Taking the examples that I’ve mentioned, neither side to these debates has any trouble summoning talmudic or biblical precedent in support of their arguments. There are sources which support asserting sovereignty, not provoking violence with neighbours, safeguarding sexual morality and concern for vulnerable individuals.
To my mind, when it comes to claiming “Jewish Values” and determining the correct course of action, one must do more than cite a loosely-relevant biblical episode. King Solomon taught us a fundamental lesson in the third chapter of Kohelet that “everything has its appointed season…a time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace”
The prophet Shmuel relayed God’s fury to King Shaul at his decision to show mercy and spare some of the defeated Amalekites. Yet in a later war, the prophet Elisha instructs the Israelite king to show mercy to captured Aramean soldiers – to feed them and return them to their country (Kings II 6:22). Rabbi Akiva and other sages supported the uprising of Bar Kochba; Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai risked his life to engage in peace negotiations with Roman invaders. In a similar vein, Talmudic sages were renowned (and sometimes criticised) for the great lengths to which they went to guard against the violation of ritual laws. Yet the same rabbis were scathing in their criticism of Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkulas for doing just this in the episode of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza.
“Jewish Values” means engaging in a process through which one allows oneself to be genuinely open to all of these conflicting considerations. To be concerned by the need to preserve sexual morality of the nation while at the same time feeling an intense sensitivity for the plight of those who suffer as a result of their orientation. To feel the pride of our recently reclaimed sovereignty over much of the land of Israel and the fervent wish to extend this to the entire land – while also being acutely aware of and seeking to minimise the suffering and plight that this causes to numerous individuals on the other side
We must be wary of people who assert a single “Jewish value” – an a priori elevation of a single concern – rather than a delicate attempt to determine how the range of legitimate values should be balanced in any particular situation. In yesterday’s Torah reading, the first three of Ya’akov’s sons received “blessings” which were in fact severe rebukes. Shimon and Levi, in particular, believed that they were acting upon Jewish values, justifying their violent rampage in Sodom – an “outrage which had been committed in Israel” – by asking “shall our sister be treated like a harlot?”. They might have found loose precedent for their actions in earlier episodes of the book of Bereishit: the immoral behaviour exhibited by Sodom and God’s punishment of Avimelech and Pharaoh for kidnapping Sara. Yet Ya’akov still harshly criticises their conduct: in their anger they were motivated only by a single “value” rather than being sensitive and weighing up competing “values”.
What is also notable is that, despite Ya’akov’s horrified reaction and rebuke, he does not exclude them from the fold – they all remain “sons of Ya’akov” whom he attempts to educate and rehabilitate.
The overarching message when it comes to defining and comparing Jewish values is that life is messy and produces challenges which force us to choose between certain ideals which we would normally prefer to embrace. “Jewish Values” require that we engage in a delicate process of trying to work out how competing legitimate values must be balanced in each particular situation and which compromise is the least painful option. Those who are genuinely involved in such a process will naturally distance themselves from strong absolutist comments – made by either side – which ignore the legitimate room for disagreement and demonise those who reach conclusions which are different to their own.
First posted on Facebook 8 January 2023, here.
