Jews VS Gentiles

[USMC_Convert]

So I recently moved to Long Island, NY and live a mere couple of miles from a large Jewish community. I am hearing more and more that Jews cannot be touched nor touch Gentiles. This community has its own ambulance, and refuses to be seen by anybody but Jewish doctors, and so on, etc…

So here is my question, why? Is anyone here familiar with what this is all about? Is this in the Old Testament and I’ve just never seen it? What’s up?

Finally I guess I’m kind of offended, I mean these people have dogs, they touch the dog but cannot touch us? So God, to them, thinks of us as lower than a dog?

 

[meltzerboy]

So I recently moved to Long Island, NY and live a mere couple of miles from a large Jewish community. I am hearing more and more that Jews cannot be touched nor touch Gentiles. This community has its own ambulance, and refuses to be seen by anybody but Jewish doctors, and so on, etc…

So here is my question, why? Is anyone here familiar with what this is all about? Is this in the Old Testament and I’ve just never seen it? What’s up?

Finally I guess I’m kind of offended, I mean these people have dogs, they touch the dog but cannot touch us? So God, to them, thinks of us as lower than a dog?

I have NEVER heard that a Jew is not permitted to touch a non-Jew, but I would not be surprised to find out there are some Orthodox Jews within certain sects who believe this to be the case. It is certainly NOT justified by anything written in the Torah or Talmud. I recall, for example, many years ago, seeing Orthodox Jewish men holding Pope John Paul II during his visit to the Wailing Wall. However, I have heard from some Orthodox Jews that Jews should not socialize with non-Jews too much, probably because of the fear of assimilation, but even this belief is not, to my knowledge, held by all or most within the Orthodox Jewish community. If the Jewish community you speak of has their own ambulance (as does an Orthodox Jewish community in my neighborhood), they are obligated to care for ANY AND ALL human beings during an emergency, which would entail touching them. Saving a human life is considered so important in Judaism that the most physical work is permitted (and required) if necessary even on the Sabbath.

Insofar as Gentiles being considered less than human or less than an animal, this is definitely CONTRARY to the tenets of Judaism, which state that ALL human life is equally precious, Jew or non-Jew. The notion that Jews are the Chosen People does NOT mean Jews should think of themselves as in any way superior to Gentiles. In fact, as the story goes, the Jews were the LAST people to be offered the Torah by G-d, only because the other nations rejected it. Further, the fact that the Jews were offered the Torah last, not first, means that their obedience to its commandments is a sign of G-d’s gift or grace rather than the Jewish people’s own superiority.

BTW, some Orthodox Jewish people do not own dogs since it is believed that the dog is unclean and unsafe, potentially causing harm to others, particularly pregnant women according to biblical teaching. Cats are permitted.

 

[Tomdstone]

In fact, as the story goes, the Jews were the LAST people to be offered the Torah by G-d, only because the other nations rejected it.

Since this is “in fact”, why is it not recorded or mentioned in Chinese history that they were offered the Torah and then rejected it? Same question for the Japanese, the asian Indians, the American Indian, the Eskimos, the Tibetans, and the Slavs.
Since “in fact” G-d offered the Torah to so many non-Jewish people, it seems that you would have this fact recorded in at least some of their histories. But, the Hindus claim that their Scriptures are older than the Hebrew Scriptures and yet, of what I have read so far, I didn’t see a mention in the Hindu Scripture that they “in fact” rejected the Torah after G-d offered it to them? Can you tell us, where in the Hindu Scriptures or Chinese history, it is mentioned that G-d offered the Torah to them, and yet they rejected it?

 

[USMC_Convert]

Hmmm, well since some of those religions also include things totally made up by man I don’t know if accepting their word on what did or did not happen is a great way to go about it.

However that being said, I’ve never read where God offered it to anyone else. Where are we getting that from?

 

[CeelosDeznos]

Since this is “in fact”, why is it not recorded or mentioned in Chinese history that they were offered the Torah and then rejected it? Same question for the Japanese, the asian Indians, the American Indian, the Eskimos, the Tibetans, and the Slavs.
Since “in fact” G-d offered the Torah to so many non-Jewish people, it seems that you would have this fact recorded in at least some of their histories. But, the Hindus claim that their Scriptures are older than the Hebrew Scriptures and yet, of what I have read so far, I didn’t see a mention in the Hindu Scripture that they “in fact” rejected the Torah after G-d offered it to them? Can you tell us, where in the Hindu Scriptures or Chinese history, it is mentioned that G-d offered the Torah to them, and yet they rejected it?

While I cannot speak for Meltzerboy’s specific intentions, he is referencing a common interpretation or explanation of what “chosen people” means in the understanding of various Jews. It is not, however, universally accepted nor is it the only view.

There are a series of explanations that Jews have used to explain that their being “chosen” by God does not mean they are somehow better or more entitled than another people. While very much simplified (and somewhat explained in the terms that Jewish children would learn), Meltzerboy is explaining the Jewish theological concept that teaches that all peoples, nations and ethnic groups play a specific and assigned role in the purpose of God.

While some explain it as Meltzerboy has, the more analytic approach is that God has dealt with the foundational ancestors of all nations through providence. Eventually Abraham came to see this providential hand as demonstrating an axiom: everything seen has been caused by something, and that Cause cannot be the same as the multiple idol gods invented by humans. This great Cause must be greater, must be One, and must be the only God. This recognition opened the way for God to move beyond providence and begin directly dealing with Abraham and his children via theophany.

Interesting, this appears to be what the Apostle Paul is making reference to at the outset of his letter to the Romans. He wrote that “what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.…for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks…They became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image…”–Romans 1:19-23, italics added.

Those mentioned as “them” and “they” are those in history that could now see by God’s own creative witness that only One true God existed.

While Meltzerboy used simplified language, even Paul agrees that though the other nations never experienced the theophanies and direct revelations enjoyed by Israel, they still received a providential witness to the truths about God that should have kept them free from idol worship. While it is not saying that God “shopped around” the nations for a people, it is saying that all have had the chance (and still do) to turn from false gods through the witness of God’s creation and providential care of humanity.

After generations of this witness by creation and providence, Abraham was born, saw it, and drew the proper conclusions. Being that generations before him had come and gone with the same witness available to them without anyone responding properly to it, it can be equally said that Abraham came to be the “last” it was offered to, and by extension his descendants. But neither Paul’s words or the explanation of Meltzerboy means that Jews believe every national group received a Great Theophany like that at Mt. Sinai and were offered the Ten Commandments in the same way. By rejecting God’s initial witness via creation, Paul’s argument in Romans is that the nations rejected the chance of being ruled by God’s Law.

 

[Hatikvah]

Insofar as Gentiles being considered less than human or less than an animal, this is definitely CONTRARY to the tenets of Judaism, which state that ALL human life is equally precious, Jew or non-Jew.

But don’t certain Orthodox Jews, especially Haredi Jews, have a unique interpretation of the Babylonian Talmud that is peculiarly traditional against Gentiles?

And I read that there were some particular instructions in the Torah for dealing with Gentiles: myjewishlearning.com/article/the-non-jew-in-jewish-law/

 

[CeelosDeznos]

We cannot judge all members of Judaism by the actions and attitudes of some. If we do, Christians don’t have a leg to stand on.

For instance, when a long-time Protestant Christian friend learned I was of Jewish descent, he was taken back for some reason. “I have had you as a guest in my house and you’ve eaten at the same table as my own mother was seated–oh, my gosh, you actually sat next to her!”

While for some reason people don’t educate themselves to learn that my last name “Hernandez” is uniquely Sephardic (because I grew up in South Texas, many people think I am Mexican-American), they are often surprised when they learn where my family comes from. Apparently my “friend” was so insulted that I wasn’t “from Cuba or Puerto Rico or where ever else you Mexicans come from,” as he stated but was (of all things) of Jewish stock, he stopped talking to me.

He is not the only one. Some Catholics, upon learning this fact, told me to “leave the Church and go back to the synagogue where your kind belong!” And growing up, I was constantly “corrected” when speaking Ladino: “You’re speaking Spanish wrong. If you insist on using those words people will realize you are the product of bad breeding!”

I can go on, but you get the picture. Whether someone has a “formal” reason for doing it or not, people on both sides who want to be divided will invent whatever excuses necessary to insist that their reason for standing apart is warranted. The fact that many Jews and Christians have no such prejudices shows that such attitudes are not actually religious in nature. They are a product of dark hearts, and such a condition knows no religious boundaries.

 

[StGerardMajella]

So here is my question, why? Is anyone here familiar with what this is all about? Is this in the Old Testament and I’ve just never seen it? What’s up?

It’s possible this rumor you have heard is a filtered down version of the following:

Some Orthodox Jewish men will not shake the hands of a woman, nor will they permit themselves to be alone with a woman in a private room. Part of this has to do with the concepts of modesty and maintaining appearances of propriety.

Another component has to do with certain strictures in Torah law about refraining from touching a woman during her menstrual cycle. (The latter strictures are a part of what is referred to as the “Laws of Niddah”.)

And I read …: myjewishlearning.com/arti…in-jewish-law/

This link is helpful.

Finally I guess I’m kind of offended, I mean…

First, don’t be offended. Love your neighbor.

 

[Tomdstone]

While I cannot speak for Meltzerboy’s specific intentions, he is referencing a common interpretation or explanation of what “chosen people” means in the understanding of various Jews. It is not, however, universally accepted nor is it the only view…

However, many Jews accept it as a fact? If so, how would they explain that nothing like this is mentioned in the history or in the sacred scriptures of the asian Indian Hindus or other histories such as the history of China? If it is a historical fact that another group rejected God’s wish to choose them, then would it not have been mentioned in some historical account somewhere?

 

[CeelosDeznos]

However, many Jews accept it as a fact? If so, how would they explain that nothing like this is mentioned in the history or in the sacred scriptures of the asian Indian Hindus or other histories such as the history of China? If it is a historical fact that another group rejected God’s wish to choose them, then would it not have been mentioned in some historical account somewhere?

That’s a good question.

I think we are dealing not with Jewish theology in this case, however, but the fact that people in general act this way, religious or not.

For instance: There is the smoker who ignores what science has to say about smoking, and does it anyway. Due to a popular series of televisions programs in the 1990s, vast numbers engage in “ghost hunting” using a plethora of unproven devices to “prove” ghosts exist, even though no real critical methodology is employed. The World Health Organization and other reputable doctors have proven that homeopathy does not work, but millions rely on it anyway. And despite the facts regarding North Korea and its type of rule and oppressive rulers, Alejandro Cao de Benós, a Spanish aristocrat has found that government attractive and desirable, and he has done all in his power to promote it and act as a citizen of it, becoming the founder, president, and only salaried member of the so-called “Korean Friendship Association” or KFA.

It’s not a Jewish thing or religious thing or anything limited to a certain group of people or type of person. It is a puzzling fact that humans, under some circumstances, will hold to certain views despite evidence to the contrary.

This is not to say that some of might not have their explanations and even provide “evidence” for their views (again, homeopathy is a great example). But it also doesn’t mean that everyone who is of their same background holds the same set of convictions.

As for those Jews who may have a literal interpretation of these events (and I am not sure there are such who hold a strict literal view on this, but it wouldn’t surprise me), you would have to ask them personally. Judaism has no central teaching authority and there is thus great autonomy as to what one “believes.” Their religion is based not on adhering to some mental concept as true as much as it is about what one does to bring healing and redemption into the world around them.

 

[meltzerboy]

However, many Jews accept it as a fact? If so, how would they explain that nothing like this is mentioned in the history or in the sacred scriptures of the asian Indian Hindus or other histories such as the history of China? If it is a historical fact that another group rejected God’s wish to choose them, then would it not have been mentioned in some historical account somewhere?

I’ll have to jump in here to clarify what I meant. My use of the phrase “In fact” referred to the following phrase “as the story goes.” So, no, it is not an indisputable fact that the Jews received the Torah last among the nations; but there is a religious (not historical) account of that information. There are, as well, alternative accounts.