Are Gentiles Considered ‘Man’

Tzvi Hurwitz

Part One.

The Anti-Semitic Claims.

A common tactic employed by anti-Semites to justify anti-Semitism in today’s society—the 21st century—is to cite various Talmudic passages that they claim demonstrate Jewish supremacy and prove that Jews inherently hate non-Jews. Sadly, many well-meaning but uninformed individuals fall for these false allegations and baseless accusations, if not empty, pointless affirmations.

One of the most quoted passages is from Bava Metzia 114b (and elsewhere),

“אתם קרויים אדם ואין עובדי כוכבים קרויין אדם” – “You (the Jews) are called ‘man,’ and the idol-worshipers are not called ‘man.'”
_{Rabbi Shimon}

Anti-Semites claim that quotes like these reveal the supposedly disturbing nature of the Talmud, arguing that since Jews are devout followers of the Talmud, such passages have shaped Jewish views for generations, persisting to this very day.

What This Paper Is Planning to Do.

Despite the severity of these accusations, I have not come across a published response — neither written nor in video format — addressing these antisemitic claims. Therefore, I decided to write a response, breaking down the Jewish and Talmudic understanding, going through the commentators, proving beyond any reasonable doubt the erroneous invalidity of these claims, and hopefully enabling people to properly defend against such distortions, as it is written:¹

“שקוד ללמוד תורה ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורס” –
“Be diligent to study Torah and you shall know how to respond to a heretic.”

My Response:

How Some Enter This Discussion.

When confronted with these types of attacks or questions about Judaism and the Jewish Nation, it is important to first ask, ‘What motivates the person asking?’

• Is the question driven by a genuine pursuit of truth?

• Or was the individual merely searching for a justification to hate Jews?

If it’s the latter, there is no point for the argument to be had² (pun intended for those with a good command of English³).

The Correct Approach to Enter the Discussion.

If, however, it is the former, and the reason for the question is intellectual honesty of some sort, then the questioner should also be aware of his limited knowledge of the Talmud. He should understand that just like poetic, metaphorical, and philosophical writings are bound to be misunderstood by one who possesses little experience in those areas, so too one with little to no experience in the Talmud is bound to misunderstand its true intentions.

Those with some experience in Talmudic literature do, in fact, understand the passage in question. They recognize that this passage — like countless others — does not aim to describe the nature of gentiles. Rather, it focuses on interpreting specific verses in the Torah.

Breaking Down the Passage:

Talmudic Context.

With regard to the laws of Impurity the Talmud cites the verse (Numbers 19:14):

“אדם כי ימות באוהל כל הנוגע באוהל וכל אשר באוהל יטמא שבעת ימים” —

“When a man dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent and everything in the tent shall be impure for seven days.”

The Talmud clarifies that this law applies specifically to the death of a Jew and not a gentile. The Talmud derives this conclusion from the extra word אדם—’man’. It argues that the word ‘אדם’ must be excluding non-Jews.

Context to the Talmud.

To support this interpretation, the Talmud quotes Ezekiel 34:31:

“ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם” – “And you are My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, you are ‘man.’”

The phrase highlights that Israel is specifically referred to as אדם—’man’ in this context — not to diminish the humanity of non-Jews but to emphasize how certain terms are uniquely applied in the Torah.

This can be further highlighted by examining other words — besides for אדם—“man” — that refer to humanity, and when doing so, we find something very interesting.

Are Gentiles Considered Human?

Other Terms for Humans in the Bible:

There are several other terms besides “אדם” used to describe human beings in the Torah:

The word נפש—’Soul’ (used for people including non-Jews, e.g. Numbers 31:19 “anyone that has killed a soul (נפש) . . .”⁴).
The word איש—’Man’ (used also for non-Jews, e.g., Genesis 49:6: “For in their anger, they killed a man (איש) . . .” In reference to the people of Shechem—Nablus.⁵)
The word אנוש—’Mortal’ (often referring to all of mankind. e.g. Psalms 66:12: “Thou hast caused men (אנוש) to ride over our heads”⁶)⁷.
Most startling, the words בן אדם—’Son of Man’ (used broadly for humanity, e.g. Deuteronomy 32:8 When the most high .. set divisions to humanity . . .”⁸).⁹

[There are many more verses that use the aforementioned words in reference to gentiles; however, I only brought one for each word. If you are curious, ask your local religious rabbi, to expand further.]

Each of these terms applies to non-Jews as well, demonstrating that the Talmud does not deny their humanity¹⁰.

What Does This Passage Really Mean?

Returning to the Talmud.

Returning to the cited passage (Bava Metzia 114b), the statement “You are called ’man’, and idol worshipers are not called ‘man’” has nothing to do with denying the humanity of gentiles. Instead, it addresses specific linguistic patterns and interpretations in Torah law.

[As to why the Torah specifically chose the word ‘man’ to describe the Jewish Nation, there are alternative explanations¹¹.]

If this form of learning seems strange or unfamiliar, it is likely because you are not accustomed to studying the Talmud. However, those immersed in Talmudic study need only a quick glance at this passage to recognize that it says nothing about the nature of gentiles, as such jargon is very common in Talmudic discourse.

An Example of Such Talmudic Teachings.

For instance, the very word אדם—’man’ — sometimes comes to exclude a king (see Megillah 11a). Is this suggesting that a king is neither human nor man? Of course not! It’s merely saying that in this verse the additional word אדם—’man’— is not in reference to a king.

In that context it obviously includes gentiles since the verse being discussed is Psalms 144:2, in which it is written:

“לוּלֵ֣י ה’ שֶׁהָ֣יָה לָ֑נוּ בְּק֖וּם עָלֵ֣ינוּ אָדָֽם׃ – if not for the Lord who was with us, when men rose up against us”

Obviously it is not only Jews that attacked and rose up against “us”—“Jews”. There were plenty of non-Jews that King David was referring to when he said: “men rose up against us”.

Why in this case does the term אדם—’man’ also refer to gentiles?! The reason for this — the rabbis explain¹² — is because in this context, the word isn’t redundant; its function is to teach an additional detail — that even simple “men, rose up against us” — and not only the kings. Only when the word serves no such function does it exclude gentiles.

Other Examples of Such Talmudic Teachings.

A striking coincidence occurs in the verse immediately preceding the one in our passage.

The passage in question (or “no longer in question”) is regarding that which is taught, that anyone in the same tent — or any enclosed structure, for that matter — as a dead body, is impure. This is regardless of whether the people under the tent contacted the body or even saw the body. Since the impurity is carried through the air inside the tent alone.

However, there is a second method through which the impurity of the dead spreads — through direct contact.

The earlier verse (Numbers 19:13) states:

“כל הנגע במת בנפשׁ האדם אשׁר ימות ולֹא יתחטא וכו” –
“Everyone who touches a dead body of the soul of a man that shall die, and he not be cleansed, the tabernacle of the L-rd has he defiled…”.

Despite the fact that this verse also uses the word אדם—’man’ to describe the deceased, nevertheless, this verse applies to gentiles as well¹³. As explained earlier, this is because only when the word אדם serves no function does it exclude gentiles, in this context, the word isn’t redundant; its function is to teach an additional detail — that only humans and not animals contain impurity — and therefore it does not exclude gentiles¹⁴.

Concluding this portion with the final knock-out, demonstrating the importance of familiarity with the Talmud before developing sweeping and inflammatory opinions.
Almost the exact same phrase brought by antisemites above is taught (in Yevamot 63a) regarding an unmarried man, and one who does not possess land.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה — אֵינוֹ אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמָם אָדָם״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע — אֵינוֹ אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַשָּׁמַיִם שָׁמַיִם לַה׳ וְהָאָרֶץ נָתַן לִבְנֵי אָדָם״.

Rabbi Elazar said: Any man who does not have a wife is not a man, as it is stated: “Male and female He created them…and called their name Adam” (Genesis 5:2). And Rabbi Elazar said: Any man who does not have his own land is not a man, as it is stated: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth He has given to the children of men” (Psalms 115:16).

The inconsistency in this antisemitic argument becomes apparent when one considers its logical extension. Would the same individuals assert that Jews hate the homeless and unmarried, or that these groups are considered less than human?!

Hopefully not, but who knows what articles I’ll be writing in ten years time.

Concluding Part One.

Thus far we see, the anti-Semite will cry Talmudic passages out of context, confidently assert what the meaning must mean, despite the fact that he — or she — has not opened the Talmud a single time prior. His expertise in the Talmud is of a snake’s in giving high-fives. Nevertheless he is quick to argue with rabbis and experts in the Talmud, to make outrageous claims and then eventually permit his grand conspiracy.

However a slight examination in the referenced passage tells a different story:

We see the common tendency of the Talmud to dissect linguistic tendencies in the Bible.
We are provided with the context of which the anti-Semites would like us deprived.
We see all the other words that do refer to gentiles, נפש—’Soul’, איש—’Man’, אנוש—’Mortal’ and בן אדם—’Son of Man’.

But I’ll let you in on a little secret: this is just the surface; this is where the learning just begins.

For generations, religious Jews have been learning that which we call מפרשים—commentators. These commentators are what shifted Jewish thinking as a whole, and without them Judaism would be unrecognizable to what it is today.

So if we want to know what Judaism thinks on this subject, we must consult the מפרשים:

Don’t you worry, I gotcha covered!

For a quick, easy, yet thorough conspectus of the mefarshim’s opinions — to gain the basic knowledge and bear witness to the sheer absurdity of the antisemitic claim — see Part Two: What the Commentators Say.

Talmudi Fogalmak Magyarul

1
Pirkei Avot 2:14.
2
See Proverbs 26 4-5 see the commentators there, see Shabbat 30b, and Bava Metzia 84a, Lekutei Sichot 18 Balak 3 page 291 and Ketav Sofer begging of Parshat Pinchas, see also Ma’amar al Yishmael in the beginning and Pirkei Avot 5:17 and Bartenura there, and many more.
3
See https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/be-had#google_vignette
4
See Rashi there, and see Rambam Hilchot Tumat Met 1:13 (and 5:3).
Also the very verse in question numbers 19:14, is only in regarding in purity spread through air of a tent, however transferring via touch is discussed in the very verse prier the verse in question in which it says; “וכל הנוגע במת בנפש האדם אשר ימות וכו’ טמא יהיה וכו’” – “all that touch the dead in the soul of a man that has died…shall be impure..“. This is also in regards to a gentile, even though it says “האדם” – “a man”.
See all the previously mentioned sources, and see Rashi here.
5
See Rashi there.
Also see Erchin 5b and Rashi there, also see Menachot 73b.
For in depth sources see Encyclopedia Talmudic volume 5 category גוי – gentile, page 295. Also see volume 1 category איש – man part 6, page 739 (footnote 46).
6
See Rashi Malbim Radak there and more.
7
See footnote 9
8
See Rashi, Sefarnu, Iben Ezra, Or Ha’Chaim’ and many more there.
See also Tosafot Yevamot 61a the son of man is in reference to gentiles.
9
Also I noticed a poetic tendency in Tanach – the Bible, I noticed that when in poetic context (like explaining the greatness of the almighty relative to humans) there are two words that commonly appear next to each other in the same order every time, these are the words אנוש – mortal and בן אדם – son of man, the word אנוש – mortal appearing first, after that a similar point is maid or emphasized but with the word בן אדם – son of man.
For example Psalms 8:5: “מָֽה־אֱנ֥וֹשׁ כִּֽי־תִזְכְּרֶ֑נּוּ וּבֶן־אָ֝דָ֗ם כִּ֣י תִפְקְדֶֽו” – “What is man (אנוש) that You are mindful of him, and the son of man (בן אדם) that You care for him?”.
And Psalms 90:3: תָּשֵׁ֣ב אֱ֭נוֹשׁ עַד־דַּכָּ֑א וַ֝תֹּ֗אמֶר שׁ֣וּבוּ בְנֵי־אָדָֽם
“You return mortals to dust;
And declare: return the sons of man!”
And Isaiah 51:12: אָנֹכִ֧י אָנֹכִ֛י ה֖וּא מְנַחֶמְכֶ֑ם מִֽי־אַ֤תְּ וַתִּֽירְאִי֙ מֵאֱנ֣וֹשׁ יָמ֔וּת וּמִבֶּן־אָדָ֖ם חָצִ֥יר יִנָּתֵֽן – “I am, I am the One who comforts you! Who are you to fear, Mortals (אנוש) that will die, And the son of man (בן אדם) that are like grass?”
And Isaiah 56:2: אַשְׁרֵ֤י אֱנוֹשׁ֙ יַעֲשֶׂה־זֹּ֔את וּבֶן־אָדָ֖ם יַחֲזִ֣יק בָּ֑הּ – “happy is the mortal that does this, the son of man that holds on to it”.
And Job 25:6: אַ֭ף כִּֽי־אֱנ֣וֹשׁ רִמָּ֑ה וּבֶן־אָ֝דָ֗ם תּוֹלֵעָֽה׃
“How much more so a mortal, [that is destined to be] a worm, And the son of man [that is destined to be], a maggot.”
And more.
In my search to better understand the word of god I found the writings of the
Malbim in Psalms 8:5 אנוש, בן אדם. האנוש מורה על חולשתו מצד עצמו ובן אדם מציין חולשתו מצד מינו שאינו מתקיים זמן רב (ישעיה נ”א י”ב).
transolation : mortal, son of man. Mortal demonstrates the weakness in its own right and the son of man on the rights of its species, that it doesnt last long.
And in Isaiah 51:12 he wrote:
מאנוש ימות, מבן אדם חציר ינתן, האנוש מורה נמצא קטן, כי נו”ן האמנתיו שהוסיפו במלת איש, בא להקטין, (בעת שבא ביחיד כי אנשים י”ל כלל אחר) ויש הבדל בין אדם ובן אדם, בן אדם, מציין תמיד את המין מצד מולדתם, מצד שהוא אדם נולד מאדם. וישמש בשם זה, אם בא לצייר חסרון המין, התולדה, או כשיהיה המדבר מעולם אחר נשגב, יקראהו בשם המין כמו שקרא ליחזקאל בנבואותיו בן אדם, ודברתי מזה בכ”מ. ופה אומר כי עתיד למות מצד אנושתו, אבל מצד שהוא בן אדם, נחל ג”כ חולי ומכאובות מזג חלש מאבותיו עד שינתן כחציר המתיבש לפני זמנו (כנ”ל מ”ם ו’), וכן ימות האדם גם לפני שני דורות ע”י רפיון מזגו והרכבתו בתולדה.
Transolation: “the ‘morta’ demonstrates a small existence, since the ”נ” “noun” that is added in the word “איש” – man [the word אנוש – mortal, comes from the word איש – man, with the audition of the letter “נ”].
[he continues with the following brackets] (when it comes in the singular form because the word “אנשים” [- “men”, – in the plural] there is to say a different rule).
[he continues] And there is a difference between the word “אדם” – “man” and the word “בן אדם” – son of man. The son of man: indicating always the species in regards to their birth, In the aspect that they are man born from man. And he will use this name if intending to draw the weakness of the species, or when the one speaking is from a sublime otherly worldly. It will be called in the name of the species, like what happened to Ezekiel in his prophecy on the son of man. And I spoke about this in a few places. and over here he says: for they are destined to die, since they are mortals -”אנוש”. However in the aspect of being the son of man, they inherit also sickness and pain, weak tempr, from his fathers. Until he is like hey that dries before its time (as mentioned earlier 40 6) and so too man will die even before two generations due to there frail nature and composition from birth.
All of this however does not explain the recurring pattern found obove.
However there is one place in the Bible i have found in which the pattern is in reverse in Psalms 144:3 it is written: יְֽהוָ֗ה מָה־אָ֭דָם וַתֵּדָעֵ֑הוּ בֶּן־אֱ֝נ֗וֹשׁ וַֽתְּחַשְּׁבֵֽהוּ׃
“O LORD, what is man that You should care about him,
The son of mortals, that You should think of him?”
And to my sorrow i have not found satisfying reasons yet.
10
See footnotes 4 – 8, and see footnote 9, in which I list more of the verses using the terms including gentiles
11
See Apiryon Tazria, and Zohar, Yitro 23.
12
Rashba on our passage, Ramban, Ran and more.
13
Rambam Taharah, Hilchot Tumat-Met 1:12, Rashba on our passage and more.
Seemingly evident from the Gemara in Bava Metzia brought above. See the Bet-Yosef (Yoreh-Deah 372:2). Although there are a few uncommon commentators that do disagree see Hagaot-Maimonit Shoftim, Hilcot Avel 3:2, in the name of the Yereim.
14
Rashba on our passage and more.

Talmudi Fogalmak Magyarul

Talmudi Fogalmak Magyarul

Are Gentiles Considered Man

Are Gentiles Considered ‘Man’

Part One.

Talmudi Fogalmak Magyarul

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Olvass!

Táromet

Mákin Veonsin Selo Min Hádin

Gólem Gyilkolás

Diné Sámájim

Mi Seporá Midor Hámábul

Kinjánim