25fe*-- ■' ^ 
 
^H OF PBIATc^ 
 
 x^ 
 
 NOV 4 1955 
 
 A !o ) 
 

 ^ICHLiVf' 
 
 JEW 
 AND NON'JEW 
 
 • 
 BY MARTIN A. MEYER, ph.d. 
 
JEW AND NON-JEW 
 
 MARTIN A. MEYER, PH.D. 
 
 HP HE attitude of the Jew to the non-Jew during 
 ^ the thirty-five centuries of Jewish history has 
 been subject to all the variations that time and cir- 
 cumstance could condition. A careful and detailed 
 exposition of these changes would entail the pro- 
 duction of a bulky volume. It shall be our endeavor 
 briefly to outline the important phases of this great 
 evolution, and to present the goal of the development, 
 as well as to test its application at various points. 
 
 Apologetics are apt to overstate ; polemics to under- 
 rate. So on the one hand, the Jew writing in defense 
 of his people has erred in presenting a picture so 
 perfect even to the last detail as to create suspicion 
 by its overperfection. On the other hand, the non-Jew 
 has been guilty of gross misstatement and ignorant 
 assertion. Most of these have copied the errors of 
 their predecessors, one after the other, so that, 
 though the scientific atmosphere is present in the 
 form of numerous citations, its spirit has been sadly 
 wanting by reason of manifest bias. 
 
 The starting point of all true Jewish thinking has 
 been the integrity of the Jew and of Judaism. Every- 
 thing else has been subordinated to that one concept. 
 The right of every proper group to maintain its 
 
[ 4 J JEW AND 
 
 identity and to perpetuate itself has been assumed as 
 axiomatic. To conserve the people which Moses 
 carried in his bosom as a father his child, the people 
 which God took from the midst of another people, 
 the nation upon whom God's name was called that it 
 might be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, for 
 whose protection the inspired seers of Israel dreamed 
 and worked, rabbis thought and taught and a myriad 
 witnesses died, this thought remains one of the foun- 
 dation stones of all real Jewish thinking. It is indeed 
 the touchstone by which all Jewish activity must be 
 tested. The Jews looked upon themselves as the 
 chosen people of God. Tradition has it that God 
 offered the Torah first to the nations, each of which in 
 turn rejected it. Israel alone was willing to submit to 
 the duty of promulgating it. As is evidenced by the 
 testimony of the prophets this did not entail the 
 position that the other nations were rejected by Him. 
 But whereas all nations were his children, Israel was 
 his "first born," his chosen, with all the privileges of 
 the first born, but also with all the responsibilities of 
 that position. This gives the keynote of the situation. 
 The attitude of the Jew has been more pro-Jewish 
 than anti-alien; not indeed that he loved the alien 
 less, but the Jew more. 
 
 The ancient world, .as is well known, was not sym- 
 pathetic to the stranger. The attitude, for example, 
 of the Greek to the barbarian is familiar. It was largely 
 
NON-JEW [5J 
 
 one of unqualified contempt. The best of her philos- 
 ophers shared in this point of view to a more or less 
 extent. The very word "barbarian" had a sinister 
 implication. Citizenship being a political and a 
 religious fact, and religion being founded upon the 
 performance of a common ancestral cult, the outsider 
 remained an outsider with all the disadvantages of 
 the alien. Yet it is interesting to note that Zeus was 
 considered the special guardian of the stranger. 
 Judaism had no such physical basis for its religious 
 life, and consequently stood ready to accept the 
 stranger into the fold far earlier and far more readily 
 than did the Greek world. 
 
 It has become a part of the outfit of every high 
 school boy that the Latin confounded in language and 
 in thought the stranger and the enemy. It may be 
 that the Jew began his history with the same con- 
 fusion, but there is no evidence in the language pre- 
 served to us in the Old Testament scriptures. The 
 early records point to a narrow conception of his 
 relations with the nations, but, with startling rapidity, 
 he developed the fullest implications of his religious 
 attitude and laid aside his antagonism to the stranger 
 in favor of a broad and inclusive sense of fraternity. 
 In his struggle with surrounding polytheism, it was 
 no easy matter to preserve the balance between his 
 zeal for his faith and his feeling against paganism 
 and the fraternal ideal of his religious life. Frequently 
 
[6] JEW AND 
 
 identifying the enemies of God with the enemies of 
 Israel, he had no small task in clearly asserting his 
 view point of human brotherhood. Yet his earliest 
 codes preserve passages which are proof that he even 
 then entertained sentiments, generous towards the 
 non-Jew. The inclusion of the stranger in the Sabbath 
 law in the Decalog, the prohibition not to hate the 
 Egyptian despite what Israel had suffered at the 
 hands of Egypt, the command to love the stranger 
 because ''ye know the heart of the stranger," the 
 rule of equality before the law for stranger and native 
 born, Solomon's prayer for the stranger, Ahab hailing 
 the defeated king of Syria as his brother, Isaiah's 
 "my house shall be called a house of prayer for all 
 peoples," as well as the missionary zeal of the prophets 
 — all these facts offer a line of testimony in support 
 of the Jewish tradition of generosity towards the non- 
 Jew through a long and troublous period of historical 
 development. 
 
 The treatment of the conquered Canaanites was 
 in accord with the laws of ancient warfare. Yet even 
 in this field we find attempts in the Book of Deuter- 
 onomy to modify the severities of such usages. It 
 must be polemics hard put to finding standing place 
 which falls back upon war measures as an indictment 
 of the attitude which the Jew held to the outsider. 
 Similarly ' it is weak to place overmuch emphasis 
 upon the expressions of an exasperated people in 
 
NON-JEW [ 7 ] 
 
 times of great national distress and to draw general 
 conclusions therefrom. The Jew never set up the 
 impossible ideal of loving his enemies, though he 
 counselled moderation and restraint in the treatment 
 of them. Human-like he vented his wrath and his 
 contempt upon his merciless conquerers in bitter 
 words when no other weapon was left him. In his 
 early national life, while he was able successfully to 
 maintain himself against the world, his point of view 
 was less sympathetic, though his teachers laid re- 
 current emphasis upon his religious- duty in this 
 respect. 
 
 When the larger contacts of history were made, 
 when he was threatened in turn by Assyrian, Egyptian 
 and Babylonian, the Jew took an increasingly larger 
 point of view. When the great catastrophe of the first 
 exile overtook him, adversity taught him a still 
 broader sympathy. As nationality counted less and 
 less, religion counted more and more. Jeremiah could 
 counsel loyal citizenship on the part of the conquered 
 in place of stirring up further hatred and mistrust. 
 The Second Isaiah, tutored in the bitter school of 
 adversity in a foreign land, could rise to the heights, 
 and vision the gathering of the peoples in Zion under 
 the aegis of the Lord of Hosts. The world of the 
 prophets had no narrow horizon. It was coterminous 
 with ancient civilization. And the Jew learned from 
 the stranger as the stranger learned from him. if 
 
[8] JEW AND 
 
 Persian and Babylonian influences played any role 
 in Jewish thought — and who doubts that they did? — 
 it was because the Jew was ready to admit such in- 
 fluences. The sympathetic overlordship of Persia left 
 deep traces upon the soul and mind of the Jew, which 
 had not been possible if the Jew had at that time set 
 himself up in opposition to all things non-Jewish. 
 It was no rabid pro-Judaean who hailed the heathen 
 Cyrus as the Messiah. It was no tribalist who saw in 
 God's dealings with the nations, the working out of 
 a Divine plan for humankind. True, Israel was the 
 center of that plan ; but in the plan the nations played 
 their appointed role. The Greek felt too self-sufficient 
 to admit that the barbarian world had anything to 
 teach him. No doubt the assertions of the later Jews 
 of Alexandria that the philosophers had gone to 
 school to the prophets and the priests of Jerusalem 
 but added to the bitterness w^hich the Greeks enter- 
 tained towards Jewish propagandists in particular, 
 though no less illiberal towards other ''barbarians." 
 There is no evidence that even Ezra and Nehemiah, 
 who are so frequently referred to as types of narrow- 
 minded Judaism, entertained any sentiments hostile 
 to non- Jewish peoples. Their objections to inter- 
 marriage with heathen and half-heathen peoples were 
 based upon far higher grounds. They realized that the 
 integrity of the restored nation and church was at 
 stake. A loose compromise policy which would have 
 
NON-JEW [ 9 ] 
 
 continued to permit the Samaritans to further in- 
 fluence the ideals of nascent Judaism would have 
 destroyed the Jew and eliminated his point of view 
 at a time when it was phrasing itself and preparing 
 for its largest service. We must let go frequently, the 
 better to hold on. And these far seeing statesmen 
 and religionists saw beyond the temporary circum- 
 stances of compromise and conciliation with those to 
 whom conciliation was a onesided process. 
 
 When the Jew came into intimate contact with 
 the larger world of the west, and was compelled to 
 struggle to maintain himself and his point of view, 
 he started out with well defined convictions upon the 
 matter of his attitude to and his relations with the 
 world outside. Whatever our theories of the date of 
 the Pentateuch, the Persian period saw the Jew with 
 his Torah, if not in final form at any rate substantially 
 as it is today. The "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as 
 thyself" (Lev. 19:16) rang out all the more clearly 
 and vividly because it was set in the very book in 
 which one would least expect it. And the testimony 
 of an unbroken line of Jewish teachers must be taken 
 as conclusive as to the inclusive meaning of neighbor 
 even against the anti-Jewish coterie of modern 
 scholars whose delight it is to rob Israel of every 
 vestige of power and truth. 
 
 The missionary vision of the Second Isaiah r«^sts 
 upon the conceptions of the divine and human unity 
 
[ 10 ] JEW AND 
 
 as found in the older Israelitish codes and literature. 
 The Universal God, Lord God of the spirits of all 
 flesh, looks down from heaven upon all the sons of 
 man and demands that all his children shall dwell 
 together in peace and in safety. And that missionary 
 faith continued in Israel through the long years of 
 Persian preparation, of Greek temptation and of 
 Roman domination and persecution. It evoked the 
 sneer from the lips of the evangelist that the Pharisees 
 compassed land and sea to gain one proselyte. It 
 continued despite the disaffection of incipient Christi- 
 anity and the loss of all vestiges of national life, with 
 the attendant horrors of the Roman wars and the 
 scattering of the people among the nations. It out- 
 lived the official recognition of Christianity and its 
 alliance with the State. Active Jewish propaganda 
 succumbed only to force majeure. It has never died 
 out of the hearts of true Israelites — the vision that 
 some day the world would be "full of the knowledge 
 of God as the waters cover the sea." It crystalized 
 itself in the prayer book, that classic of Israel's faith, 
 and crowned each day's prayer with the hope that 
 **to Him every knee would bend and every tongue 
 give homage." 
 
 The two holy-days which the growing consciousness 
 of the Jew singled out as most significant in his 
 ecclesiastical year are not those founded upon events 
 of his national history but upon universal human 
 
NON-JEW [11] 
 
 need and experience. On the Day of Atonemen^ he 
 selects for the prophetical lesson that gem of Bible 
 books, Jonah, to inculcate the universal love and 
 regard of God for all his creatures. On those solemn 
 days the Jew prays ''Now therefore O Lord our God 
 impose Thine awe upon all Thy works and Thy fear 
 upon all Thou hast created, that all Thy works may 
 revere Thee and all Thy creatures prostrate them- 
 selves before Thee, that they may form a single band 
 to do Thy will with a perfect heart," etc. And no 
 people which so prays for all the world, which has 
 the missionary spirit can be hostile to the world 
 outside, however it may regard the calibre of the 
 thought of the world. Its zeal may frequently be too 
 ardent for measured statement and proper restraint. 
 But desire for the recognition of Jewish truth and an 
 active propaganda to that end could not rest upon 
 any hostility to the stranger, implied or explicit; 
 nor did it. 
 
 The Hellenistic period of Jewish history is rich in 
 its evidences of the fraternal spirit and a splendid 
 literature was produced under its inspiration. Over- 
 eager propaganda was sometimes onesided; but the 
 propagandist does not debate a question. He takes 
 sides and asks adherence to that side. And above all 
 else the Judaeo-Hellenistic literature is zealous for the 
 dissemination of Jewish truth among the peoples. In 
 its advocacy of that truth many a literary forgery 
 
[ 12 ] JEW AND 
 
 may be charged to its misplaced ardor; yet thereby 
 many a telling point was made — and no doubt with 
 justice — against pagan morals and pagan theology in 
 favor of Jewish viewpoints which hit hard and caused 
 resentment. And the conscience of the age showed 
 no disapproval of such pseudepigrapha. For the most 
 part there is a well defined distinction in the literature 
 of this period between the sin and the sinner, between 
 the heathen scheme of life and the heathen himself. 
 
 Even Alexandrian anti-Semitism did not provoke a 
 Jewish anti-Alienism. Philo wrote in the most exalted 
 strain of the duty of the Jew to the outsider, and laid 
 the basis of a fraternalism which now embraces the 
 world. Josephus' "Contra Apionem" is a serious dis- 
 cussion of the anti-Judaic theses of the Egyptian; 
 but there is nowhere any evidence of any feeling save 
 that of righteous indignation at the monstrous charges 
 rather than against the perpetrator of the charges. 
 There is the expected emphasis upon the validity of 
 the Jewish position; an anxiety to make his points 
 good and strong; but no bitterness towards the 
 outsider as such. 
 
 Many have taken the uncontrolled evidence of the 
 New Testament as proof positive that the Judaism 
 of the period was narrow, exclusive, tribal, unsympa- 
 thetic — what not. It is forgotten that the New Testa- 
 ment is an ex parte statement made at a time when 
 the desire to emphasize the differences between the 
 
NON-JEW [ 13 ] 
 
 new church and the mother faith was dominant in 
 the thinking of its authors; nor is the evidence of the 
 Gospels and the Epistles uniform in the presentation 
 of Jewish matters and points of view. When it is 
 controlled by the unquestioned historical experiences 
 of that period and the statements of the rabbinical 
 literature, a far different picture is presented. 
 
 The frequent references in contemporary Latin 
 and Greek literature to pagan converts to Judaism, 
 the well known tales about Hillel and other rabbis at 
 whose hands heathens sought admission into Judaism, 
 the serious discussions of the rabbis about the method 
 and the standards of admission for the proselyte to 
 Judaism, the oft repeated tradition that sacrifices 
 were offered on the feast of Tabernacles in the Temple 
 at Jerusalem for the seventy nations (this number 
 became stereotyped as representing the totality of 
 non-Jewish peoples), the sacrifices offered on behalf 
 of the foreign ruler (not to him), the fact of accom- 
 modations for the Gentile in the temple structure 
 itself; the acceptance of gifts for the Temple from 
 non-Jews (indeed the Torah itself contemplated the 
 possibility of a Gentile offering sacrifice, Lev. 22:25), 
 and tradition and history tell of as many such, 
 indicate no ''odium generis humani," hatred of the 
 human race, such as the Roman Tacitus laid at the 
 door of the Jew. The business and social relations 
 which obtained between the Jew and the non-Jew at 
 
[ 14 ] JEW AND 
 
 this period (indeed the Assuan Papyri show how early 
 and widespread such relations were) and of later 
 Talmudic times are positive witnesses to the fact 
 that the Jew rather than hating his fellowmen 
 extended to him all the moral considerations which 
 he felt were incumbent upon him towards his fellow- 
 Jews. 
 
 In presenting the ideal of filial piety the rabbis of 
 the Talmud cited the case of Dama ben Nethina, a 
 non-Jew. Commenting upon the words of David 
 (II Sam. 7:19) "This is the law for man, O Lord," 
 the same teachers interpret it in a sense, to be sure 
 not intended by the original speaker but indicative 
 of their broadmindedness, "not a law for either priest 
 or Levite or Jew but for many We learn from the 
 same sources that the Holy Sabbath itself might 
 be violated in case of danger of life, of Gentiles as 
 well as Jews. We also read that the poor, the sick, 
 the dead and the mourner of the stranger are to be 
 treated in just the same manner as the same classes 
 of the house of Israel. Another well known passage 
 lays down the rule that usury shall not be practiced 
 even towards the non-Jew. The famous Hillel incul- 
 cates love of all fellow creatures, the word Briyot 
 used being impossible of limited application to Jews 
 alone; even Akiba, famous for his literal method of 
 Bible interpretation, is cited in the Ethics of the 
 Fathers as felicitating mankind because it was created 
 
NON-JEW [ 15 ] 
 
 in the image of its Maker and of its consciousness of 
 that fact. Ben Zoma, one of the leaders of his gene- 
 ration teaches ''Despise not any man"; and so we 
 might continue indefinitely citing rabbi after rabbi 
 and his sentiments towards the non-Jew. 
 
 The horror of the Jew for idolatrous practices knew 
 no limit and the utmost severity was manifested to- 
 wards the Jew who had apostasized; but non-Jews 
 were permitted the practice of their faith in Palestine 
 provided they did nothing to offend the sensibilities of 
 the public. The old formulas against idolaters and 
 idolatry have been preserved since this period, but 
 their theory and intent exclude Christian and Moslem. 
 Despite the dietary laws we find that Jews and non- 
 Jews dine together and social intercourse continued 
 between Jews and their fellows until church councils 
 stepped in and forbade such intercourse, often on 
 pain of death. Mutual respect, one for the other, is 
 apparent even through the acerbities of religious con- 
 troversy, as witness Justin's Dialog with the Jew 
 Trypho. The post Talmudical rabbis were frequently 
 called upon to adjudicate cases involving the observ- 
 ance of the Sabbath and many similar things, arising 
 out of business associations of Jews and non-Jews. 
 Rather ought we consider the attitude of the domi- 
 nant church on this subject as evidenced in the early 
 centuries and the consequent effect upon the rela- 
 tions of their followers to Jews. 
 
[16] JEW AND 
 
 There were, too, leaders among the Jews at this 
 time who represented a similar intransigent position 
 towards the non-Jews; but the number of those who 
 taught liberal opinions and lived them is all the more 
 remarkable. Josephus who (Contra Apionem 2) 
 teaches the duty of the Jew to respect the faith of 
 his neighbor, finds himself in the company of the 
 later rabbis who assert that the righteous of all peoples 
 have a share in the bliss of the world to come. True 
 the bitterness of spirit of a people whose rights and 
 privileges were outraged by their Roman — both 
 pagan and Christian — rulers found expression from 
 time to time. The Zealots, true to their name, threw 
 aside all restraints and expressed themselves in un- 
 measured terms as opposed to the oppressor; but 
 these were not only sectarians of a religious nature 
 but also extremists of a political party who desired 
 war to the death with Rome. Many of their Jewish 
 contemporaries viewed them with suspicion; their 
 attitude can not be taken as typical of the Jew. 
 When during these last wars with Rome one breaks 
 out with the startling statement that "the best non- 
 Jew is worthy of death" it is to be understood as 
 provoked by the circumstances of the day fully as 
 much as the statement forbidding association with 
 non-Jews in the trying times of the Maccabean revo- 
 lution (2 Mac. 14, 3:38). These expressions do not 
 represent so much the normal standpoint of the 
 
NON-JEW [17] 
 
 Jewish religion as they do the rebound of the perse- 
 cuted against the persecutor in times of great stress. 
 It would be just as fair, or unfair, to judge the atti- 
 tude of German and French to each other, or of 
 American and English by the heated bitter jingles 
 and cartoons that are current during war times. 
 Indeed, the Talmud itself suggests that responsibility 
 is not to be urged too severely for expressions which 
 are the result of woe or oppression. France, or even 
 Victor Hugo himself, is not to be judged harshly 
 because during the war, Hugo cries out, "Poison the 
 wells, murder the sleeping; seize scythes, axes or 
 pitchforks to kill them." 
 
 We find that Jesus refers to the non-Jews as dogs 
 and swine. To those who know the excessive and 
 exaggerated method of the oriental, such expressions 
 occasion little surprise. But a tu quoque is not enough 
 to urge in justification of the Jew's attitude. In a 
 period such as that of the last wars with Rome (the 
 Jewish war, 66-70; the Bar Kochba rebellion, 132-135) 
 and in the Maccabean conflict with Syrian Hellenism, 
 the question at stake is the very existence of Judaism 
 itself. Extreme situations demand extreme measures. 
 The real marvel is, the conflict past, that Judaism 
 resumes its normal manner and goes on its way ex- 
 panding and developing its own genius. 
 
 The persecutions of the Jews during the middle 
 ages so relentlessly, so bitterly continued, evidenced 
 
[ 18 ] JEW AND 
 
 far more rancor on the part of the world towards the 
 Jew than of the Jew to the world. It is significant to 
 say the least that in southern France and Bohemia 
 where Jewish influence was strong that the Albigense 
 and Hussite movements developed. Jew must have 
 met non-Jew in free intercourse; and while the 
 Church visited both heretics and Jews with its fury, 
 it is no little glory for the Jew thus to have helped 
 the cause of religious development and freedom. 
 
 These mediaeval experiences have left an indelible 
 impress upon the character of the Jew individually 
 and socially. His doctrine of election tended to make 
 him self-conscious and gave him a degree of self- 
 assurance, which has protected him from extermina- 
 tion at many a critical period in his history. On the 
 other hand, this long continued persecution has left 
 him shy, sometimes suspicious. The constant menace 
 of the proselytizer no less fearsome to him than the 
 torture chamber itself has made him fear the Greeks 
 when bearing gifts. He has become chary of making 
 advances because he has found the world far more 
 ready to accept his sacrifices than to yield one jot or 
 tittle of its viewpoint; and because he has become so 
 hypersensitive, every rebuff has sent him back 
 decades and bewildered him. Probably at no time 
 did he experience this more vividly than in the nine- 
 teenth century. Recognizing the dominant philosophy 
 of cosmopolitanism as congenial to his Jewish view- 
 
NON-JEW [ 19 ] 
 
 point, and having by his world experiences become a 
 typical cosmopolite, he threw himself into the activi- 
 ties of modern times with a zest and a zeal that were 
 admirable. He sacrificed much. Upon the vanity 
 heap in the market place he cast many a cherished 
 mode of life. Anti-Semitism sent him back and re- 
 pulsed him in unmeasured terms assuring him that 
 he did not belong to this western world and that his 
 very presence was a menace to its well doing. We 
 have learned bitter lessons; not that we would not 
 associate with Gentiles, but we will not be patronized 
 by our equals who consider themselves our betters; 
 nor would we be thrust downwards merely for the 
 sake of non-Jewish associations. This process has 
 thrown the Jew back upon himself and has intensified 
 his self-consciousness as well as certain racial char- 
 acteristics and social differences. 
 
 But most remarkable is the fact that under the 
 sting of this mistreatment his prayers for speedy 
 release from his burning sorrows produced no expres- 
 sion of malice towards his tormentors. He has never 
 attempted retaliatory measures — maybe he was too 
 weak — maybe it was a mistake not to attempt to do 
 so. But the fact remains that he has not. It is one 
 of the ironies of history that at the very period that 
 the Jew .was giving greatest service to the world, 
 acting as the economic intermediary between the 
 nations, thus joining the east with the west, that the 
 
[ 20 ] JEW AND 
 
 world treated him worst. He has accepted his miser- 
 able lot with an heroic resignation unparalleled in 
 history. His literature teems with expressions if not 
 of love, yet of regard for and understanding of his 
 persecutors. In the face of the worst, with cries of 
 the dying still shrill in his ears, his rabbis have taught 
 forbearance, restraint and even forgiveness. The 
 bloody trail of the Crusaders across Europe is made 
 luminous by the pathetic elegies of the Jew celebrating 
 his martyred kin and by his marvelous forebearance 
 and patience under the stinging blows of the crucifix 
 — sword of the knights of the faith of love. The 
 Spanish exiles depart from Spain with tear stained 
 cheeks not only because of their physical pain but 
 more because of their heart aches at leaving the 
 fatherland which they loved despite the misery which 
 its hard hearted kings and prelates had ground into 
 their hearts. And the sons of these Spanish exiles still 
 preserve the memory of their long residence in that 
 land, and continue to speak the Castilian tongue 
 of 1492. 
 
 Our religious philosophers write of Christianity 
 and Islam in so liberal and appreciative a strain that 
 their very words are worthy of quotation. In a day 
 (12th century) in which Christendom had hardly 
 emerged from the deep black of the dark ages, when 
 heretics were hunted out like dogs, Jews spitted like 
 swine, and Christian theology damned unbelievers to 
 
NON-JEW [21] 
 
 eternal hell fire, the tolerant attitude of the Jewish 
 philosophers is all the more remarkable. They con- 
 tinue the Jewish tradition which saw in all men 
 brothers, descendants of the original man, and who 
 believed that those who exercised the fundamental 
 moralities of the seven Noachian Commands were 
 worthy of Divine grace and blessing. Jehuda Ha-levi, 
 the poet-philosopher of 12th century Spain in his 
 dialog on the respective merits of the three faiths, 
 called the Kuzari, writes "These religions (Christi- 
 anity and Islam) are the preparation and the preface 
 to the Messiah we expect, who is the fruit himself of 
 the seed originally sown ; and all men will be the fruit 
 of God's seed when they acknowledge Him and all 
 become one mighty tree." A half century later, Moses 
 Maimonides expresses similar sentiments. Discussing 
 the two great daughter religions of Judaism in his 
 famous code "The Strong Hand," he writes: "The 
 teachings of him of Nazareth (Jesus) and of the man 
 of Ishmael (Mohammed) who rose after him, help to 
 bring to perfection all mankind, so that they may 
 serve God with one consent. For in that the world 
 is full of the words of the Messiah, of the Holy Writ, 
 and the Commandments — these words have spread 
 to the ends of the earth even if many deny the bind- 
 ing character of them at the present day. And when 
 the Messiah does come, all will return from their 
 errors." 
 
[22] JEW AND 
 
 Malmonides' own father allowed himself the use of 
 Moslem terminology and the Jewish moral phil- 
 osopher, Bachya ibn Pakuda, praises the Christian 
 institution of monasticism. Joseph Albo (15th cen- 
 tury) shows the influence of Christian thought upon 
 his philosophy, and Isaac Abarbanel, the exegete, 
 quotes Christian authorities. A much earlier, even 
 more interesting parallel to this is found in the case 
 of Hai Gaon (10th century in Babylonia) who con- 
 sulted the Catholicos of the oriental Christians at 
 Bagdad with reference to the interpretation of difficult 
 scriptural passages. 
 
 Many a precept comes from the Middle Age illus- 
 trative of Jewish care and treatment of the non-Jew. 
 Lebi b. Isaac ha-Hasid, a French Jew of the 10th 
 century, writes, "Treat with equal honesty the Chris- 
 tian as your brother in faith. If a Christian make a 
 mistake to his loss, call his attention to it. If a Jew 
 be a tax gatherer, demand no more from a Christian 
 than from a Jew; A Jew shall not be untruthful in 
 traffic with Jew or Gentile." Rabbi Jehudah b. 
 Samuel of Regensburg writes in the Book of Pious 
 Souls, "Mislead no one through thy actions designedly, 
 be he Jew or non-Jew; be not disputatious and 
 quarrelsome with people whatever be their faith * * * 
 If a contract be made between Jews and non-Jews, 
 the former must fulfill it even if the latter fail to 
 perform that to which they were bound. * * * In- 
 
NON-JEW [ 23 ] 
 
 justice must not be done whether one belongs to our 
 reUgion or to another." Moses b. Coucy (1245) writes 
 in his Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot, "Those who He to non- 
 Jews and steal from them belong to the category of 
 blasphemers; for it is due to their guilt that many 
 say the Jews have no binding law." With these and 
 similar sentiments we invite comparison with the 
 Middle Age Christian teaching that ''one need not 
 keep faith with a heretic." Asher b. Yechiel (1327) 
 urges upon his sons in his Ethical Testament, "Re- 
 main grateful to any one who hath helped thee; be 
 sincere and true with everyone, even though they be 
 not Jews; be the first to extend courteous greeting to 
 every man whatever be his faith and provoke not to 
 wrath one whose belief differs from thine." The senti- 
 ments thus expressed were translated into practice 
 and though the religion of the Jew was despised, he 
 showed that his faith in humankind was greater than 
 misunderstanding and insult. "By their works shall 
 ye know them"; the works of the Jew speak for 
 themselves. 
 
 It is said that in southern France in the 12th 
 century Christians had to be restrained from bringing 
 their cases before Jewish courts where it was claimed 
 the administration of justice was more intelligent and 
 fairer-minded. Jewish hospitality was famous for its 
 generosity, though many a non-Jew thus entertained 
 repaid his host's kindness not in kind but in pain. 
 
[24] JEW AND 
 
 Sick and penniless travelers were frequently cared 
 for in Jewish institutions, where need was met and 
 no questions asked. Jews taught non-Jews not only 
 the lore of Shem but also instructed them in the 
 secular sciences, chiefly medicine, mathematics and 
 astronomy, in which they were particularly proficient. 
 These literary friendships are noteworthy. The great 
 Church Father and Bible student Origen begins the 
 long line of such relations. St. Jerome (d. 420 C. E.) 
 studied with a Jew as did the Prior of Fulda in the 
 8th century. History further preserves the names of 
 a large number of Jews and their Christian pupils. 
 The Abbot Nilus and the Jew Donnolo; Michael 
 Scotus and the Jew Anatoli; Robert of Aragon and 
 the Jews Kalonymos and Levi Romani; Reuchlin 
 and the Jews Obadiah Sforno and Jacob Loano; Pico 
 di Mirandola and the Jews Elijah del Medigo and 
 Johanan Aleman; Guido Rangoni and the Jew Jacob 
 Mantino; Cardinal Sirleto and the Jew Lazarus de 
 Viterbo; Cardinal Egibio and the Jew Elias Levita. 
 But most romantic of all is the literary friendship of 
 Dante and the Jewish poet Immanuel of Rome. 
 That such friendships existed is a tribute to the 
 manhood of both parties. To override dominant 
 prejudices is hard enough at all times; hardest under 
 circumstances such as prevailed in the social life of 
 the Middle Ages. 
 
 Jewish physicians were ever ready to serve without 
 
NON-JEW [ 25 ] 
 
 distinction as to creed or cult and were ever found 
 worthy of the confidence bestowed upon them by 
 their Christian patrons. Even when papal bulls for- 
 bade the employment of Jewish physicians, the Popes 
 themselves were waited upon by the skilled men of 
 medical knowledge who were found in the Jewish 
 communities. Had there been any resentment towards 
 the Christian world for its harsh treatment of the 
 Jews, had there been any thought of revenge in their 
 hearts, the Jewish physician and courtier enjoyed 
 unique opportunities for gratifying such a desire. If 
 the Jew had hated his fellow Christians — and we 
 believe he had sufficient provocation for so doing at 
 times — they would not have borne arms and carried 
 burdens for their stepmother-lands. 
 
 A Jewish regiment offering its services to the 
 United States need provoke no comment; but Jewish 
 companies in the army of their most Christian 
 majesties Alphonso VI, Alphonso VIII, Alphonso X 
 of Spain, or of Philip the Handsome of France indi- 
 cate that their relations with their fellows were 
 established on a broad and friendly basis and that 
 they entertained no hostile sentiments, but rather 
 coveted the opportunity to serve when opportunity 
 offered itself to confute their detractors and to 
 prove their worth. 
 
 The charge of Jewish antipathy to the non-Jew is 
 most frequently based upon his refusal to inter- 
 
[26] JEW AND 
 
 marry. Because of this he has been abused by dis- 
 senters from his own midst and by the great outside. 
 This is not the place to enter into a detailed dis- 
 cussion of this intricate and delicate question. This 
 refusal to intermarry is not because the Jew is in 
 any manner hostile to the non-Jew. Those who 
 advocate this do so upon the ground of the integrity 
 of Judaism. The public safety is the supreme law, 
 and the safety of the Jewish group and its viewpoint 
 depends upon its ability to impose such a rule of 
 conduct upon its followers. From the earliest times, 
 Jewish teaching was directed to this end so that the 
 ideal of the Jew might not be lost. Refusal to inter- 
 marry with the Canaanitish nations, the stern dis- 
 approval of Ezra and Nehemiah of such unions, the 
 practice and the custom through succeeding ages 
 have given this attitude an importance of the first 
 degree. Marriage with a non-Jew is not considered 
 invalid from any point of view. It is considered 
 inexpedient from the point of view of the integrity 
 of the Jewish group. Intermarriage is not deprecated 
 today on the grounds of the superior worth of the 
 Jew to the non-Jew. It is not considered desirable 
 from the point of view of the religious unity and 
 harmony which should prevail in the ideal home. We 
 need not point out that we stand on common 'ground 
 with all the great religions of the world who hold 
 exactly the same views with regard to intermarriage. 
 
NON-JEW [ 27 ] 
 
 We believe that it is a fundamental right of every 
 group to protect itself in this manner and to per- 
 petuate its particular lines of thought and activity. 
 We hold suicide to be cowardly even if it be in this 
 indirect manner for it offers no solution to our prob- 
 lem or to any problem for all that. Evasion is not 
 solution. 
 
 We are ready to admit such into our group who 
 like Ruth of old are ready to declare "Thy people 
 shall be my people, thy God, my. God." We stand 
 ready to welcome the convert into our brotherhood, 
 though we are frankly suspicious of those who do 
 not seek us of their own volition and with the purest 
 of motives and intentions. We find expressions of 
 opinion of ancient rabbis condemning such proselytes 
 as a menace to the Jew. Proselytism is a two-edged 
 sword. It may strengthen; it may dilute. The satura- 
 tion point is a serious matter, for ''newcomers" into 
 the faith bring with them considerable of the atmos- 
 phere whence they came. Once within the group, 
 there is no discrimination for of old has it been 
 made clear by prophet and by rabbi that "even from 
 them shall I take for priests and for Levites." Any 
 discrimination against the newcomer is strictly for- 
 bidden for all are one before God. 
 
 The question of the loyalty of the Jew to his 
 adopted country must necessarily come under the 
 purview of our subject. On the one hand his longing 
 
[ 28] JEW AND 
 
 for Zion would seem to have made it impossible for 
 him to identify himself with the new land. Inasmuch 
 as the period of the strongest expression of his love 
 for Zion is usually coincident vAth the periods of his 
 harshest treatment by his fellows — indeed its in- 
 tensity is usually to be measured by such persecu- 
 tions — it is not to be wondered at that he prayed for 
 an escape from his misery. Yet even in such an extreme 
 case as Spain, the love of the Jew for Spain was most 
 pathetic. Further it must be remembered that love 
 of country is more or less tied up with one's rights to 
 own real property. It is only such ownership that is 
 much of a guarantee of permanence and of that 
 increasing loyalty which arises therefrom. And the 
 Jew only in the rarest cases was allowed to own 
 property. He felt the insecurity of his position under 
 such circumstances; yet take it all in all, he developed 
 a marvelous love for his stepmother-lands. The love 
 of the Russian Jew for Russia is almost beyond 
 comprehension. On the other hand, there were never 
 entirely absent certain universalist tendencies in 
 Jewish thought and life. These spiritualized the 
 Messianic hope and looked forward to a world era 
 which would realize the ideals of a spiritual Zionism. 
 And so from Jeremiah down, the thought is repeated 
 in variant form, 'Tray for the welfare of the land 
 whither thou goest"; and the dictum of the rabbis 
 that ''The law of the land is supreme" was accepted. 
 
NON-JEW [ 29 ] 
 
 So the Zionist today insists that his love for Zion in 
 no manner interferes with his patriotism: and truly 
 of this double love the Zionist must be the one to 
 testify from his own experience. Certainly the record 
 of the modern Jew as a patriot and citizen leaves no 
 opportunity for doubt as to his fervid love for the 
 land of his birth and his citizenship. 
 
 When the ghetto doors flew open the Jew did not 
 need to learn tolerance; he had practiced it through 
 all his history. The new life gave him an opportunity 
 for realizing its possibilities and its promises. Our 
 attitude towards the outside world is best demon- 
 strated in the modern world by our works, rather 
 than by our words. Volumes might be written of the 
 contributions of the Jew to the world during the past 
 century. The broad point of view of the modern Jew 
 since his political and social emancipation during the 
 last century can be demonstrated from many a 
 source, sermon, public address, written and spoken 
 word. But of far more significance is the work which 
 the Jew has been doing, and still is doing, in the 
 few decades which have elapsed since his entrance 
 into the larger life of the western world. 
 
 His economic success has been his own. Indirectly, 
 he may have thus contributed to the expansion of 
 his nation; but after all is said and done it is for 
 himself and his own gain that he has done these great 
 things. This indirect service has not been mean; its 
 
[30] JEW AND 
 
 value, great. However, even In the industrial world, 
 had there been malice in his heart tOAvards his fellow- 
 men, the freedom of association which such life 
 necessitates w^ould have been impossible. It can not 
 be without its meaning that the Jew has played a 
 leading role in the great modern industrial movements 
 which have an ethical basis. Socialism was originated 
 by Jews; and today Jews play a leading role in its 
 spread and interpretation. And under the leadership 
 of a Jew trades unionism has been brought to its 
 highest point of efficiency and been given an increasing 
 ethical bearing. The Jew has thrown himself into the 
 vortex of modern life with a most commendable zeal, 
 and has contributed in most generous manner his 
 very best to the realization of the ideals of the nation 
 of which he has become a citizen. 
 
 Along one line he has delighted to work above all 
 others. He has given millions back to the common 
 social fund of the human race for relief and pre- 
 ventive work and has asked that it be distributed to 
 all, regardless of creed, race or color. Recently it was 
 reported that the great bulk of the large sums which 
 had been contributed in modern France for educa- 
 tional purposes had come from Jewish pocketbooks. 
 The Jew gives of himself generously and asks only 
 that common justice be granted' him to live his life. 
 Anti-Semitism has thrown many Jews back centuries 
 and made them crawl into their shells; others, the 
 
NON-JEW [31] 
 
 braver it has determined that their service shall be 
 more generous than ever before. With a moiety of 
 Jewish money feeding the hungry, educating the 
 ignorant, healing the sick and bringing light into 
 dark places, with a splendid devotion of Jewish brains 
 to the problems of all humanity, social, scientific, 
 literary and economic — efforts of the Jew for the 
 world more than for himself, the attitude of the Jew 
 to the world must speak more and more for itself. 
 Non-sectarian work done with the aid of Jewish 
 money and Jewish brains is the best reply which we 
 can make to Anti-Semitism and its mad advocates. 
 Anti-Semitism certainly hurts the Jew, both directly 
 and indirectly; but it is even more harmful to the 
 Anti-Semite. In all Jewish literature no parallels can 
 be found to the foul and vicious utterances of the 
 modern anti-Semite who time and again has advised 
 his Hotspurs to crush every Jewish skull upon which 
 he can lay hold. 
 
 The work of such men as Gabriel Riesser, Edward 
 Lasker, Berthold Auerbach, Heinrich Heine, and 
 Ludwig Boerne in the intellectual and political re- 
 habilitation of modern Germany is worthy of mention 
 in this connection. The spectacle of the Jew who 
 had for centuries been denied all rights, social, civil, 
 political, intellectual and economic, throwing him- 
 self into the turmoil which surrounded the birth of 
 the new nation — suffering, sacrificing, warring, dying 
 
[ n ] JEW AND 
 
 for the cause — is far more creditable to his generous 
 patriotism than is the denial of his Germanic rights 
 by those whose very names declare them to be of 
 Slavic origin. And what happened in Germany hap- 
 pened, too, in Italy, France, England and America. 
 Those who know Jewish history and Jewish character 
 know full well that when the dark clouds which now 
 cover Russia and Russian Jewry in particular, give 
 way to the light, the muchly abused Russian Jew 
 will evidence his noble instincts by rendering to 
 Russia such service as his fellows have given their 
 new born fatherlands in western Europe and America. 
 The Jewish scriptures begin with the story of 
 MAN, not with the history of the Jew. His God is 
 the sovereign of the universe, his faith for the day 
 on which God will be one and His name one. The 
 people which started out with a philosophy of history 
 which included all men can have no higher concern 
 than of bringing the dream of brotherhood into 
 realization. Not that the Jew expects Judaism qua 
 Judaism to become the faith of the world although 
 he feels fully convinced that its universal ideas and 
 ideals are expressions of mankind's highest aspira- 
 tions; yet he does look forward hopefully to that day 
 of mutual sympathy and better understanding 
 between churches, creeds, classes and races, whereon 
 each shall be firm in his own viewpoint, yet all "shall 
 go and say, Come ye, let us go up to the mountain 
 
NON-JEW [ 33 ] 
 
 of the Lord and He will teach us of His ways, and 
 we will walk in His laws, for out of Zion shall go forth 
 the Law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." 
 The Jew of the twentieth century clasps hands with 
 the unknown scribe of Genesis, who wrote "this is 
 the book of the generations of Man" (V. 1). The 
 Jew of America finds himself in accord with the 
 Palestinian rabbi of the second century who offered 
 this verse as the most significant in the Bible because 
 it taught us the common origin of all mankind. We 
 pray today for the world as our fathers offered sacri- 
 fices for the nations. The half-forgotten Hellenistic 
 literature of Alexandrian Judaism and the largely un- 
 known literature of the Palestinian and Babylonian 
 rabbis are links in a written tradition w^hich extends 
 right down into our own day. Abraham, the father of 
 the faithful Moses, the man of God, Isaiah and 
 Jeremiah, Ben Sirach, the Palestinian, Philo, the 
 Egyptian, Hillel, the Liberal and Akiba, the Rigorist, 
 Judah the Holy as well as Maimonides, Jehudah 
 Halevy and ibn Gebirol, Mendelssohn and Moses 
 Montefiore, not to omit an Einhorn, a Geiger, a Wise, 
 and scores of other big-souled, large-hearted Jews, 
 who saw beyond the limits of their own group but 
 who realized that that group was worth while, too — 
 all tell the same story of how the Jew regarded the 
 world from his lofty viewpoint of the missioner of 
 the peoples. 
 
[34] JEW AND 
 
 The modern Jew still loves his Judaism though he 
 may at times interpret it in manner new to himself 
 and to the world. He believes in it and in himself not 
 only because he has had a wonderful past but also 
 because he knows that he has a still more wonderful 
 future. He would frame a satisfactory restatement of 
 the thought that God chose the fathers to do a great 
 work in the working out of the divine plan, a great 
 work in which Israel would serve the world ; he would 
 convey the conviction of his divine sonship to his 
 brethren, whose welfare and security he has ever 
 been seeking. 
 
 We Jews recognize our brethren of the world. We 
 ask but the privilege to live our own lives of service 
 and of sacrifice. We are not against the world. We 
 are of it and with it. We are not anti-alien in our 
 hopes or our fears. Our noblest dream of self-realiza- 
 tion includes no less than human kind. Many a 
 religious attitude is assumed for no better reason 
 than that a rival faith holds the otherwise. So we feel 
 sure that the misunderstanding of the Jewish idea of 
 election has often caused the resentment of the 
 Gentile; and the harsh treatment of the Jew by the 
 Christian has evoked many a bitter thought in the 
 mind of the Jew; for take it all in all, the world has 
 not judged fairly of the Jewish point of view. Tradi- 
 tional prejudices have condemned him unheard, and 
 the air is still rife with old catch-words, that the Jew 
 
NON-JEW [ 35 ] 
 
 is tribal, mean, etc. Audiatur et altera pars; for there 
 is another side, big and compelling, too. 
 
 We stand bound to our fellows by a thousand ties: 
 but to our brethren of the house of Israel the ties 
 number one thousand and one. 
 
 THIS is one of a series of pamphleis published by the 
 Union of American Hebrew Congregations. These 
 essays are designed to convey information on the Je^vish 
 religion and Jewish history, and are intended for general 
 distribution. They are prepared by the Commission on 
 Information about Judaism appointed jointly by the 
 Union of American Hebrew Congregations and the 
 Central Conference of American Rabbis. 
 
 THE COMMISSION ON 
 
 NFORMATION ABOUT JUDAISM 
 
 MERCHANTS BUILDING, CINCINNATI 2, OHIO 
 
What Do Jews Believe? Rabbi H. G. Enelow, D. D. 
 
 The Jew in America. Rabbi David Philipson, D. D. 
 
 Jew and Non-Jew. Rabbi Martin A. Meyer, Ph. D. ! 
 
 Jewish Ethics. Rabbi Samuel Schulman, D. D. 
 
 The Universal Lord. Rabbi Maurice H. Harris, D. D. 
 
 Humanitarianism of the Laws of Israel. Rabbi Jacob Raisin, Ph. D. 
 
 Post-Biblical Judaism — I. Its Biblical Foundation — The Midrash. 
 
 Rabbi Israel Bettan, D. D. 
 Judaism's Influence in the Founding of the Republic. Rabbi Morris M. 
 
 Feuerlicht, A. B. 
 Philanthropy in Rabbinical Literature. Rabbi Abraham Cronbach, D. D. 
 The Jewish Prayerbook. Rabbi Solomon B. Freehof, D. D. 
 Judaism and Democracy. Rabbi Louis Witt, A. B. 
 Jewish Philanthropic Institutions in the Middle Ages. 
 
 Rabbi Abraham Cronbach, D. D. 
 Judaism and Socialism. Rabbi Jacob Tarshish, A. B. 
 The Jewish Holidays. Rabbi William Rosenau, Ph. D. 
 Post-Biblical Judaism— II. Its Spiritual Note. Rabbi Israel Bettan, D. D. 
 Judaism and Unitarianism. Rabbi Abraham J. Feldman, A. B. 
 Judaism and International Peace. Raobi Joseph S. Kornfeld, A. B. 
 A Layman's Jewish Library. Rabbi Israel Bettan, D. D., Rabbi Louis I. 
 
 Egelson, M. A., Rabbi Jacob R. Marcus, Ph. D., Chairman. (Tem- 
 porarily out of print.) 
 Judaism and Marriage. Rabbi Felix A. Levy, Ph. D. 
 Post-Biblical Judaism — III. Its Healthy-mindedness. Rabbi Israel Bettan, 
 
 D. D. 
 Immortality in Judaism. Rabbi Israel Mattuck, A. M., D. H. L. 
 Isaac M. Wise. Rabbi David Philipson, D. D. 
 
 Jewish Philanthropy in the Biblical Era. Rabbi Ephraim Frisch, Ph. D. 
 Post-Biblical Judaism — IV. Its Conception of Israel's Place in the World. 
 
 Rabbi Israel Bettan, D. D. 
 The Social Outlook of Modern Judaism. Rabbi Abraham Cronbach, D.D. 
 What Is the Talmud? Rabbi Max Reichler, A. B. 
 What Is Reform Judaism? Rabbi Solomon B. Freehof, D. D. 
 The Jewish Idea of God. Rabbi Samuel S. Cohon, A. B. 
 Contributions of Judaism to Modern Society. Rabbi Abraham J. Feld- 
 man, A. B. 
 The Faith and Message of the Prophets. Moses Buttenwieser, Ph. D. 
 The Jewish Concept of the Chosen People. Rabbi Bernard Heller, Ph. D. 
 . Judaism and War. Rabbi Samuel S. Cohon, A. B. 
 . Post-Biblical Judaism— V. Its Role in the Survival of the Jew. Rabbi 
 
 Israel Bettan, D. D. 
 , Judaism and Healing. Rabbi Louis Witt, A. B, 
 
PHOTOMOUNT 
 Pamphlet BINDER 
 
 Manufactured by 
 lCiAYir!»Jn Rocic J— 
 
 sy 
 
 jlHl j^ 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 fRWr- ;■•;-- 
 
 '>" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A.