brought again in Yevamot regarding the relationship between “an Egyptian” and his parents (family). It says that they have no relationship to one another because “their skin is the skin of donkeys.” The explanation would be that it is speaking regarding the relationship between an Egyptian convert and his Gentile family.^[2] They are family in some legal matters but are not for others (like Yibbum and Chalitzah brought in this Talmudic teaching). The legal difference between the two family-members stems from the foreign relationship between Jew and Gentile who are forbidden to intermarry.[3]

They clearly are biological relatives and are also legally so (except in marriage issues, such as the one brought in Yevamot). See Kidushin 17b where a convert can inherit the inheritance of his deceased Gentile father, implying that they are legally related. Also see Yevamot 62a where a Gentile father fulfils the obligation to “be fruitful and multiply” even if his only son converted to Judaism.^[4]

Yet another time the verse is quoted is in tractate Niddah. The Talmud there says that girls cannot become pregnant before the age of 12. The Talmud proceeds with a story of a Gentile woman who mockingly claimed to a Jewish Sage that she was pregnant at age 7. The Talmud replies to the story with two answers. One is that she was outright lying. The other is that “their skin is the skin of donkeys.” Talmud critics explain this to be an expression of the “racist approach in the Talmud” which says that Gentiles are not humans and are therefore not bound to the principle that “humans” cannot become pregnant before age 12.

But there is an obvious issue with this misleading interpretation. How can the Talmud answer that Gentiles are biologically different than Jews (because Jews are “humans” and Gentiles are “donkeys”) if it is so clear that Gentiles as well don’t give birth before 12 years old as well?! That was obviously not the intent of the Talmud to deny a visible reality.

Rather a far more plausible interpretation is that this individual, as an individual—not as a Gentile, had an inhuman ability to conceive at an early age, just like a donkey. Exceptions to the rule of mature pregnancy, which occur even nowadays, can happen to both Jews and Gentiles alike. In the case of the Talmudic story it happened to be a Gentile. Although in its context the verse “their skin is the skin of Gentiles” refers to Gentiles, here it must have been brought as a “hint” (asmachta) which are so frequently taken out of their context.[5]

A proof that Gentiles are still considered 100% human despite the quotes of “their skin is the skin of donkeys” is from Berachos 25b and Shabbat 150a. Over there it says it is forbidden to recite Shema in front of a naked Gentile (just like it is forbidden in front of a Jew who is naked) even though they are compared to donkeys (of which it is permitted to recite Shema in front of a “naked” donkey).

Gentiles prefer bestiality over sex with their wives

This is a quote from Avodah Zara 22b. This was certainly true in those days when the Gentiles were incredibly immoral, as historians recognize. Of course, this is an exaggeration that they preferred it more than sex with their wives and that it referred to all Gentiles. Rather the point is to say that Gentiles are suspected of possibly committing bestiality. Exaggerations are frequent in Aggadic (i.e. non-Halachic) teachings in the Talmud. It is clear that the Talmud didn’t mean its statement in the literal statement and was blinded to the visible reality.

Gentiles are in a state of filth their entire life

This is an alleged quote, or misquote rather, from Avodah Zara 36b. But in reality, it says that they are in a state of Niddah (menstrual period) their entire lives. The intention is that they are always forbidden to the Jews just like a Niddah is forbidden to her husband during that time. Note that the word Niddah, besides for meaning menstrual period, means “separation.” The Gentiles are to be martially “separated” from the Jewish Nation. Similarly, it is said about Jewish unmarried girls that they are in a state of Niddah, because they are forbidden to have relations without marriage.[xii] So clearly, there was no racist intent here.

The best of the Gentiles shall be killed

Perhaps the most famous quotation,[xiii] this quote is justified when put in its context. Its context is in a war against a Gentile enemy. When in a war with a nation, even those soldiers who seem all innocent shall be put to the sword and not be sympathized for, because in fact they aren’t as innocent as they seem. This morality in war is justified (to the soldiers and not innocent civilians) and was the rules of battle especially in the times that this statement was said.

Different civil laws for Gentiles

For most civil laws, Jew and Gentile are treated equally. In some laws, however, the Jew is granted privilege in the Israelite court. Why is this so? Is it because Gentiles are “second class”?

It is actually because Gentiles aren’t considered complete citizens (but were granted only partial citizenship) in the Land of Israel. Israel is a nationalistic country which God granted to the Nation of Israel. Others may live there but are not subject to some civil benefits that full-citizens (Jews) are granted.[6] There was the option to accept some Jewish beliefs and practices and thereby become a ger toshav, a full-on citizen with full civil rights.^[7] So the Jewish Nation had special civil laws due to their citizenship status—not because of racial advantage.

Moreover, the Jews had special civil laws for themselves because of the brotherhood and relationship the nation has with each other. Family members in a clan, say, may have stricter civil laws between themselves and stick up for each other if another person fights with one of the family-members. This is certainly not considered “racism” or “discrimination.” The Jews as well view each other as family and therefore have a few different laws pertaining to the way they treat fellow Jews and their Gentile neighbors. It’s not that we put non-Jews on a lower standard but rather that we raise the standard for our own community and peoples.

[Nowadays, this concept of treating far family members (racial ethnicity or nationality) differently is rightfully against democratic values. The reason is because fighting against racial discrimination is a high priority in order to combat a history of enslaving, beating, and dehumanizing racial minorities. The Gentile in Israel back in the days, however, were not subject to mistreatment.]

A different legal approach to Gentiles was sometimes practiced because they themselves wouldn’t practice such civil morals in their hometowns and thus we are not obligated to grant them what they don’t exercise. Examples of such will be brought later. Because the Gentile nations nowadays have embraced morality (for the most part), these civil differences no longer apply to them.^[xiv]

Let it be known that nowadays Jewish Civil Law has no effect when contradicting the country’s civil law (in most cases). Jewish Civil Law is only bounding in Israel with the establishment of the Torah High Court.^[xv]

The ox of an Israelite/Gentile which gores

Bava Kamma 37b records the laws of oxen which gore another ox. If the attacker-ox was a Jew’s and the victim-ox a Gentile’s, the Jew is spared from payment. If, however, the attacker-ox belonged to a Gentile and the victim-ox to a Jew, the Gentile must fully compensate for the loses inflicted through his ox. Why is this the law?

Let’s start with the fact that paying for the damage of one’s possessions (ox) is different than if the person himself has damaged with his own hands and deliberately. It would seem that difference in law for the Jew and Gentile was an enactment by the sages who realized that the Gentiles were not being cautious enough on watching over their animals from injuring people and other animals (it was part of their larger immorality of not keeping to the Seven Noahide Laws). They pay full compensation in order to have a deterrence against not protecting their animals. Also, because as a whole they wouldn’t watch over their animals from goring other peoples’ property, Jews are not responsible to pay in the event that an Israelite-owned ox gores a Gentile’s. Though it is certainly forbidden to purposely allow the damage of another human’s property.

Commentators explain that the verse brought as a source is merely a “hint” (asmachta) which explains why it is from the Prophets (of which we don’t learn laws from).^[xvi] These days, when the Gentiles embraced the Seven Noahide Laws—including civil laws, they are bound to the same law as the Jew and are not to be treated differently.^[xvii]

A Ger Toshav which involuntarily murders is executed

Maimonides, a codifier of Jewish Law, states that a ger toshav that involuntarily kills is executed.[xviii] The more accurate translation of shogeg (the term used by Rambam) is not involuntary (which would actually be ones in ancient Hebrew).[8] It rather means someone who “thought” this type of murder was permitted or that this person was permissible to kill under law.[xix] Certainly, this is much closer to a real murder case which is punishable by death. It would be almost impossible to determine whether this person is merely claiming that he believed this murder was permissible or if he actually believed so. Additionally, he should have done better homework before committing such a grave act. This death penalty serves as a deterrence against those contemplating murder. They are highly suspected of murdering Jews, as was their frequent custom those days as Maimonides himself points out.[xx] [9]

The lost object of a Gentile

Halachically speaking, there is no legal obligation to return the lost object of a Gentile (in contrast to a Jew).^[xxi] The reasoning is that just like if they would have found a lost object it is almost established that they wouldn’t have returned it, we too are not obligated to return their lost object. This rule probably is still intact despite the Gentiles having upgraded their morality because regarding a lost item, no one is interested in seeking out for its owner (and it’s fair to assume that most Gentiles wouldn’t return a lost item). In regard to a Jew, however, Torah was extra strict in its morality and said you must search for its owner. This is in light of what we explained earlier under the headline “different civil laws for Gentiles.”

Additionally, if he is to return it, there’s the high possibility of the Gentile accusing the Jew (because most Gentiles were anti-Semitic back in the days) to have stolen the item (or some of the money/items in the case of returning a lost wallet or package). Thus, we do not force the Jew to return the item.

When returning the item would Sanctify the Name of the Lord (i.e. it would impress the Gentile and have him praise the Lord and His nation the Jewish people for their morality), it is the law that it should be returned.^[xxii] This is perhaps the case in most instances.

A rabbinic commentator explains^[xxiii] that the item still belongs to the Gentile, except that the Jew has no legal obligation to search for the owner and return it to him. If, however, the Gentile approaches him or gets ahold of the item—it stays with the Gentile.

It should be noted, that in today’s day and age the likelihood of a religious Jew returning the lost object of a Jew or non-Jew is significantly higher than the average secular person. This is a known fact to anyone familiar with the religious Jewish community and their values.

Withholding the wages of a Gentile employee

The critics allege that the Talmud says that Gentile workers need not get paid for their duties. This is nothing but an outright lie. There is a law in Leviticus 19:13 that prohibits paying workers late (i.e. overnight). This was a laborer’s right granted in the Torah that protects them from possible mistreatment by their employers. However, this extra civil law was granted only to full citizens and family members (i.e. Jews), as explained earlier under the headline “different civil laws for Gentiles.” This is the true intent of the Talmud when it speaks about “withholding” a non-Jew’s salary.

Also, because the Gentiles have no restrictions of paying overnight, we too are not obligated to provide them with this luxury, as explained earlier under the headline “different civil laws for Gentiles.” This is not considered “cheating” because they haven’t made up a paying schedule together. Therefore, the Jewish owner can pay at a later point. In fact, the law of not paying a Jewish worker overnight in Leviticus 19:13 is only if no payment schedule was negotiated.^[xxiv]

A ger toshav (a complete citizen in Israel despite remaining a Gentile) does get this right and his Jewish employer must provide him with his paycheck on the actual day of work.^[xxv]

Lying to a Gentile

It seems, from a superficial reading of Bava Kamma 113a, that it is permissible to lie to a Gentile. But such an understanding only happens if one totally misses the context and point of that Talmudic teaching. It’s speaking of a Gentile who is an anas, a known thief. It also seems that it is only regarding a judge who is in doubt who is right in the court-case that we just rule in favor of our brethren and not in favor of this known thief. There’s an opinion, Rabbi Akivah, on the same page of the Talmud who argues on this rule because it may desecrate the Name of the Lord (i.e. it would seem immoral to some).

Murdering a Gentile

Sanhedrin 57a says murdering a Gentile is not punishable by death (but if a Gentile murders a Jew, he is put to death). Critics somehow imply that this means that it is permissible, in Jewish Law, to kill Gentiles. This is false. There are so many instances in which it is forbidden to murder another, but if done—the murderer isn’t punished as a Capital Crime.^[10] The reason is assumedly because the High Court doesn’t have the authority to put someone to death if the victim wasn’t someone who’s totally protected under the High Court (the Gentiles living in Israel are not granted full citizenship). Judaism looks at execution as a very extreme punishment that is isn’t applied just whenever possible.

Mechilta^[xxvi] says that one who murders a Gentile, although he is not punishable by the earthly High Court, will get punished from Heaven. Murdering a Gentile is certainly under the prohibition of “thou shall not murder,”[xxvii] except that in regard to putting the violator to death—we need authority over the victim (of whose protection is fully under the High Court who must therefore avenge his blood).^[11]

This point is demonstrated with the law concerning the involuntary murder of a Gentile by a Jew. If a Jew unintentionally causes the death of a Gentile, he must be exiled—just as is the law with a Jew who involuntary murders another Jew.[xxviii] This illustrates that Torah does value the life of a Gentile.

We do not lift nor lower a Gentile

Perhaps the most astonishing law pertaining to Gentiles is this that we need/do not save a Gentile in a situation when he is in danger. There is an argument amongst the commentators whether there’s merely no obligation or that one should specifically not save them.^[xxix] Be as it may, this needs clarification.

We’ll start off with saying that this rule no longer applies today when the Gentiles are more moral than what they used to be.^[12] This ruling might come as a shocker in the twenty-first century, but people weren’t always as kind and loving as nowadays to deserve sympathy. Despite all far-liberal claims, an immoral hater does not deserve sympathy and may be left to rot away by natural means. This includes all terrorists and their supporters, KKK members, neo-Nazis, and all anti-Semites. Back in the days, the vast majority of Gentiles were anti-Semites and immoral beings. Even a small knowledge in Jewish history can reveal that. So why should there be an obligation to save them from a fatal crisis? Frankly, while I won’t actively murder an anti-Semite, I doubt I would save him from a crisis.

Conversely, it would seem (though I have no source for it^[13]) that if one knows this particular individual to be a Righteous Gentile, then he must be saved from his danger.

This law doesn’t apply in cases where it might make strife and hatred among Jew and Gentile or Desecrate the Name of the Lord (i.e. give people a bad taste about Torah values). Such would be the case if other people can find out about it or if the victim has a way of surviving and he knows that a Jew could have saved him but hasn’t.^[xxx]

The objects of a Gentile are ownerless (up-for-grabs)

This alleged quote is an extraction of Bava Batra 54b and Bava Kamma 38a. It’s a dishonest extraction taking the statement out of its broader context. We’ll start with the teaching in Bava Batra. It is clearly speaking of case where a Gentile sells his field to a Jew.

The process requires two steps; first that the buyer pay and then that the buyer acquires the document of sale. The question is when does the buyer gain control of the field? The relevance is mainly in a case where one party wishes to withdraw from the deal—the question is whether the transaction sealed already. The law is that when a Jew is the buyer, he only gets the field once getting the deed. A Gentile, however, finishes the transaction after the money is transferred—as per their monetary legal system.

Our case gets tricky because between the two steps, the field technically belongs to no one. The Gentile abandoned his rights to the field by accepting the payment. The Jew, however, didn’t receive the field yet having not received the deed yet. Each as per their law. Being in the state that the field is in, it is essentially “ownerless” and therefore anyone who grabs the field acquires it.

Consequently, the buyer, the Jew, is the one who lost out! Talk about discrimination! However, although the one who grabbed the field, acquired it—he is deemed a wicked man, as per a similar case brought in Kidushin 59a.^[xxxi]

In Bava Kamma the phrase of this headline is brought only in regard to a case when their ox gored another’s ox (see headline “the ox of an Israelite/Gentile which gores”).

Capital Punishment for Gentiles

Capital Punishment is prescribed for various offenses committed by non-Jews. Let’s take a look at them.

Sanhedrin 58b says that a Gentile who hits a Jew is punishable by death. But it is clear[xxxii] that this, just like many other similar Talmudic statements, isn’t literal but saying that it’s as if he is liable death (i.e. it’s a severe sin). For another example of someone being “punished with death” for a minor offense, see Avos 3:8.

Similarly, a non-Jew who keeps Shabbat, with all its proper laws as described in the Oral Law, is liable for Capital Punishment.[xxxiii] This as well just means that he is worthy of Capital Punishment—not that he actually gets it.[xxxiv] The reason non-Jews are not to keep Shabbat, is because Shabbat was established by the Lord as a special covenant between Him and the Jewish People.[xxxv]

In another instance, the Talmud[xxxvi] says that a Gentile who learns Torah is liable for the death penalty. This as well, like the previous cases, isn’t a ruling of actual execution but that he is merely worthy of Capital Punishment.[xxxvii] The reason for this is because the Torah is considered a special gift to the Chosen Nation and was directed to them.[xxxviii] Additionally, there is concern of them learning Torah and misinterpreting it (as did the Christians) because they don’t have the Oral Law, or they might finds parts of the Torah to mock at (as many anti-Semitic works have indeed done which is why this chapter needed to be written).

They are allowed and in fact required to learn the parts of Torah that pertain to them and their civil and moral responsibilities.[xxxix] Many opinions hold that they may read the biblical narratives and derive inspiration from them. Furthermore, some even say that the limitation is only on the Oral Law and they may learn the Written Torah.[xl] This of course coincides with the very reason the Oral Law was intended to remain preserved orally, as discussed in “Why Didn’t God Write the Oral Laws.” The Rambam even suggests that the restriction of not being allowed to learn Torah doesn’t apply to Christians who accept the divinity of the Torah.[xli]

Gentiles living in ancient Israel who broke the Seven Noahide laws were liable for the death penalty[xlii]—this time literally.[xliii] Jews as well deserve the death penalty if they violate most of the Seven Noahide laws to the exception of stealing and eating a live limb.[14] But Gentiles are liable for the death penalty for breaking those laws. Although there are no recordings of the High Court actually executing this ruling in practice,[15] the question still remains why the Torah is so strict and how is it fair to Gentiles. It probably wasn’t practiced for practical reasons, such as the anger it would steer and the anti-Semitism it might arouse. It seems like the law will be practical after the Messiah comes and the High Court will have complete jurisdiction over all mankind.

This law cannot be regarded as “unfair” or discriminatory towards non-Jews because as a whole the Torah is considerably stricter with Jews in their responsibilities and the punishments for not obeying them. For instance, Jews are executed for violations of Shabbat and Yom Kippur while Gentiles are not. You see, Jew and Gentile have their respective missions on this world which they are solemnly responsible to keep. The Jew’s responsibility is mainly the religious/ritual duties such as Shabbat and Yom Kippur, while the main duty of a Gentile is to live a moral and civil moral life. Therefore, the Torah is stricter with the Gentile in their observance of the significantly less commandments they were given.

Stealing from a Gentile

Multiple Talmudic teachings say that stealing from a Gentile is permitted.^[xliv] Note, however, that this is only one opinion^[xlv] and the ruling in practice (Halacha) is that it is indefinitely biblically prohibited to steal from a Gentile.^[xlvi] But we still must attempt to justify the rationality of the opinion that permits it; after all, he is a rabbinic sage representing rabbinic philosophy and law.

Is there a moral issue to steal from a thief? Absolutely not. Sympathy is something that everyone is born with, but one can lose their rights for sympathy and respect when they themselves do not do so to others. In those days, most Gentiles would steal from one another—literally. Don’t underestimate the immorality of Gentiles, as well as many Jews (except on a much smaller scale), back in primitive times. So when stealing from a Gentile, it was almost certain that you were stealing from thief, which is ethically acceptable or at least acceptable enough not to be prohibited.[16] Don’t like this categorization of Gentiles? Well welcome to the other conflicting opinion which does indeed make more sense to most people and is therefore the practiced Halachic decision.

Even according to the opinion that says it is permissible, they later decreed it rabbinically forbidden, lest the Name of the Lord be Desecrated.[17] Most certainly nowadays, when most Gentiles are ethically moral, there isn’t even the original thought of the opinion who originally permitted it. Back in days, those who held like the permitting opinion, didn’t seem to do so in practice. That explains why the Roman (brought in the story of Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 4:3) only knew of this law from learning it in the Mishna but couldn’t observe it from the day-to-day commerce that the Jews had with Gentiles.

Saving a non-Jew on Shabbat

Many people have the impression that one may not desecrate the Holy Shabbat to save the life of a non-Jew. But while there’s some truth to this claim, for all practical purposes it is inapplicable and a Jew must save a non-Jewish soul even if it means desecrating a Shabbat law.

The source for the claim comes from the Talmud[xlvii] which says that we may desecrate the laws of Shabbat to save a Jew but not a Gentile. The Talmud continues with an exception in cases where not saving the life of the Gentile may cause hatred and anti-Semitism (e.g. if there are bystanders or there’s a chance the Gentile in danger will get saved without you).

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein[xlviii] (known as the most authoritative Halachic Rabbi in North America of the twentieth-century) writes that in our modern era, one is required to save a Gentile in life-threatening danger on Shabbat by breaking the Shabbat laws (albeit he should try to violate the least transgressions possible). He explains that these days such an act would not go by unnoticed by the media and it would cause tremendous turmoil against Judaism (thus the exception of the Talmud about arousing hatred).

Another more principled approach would say that it’s not just a technical reason that we must save their life, but it’s rather a fundamental responsibility to preserve human life that was “created in the Image of God.” Ramban[xlix] writes that we are obligated (i.e. Mitzvah) to save a ger toshav, a Righteous Gentile residing in Israel, even if it requires breaking a Shabbat law. Some sources are of the opinion that modern-day Gentiles are almost all under the category of Righteous Gentiles or ger toshav and thus must be saved on Shabbat if in life-threating danger.[l]