An Mora Constrts

Yitzchak Blau Rabbi Blau is a Ram at Yeshivat Hamivtar in Efrat, IsraeL. PLOUGHSHAS INTO SWORDS: CONTEMPORA RELIGIOUS ZIONISTS AN MORA CONSTRTS AUTHOR'S NOTE: When Jewish communities are threatened, we rightfully incline towards communal unity and are reluctant to engage in internal criti- cism. In the wake of recent events in Israel, some of which I have witnessed firsthand, one might question the appropriateness of publishing this article. Nevertheless, the article remains timely. It attempts to correct a perceived misrepresentation of yahadut, irrespective of political issues, and such a step is always relevant. Furthermore, the decision to delay our own moral ques- tioning during difficult times could lead in modern Israel to a de facto decision never to raise such questions. Finally and most significantly, times of heightened anger, frustration and fear can cause cracks in the moral order to widen into chasms. I hope the reader will agree that the issues analyzed in the article remain very much worthy of discussion. The article does not advocate a particular political approach. While readers of a dovish inclination will no doubt find the article more congenial, it is the more right wing readers who truly stand to benefit from the discussion. It is precisely the militant excesses of the dati le)ummi world that enable and lead others to ignore their legitimate criticisms. The ability to combine a more right wing political view with a more moderate expression of Judaism would be both a kiddush hashem and more successful politically as well. "In ths situation of war for the land of our life and our eternal free- dom, the perfected form of our renewal appears: not just as the People of the Book-the galuti description given us by the genties- but rather as God's nation, the holy nation, possessors of the Divine Torah implanted therein, for whom the Book and the Sword descended intertwned from the heavens . the men of the Sword cannot be detached and exempt from the Book, which is the strengt of our lives and the lengt of our days, and the People of the Book canot be detached and exempt from the Sword, when it (the Sword) is enjoined by ths holy source of life itself"l (R. Zvi Yèhuda ¡(ook) TRAITION34:4 / (f 2000 39 Rabbinical Council of America TRADITION shift in the thinking of sections of the religious community in The wordsthe wake above, of thedelivered formation in aof 1948 a Jewish speech, state. herald The designation a paradigm of the Jews as "the People of the Book," is no longer our primary source of pride and becomes but an incomplete portrayal of Jewish ideals. The Sword, frequently looked down upon as the instrument of violence and death, becomes a crucial supplement to the Book. Jews must take Book and Sword in hand in their quest to achieve renewaL. R. Zvi Yehuda took the image of Sword and Book descending together from Sifei (Devarim 11: 13) and transformed the image from its original midrashic usage. In the midrash, God does not give man both as instruments for human use. Rather, God says that if we do not keep what is written in the Book, we will be punished by the Sword. The need to read the midrash as advocating humans taking up the Sword stems from the novel reality presented to Jews in the twentieth century. The formation of the State of Israel posed fresh challenges to religious Jewry in both thehalakhic and aggadic spheres. The first organ- ized Jewish army in almost two milennia turned our attention back to the Rambam's hilkhot melakhim: long neglected laws applied to present- day warfare. The existence of a Jewish army also inspired a search for midrashim about the saints who excel in both the bet midrash and on the battlefield. As the State's hostile neighbors made maintaining a strong army a necessity, it became imperative to show that valor in bat- tle did not contradict the ideal image of the pious Jew. Tanakh helpfully provided many examples of righteous forefathers who also successfully took Sword in hand. The renewal of Jewish autonomy in a geographical area also popu- lated by other nationalities created its own halakhic and aggadic issues. Halakhot pertaining to a Jewish court system, anon - Jewish minority in Israel and other thorny problems received extensive attention. On an aggadic level, the desire to find the appropriate context within which to thank God for the gift of the State led to a search for midrashim about the significance of Jewish self-rule and of living in the Holy Land. Of course, the phenomenon described above reflects the enduring and dynamic nature of halakha and aggada. The Jewish tradition pro- vides enough material for guidance through all legal and philosophical problems that arise in the vicissitudes of time. However, the excitement and enthusiasm generated by a new situation can create dangers as welL. Values that receive renewed emphasis can move beyond legitimate expression to the point where other necessary balancing values are 40 Yîtzchak Blau ignored. An overemphasis on miltary valor can lead to an idealization of war and a de-legitimization of the striving for peace. A constant focus on Jewish sovereignty can erode important moral constraints about ruling over other populations. Significant segments of the current dati le)ummi community suffer greatly from this lack of balance.2 A number of writers have pointed out some of the extreme and dangerous excesses in contemporary Religious Zionist circles.3 We need not list them here because most readers wil not need convincing that rabbinic statements downplaying the severity of killing non-Jews or praising acts of terrorism committed by Jews are extremely problematic. Indeed, most dati le)ummi thinkers reject these positions.4 There is, however, a more subtle danger in the shift to idealize the Sword. The search to create a midrash, as it were, about the para- mount significance of Jewish autonomy and Jewish army heroics, I fear, has led to a worrying imbalance in some Religious Zionist circles. In these circles, there is an attempt to quiet all moral qualms in pursu- ing the Religious Zionist go.al. The following pages ilustrate this spirit. The published writings of some prominent community rabbis, heads of yeshivot hesder and Havrei I(enesset from the world of Religious Zionism join together to create a distortion of emphasis regarding the roles of war and peace, the rela- tionship between Jew and gentile and the place of morality in the halakhic system. While some of the quotes taken in isolation would prove quite harmless, it is in the cumulative effect of these voices on the community that the danger lies. With a couple of exceptions, I wil limit my citations to fairly well known names in the dati le)ummi world. This will demonstrate the prominent role these ideas play in the sociological group under discussion.5 At the same time, we must be wary of painting an entire community with the same brush. The term Religious Zionist incorporates a mul- titude of different views and a perusal of the literature reveals writers from either side of the political spectrum whose writings are free of the faults mentioned above. Furthermore, not all of the people criticized in this paper deserve identical treatment. R. Dov Lior and R. Shlomo Aviner certainly write about peace with different voices. However, despite the diversity among Religious Zionists, this paper argues that the problems are widespread enough to cause concern. We shall look at three problematic aspects in these writers employ- ment of traditional sources. First, though different times call for different emphases, there must be some limit on one-sided portrayal of a 41 TRADITION given issue. If a writer constantly cites one theme, and totally ignores a balancing theme prominently featured in Jewish sources, his or her writing approaches distortion. Second, these writers often cite a source reflecting a theme clearly opposed to their own viewpoint in order to reread that source as a support for their outlook. This paper argues that these new interpretations consist of strained attempts to change the obvious meaning of a text. Finally, even when a specific interpretation is justifiable, we should be concerned about the moral effect that focusing on certain themes might have on our community. We shall return to these three problems towards the end of the paper. WAR6 Judaism clearly rejects the extreme pacifism of a Gandhi, as the halakha includes the categories of both a mandated war and a permissible war. However, the halakha also insures that no capricious wars are fought by requiring a Jewish government considering a permissible war to receive first the approval of the Sanhedrin and possibly the Urim ve- Tumim as well.? R Moshe Feinstein extends the need for Divine sanction to the mandated war and thus concludes that the only halakhically legitimate war today is a war of self-defense. 8 Furthermore, admitting the need for war need not conflict with maintaining distaste for military endeavor. A number of classical sources indicate a Jewish revulsion toward war and its implements. The Sages refused to let people walk outside on shabbat wearing their weapons as "they are nothing but a disgrace." (Shabbat 63a).9 Rashi and Ramban explain that the prohibition of employing hewn stones for the altar reflects our recoil from associating the house of God with the violent Sword needed to cut the stones.10 According to the account in Divrei ha- Yamim (I 22:8), David could not build the temple due to the blood he spiled in his many battles.

Load more