Sermon Friday January 27, 2006/28 Tevet 5766
Rabbi Marcia A. Zimmerman

Download the file to print

I went on line 45 minutes ago to the Haaretz website just to make sure that my sermon was not totally insensitive to the realities in Israel after the Palestinian people’s election. As of 5:15 p.m. while the Fatah party is asking for the resignation of top leadership and not to ally with Hamas, it is not outright civil war at this time. Therefore I am giving my sermon as is.

When I am looking for images during difficult and confusing times, I often turn to the natural world for instruction. Do you know that we can find spiders anywhere on earth, because they adapt themselves to all environments? If they are in a rainy region, they make a tent out of leaves and their silk spun web for protection, even in water they create a funnel in the shape of a bell or even complete envelopes and fill it with air to survive. Spiders also use these tents to jump down on unsuspecting prey in self defense.

This past week reflects the ever changing habitat in the Middle East. Palestinian elections have shifted the environment, and how is Israel going to weather this storm? What are our options -- create an envelope and retreat or are we to jump to self defense? While the verdict is still out what the Hamas victory means, we do know their charter supports the destruction of the state of Israel. So how do we defend ourselves when the threat is a verbal one, and historically one of violence through terrorism—what do Jewish text say about that? Text, very interestingly, gives us a model to struggle with, parameters to contain the conversation. Jewish text can guide us for today’s issues. Let’s look at what Judaism says, not only what the talking heads on TV or on the radio are saying.

Self defense is a tricky issue in Jewish text. On the surface is seems that someone would not be able to kill in self defense, because it is said “that your blood is redder than his blood.” The highest value in Judaism is the worth placed on each human life. (Sanhedrin 37a and 74a) However the Talmud teaches us that “if someone comes to slay you, you should slay him first (Sanhedrin 74a). When we begin to ask more nuanced questions, we find the text is quite helpful in guiding us. For instance, what if you are being pursued, what are the choices for self defense then? The Torah (Exodus 22:1) gives us a guiding concept about this issue. If a person finds a robber in their basement and kills the robber, they are not guilty of murder. Why not? The Talmud explains that since most robbers assume that people protect their property at home, then the robber is prepared to kill the homeowner. Therefore the homeowner can kill the robber in self defense.

Maimonides disagrees with the Torah and Talmud’s premise for one reason: it is against Judaism to take the law into one’s own hands. If a witness or even the entire court sees a murder, they may not kill the murderer on the spot, but must bring him to trial and go through the legal process. However, when a person is convicted of a murder he takes on the status of a gavra ketila, a legally dead man. In this status a Jew would not have to save the individual since he is considered legally dead. The attacker, according to this reasoning, has the legal status of a gavra ketila, even without trial. Thus homeowners can legally defend themselves from an intruder without hesitation. His very act of entering the house immediately gives the robber the status of a dead man.

But we are not talking about an individual’s right for self defense when we look at the Palestinian election, but rather one people against another. The text continues to talk about the Midianites after they attacked the Jewish people. God tells the Jewish people to smite the Midianites. The Meiri commentary based on the midrash Tanhuma discussing Pinchas, states that the Midianites habitually attacked the Jews, and it was for this reason that the Jews were commanded to defend themselves.

What if the intent of the attacker is unclear? If a person’s life is verbally threatened, would that be considered a legitimate aggression and grounds for a violent response to stop the potential attacker? It should be noted that in this type of situation a person cannot wait for final proof that the threats are real, since conclusive evidence would warrant a response to be too late, and the victim unable to respond. How early then and on what basis may a potential killer, based on threats, be disabled?

If we know an individual’s personal history and past behavior, then that may be used as a deciding factor (Mishpat Ivri). However information is often very difficult to obtain or determine. A possible solution to the dilemma regarding threats may be determined with regard to the Jewish concept of “warning.” Normally for a court to prosecute an infraction in Jewish law, a warning must first be given to the perpetrator. In our case of the pursuer threatening to kill the victim, the Talmud (san.72b) debates that, if possible, the pursuer should be warned that it is a capital offense to kill a human being. Maimonides says that a warning wherever possible must be given. Once the warning is issued and no change in behavior is demonstrated, the pursued victim can reasonably assume that the threat is legitimate and may act accordingly.

Ultimately Jewish law prefers, but does not require, a warning if the danger is real. The Torah does put limitations on self defense. So, going back to our original scenario with the robber in the basement. The Exodus text continues to say if the sun fell upon the homeowners and they were to kill the intruder, the homeowners would be guilty of murder. The Talmud struggles with the different scenarios. If a homeowner kills the robber without light, not murder, with light, murder. The Talmud doesn’t interpret the text literally, instead the Talmud uses the image of the light to reflect the idea that if it is clear to the homeowner, like the light of the sun, that the intruder is not threatening the homeowner’s life, then the intruder may not be killed. The Talmud gives the example of a father who breaks into his son’s house. While a father might steal from his son, a father would never kill his child. In other words, as the midrash says (mechilta mishpatim) that the permission to kill in self defense is in a case where there is no peaceful alternative. If there is another alternative left open to the victim, then killing the intruder is viewed as a sin. Thus the Talmud says that if the intruder could be stopped by incapacitating him rather than by killing him, killing him is not permitted. The tosefta demands a graduated response.

The Palestinian elections this past week were both disappointing and troubling. The experts, far greater experts on Middle East politics than I, are all over the board on the consequences of this election for the Palestinian people, for Israel, for the United states and the west. Some common themes are that it is a positive move that there was a fair election for the Palestinian people and that possibly there was a change of power peacefully, although the verdict on that is not fully in.
I googled Haaretz after five, just to make sure that civil war had not broken out. While it is still tense, all-out violence has not erupted. While the choice is potentially troubling, we need to listen to why the choice was made, that the Palestinian people are done with the corruption of the Fatah party, and that all politics is local, the Palestinian people have not since Arafat’s death seen an improvement in their lives, especially economically.

Another point that caught my ear on MPR was the question posed by a Palestinian American who said that he thought it was better to have Hamas in daylight, out in the open, than working behind the scenes and not accountable to anyone. The true test stands on the fundamental question: Do the Palestinian people want a state of their own and having to deal with the real life issues of what it means to be a state within the international market and on the international and local political scene? And if being statesmen is the goal, then what will Hamas do with Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah when they continue terrorist activities, and what are they capable of doing? While Hamas has been, and might still be, a real threat to Israel, we must be cautious about our response. The tradition says be aware of the history of the one who verbally threatens you, and if there is a history, you can move in self defense. But I would also compare the present situation to an intruder with the light of the sun shining in, to keep aware of the situation, and to respond in a graduated way, searching for alternative reactions before moving to a total defense posture. Making sure that we warn, clearly, the new government of the Palestinian people what our response will be if violence occurs or the present governing body fails to stop terrorism.

If Hamas does change and is successful from our point of view: to support economic development throughout the region; to help make the Palestinian people into a nation state – as Rabbi Natam says, “Who is a hero? The one who turns an enemy into a friend. If alternative measures do not bear fruit, I know Israel will act accordingly, and our tradition supports this.
But short of needing to outright defend our lives, let us return to nature for our lesson at this time.

The Talmud tells a story of an oak tree, tall, strong and proud and rigid and a blade of grass, small flexible and vulnerable. A great wind storm erupts and the blade of grass goes with the wind, dancing and bending leaning and swaying, and it survives. The oak tree cannot bend and so it breaks in half and is destroyed. For now we remain cautiously fluid and flexible; and hopefully we will find ourselves in a possible new world—we pray one of peace.

--Rabbi Marcia A. Zimmerman