2

Some laws concerning other people are understood to be observed also to non Jewish persons; e.g. that is is forbidden to murder.

Others have been interpreted to be valid only towards Jews; e.g. leaning out money for interest.

What are the criteria in halacha (Rabbinic after the end of the 2nd Temple until medieval tradition) to discern it?

After a while of study, parting from a closely related post on a particular commandment

Does ‘Love Your Neighbor As Yourself’ apply only to Jews?

that shows that there is no full consent on the interpretation, it seems more appropriate to focus on different rabbis and schools:

What opinions have been pronounced in halacha (Rabbinic after the end of the 2nd Temple until late medieval tradition) on this topic?

Jeschu
  • 287
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
    Usually the verse says something like "Don't X to your fellow" instead of just "Don't X" if it means only Jews. (Everything has exceptions.) – Double AA Jul 03 '22 at 12:39
  • @DoubleAA However, if you're looking at practical Rabbinic law, there are laws that Scripture directs at "your fellow," that the Sages practically extend to all humans, e.g. "You shall not stand idly by ..." (Lev. 19:16). – Isaac Moses Jul 03 '22 at 13:11
  • A classic example of this is lashon hara- it is permitted al pi halacha to speak about non-Jews, though the Chofetz Chaim says this is damaging for one's middot. – יהושע ק Jul 03 '22 at 14:11
  • 1
    https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.38a?lang=bi – Chatzkel Jul 03 '22 at 15:51
  • As a rule of thumb, all of the commandments apply exclusively to the Jews unless specified otherwise. Rabbis need a special reason to apply certain Mitzvahs to gentiles, even murder. Unlike Christianity, for example, a commandment is not only a moral code - it is translated into a very specific punishment. So it is not trivial that a Jew who killed a gentile is liable for capital punishment, even if he did something morally wrong. – Al Berko Jul 03 '22 at 17:07
  • @AlBerko If it comes to really executed penalty law, we have the problem that the full rulings were not really applied iby Jewish courts n many cases, and there was always a Non-Jewish authority ruling over all. So,in many cases the question was theoretical. But what was the theory? – Jeschu Jul 03 '22 at 17:46
  • That's the point, all rabbinic debates are completely theoretical, but still, we don't care about morality but liability, even if they already had no authority to judge. – Al Berko Jul 03 '22 at 17:57
  • @AlBerko Finally, the Law has been established and interpreted as a rule about what is right and what is wrong. Does not "liability" that is observed in absence of any legal consequences automatically become a "moral"? – Jeschu Jul 07 '22 at 17:09
  • Try to translate "right and wrong" into Hebrew and find sources for what you're saying. Judaism recognizes "allowed/prohibited", "liable/exempt", and pure/impure". There's no right and wrong" in Jewish Halachah, those are borrowed from Christian theology which does not recognize Law. I can understand your confusion though. – Al Berko Jul 07 '22 at 22:18
  • @AlBerko We know the same terms in Islam; right and wrong is an abstraction of it that is not easily translated into Hebrew or Arabic. But your original point and thesis was that halacha is only valid inside the Jewish community. Can you support this (maybe also mentioning counter-votes? – Jeschu Jul 10 '22 at 15:03
  • @IsaacMoses Source?? – Naftali Tzvi Oct 05 '23 at 02:09
  • 1
    @NaftaliTzvi http://shaalvim.co.il/torah/view.asp?id=1311 – Isaac Moses Oct 05 '23 at 03:30

0 Answers0