The Concept of Peace. Rabbi S. R. Hirsch argues that the Torah’s conception of peace is a far more profound and noble concept than mere passivity or absence of violence. It represents a positive state of pursuing a common and unselfish higher goal – specifically that of serving God. It follows that a society which is plagued by division and discrimination, where certain groups perceive that their voices, needs and aspirations are inadequately represented, can never be truly at ‘peace’. It can at best produce an illusory peace –a lack of violence generated by a tense and typically unstable compromise between conflicting rival interests rather than the positive harmonious peace that we pray regularly for God to bestow upon us.
Acts of Violence. Building upon the above definition of peace, it can be demonstrated that the uncritical conflation of the notions of peace and passivity may be naive and at times even dangerous. One conspicuous example of this was the vilification of Winston Churchill in the 1930s as a “warmonger” for his insistence that Britain should rearm in the face of a growing Nazi threat, while Neville Chamberlain was considered the “man of peace” when he sought to appease German aggression. Thus acts of violence performed in pursuit of a greater aim of true peace may be considered justifiable, or even – as in the case of Pinchas – be deserving of a ‘Covenant of Peace’.
Limitations on Violence. While Judaism is therefore not a pacifistic religion, biblical approval for violent actions and uprisings is extremely limited and qualified. We demonstrate how the zealotry displayed by Pinchas and Eliyahu was approved in times of extreme national emergencies such as the immorality at Shittim and the horrific lawlessness in the episode of the Concubine at Giveah. Nevertheless, such an approach and conduct was strongly condemned by God (and Rabbinic commentators) when adopted more broadly, particularly when it would lead to suffering of innocents (such as Eliyahu demanding that God bring a famine to punish the idolatrous Israelite kingdom).
Disavowal of Violence as an Ideal: Biblical recognition of the notion of a ‘Time for War’ should not be mistaken for a broader approval or idealisation of violence. While meekness and passivity in the face of evil can make one complicit in its perpetration, the acts of violence that one is forced to undertake in this context should themselves be regarded as a necessarily evil and certainly not celebrated or adopted as an appropriate way of life. We cite the writings of Netziv as to how even biblically approved occasions of violence were accompanied by blessings or covenants of peace for the perpetrators. Those engaged in acts of war, even where justified and necessary, are susceptible to becoming hardened and increasingly prone to commit future acts of violence.
Similarly, while the possession and use of deadly weaponry may sometimes be legitimate and even obligatory, the Torah is careful to distance ife-shortening swords from the altar of God and the hands of those who have spilt blood from the construction of his Mikdash. It is with this perspective that we anticipate and pray for a future era when humanity will realise the follies of its selfish pursuits of power and wealth and the warfare and bloodshed that they generate. Only in such a world can the Jewish ideal finally be realised in which discrimination and division will be set aside and all Peoples will turn to serve God with a common voice. In such a setting, nations will “beat their swords into ploughshares, and theirspears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”.
First posted on Facebook 4 June 2020, here.
