Chazal say that an am ha’aretz, a person completely ignorant of Torah, is capable even of murdering. For this reason, it is forbidden to go on a long journey alone with him.
Someone once queried me about this Chazal. He recounted to me that he had traveled many times accompanied only by a certain Jew who was totally ignorant of Torah and who did not even observe basic halachos. Although he was carrying a large sum of money in his pocket during the journeys, his travel companion did not murder or harm him in any way. If so, what did Chazal mean when they said that an am ha’aretz is suspected of being a potential murderer?
This question floated back into my mind while I was traveling abroad in the middle of the night, alone with a non-Jew. The thought occurred to me: Perhaps he will try to kidnap me and harm me? After all, Chazal say that non-Jews are capable of the same deeds that an am ha’aretz is.
Of course, I was not kidnapped or harmed in any way. So what in fact did Chazal mean? The explanation is as follows: In truth, an am ha’aretz and a non-Jew are potentially capable of murder. But they don’t do it. Why? Because nowadays society considers murder to be unacceptable behavior. The am ha’aretz and the non-Jew are under the sway of the mores of society, and therefore they refrain from murder and shun it. This is indeed very good and praiseworthy. But it does not mean that deep down, their essential nature has metamorphosed. They still are what they are.
Another example of this point emerges from the experiences of R. Michael Dov Weissmandl, who was an outstanding rabbinical figure of the past generation and made tremendous efforts to rescue his fellow Jews from the claws of the Nazis. He developed connections with high echelons in Hitler’s regime, and in exchange for large bribes was successful in stopping some of the train deportations bringing Jews to the death camps. I personally know Jews who told me that if not for R. Weissmandl they would not be alive today.
In his book Min HaMeitzar he describes his activities. He recounts a meeting he held with a man who represented a certain secularist Jewish organization. R. Weissmandl attempted to enlist his support in saving Jews from the death camps. The man replied, “I am an outstanding professor, a leading scientist in the field of chemistry. I have investigated the matter. I can guarantee you that the gas being used to kill the Jews contains opium. They don’t feel any pain.”
Needless to say, the meeting did not bear fruits.
If this professor would still be alive and he would say such a shocking thing today, would it just go by? Would he not be publicly condemned for his barbarism and falsehood, and exposed as a Nazi collaborator? So how did he dare to say such an outrageous thing back then?
The answer is that nowadays it is not acceptable to say such things. But back then, when Jewish blood was spilt like water, and the world accepted it as a reality that could not be changed, such a statement was socially acceptable. If the professor would still be alive today, the reason he would refrain from saying it now is not because he became a better, more humane person, but simply because nowadays, a person who says such things is rejected and condemned by society.
Here is another example, which I witnessed myself. A child fell down and got a bad cut. He was rushed to the emergency ward in a hospital where the doctors happened to be holding a strike. The nurses were not on strike, however they could not deal with the situation; they didn’t know what to do with the bleeding child. A doctor walked by, and a nurse called out to him, “What should we do with this child? He needs stitches, but how...” The doctor just smiled smugly and kept on walking.
