Thursday, December 10, 2009

Sacred And Secular, Again

The justice minister, Yaacov Neeman, caused a wave of criticism (with international ripples) this week, when he told a Jewish law convention in Jerusalem--and in the presence of many approving rabbis and rabbinical judges--that the Torah embodies "a complete solution to all the things we are dealing with," and that "step by step, we will bestow religious law upon the citizens of Israel and transform religious law into the binding law of the state." Many--including the opposition leader, Tzipi Livni--immediately bridled. Was this not promising to replace the secular state with a theocracy? Were we really going to run a modern country with a legal system ( if that's the word for it) evolved in the iron age?

The next day, Neeman clarified his remarks, which were meant to be practical, he insisted. "It is difficult for me to accept the things that were attributed to me, as though I had said that the laws of this country should be replaced with Torah laws. Yesterday I emphasized the importance of the rabbinical court system to the State of Israel. The Knesset is the legislator in Israel, and the interpretation of its laws is determined by the courts." Presumably, more and more civil matters should just be assigned to rabbinic courts.

ACTUALLY, THERE IS less here than meets the eye--less change, that is, not less danger. And Neeman's clarification, that he only meant that rabbinical courts take up more of the slack in Israeli civil life, is a jump from the frying pan into the fire. The problem is not adversion to Jewish sources per se. The problem is, precisely, the extension of rabbinical courts, whose judges have inched their way into greater and greater power since the state's founding, and now threaten the state's democratic foundations from within much as (and in alliance with) settlers from without.

Since the 1970s, you see, judges openly began to advert to biblical law, Talmudic precepts, the wisdom of the sages, and so forth, to deal with novel situations; what was called "residual law"--law for which there was no established precedent and which required new ethical interpretation. If judges struggling with a hard case could draw inspiration from, say, an opinion of Oliver Wendell Holmes, why could they not go back into Jewish sources to find an opinion? The result could be poignant, even "progressive," depending on the judge.

When, for example, the commission looking into Ariel Sharon's role in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, led by Chief Justice Yitzhak Kahan, called for Sharon's resignation, they did so based on a more or less novel legal precept, "indirect responsibility." They based this in turn on biblical and Talmudic sources, and (especially on this day of the Nobel Peace Prize) their reasoning should be quoted at length, just to get a sense of how impressive Jewish sources can be in dealing with a complex diplomatic and criminal matter:

A basis for such responsibility may be found in the outlook of our ancestors, which was expressed in things that were said about the moral significance of the biblical portion concerning the "beheaded heifer" (in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 21). It is said in Deuteronomy (21:6-7) that the elders of the city who were near the slain victim who has been found (and it is not known who struck him down) "will wash their hands over the beheaded heifer in the valley and reply: our hands did not shed this blood and our eyes did not see." Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says of this verse (Talmud, Tractate Sota 38b):

"The necessity for the heifer whose neck is to be broken only arises on account of the niggardliness of spirit, as it is said, 'Our hands have not shed this blood.' But can it enter our minds that the elders of a Court of Justice are shedders of blood! The meaning is, [the man found dead] did not come to us for help and we dismissed him, we did not see him and let him go - i.e., he did not come to us for help and we dismissed him without supplying him with food, we did not see him and let him go without escort." (Rashi explains that escort means a group that would accompany them; Sforno, a commentator from a later period, says in his commentary on Deuteronomy, "that there should not be spectators at the place, for if there were spectators there, they would protest and speak out.')

THE POINT IS, it was not the source of the precept that made it fit for a democracy. It was the judge. Kahan was born in Galicia, and had studied the law before immigrating to Israel in 1935. He knew very well the "indirect responsibility" of others during the Holocaust. He was a man devoted to "equal protection" and (let's call it) the Kantian idea that Jews had the responsibility to live by laws that might be applicable to all human beings. You had to ask, what if everybody did that? (Actually, this was Hillel's idea, too.)

Compare Kahan's marvelously humane stance to that of Rabbi Shmuel Avner, who heads the Ateret Cohanim yeshiva in the Muslim quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem, and whose works (among others) were distributed to troops before last year's Gaza operation: "When you show mercy to a cruel enemy," Avner said, "you are being cruel to pure and honest soldiers. This is terribly immoral. These are not games at the amusement park where sportsmanship teaches one to make concessions. This is a war on murderers. 'A la guerre comme a la guerre.'"

And what is a cruel enemy? Does it include a whole nation, including women and children?

[There is] a biblical ban [Avner writes] on surrendering a single millimeter of it [the Land of Israel] to gentiles, though all sorts of impure distortions and foolishness of autonomy, enclaves and other national weaknesses. We will not abandon it to the hands of another nation, not a finger, not a nail of it...Is it possible to compare today's Palestinians to the Philistines of the past? And if so, is it possible to apply lessons today from the military tactics of Samson and David?

The Torah, Neeman said (echoing Rabbi Kook), is "complete." Let's agree that it is a great chronicle, complete the way great fiction is true. The Talmud, correspondingly, is a record of opinions and interpretations of Torah. The question is, as it always is, who is looking for what? Would Zionism itself have happened had young Jews in the Pale of Settlement, feeling the enchantments of (what they called) "modernity," not gotten fed up with the opinions and interpretations of the ill-educated, bigoted, and sheltered men who dominated the shtetl? Should we now submit our disputes to our homegrown variety?

YAACOV NEEMAN, I hasten to add, is a far cry from Shmuel Avner. Neeman is an expert on tax law, and a founding partner with the late, former president, Haim Herzog, of Israel's largest international law firm, Herzog, Fox, Neeman. As the finance minister in the late 1990s, he helped shape Israel's global profile. (I have taught a member of Yaacov Neeman's family, and based on her brilliance and decency alone, I cannot doubt his good faith.)

No, Neeman's tragic flaw is not fanaticism. It is a kind of complacency in the face of status quo agreements with the orthodox "rabbinical court system." As I've written in The Hebrew Republic, and as the indispensable Gideon Levy puts it in his column today, Israel is already not a secular state in the sense anyone in the West would recognize.
The truly terrifying idea is not greater influence for Jewish law, but greater influence for rabbinic courts, which anyway have no place as an official arm of a democratic state. Let Neeman study Torah to his heart's content; let him find inspiration where he can. Just don't tell us that going to some yeshiva in Jerusalem prepares one even for an internship at Herzog, Fox, Neeman, let alone judging the disputes of modern citizens.

“I have never feared really religious people,” Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first president and Zionism’s first great statesman, wrote in his 1940s memoir; “it is the new secularized type of Rabbi, resembling somewhat a member of a clerical party in Germany, France, or Belgium, who is the menace, and who will make a heavy bid for power by parading his religious convictions. It is useless to point out to such people that they transgress a fundamental principle which has been laid down by our sages, ‘Thou shalt not make of the Torah a crown to glory in, or a spade to dig with.’”


Dana said...

One problem with the 'sage" biblical story: I can't get past the brutal image of the beheaded heifer, the broken neck and the blood. I end up caring nothing about the "men" in the story (always men, hardly a woman in sight) and instead, wondering about the absolutely brutal history of the human race, which the bible documents amply. As long as they treated animals so brutally, to the point of conducting bloody sacrifices day and night, I see their collected "wisdom" as highly compromised, certainly not one for modern times. That not to even mention how badly these israelites of old treated one another - and the many around them.

The bible - in its full bloody gore is marginally suitable for young people to even read, much less study for 12 years, as they do in Israel. It should have been x rated long ago. a country that insists on imbuing its young with an antiquated document that's often more inciteful than insightful. should not be surprised it ends up as it does - with a country full of self righteous bigots with nary an ounce of compassion for others not of their presumed ethnic heritage". There are way too many people - jews and non jews - who, in this day and age, still revel in the self-righteous fury of a god portrayed more as spoiled child having temper tantrums for not receiving unquestioning obedience.

And I am not even mentioning that inhumane practice known as kosher slaughter "shkhita". people who eat meat acquired by such disgusting, blood curdling methods are obviously capable of putting much beyond considerations of conscioussness or true compassion. I became a vegetarian in Israel when I first learnt of the gory details of this archaic practice.

I find zero enlightenment in the story told here by Avishai, other than that it's OK to kill an innocent animal in an extremely painful manner - to 'teach a moral lesson" to stupid humans. I would tell this story with considerable embarrassment, rather than pride. The story could just as well have been told without the bloody mindedness, and many cultures have similar lessons but without the brutish imagery.

Better find another one, Avishai, to make the point. This one is not suited for modern sensibilities.

Bernard Avishai said...

Interesting, Dana. But if you read this again, you'll see that the Talmud sages are rejecting the shedding of blood as well; but are taking out of the story what they need to establish the principle of responsibility. Its is the same with an "eye for an eye," for example, which in context obviously means to establish proportionality. My point is that anything from the Iron Age is going to be useful only if we draw out the moral intention; but this requires us to already have a broadly erudite moral imagination. The sages had been an advance over the writers of the Torah. I dare say the average student of Kant (vegetarian or not) will be an advance over the average sage.

Dana said...

Thanks for your considered reply. I followed your advise and re-read the Talmudic comment and based on what you quoted, it does indeed seem the sages did not exactly approve of the need to shed additional blood to divert attention from the sin of wanton disregard for life. Rather they appear to be saying that one can't simply wash away blood with more blood, so there must have been some sensitivity on their part to the killing of the heifer, ie, it was the depravity of their spirit that made it necessary in the first place. Though the need for excessive brutality itself is never explained - either in the original, nor in commentary - and I would have thought that this aspect deserved more attention - not just in this case. I would have argued (had I been a sage, which I am not) that the cruelty of this particular animal sacrifice further compounded the guilt-by-association of the city elders. So blood was added rather than subtracted - and in greater measure because of the dimension of cruelty. But I realize I am being unfair - coming from a modern perspective, which holds animals in higher esteem than in ancient times. Which further than even Kant ever sought to go. Or Hillel.

I also take your point that Kahan had enough moral sense to draw the lesson he needed. But I would argue that his consultation with the earlier sages may have deflected his judgement from the facts of sharon's true guilt: in truth, the evidence clearly points that he was more of an accessory to the crime, than one merely bearing "indirect responsibility". Had he (and his generals) been found guilty of the former (call it the "let-it-just-happen" scenario) there would have been far greater ramifications - both moral and legal - than mere call for resignation. It would have been better had kahan consulted Macbeth regarding the washing of blood that can never be washed away than the sages, who, after all, could ill imagine the depth of the depravities to which [some] jews can sink. The sages were way too innocent to be able to offer insights for modern israel, in which rabbis like avner walk free to preach their corrupting creed - resorting to an iron age documet (the bible) if the talmud fails to provide sufficiently bloody minded advise.

The outcome of this missed opportunity to offer real justice is there for all to see, years later. Since repentance was never offered by Sharon and generals (not really), and proper sentence was never passed, sharon was eventually elected to an even higher office, and we ended up with the Intifada and Gaza - where cruelty and wanton blood shedding goes unabated to this day. And it is in that which the niggardly-spirited people of Israel are all "indirectly responsible". Which is why I can no longer talk to my close relatives there. Now, at least I can just think of that poor heifer whenever i reach for the fail to pick up the phone.

As an aside - the problem of teaching the bible to young children - especially in the secular system where little or no worthy commentary is offered - is that there are always those who have way too much imagination, or empathy. left a really bad taste as you may surmise which decades later still has not gone away.

Potter said...

Students of Torah and Talmud take joy in asking and answering questions, but it has seemed to me this is not an unencumbered personal searching but more of a straining to figure out how to use those ancient writings to support answers that are going to be already acceptable, approved, foreordained by a community with a certain worldview. This is what to really fear. This distorts, abuses, that mandated as sacred or holy with either the purpose of or the end result being promotion of a tyranny.

To ‘Thou shalt not make of the Torah a crown to glory in, or a spade to dig with ” add “nor an idol of worship”.

Useful or a deflection/distortion- depends on the user. And I agree Dana Shakespeare may be of more actual assistance.

I agree with Dana also about the missed opportunities to show real justice at work---now with regard to Gaza and the total rejection of the Goldstone Report.

ibrahim said...

Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat

zhengchang012 said...

The exact replica watches Grandeur style, features rubber straps and is some cases a chrono feature which makes it ideal as a watch to be used in sporting events. All of these designs have unique features and functions. Whatever style you are looking for, you should be able to find it with one of these watches.

ekle paylas said...

nice blog Thanks for sharing. voicesohbet was really very nice.
sesli chat siteleri sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslichat seslisohbet
sesli siteleri chat siteleri
sohbet siteleri sesli siteler
voice sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli sohbet seslisohbet
sohbet siteleri sesli chat siteleri
seslichat sesli chat
herkesburda herkes burda
sohbetmerkezi sohbetmerkezi