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.

Is it permitted for a Jewish soldier to rape a gentile woman during wartime? This question – based on the biblical mitzvah of Eshet Yefat Toar (“a comely woman”) – was referred to nine years ago (Hebrew) by Rabbi Eyal Qarim. The questioning party seemed anxious and worried, and wanted to know whether the iron-age mitzvah (religious deed) is applicable to IDF soldiers today.

UPDATE: Following comments doubting whether rape was the issue of the Rabbi’s answer, I post here the question that he was asked:

Is it allowed in our days [sic] for an IDF soldier, for example, to rape girls during a fight, or is such a thing forbidden?

Rabbi Qarim answered thus:

“The wars of Israel […] are mitzvah wars, in which they differ from the rest of the wars the nations wage among themselves. Since, essentially, a war is not an individual matter, but rather nations wage war as a whole, there are cases in which the personality of the individual is “erased” for the benefit of the whole. And vice versa: sometimes you risk a large unit for the saving of an individual, when it is essential for purposes of morale. One of the important and critical values during war is maintaining the army’s fighting ability […]

As in war the prohibition against risking your life is broken for the benefit of others, so are the prohibitions against immorality and of kashrut. Wine touched by gentiles, consumption of which is prohibited in peacetime, is allowed at war, to maintain the good spirit of the warriors. Consumption of prohibited foods is permitted at war (and some say, even when kosher food is available), to maintain the fitness of the warriors, even though they are prohibited during peacetime. Just so, war removes some of the prohibitions on sexual relations (gilui arayot in the original – YZG), and even though fraternizing with a gentile woman is a very serious matter, it was permitted during wartime (under the specific terms) out of understanding for the hardship endured by the warriors. And since the success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge (yetzer ha’ra in the original  -YZG), under the conditions mentioned, for the purpose of the success of the whole.”

Wow. Herein lies a hornet’s nest. The first is that according to Qarim, the rape of female prisoners is not just permitted, it is also essential to war; the success of the whole at war relies on it. Even Genghis Khan, who (according to tradition) said that the best thing in the world is “to crush your enemies, to see them fall at your feet — to take their horses and goods and hear the lamentation of their women. That is best” – even he, who excelled at rape, did not see it as essential to warfare, just a satisfactory outcome. Stalin, likewise, dismissed complaints about rapes carried out massively by the Red Army by saying “a soldier has urges,” but he did not see it as an essential element of military life.

Qarim came up with a new military doctrine, which replaces Napoleon’s: an army marches on its phallus. According to this logic, perhaps the IDF should appoint to each unit not just a supply officer, but also a Comely Woman Officer (CWO), to make certain no soldier is left unsatisfied.

Another problem is that Qarim invokes here the usual apologetics of those who speak of “Jewish morality”: he claims war is a conflict between nations, not individuals, and that the individual has no importance at war. The raped woman is not a woman, is not a person, has no feelings and if she feels pain it is unimportant: she is not a woman or a person, just an individual of an enemy tribe whose misfortune was to be captured. Furthermore, Qarim says that rape during wartime is immoral if carried out by a rival tribe – but all Jewish wars are, by definition, mitzvah wars. If the rape of the defenseless is part and parcel of “Jewish morality,” it’s not hard to reach the conclusion it is inferior to all modern morality systems. It is also worth noting (Hebrew) that “Jewish morality” is a by-product of German blood and iron romanticism.

Yet a third problem is that, essentially, Qarim says there is nothing which may be prohibited in war, if it is done “for the success of the whole.” We know that the killing of armed combatants is permitted (this is, after all, the essence of war), and we now learn that, for His Blessed Name, the rape of women is also permitted. Then we must ask ourselves whether it is also permitted, for the sake of victory, to also kill unarmed people. Children, for instance, who we have good reason to think may seek one day vengeance for the death of their fathers and brothers and the torturing of their mothers and sisters. The notorious book “Torat Ha’Melekh” answered in the affirmative; it would be interesting to know what Qarim thinks, and whether there is anything he thinks a Jewish soldier ought not to do for victory.

But the real problem here is that Eyal Qarim is an IDF colonel (Aluf Mishneh), and is a senior officer in the Military Rabbinate, i.e. is in a senior position in the IDF religious edicts apparatus. I’ve sent the following questions to the IDF Spokesman:

1. Is the rape of women during wartime agreeable to the IDF Ethics Code?
2. If not, why does a prominent military rabbi promote it?
3. If not, does the IDF intend to end the service of Col. Qarim, or bring charges against him?
4. How does the IDF Spokesman intend to deal with the anticipated damage to its image in the international arena, resulting from Col. Qarim’s ruling?

Frankly, I did not expect an answer, but surprisingly enough an enraged officer from IDF Spokesman New Media Unit called me. His official response was that Qarim was not an officer in active service when he wrote that ruling, and furthermore that my question “disrespects the IDF, the State of Israel and the Jewish religion,” and hence his unit will no longer answer my questions.

I told him that, as an Israeli citizen, I considered Col. Qarim to be a ticking time bomb, which will blow up in the IDF’s face should a soldier rape an enemy woman: it would automatically be seen as official policy. I told him this happened in the past. He vehemently denied it, and wouldn’t listen.

I think that the fact that Qarim was on hiatus at the time – earlier he was the religious officer of a crack unit, Sayeret Matkal (commando unit) – is unimportant. What is important is that the Military Rabbinate chose to re-call an officer who wrote such a ruling to active service. Qarim was briefly considered a candidate for the position of the Chief Military Rabbi. This is the face of the IDF in 2012, and this is the face of the rabbis it chooses to employ. There are certainly more humane rabbis than Qarim; yet somehow these are not the rabbis who are promoted.

The Military Rabbinate recently distributed a presentation ahead of Hanukka to soldiers, which contained a picture of the Wailing Wall square all wrapped in holy light. Yet, lo and behold, the picture is bereft of any signs of the mosques on Temple Mount. When Haaretz went knocking (Hebrew; pay attention to the photo), the IDF Spokesman replied as follows:

The questions of the reporter are ridiculous and biased, for which we are sorry. This is a presentation sent to IDF Spokesman on the occasion of Hanukka. The aforementioned slide shows an illustration image of the Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period. As the reporter was informed, the Dome of the Rock did not exist at the time. Hence there was no need for it to appear in the picture.

You don’t say.

I don’t know how to put it to the IDF Spokesman, who was probably not all that awake during history classes, but during the Second Temple period there was a rather dominant building on Temple Mount which somehow fails to appear in this “illustration picture.” A hint: Its name contained the words “Second” and “Temple.”

An eagle-eyed reader, Sapir Peleg, noticed this is actually a photoshopped picture of the Waling Wall square as it is today, which fogged out the Dome of the Rock, a major Islamic holy site. An “illustration of Second Temple Jerusalem,” my foot. You can see the full-sized comparison here.

The image used by the IDF. Note erasure marks near the arrow. (Photo: Peleg Sapir)

It’s also worth mentioning that the IDF further claimed that the goal was “an illustration of the days of the Maccabees.” Alas, there was no wailing wall during that time; it was built by the Hasmoneans’ nemesis, Herod. Furthermore, even during the late Temple period, between the building of Herod’s temple (about 4 BC) and its destruction (70 AD), nobody paid it any attention. It only became important after the destruction of the Temple, as its sole relic. I am also told by military historians that the current Israeli flag wasn’t in common use at the time, yet it appears in the lower lefthand corner of the IDF Spokesman’s “illustration picture.”

So, what do we have here? Aside from the exposure of the Rabbinates’ secret wish for the eradication of the Dome of the Rock – no real surprise here – we see how the IDF Spokesman first response to any criticism is a lie. Even if the lie is clearly idiotic, even if the lie forces the Spokesman to deepen the hole it is already in. In a normal country, a spokesman – particularly one employed by the public – caught in such a colossal gaffe would be sent home. I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Update: The doctored photo was created by Michael Levit, and, as the JTA found out several years ago, was used for a short while by Christians United for Israel (CUFI), John Hagee’s outfit. Interesting, how the mind of Jewish and Christian fundamentalists work.