My post dealing with Rabbi Colonel Eyal Qarim and his implied justification of rape during wartime received a large number of shocked and enraged comments, and for a simple reason. Most Jews living today – in Israel and in the diaspora – are unfamiliar with Jewish texts. It’s understandable: they are written in an archaic and often unintelligible language, and require command of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and enough knowledge of the Bible to allow you to speedily identify quotations that were perfectly understood by the ancient writers but are basically terra incognita to the modern reader. This is not a coincidence: like the medieval clergy, the rabbis did not want their texts to be available for everyone. Control over jargon also grants you some measure of power.

Judaism was never properly secularized, i.e. its holy texts and holy men did not get the treatment that organized religion got in Western Europe, which was a thorough evisceration and public mocking. Those texts were written mostly in a barbaric period by ignorant people, fuelled by the hatred of mankind which is endemic to certain strands of rabbinical Judaism. As a result, some of those texts are truly monstrous, and no one wants to believe that part of one’s cultural heritage, even if he has never cracked open the books, is a living abominations.

“A Comely Woman” is a case in point. A large number of the English readers refused to believe that the question referred to Qarim actually dealt with rape; yet it did. As can be seen in the original (Hebrew), the word “rape” (אונס) appears four times in the text. Naturally, Qarim – being a rabbi – preferred to avoid the term, and used “fraternization” instead; however, the word was in the original.

Many of the comments automatically retreated to the classic Orthodox theodicy: this isn’t rape, but taking the captive into the warrior’s house, and in any case it’s a humanistic law for its time. Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that, for the Iron Age, this is the case. But Qarim replied to a question which explicitly asked whether this law is applicable to IDF soldiers today.

This theodicy is, as usual, evasion and lies. Here is how Maimonides – the so-called greatest Jewish sage, who lived in the 12th century – described the process (Hebrew): “And so he may have intercourse with a gentile woman, if the urge seizes him. But he should not have intercourse and abandon her, but he should put her into his house […] and he may not have intercourse with her a second time, until he marries her.” My emphasis. So, we have a first rape – you can’t seriously speak of consent here – which may be followed by a second one.

Maimonides further writes that “a Cohen is permitted to have intercourse the first time, since the Torah spoke about against the urge; but may not marry her afterwards, since she is a convert.” My emphasis. That is, a Cohen – a member of the ancient order of priesthood – may rape a prisoner, but not marry her, since he is supposed to keep himself especially pure. His purity is not imperiled by the rape, but rather by the marriage, since it is a Halachic precept that all gentile women are prostitutes.

The whole chapter is worth reading, assuming you read Hebrew or can get your hands on a reliable translation. Chapter 11 is of particular interest: “A comely woman who was unwilling to abandon paganism after 12 months, is to be killed.” It is highly pertinent that Qarim’s questioner is familiar with the law, and is shocked by it: “Therefore, rape during war is considered a shocking thing. How, then, could I be told by a rabbi that some of the rabbis say that a comely women is [permitted to have sex with] even before the whole process detailed in the Torah? That is, that he will surrender to his urges and bed her, and only afterwards take her to his house etc.?”

Such things are incomprehensible today, and hence honest men either agonize over them or try to repress them. Yet another monstrous ruling by Maimonides says (Hebrew) “but an Israelite who has intercourse with a gentile woman, be she of three years and one day of age or an adult, unmarried or married, even if he [the Jew – YZG] was just nine years and one day, since he had intercourse with a gentile with malice aforethought, she is to be killed; since she caused Israel trouble, as if she was a beast of burden.” My emphasis. This text is a favorite of mine, since it shows the monstrosity of some Jewish laws in the starkest light possible. Yet people refused to believe it. They claim I either made it up or mangled the text. And the real problem is the Talmud, which is so dense with abominations, that when it is now being translated into Arabic, experts complain this is “part and parcel of the expansion of anti-Semitism into the Arab world.”

The relative honest people repress this; they cannot contain the horror. There are, on the other hands, those who are less honest – and the Orthodox are prominent among them. They have to defend their belief system, after all.

Two days ago, shortly after posting the original post, I received a phone call from someone who claimed to be employed by the Military Rabbinate. He sent me a text, which he said was written on behalf of Col. Qarim. I told him since I had no way of verifying this is indeed the case, I can’t publish it; I asked for official, on-the-record confirmation that it was indeed written either by Qarim or his aides. Soon afterwards, I was contacted by someone who presented himself a senior officer in Qarim’s office, and I repeated that I am willing to publish it – if it is on record and if they give me proof that they are indeed acting on Qarim’s behalf; the correct military stamp would do.

About two hours later, I was informed that the much of the text sent to me was published in the same religious site which published the original ruling nine years ago, under the headline “a leftist provocation tries to claim rape in wartime is justified by Jewish law” (Hebrew). Later yesterday, Qarim published – under his own name – an official “clarification.” (Hebrew) It claims that he was “quoted out of context.” This is not true: Qarim was explicitly asked about rape, and he answered in the affirmative.

Now, when the media is breathing down his neck. Qarim says the following:

It is obvious that the Torah never permitted raping a woman. The Comely Woman ruling is intended to make the soldier retract his intention of marrying the prisoner, by a series of actions which diminish her beauty and put the emphasis on her personality and grief. If, by the end of the process, he still wishes to marry her, he is obligated to do so by the usual legal manner.

In addition, the whole essence of the ruling was to soften the situation in the barbaric world of the time, when a soldier might have done what he wished with a captive, and the goal of the ruling is to prevent the soldier from taking the captive as wife during the storm of battle. It is clear that in our times, when the world has progressed to a level of morality when captives are not taken as wives, this ruling is certainly not to be acted on, particularly as it is completely contrary to the ethics and the orders of the military.

None of which appeared in Qarim’s original ruling. Qarim also keeps avoiding the fact that the Comely Woman law allows a first rape before the whole process of grief begins. He also refuses to acknowledge that he was answering a question about rape in modern wartime. In short, Qarim decided he preferred being seen publicly as a bumbler than as an inciter to war crimes. This is probably the result of some not-so-gentle pressure from the IDF. It is also worth noting that Qarim implicitly admits that the Western rules of war are superior to those of Jewish law. That’s not something you hear every day from an Orthodox rabbi. Perhaps one day Qarim will realize there is no such thing as “marrying a captive” that isn’t rape.

In an op-ed published yesterday by Rabbi Donniel Hartman, we learn that killing “known terrorist leaders” who have “blood on their hands,” and who have expressed a desire to continue their killing, is not only permitted under Jewish law, is not only commanded as a form of self-defense, but should be praised as an act of tikkun olam, of repairing the world.

Before I criticize this position, I would like to go on record that I know Rabbi Hartman, and I admire his leadership of the Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, where I have been invited annually to be part of  a “philosophers’ group.” So I am glad that his op-ed gives me the opportunity to commend his work, as well as to disagree vehemently with his position. Our dispute is “for the sake of heaven.” I also want to acknowledge that the point of the op-ed was actually to restrain the natural feelings of hatred and demonization for the other that people feel when under attack.

Let me start by saying that, contrary to what Rabbi Hartman writes,  the morality of extra-judicial killings is highly debated and not at all clear. On just war theory, as I wrote below, a pre-emptive strike against an enemy is permissible only when a) the enemy’s attack is imminent; b) the response is proportionate to the threat, and c) no other recourse is possible. I mention, as an aside, that it is possible to find parallels for these three conditions in the Jewish law of self-defense. In initially justifying Israel’s decision to assassinate Zuhir al-Qaisi, Rabbi Hartman assumes that all these conditions obtained. This in itself is a good sign. (Note that American’s assassination of Osama Bin Laden was not justified through an appeal to knowledge of an imminent attack he was planning. So if an attack wasn’t imminent, Rabbi Hartman could not consistently approve even Osama bin Laden’s assassination.) By declaring the necessity of the “imminence” requirement Rabbi Hartman distances himself from many of his fellow Israelis, to judge from the press reports.

But later on in the op-ed, Rabbi Hartman drops the “imminent attack” requirement.

Targeted killings of known terrorist leaders, those with blood on their hands and the self-expressed desire and capacity to spill more blood, are not morally ambiguous.

On the contrary, as is well known, there is a great deal of moral ambiguity here. Substitute, for example, “serial murderer” for “terrorist leaders.” Would Rabbi Hartman consider extra-judicial killings of such people “not morally ambiguous”? Remember, we are not talking about a ticking bomb, or somebody on the way to commit a heinous act, but rather somebody with the self-expressed desire and capacity to spill more blood. There are Israeli generals with blood on their hands who have the desire to bomb Gaza. Would Rabbi Hartman think it legitimate for Palestinian drones to take out those IDF generals?

Classical just war theory  may be wrong in assuming the equality of combatants. But it does. And if al-Qaisi is judged as a combatant, then he has the same rights, on just war theory, that an Israeli general has, with or without the uniform. There are many like Dick Cheney who claim that al-Qaisi doesn’t have the rights of a serial killer OR the rights of an SS army officer. But this claim is disputed, which makes his killing hardly “not morally ambiguous.”

But what is most disturbing to me – before I get to the ‘Jewish angle” – is the complete faith placed by Rabbi Hartman in the IDF army spokesman. After all, how does he know that al-Qaisi was preparing an imminent attack and that other recourses were not available? This is one of the problems of appealing to just war theory to provide you with moral cover. The slippery slope of moral righteousness is that it becomes self-righteousness: each side accepts the version of events prepared by its side as Torah min ha-shamayim, the word of God. One side’s legitimate army is another side’s terrorist gang, to paraphrase Michael Walzer. Where certain conventions have been observed by both sides – and in the case of Israel and Hamas, for example, cease-fires and conventions have held up over time, until one side (usually Israel) unilaterally breaks them – both sides assume the rights and responsibilities of legal combatants. Now it is true that al-Qaisi is not a member of Hamas, and so may not benefit from that consideration. But Rabbi Hartman seems to make his principle a universal one that would justify taking out all  legal enemies of Israel, from Ismail Haniyeh, to Nasrallah, to Ahmadinejad,

In short, Rabbi Hartman slides pretty quickly down the slippery slope that he himself cautions against – contra the dictates of international convention and just war morality.

So far I have been assuming a philosophy-class scenario in which killing a ticking-bomb ends the story. But it never ends the story. Is the assassination of al-Qaisi justified if it leads, inevitably, to the cycle of violence that we have seen? For consequentialists, at least, that is relevant to the morality of the issue. But if not to its morality, then at least to its prudentiality, and to its supposed lack of moral ambiguity. When I read

I hate to see 20% of Israel living under the threat of missiles. I am pained by the fact that they must bear the brunt of our actions. I am thankful that the Iron Dome missile defense system is able to mitigate somewhat the price that is demanded of them.

I ask myself, “What of the 25 Palestinians who lost their lives because of the cycle of violence?” What of the humiliating nature of all targeted killings of a people held under the control of the occupier for over forty years? After all, only one side, the occupier, has the power and control over the other side. I know this matters to Rabbi Hartman, since I know the man. My fear is that he doesn’t mention in his op-ed the Palestinians killed because he knows that most of his audience don’t really care about them, and that his “moderate” message will be rejected as too “bleeding-heart liberal” if he mentions them.

As for the “Jewish angle” of tikkun olam and extrajudicial killings. Even had I agreed with his analysis, which I do not, I would have preferred that Rabbi Hartman appeal to the principle of wiping out the seed of Amalek, which Maimonides sees as wiping out evil. Seeing extrajudicial killings within the framework of tikkun olam is wrong for two reasons. First, the phrase nowadays is used by many liberal Jews to denote social action in the service of liberal causes, often outside the Jewish community. So these Jews cannot but be offended by extending it to morally controversial issues such as extra judicial killing.  Second, in its original intent in the Jewish code of law, the Mishnah, the phrase tikkun olam was used to justify new edicts that provide for harmonious social relations where existing rabbinic law failed to do so. States that engage in practices that violate conventions and norms such as the law of war do not repair society but rip it apart. They provide justification for other states, and non-state actors, to do the same. Such practices place a state outside of the olam, the “world” it is purporting to repair – and, lowers it to the status of an outlaw state, a rogue state, a terrorist-state.

Finally, I appreciate Rabbi Hartman’s desire to restrain the all-too-human impulse for revenge and destruction and demonization of the enemy that Israelis – like all peoples –feel when they are threatened. Rabbi Hartman is following in the footsteps of Aaron, “who loved peace and pursued peace” among Jews. But we should also remember that Aaron desired Jewish peace so much that he was willing to help the Jews forge the Golden Calf. In doing so, he channeled their destructive impulses into something less destructive and bought time until Moses could return.  But that well-intentioned move also led to their rejection of God’s messenger for the sake of an idol.

Related:
Rabbi Hartman: Targeted killings are Tikkun Olam

Jeremiah (Jerry) Haber is the nom de plume of an orthodox Jewish studies and philosophy professor, who divides his time between Israel and the US. This piece was originally published on Jerry’s blog, the Magnes Zionist. It is re-posted here with the author’s permission. 

Tonight marks the beginning of the Jewish holiday of Passover, commemorating the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. On this occasion, each Jew is expected to consider herself as having personally participated in this historical event; because if the exodus had not happened, Jews would still be slaves in Egypt. Therefore, this event has contributed to every Jew’s liberation in perpetuity.

Taken literally, this logic may seem flawed, considering that thousands of years have passed, and it is unlikely that history would have frozen in its tracks. As a metaphor, however, it points to a constitutive moment in the Jewish people’s history, when they were transformed from a group of slaves to a political collective of free people.

However, when you read the biblical book of Exodus, the bulk of the story describing the Israelites’ emergence from slavery to freedom is devoted to the ten plagues, the variety of disasters god inflicted on Egypt, in order to ensure the Jews’ liberation.

Except, this was not their purpose at all, and the bible makes this very clear. In the story, it is stated, no less than eight times, that God had “hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt”. This hardening caused the Pharaoh to refuse emancipation for the Israelites, leading in turn to more plagues.

Scholars of the bible have struggled with this element of the story. There is an explanation provided in the text: “I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might show these my signs before him”. Some interpreters have accepted this claim at face value. Maimonides offered a more creative explanation. According to him, Pharaoh’s sins were so heavy he was given the ultimate penalty: revoking his ability to repent.

None of these justifications gets at the heart of the matter. The fundamental problem is that God’s hardening of the Egyptian king’s heart makes the whole episode seem like Kabuki theatre on steroids. If the pharaoh is not allowed to repent, why go through with the charade of giving him an option? If the point is a display of divine power, why does one need to go through the pharaoh at all?

I would like to offer an alternative exegesis. The exodus, as mentioned above, is not just a liberation of Israelite individuals from slavery, it also marks the formation of a new political body. For the first time in history, Jews must create their own government as a nation. The most salient example they can draw on is their experience of the Egyptian state under pharaoh. It is an absolute, even totalitarian, monarchy, completely submissive to one man’s whims.

By hardening the king of Egypt’s heart, god is attempting to show the Israelites, on the cusp of forming their own political system, the dangers of an arrogant and centralized regime, in which power is exercised arbitrarily. A polity in which hardening the heart of one man, or even a few men, can bring disaster on the heads of the entire collective, is inherently flawed. Jews have suffered from this system for a very long time, but ultimately, it was bad for everyone. In a country where some can be enslaved, none can be truly free or prosperous.

The spectacle of the ten plagues was meant to teach this lesson to the Israelites, as they embarked on a journey to form a polity of their own. This is the meaning of remembering the exodus: each generation of Jews must regain its freedom by recalling the evils of Egypt, and making sure their own state does not go down the same path.

This post is dedicated to Lisa Goldman, who is spending this Passover in Egypt, chronicling the modern day liberation of a people from life under tyranny towards freedom