Are Gentiles Considered ‘Man’

– Part Two.

Tzvi Hurwitz

In Part One we addressed the claim often made by antisemites that Jews consider gentiles to be non-human. They frequently cite the Talmudic passage from Bava Metzia 114b as their source, which states: “You are called ‘man’, and idol worshipers are not called ‘man’.”

We demonstrated that this passage “has nothing to do with denying the humanity of gentiles. Instead, it addresses specific linguistic patterns and interpretations in Torah law”, using various examples for this Talmudic tendency. We brought five other biblical terms for humans that do include gentiles. And more.

See Part One.

Part Two.

What the Commentators Say.

The Contradiction.

Many commentators raise a contradiction from a different passage in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3a¹Many other passages are brought by the commentators to establish the same point, see the commentators that will be (and have been) cited in this article.):

הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא כְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם״, כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״הָאָדָם״, הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל.

Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is like a High Priest? The verse states: “(You shall keep My statutes and My laws) which if a man does, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is not stated: Priests, Levites, and Israelites, but rather the general term “man.” From here you learn that even a gentile who engages in Torah study, is like a High Priest.

Yes, you read that right. In this passage — taught by one of the greatest sages of the Talmud²See “Meïr”. Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Meïr (flourished 2nd century ad) was a rabbi who was among the greatest of the tannaim.” So much so that anonymous Mishnah’s (- the foundation of the Talmud) are assumed to be Rabbi Meir, see Shabbat 91a and Rashi. — it states that a gentile who engages in Torah study is, in certain aspects, comparable to the High Priest. Doesn’t sound so venomously anti-gentile, does it?!

Anyways, from this the commentators ask: the verse quoted in this passage used the word אדם—’man’, and nevertheless Rabbi Meir applies the verse to gentiles. Furthermore, the way Rabbi Meir derives this conclusion is specifically because the verse says אדם instead of “Priests, Levites, and Israelites”.How can the verse be talking about gentiles when the Gemara in Bava Metzia says, “You are called man, and gentiles are not called man”?

Don’t worry, the commentators give several answers, some of which demonstrate the weakness of the anti-Semitic claims.

[Important introduction:
Even if one finds himself in disagreement with these commentators, and in his great knowledge and understanding of the Talmud, thinks to himself, “The rabbis just made this up to hide and cover up what the Talmud actually thinks,” I would tell him (“telepathically”) that would still not change the fact that Jewish ideology is determined by these rabbis. And therefore, if these rabbis decide to “cover up”, that is still what Judaism thinks.]

Answers:

1. Rabbi Shimon’s Opinion.

Rashi (in Sanhedrin 59a), in his quest to answer this question, explains that the passage “you are called ‘man’ and the nations of the world are not called man” is only the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whereas other rabbis disagree.

Typically, in presenting a legal statement, the Gemara attributes it to a rabbinic sage; in our case, the Gemara in Bava Metzia is taught by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai; however, other sages do not necessarily agree. 

In fact, Tosafot (in the above-mentioned Bava Metzia and elsewhere) argue that there is at least one sage who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai — Shimon ben Gamliel: 

The Mishnah in Ohalot 18:9 demonstrates that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel believes that the laws of impurity by one that dies in a tent apply to gentiles too. This is in direct contradiction with Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who believes only if a Jew dies in a tent is everyone in the tent impure.

Therefore, when the Talmud states, “You are called ‘man’…” that is most definitely not the opinion of all the rabbis in the Talmud.

2. ‘Man’ / ‘The Man’.

Rabbeinu Tam (as cited in Tosafot Yevamot 61a), among other commentators, offers a distinction between the words ‘אדם’ (‘a man’) and ‘האדם’ (‘the man’). He explains that since the verse in question uses the word אדם—“a man”, it only applies to Jews. If however, the verse were to say האדם—’the man’ it would apply to gentiles as well. According to Rabainu Tam, this is why the verse about the study of Torah applies to Jews and gentiles alike.

Following this approach, all the verses that use האדם—‘the man’ — also apply to gentiles.

3. Only in Undesirable Contexts.

Rabainu Meshulam (in the aforementioned Tosafot) argues that only when the verse is talking about something undesired — such as death — does the verse not directly reference the Israelites and instead uses the term אדם—’man’.

And it is within this context that gentiles are not called ‘man’. However, in all the other verses where they are not referring to something undesirable, the word אדם—’man’ is in reference to Jews and gentiles alike.

4. Deriving from Redundancy.

The Rashba (in Yevamot), among others, resolves the contradiction in a more classical Talmudic manner. They believe that when the word אדם—’a man’ is necessary for understanding the verse or for learning something else from that word, then it would apply to Jews and gentiles alike. Only when the additional word אדם—’a man’ — is totally unnecessary, does it negate gentiles.

All of the above is but the tip of the iceberg; those who dive deeper into the commentators of the Talmud will see that the Talmud and its commentators are endless. In our case, there are many more answers to this specific question, varying from Rishonim — first-generation commentators — to Achronim — the last-generation commentators. This being said, it’s needless to say I can’t go through them all; however, this fragment selection of commentators should allow a better understanding of the colossal map painted by the commentators³For those interested in research here is a list of commentators in this subject (aside from the classic commentators on our passage): See the ראב”ן which is the ספר אבן העזר in סי’ שיז אות ב. also see יראים סי’ רפ (on that) see ווי העמודים חלק ב – טיב, יצחק בן בנימין סי’ שלג.
Also see מהרץ חיות יבמות סא ע”א, and התוהמ”צ ריש ויקרא בתורה אור, and תפארת ישראל אבות פ”ד מי”ב. And from here more is quoted, and all this is but barely scratching the surface..

Conclusion from the commentators:

The are several different reasons as to why in some places האדם – ‘a man’ does refer to gentiles, resulting in:
Only in certain cases is אדם referring to Jews.
Only אדם and not האדם.
Only the opinion of one rabbi, others disagree.
And more. 

Talmudi Fogalmak Magyarul

• 1
  Many other passages are brought by the commentators to establish the same point, see the commentators that will be (and have been) cited in this article.
• 2
  See “Meïr”. Encyclopedia Britannica:
  “Meïr (flourished 2nd century ad) was a rabbi who was among the greatest of the tannaim.” So much so that anonymous Mishnah’s (- the foundation of the Talmud) are assumed to be Rabbi Meir, see Shabbat 91a and Rashi.
• 3
  For those interested in research here is a list of commentators in this subject (aside from the classic commentators on our passage): See the ראב”ן which is the ספר אבן העזר in סי’ שיז אות ב. also see יראים סי’ רפ (on that) see ווי העמודים חלק ב – טיב, יצחק בן בנימין סי’ שלג.
  Also see מהרץ חיות יבמות סא ע”א, and התוהמ”צ ריש ויקרא בתורה אור, and תפארת ישראל אבות פ”ד מי”ב. And from here more is quoted, and all this is but barely scratching the surface.