Jewish Ideas Daily has been succeeded and re-launched as Mosaic. Read more...

A Grim Teaching

Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur.

Every first-year law student knows that hard cases make bad law. In Israel, a particularly hard case lies in the ongoing controversy around an inflammatory Hebrew-language volume of Jewish religious law (halakhah) that offers justifications for violent treatment of non-Jews in general and of Israel's foes in particular. The debate has highlighted longstanding divisions within Israeli society; now that the courts and the police have gotten into the act, it has also highlighted the difficulties of drawing meaningful lines between free speech and incitement.

Relevant Links
Rabbinic Text or Call to Terror?  Daniel Estrin, Forward. Although not the first fringe enterprise of its kind, Torat Hamelekh has been more widely disseminated and has caused a greater sensation.  
Support the Thinkers, Hate the Thought  Maayana Miskin, Israel National News. A sympathetic account of a rabbinic rally to protest police detention of rabbis endorsomgTorat Hamelekh.  
In War and Peace  Michael J. Broyde, JLaw. Talmudic law is not pacifist, but does its best to acknowledge and respond to the moral complexities of violent conflict.  

The volume in question, Torat Hamelekh ("The King's Torah"), was published last fall. Its authors, Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur, teach at a yeshiva in a settlement in Samaria known for its hard-line ideology and its tense relations with both local Arabs and Israeli authorities. Like all treatises of Jewish law, their book buttresses its arguments with citations of talmudic texts and the interpretations and decisions of later rabbinic authorities.

The subject is the rules governing violent conflicts—i.e., wars—with non-Jews. Some of the legal conclusions drawn by the authors are simply outrageous; others treat the grimmest choices that have to be made in wartime as matters of affirmative religious obligation. Among their conclusions are these: "In any situation where a Gentile's presence endangers Jewish life, one may kill him—even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all responsible for the situation in question." "There is reason to attack children if it is clear that they will grow up to assail us, and in that situation they may be directly targeted." And: "Every citizen of our kingdom who opposes us and who encourages [our enemies'] fighters or expresses satisfaction with their deeds is considered an assailant and may be killed. Similarly, one who weakens our kingdom, by speech and the like, is also considered an assailant."

In other words, one need not distinguish in wartime between hostile and friendly non-combatants; one may freely kill children suspected of one day becoming enemies; and one may kill Israeli Arabs who voice sympathy with Israel's enemies, and for that matter domestic Israeli critics as well. The book does not explicitly mention Arabs or Palestinians. Rather, it uses throughout the seemingly neutral but deeply laden term "Gentiles," with all its connotations of second-class citizens and second-class souls.

Needless to say, reactions to the published volume were not long in coming. Several leading rabbis of the settlement movement were themselves vehemently critical, and in December a coalition of liberal religious and secular groups filed a request with the Supreme Court for a restraining order against the book's further distribution. A highly respected halakhist who had provided a letter of approbation retracted his endorsement, explaining that he had relied on the authors' reputations for scholarship but on closer inspection realized that their conclusions "are wrong on the law and have no place in human reason."

By contrast, the volume's other endorsers, prominent rabbis all, one of whom is the son of the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, have stood firm. They have been called into the police for questioning, and recently the volume's two authors were briefly taken into custody—a move protested by Israel's Association for Civil Rights, which welcomed the investigation but saw no justification for detention. Similarly, several hundred rabbis, among them well-known figures generally considered moderates, gathered last week to protest the criminalization of halakhic discussions. For their part, Religious Zionist rabbis have stepped up their denunciations of the volume and their criticism of rabbinic colleagues who refrain from condemning it.

Among the diverse elements in play here, first and foremost is the radicalization of extreme sectors of the Religious Zionist community and the settler movement in Judea and Samaria. Living in self-contained settlements, on a daily knife's edge of confrontation with Arabs, Israeli soldiers, and Israeli officialdom alike, many have developed a Manichean worldview far removed from the Religious Zionism of the past, and have become increasingly alienated from Israeli society.

Second has been the perduring inability of Orthodoxy itself to synthesize the Jewish legal tradition with the new circumstances of Jewish statehood. Embedded in that tradition are the halakhic passages that Shapira and Elitzur take out of context and regularly misread; but those harsh statements about Gentiles were penned during centuries when Jews were a persecuted minority, never remotely dreaming of a day when power and capabilities might lie in Jewish hands. A revealing hint of the radical incongruity involved lies in the book's archaic conception of a Jewish state as a "kingdom."

Third, and coming from a very different direction, is the present-day Israeli legal system, in particular its laws against incitement. For most of its history, Israel, like the U.S., restricted only those forms of speech constituting "clear and present danger." The 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, in which one contributing factor was a number of incendiary rabbinic pronouncements of the sort being made today by Shapira and Elitzur, marked a turning point. Prosecutions for incitement, until then a limited possibility, were stepped up, and in 2002 "incitement to violence" became formally a new provision of the penal law. Although a number of other Western countries prohibit incitement, Israel's strictures are among the more broadly conceived.

In reality, of course, prosecutions are invariably selective. Indeed, the one good argument in the quiver of the volume's defenders is that extreme statements on the Left advocating violence against settlers have gone unprosecuted. Moreover, the highly activist posture of Israel's judiciary has stretched that institution's own legitimacy in the eyes of much of the public. While proponents of the restraining order have argued that the writings in question, couched in terms of religious obligation, do indeed constitute a clear and present danger, there is no denying that criminalizing a book, no matter how awful, cannot but further embitter its authors' readers and supporters.

Finally, and widening the lens considerably, there is the background issue of the larger conflict with the Palestinians and the consequent inability to resolve the status of the territories and those who live in them. It is a fact that settler rabbis have been among the sharpest critics of Torat Hamelekh, keenly understanding as they do the disastrous road down which the book and its ideas can lead their enterprise. But it is no less a fact that Israel and its legal cultures—religious and secular alike—have been led to disturbing and distorting turns by this struggle with its Arab neighbors of agonizing duration.

The issue of war and peace is not going away. In the meantime, hard cases will no doubt continue to make bad law, and the task for others will remain that of adhering to first principles, thinking harder, and countering flawed or malignant speech with stronger and better speech. 

Tags: , , , , , , ,



COMMENTS

Jacque on August 29, 2010 at 8:19 am (Reply)
Considering the threat that Israel is constantly under, is it as inflammitory as it seems? Or is it doing what is necessary to put down Israel's enemies? When HaShem told Israel to conquer the Land of Canaan, did it not involve much violence? I'm not Jewish, by the way.
Dr Jim Baltaxe on August 29, 2010 at 7:17 pm (Reply)
And these are the same self-rightous and self-appointed pseudo-tzaddickim who refuse to serve in the IDF and live off government social welfare. The hypocrisy is palpable and only serves to give comfort to those who would destroy the country from the outside; these guys are doing it from inside. Feh.
Hillel Levin on August 30, 2010 at 5:17 am (Reply)
The author's characterizations, that the legal conclusions are 'simply outrageous' and 'others treat the grimmest choices that have to be made in wartime as matters of affirmative religious obligation'; misses the point of the Sefer.

The only time to go to war is for Religious Reasons. Sometimes the religious reasons are for Pekuach Nefesh to Protect Life and there is a concept that one can break Shabbat restrictions of a Torah nature in order to protect life. Sometimes a religious war is to fulfill the words of Torah, the G-D given commandments.

Fact is, that G-D did not give us something close to a democracy, he gave us a Kingdom. That is the direction we are headed.

The author further said:" Embedded in that tradition are the halakhic passages that Shapira and Elitzur take out of context and regularly misread; but those harsh statements about Gentiles were penned during centuries when Jews were a persecuted minority, never remotely dreaming of a day when power and capabilities might lie in Jewish hands."

The author seems to think that the situation has changed from a time when Jews were a persecuted minority to a time when Jews have power and capabilities that they haven't had.

The author must be living in a dream state. Almost every nation is arrayed against Israel, Jews are trying to assimilate in unprecedented rates Chutz L'Aretz with a 60-70% intermarriage rate in the USA, the land of religious freedom.

The government of Israel has striven to take Torah out of the Jewish people.

The challenge is that we often look at the world through 'western' eyes and expect it to fit into a 21st century context and often fail to remember that G-D is the landlord, and the rule giver. When we try to 'change the world' to fit into what we want, and not try to make ourselves fit into what G-D wants.

The authors of the Sefer were not inciting a religious war, they just were stating what the framework is in the event of a religious war.

The current government might be able to forestall a religious war if they put religion into the government and started ruling Israel according to the Torah and not a subjectively floating target moving further away from Torah.

Fact is some of the largest anti-Semitic acts have come recently by the government of Israel with the destruction of synagogues and communities and interrogations of Rabbis for teaching Torah.
Hillel Levin on August 30, 2010 at 5:23 am (Reply)
Dr Jim Baltaxe on August 29, 2010 07:17 pm said:
"And these are the same self-rightous and self-appointed pseudo-tzaddickim who refuse to serve in the IDF and live off government social welfare. The hypocrisy is palpable and only serves to give comfort to those who would destroy the country from the outside; these guys are doing it from inside. Feh."

Facts are Dr, that the authors of this Sefer are part of the Religious community that provides about 40% of the officers in the IDF. To characterize that religious Jews do not participate in the civic efforts of Israel and are hypocritical is a mis-statement.

Comments are closed for this article.

Like us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Pin us on Pintrest!

Jewish Review of Books

Inheriting Abraham