Judaism, justice and collective punishment

“Far be it from You to do a thing such as this, to put to death the righteous with the wicked so that the righteous should be like the wicked. Far be it from You! Will the Judge of the entire earth not perform justice?"

These powerful words, uttered by Avraham in last week’s parashah as part of his negotiation with God over the fate of Sodom, would seem to represent a basic biblical concept of justice and fairness. A far more succinct parallel to this principle is stated by Moshe and Aharon later in the Torah in the context of Korach’s rebellion: "O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, if one man sins, shall You be angry with the whole congregation?".

Is it so clear, however, that Judaism rejects the notion of collective punishment?

Later on in the book of Bereishit we find Shimon and Levi put the city of Shechem to the sword in response to the crime of its leader. While Ya’akov is critical of their actions, his primary objection appears to be a lack of consideration of the political consequences rather than a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, as one of my young children once asked me on Seder night, are we to understand that every single one of the Egyptians was participating in the brutal persecution of the Jews and therefore deserving of such severe divine punishments?

In a recent podcast (as part of his highly recommended new series of ten-minute daily Tanach shiurim linked in first comment), Rav Alex Israel offered a fascinating insight which may provide a key for resolving such questions. The immediate context is his commentary on the seventh chapter of the book of Joshua, in which Achan sins by stealing from spoils of war that have been set aside as a tribute to God. Despite the fact that this theft appears to have been perpetrated by one man alone, God attributes his sin to the entire nation and reveals it to be the cause for a military loss in the initial battle for the city of Ai.

The reason why the nation is blamed and punished collectively for Achan’s sin, suggests Rav Alex, is that it would not have occurred in a vacuum. Drawing profound lessons to our own times (this shiur was given on the anniversary of Yitzchak Rabin’s assassination), he explains how on certain occasions a community at large can be swept along a certain sinful path. While only one person may ultimately cross over the line to commit a serious sinful act, this person would not have reached this point had it not been for his community’s encouragement and erroneous orientation. In such a scenario, the whole community is culpable for the sin under the maxim of kol Yisrael areivim zeh lazeh (all of Israel are guarantors for one another) – it is not considered collective punishment of the innocent.

A similar formula might be used to explain why the entire town of Shechem were punished for the actions of their leader. It is only because of the culture of immorality and impunity which was fostered among the wider populace that Shechem considered that he could act as he did with Dina. Shimon and Levi are nevertheless severely criticised by Ya'akov on his death bed for their violent actions. It would seem that it is only God, who knows the thoughts and intentions of all humans, who is able to judge a community all deserving of a collective punishment.

The moral lesson which emerges requires us to examine our actions and speech not just in terms of their own technical correctness, but also as to the potential impact that they are likely to have on others. If people can potentially be radicalised or deem what we say as supporting violence or hatred towards others, the Torah will hold us collectively responsible for their sinful actions.

First posted on Facebook 16 November 2022, here.

Is there really such a thing as "Jewish values"?

Ben-Gvir visiting Temple Mount. The treatment of gays in YU. Public debate and discourse in the Jewish world seem to be increasingly bombarding my news stream with heated arguments. Mimicking the polarised positions of today’s political parties, both sides of these debates will typically accuse the other of betraying “Jewish Values” – the strong implication being that their ideological opponents lack any legitimate place at the table of Jewish discussion.

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.