On Thursday night, I went to the London School of Jewish Studies, the central education arm of mainstream orthodoxy in this country, to listen to three Orthodox Israeli educators, in London for a major conference. They were asked to reflect on Jewish and Democratic Values in a Time of War. The event was hosted by the New Israel Fund to whom I’m grateful.
One of the speakers was Charedi – ultra-orthodox, the others Daati Leumi – national Zionist.
It was illuminating and impressive in a way, impressive that it was hosted at LSJS, impressive that the conference and this fringe event are happening at all.
But the main reflection of the Haredi speaker was that we shouldn’t blame the Haredim for all the things Haredim are getting blamed for.
The main reflection of one of the Daati Leumi speakers was that there is a big evil – the existential threat against Israel - and a smaller evil – Israel’s errors in attempting to defend itself from that threat – and we shouldn’t lose focus on the big evil.
And then the other Daati Leumi speaker – Rav Moshe Lichtenstein, the grandson of Rav Joseph Soloveitchik no less - spoke about failures of self-accountability and leadership. I think his critique was that the current political leadership of Israel haven’t taken responsibility for the way in which the attacks of 7th October were allowed to wrek such havoc inside the borders of Israel, it wasn’t entirely clear. I’ll come back to that.
I went, because I’ll take opportunities to learn from Israelis whenever I can – that, I think, is one of the morals of the story of the tribes of Reuven and Gad in this week’s parasha – you can’t live outside the Land of Israel and not do more to acknowledge the very real challenges faced by those who in the most literal sense live or die by their decision to live in the Land of Israel.
But as I was heading there and heading back and reflecting on what to share this Shabbat from this pulpit, I felt it just wasn’t a good enough response to the question of what are Jewish values in this time of war.
Especially in a week where we read, probably, my least favourite Chapter in the Torah – Chapter 31 of the Book of Numbers.
There is plotting against Israel, deceitful, mendacious plotting with a view to our destruction in ways violent, sexually transgressive and also, to be a little anachronistic – in the world of social influence. Let’s imagine Bilaam the Midianite, is the social influencer par excellence of his generation, a deceitful, manipulative, money-grabbing purveyor of populism.
And there is a defeat of the Midianite plot by means of a strike-back, from Israel, of brutal force. I know the term is loaded, but the Israelite strike-back against the Midianites who attacked Israel is genocidal.
All the men are murdered - וַיַּֽהַרְג֖וּ כׇּל־זָכָֽר – and when Moses hears this,
וַיִּקְצֹ֣ף מֹשֶׁ֔ה עַ֖ל פְּקוּדֵ֣י הֶחָ֑יִל
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם מֹשֶׁ֑ה הַֽחִיִּיתֶ֖ם כׇּל־נְקֵבָֽה׃
Moses became angry with the military officers – and said to them, ‘you’ve let the women live’!?
And so some vast number of women are killed as well.
And the strike-back against Midian, recorded in Numbers 31 becomes a sort of template for the doctrine that seems part of Israel’s contemporary Jewish values in this time of war – the doctrine that if you come for us, we’ll come for you harder and if we don’t entirely wipe you out, we’ll leave you unable to come after us again.
And so, if you are looking to understand where Israel, the current Nation State, the one that has suffered such an egregious attack, grounds its morality in turning round to those outside the borders – who can never understand the reality of life inside the borders – and says to these people – how dare you criticise us.
And if you are looking to understand where Israel, the current Nation State, the one that has suffered such an egregious attack, gets its morality in conducting a strike-back against those who even associated by nationality with an egregious attack with brutal force –
You can find answers in this week’s Torah reading.
And what of the other point of view? - the point of view that finds no comfort in the Torah mandating the genocide of the Midianites.
Is this other view, frankly the view I hold, just some kind of wishy-washy liberalism that misses the central message of Judaism – you have to kill them before they kill you?
I think not.
I think the first thing to say about the genodical strike-back launched against the Midianites is that it doesn’t work, or at least it doesn’t work for very long. The Midianites pop up again in the Torah.
In Joshua Midian is back and subjugating Israel for seven years, stripping the Israelite harvests so people were forced to live in mountain caves. Gideon strikes back against the Midianites in that time, but then come other enemies who pop up, some more and some less frequently, some can be defeated militarily, and others can’t.
The destruction of the Temple in the Year 70CE – and we are in the midst of the Three Weeks – the anniversary of that defeat - if you read Josephus, has to do with a failure of the leadership of Israel to realise that pursuing a solely military response to the Romans was doomed to fail, and that the survival of Israel at all, was due to a more sophisticated, softer form of diplomacy – Yochanan Ben Zakai went to the leader of the Romans and negotiated a way for the people of Israel to survive.
Shaul Maggid wrote in a Substack, that, “The entire framework of what we call Judaism emerged in the wake of destruction [of the Temple in Jerusalem. That framework] was a set of values and an ethos that, while not pacifist, eschewed the state violence to which the Jews were victim, and developed a way of surviving catastrophe through living in a covenantal promise of divine protection through fidelity to Torah.”
It’s not that violence never has a place, but that we, as Jews, found ways to respond to the violent threat of those who hate us without always resorting or seeking to resort to overwhelming violence. Sometimes, the softer more diplomatic efforts worked for longer periods of times, sometimes shorter periods of time and sometimes they didn’t work at all. But then the same can be said of the effectiveness of the resort to overwhelming violence.
The point is that we developed sophisticated responses to even the most egregious enemies. Judaism didn’t develop as a faith predicated on the over-ridingly violent response to violence every time we experienced violence. In fact, by and large, we eschewed violent response to egregious actions, even when the Torah mandates otherwise.
There are a slew of deeply morally and ethically awful things that Torah attempts to solve with violence; stubborn and rebellious children, adulterous wives, cities of idolatry and the like, and time and time again Judaism evolved away from the primal, literal understanding of – if you do something awful, I will do something more awful back. Even the very sharpest articulation of a violent response to someone who wishes us harm – the Din Rodef, gets contained and limited and bound into a place where it is not allowed to motivate the violent response to the threat of violence.
Let do that a bit more carefully.
Din Rodef is drawn from a line in Exodus about discovering someone breaking into your house at nighttime. The rabbis make an assumption that a day-time thief thinks there’s no-one at home, they only want your property – you can’t kill them claiming the protection of this law of Rodef, but a night-time burglar thinks you are going to be in, and that means they need to be ready to deal with you – and so you should have the protection to hashken lehorgo.
But no sooner than the Rabbis articulate that idea, they are limiting it, placing equivocation on it, warning that it’s not a carte-blanche to avail ethical responsibility for unjustifiable violence. For there can be no carte-blanche to avoid ethical responsibility for unjustifiable violence. That is the central Jewish value even in, especially in, a time of war.
And then there’s the thing that Rav Lichtenstein said about accountability and leadership. It’s not enough, I think, to expect the leaders of Israel show accountability for the failures that resulted in the atrocities of October 7th – though goodness only knows, that would be a start.
I think the leaders of Israel should show accountability for the failure to seek and articulate anything other than hatred for Palestinians.
I follow a fascinating Chareidi Rav on Istagram – Rav Avraham Mordechai Gottlieb, a scion of The Ashlag. He recently shared this idea https://www.instagram.com/ravgotliv/
People, he suggested, are quick to hate the Rashanut – the wickedness in others, and quick to draw attention to the Tzidkaniyut – the righteousness in ourselves. But we have it backwards, he suggests. We should rush to love the Tzidkaniyut in others and hate the Rashanut in ourselves.
I think it’s a brilliant observation. We are so quick to point out others’ flaws that we don’t stop to consider ourselves as people containing – as all humans do, a balance of both righteousness and wickedness. And we don’t stop to consider even our enemies contain - as all humans do - a balance of righteousness and wickedness.
Violence might sometimes be justifiable. It might be necessary to strike back violently when we are attacked. But to justify the violence we need to do more than hate the wickedness in others. We need to hate the wickedness in ourselves, the wickedness that inflames a passion to strike back harder against anyone who strikes at us, that responds with an iota more brutality than is absolutely required.
And to show accountability for that wickedness in ourselves, we need to welcome accountability and scrutiny, and oversight. We can’t simultaneously justify our acts of violence and seek to shut down the scrutiny. If we do, we risk persuading ourselves that our acts of violence are justified when they might not be.
There’s a rabbinic tradition about anger and violence and the strike-back against the Midianites.
When soldiers come back to report they have slayed all the Midianite men
וַיִּקְצֹ֣ף מֹשֶׁ֔ה עַ֖ל פְּקוּדֵ֣י הֶחָ֑יִל
Moses was angry with the military officers
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם מֹשֶׁ֑ה הַֽחִיִּיתֶ֖ם כׇּל־נְקֵבָֽה׃
And he calls for the death of the women as well.
In the Torah, this passage is followed by a passage in which a rule about ritual purity is taught to the Children of Israel not by Moses, but by his nephew, Elazar.
And the Talmud, in Pesachim 66b[1] says Elazar is the one to pass on this teaching since Moshe just advocated for violence in anger – Moses’ anger resulted in the teaching being hidden from him
אִיעֲלַם מִינֵּיהּ.
Moshe lost the ability to be a holy leader because he advocated for violence in anger
“As Reish Lakish teaches כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁכּוֹעֵס חׇכְמָתוֹ [ונְבוּאָתוֹ]
מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ,
If a person loses their temper, even a wise person or a prophet, their wisdom and their prophetic insight depart from them.”
It’s easy to be angered when someone does something atrocious and people we love are hurt – but we cannot justify striking back in anger. We have to learn to sublimate that rising up of righteous indignation for our own righteousness, for it so, so rarely will be righteous.
That’s another Jewish value in a time of war.
The angry genocidal instruction to wipe out the Midianites isn’t left to stand as a model for our time. It can’t be a model of our time. Judaism has evolved away from allowing it to be a model for our time. There are other paths, challenging yes, requiring us to force back the rush of anger that rises in us, yes, requiring us to refuse to focus on hating our foes, even if our foes hate us, yes.
But so be it.
For the other option is to be locked into cycles of violence that go back to the time of the Midianites and still, God help us all, cycle through until today.
Shabbat Shalom
Posts
