In this week’s Sedrah we read about the Ir HaNidachath, the Deviant Town. If inhabitants of an Israelite city are incited to idolatry, the entire population and their livestock must be slaughtered and the city burnt to the ground, never to be rebuilt. Maimonides (Idolatry 4.6) claims that this includes wives and offspring of the idolators.
Famously, we find a surprising opinion among Talmudic Rabbis (inter alia, Tosefta [Zuckermandl] Sanhedrin 14.1.3), that this law is purely academic, and no such town ever existed or indeed ever will.
This is reminiscent of the ruling of Rabbi Judah ]bar Ilai] & Rabbi Shimon [bar Yochai] brought in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a), vis-à-vis the Wayward Son. Ben Sorer Umoreh, of whom we shall read in a fortnight, is a young son who is turned in by his parents essentially for getting figuratively stoned, only to be sentenced to get literally stoned...
In both aforesaid cases, the Rabbis inserted restrictive circumstances to the law, to render it impossible to carry out. Similarly, in the commandment “an eye for an eye”, there appears a nigh-unanimous concurrence among our Sages that compensation is solely monetary.
It appears clear that our Sages decided to curb some morally challenging statutes, and indeed “define them out of existence”. The Rabbis cannot outright disagree with Scripture, which is considered the literal word of God. However, it is considered within the rules of the game to employ exegesis – and often eisegesis – upon the text.
To these, we may add the Beautiful Captive Woman (Esheth Yefath To’ar), a few verses preceding the Wayward Son. Here no Rabbinic opinion eliminates it, but some Sages suggest that marrying such a woman will lead to Wayward Sons, and that the much grievance David endured on account of Absalom & Tamar is due to their mother being a Captive Woman (cf. BT, Sanhedrin 21a).
In addition, there’s the matter of Amalek. Here the Rabbis could hardly entertain a view that this nation “never was, and never will be” since its existence is heavily entwined in biblical historiography. The Rabbis do however voice the opinion that from the time of the neo-Assyrian King Sennacherib in the early seventh century BCE, we no longer know how to ethnically identify peoples, as this Sargonid king blended all [Near Eastern] nations, one with each other (Mishna, Hands 4.4). This opinion enables claiming agnosticism to the whereabout of actual Amalekites, despite the Esther Scroll identifying Haman as an Agagite in the postexilic period, centuries after Sennacherib.
These Halakhic issues come to solve a practical problem, and ensure people do not carry out these sentences or attempt at vigilante. Nowadays, the rabbis say, do not ever think of amputating a limb of an amputator, never consider killing someone for her or his ethnicity, and do not, at any time, put your children to death.
But not only concerning Jewish Law. Even vis-à-vis the story of Job, which is also entangled in questions of basic universal morality, we see a similar opinion among some Rabbis, that he never existed. The potential theological dynamite of denying the historicity of biblical narratives could not have been lost on the Rabbis, nevertheless some of our sages could tolerate even less the idea of a righteous man (“even” a Gentile) being punished for no fault of his own.
Several Qabalah sources discuss the Written Law as a father, and the Oral – as a mother. When the child truly misbehaves, Dad punishes accordingly, and grounds for a month. Mum then comes along and says that actually, a few days will suffice.
We now return to our own story, the Deviant Town. Killing everyone in the city echoes the annihilation of the four Jordan Plain cities: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah & Tseboyim. Abraham continually negotiated on behalf of all the people in Sodom on account of a few righteous people. God agrees with this, but not even ten righteous were found in the entire town. Yet both God and Abraham seem to fully concur that the righteous themselves unquestionably must be saved, as indeed Lot et al are. From this standpoint, the opposite idea – that the innocent ought to die on account of the city’s wicked sinners – is completely repudiated.
The current relevance may be apropos the four primary cities of the Gaza Strip: Jabalia, Gaza City, Khan Yunis & Rafah. Here too the question of the guiltless casualties due to exacting deterrence upon the October massacre perpetrators produces a real dilemma.
Dilemma drives from the Greek (via Latin) and literally means: two takes, two premises; two narratives, if you will. I won’t solve this dilemma now, but just point out one last thing. The so-called Causeless Hatred must be referring to generalizing, bigotry and racism. Hatred with no cause whatsoever is pure madness, and thus it is very likely that Causeless Hatred refers to hating someone for a reason, but not for anything she or he did or did not do, but simply for belonging to a group (or a city) that I hate in general. No room here, but I have much evidence that the tale of Kamtza et al refers specifically to this kind of bigotry. This hate is blamed for destroying our first century independence, and indeed may destroy our twenty first independence, if we do not repudiate it at all costs.
Good Shabbos!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Burke, father of four, is a rabbi, lecturer and tour guide. Graduate of several Yeshivas and the Hebrew University, He now resides in Haifa.
Famously, we find a surprising opinion among Talmudic Rabbis (inter alia, Tosefta [Zuckermandl] Sanhedrin 14.1.3), that this law is purely academic, and no such town ever existed or indeed ever will.
This is reminiscent of the ruling of Rabbi Judah ]bar Ilai] & Rabbi Shimon [bar Yochai] brought in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a), vis-à-vis the Wayward Son. Ben Sorer Umoreh, of whom we shall read in a fortnight, is a young son who is turned in by his parents essentially for getting figuratively stoned, only to be sentenced to get literally stoned...
In both aforesaid cases, the Rabbis inserted restrictive circumstances to the law, to render it impossible to carry out. Similarly, in the commandment “an eye for an eye”, there appears a nigh-unanimous concurrence among our Sages that compensation is solely monetary.
It appears clear that our Sages decided to curb some morally challenging statutes, and indeed “define them out of existence”. The Rabbis cannot outright disagree with Scripture, which is considered the literal word of God. However, it is considered within the rules of the game to employ exegesis – and often eisegesis – upon the text.
To these, we may add the Beautiful Captive Woman (Esheth Yefath To’ar), a few verses preceding the Wayward Son. Here no Rabbinic opinion eliminates it, but some Sages suggest that marrying such a woman will lead to Wayward Sons, and that the much grievance David endured on account of Absalom & Tamar is due to their mother being a Captive Woman (cf. BT, Sanhedrin 21a).
In addition, there’s the matter of Amalek. Here the Rabbis could hardly entertain a view that this nation “never was, and never will be” since its existence is heavily entwined in biblical historiography. The Rabbis do however voice the opinion that from the time of the neo-Assyrian King Sennacherib in the early seventh century BCE, we no longer know how to ethnically identify peoples, as this Sargonid king blended all [Near Eastern] nations, one with each other (Mishna, Hands 4.4). This opinion enables claiming agnosticism to the whereabout of actual Amalekites, despite the Esther Scroll identifying Haman as an Agagite in the postexilic period, centuries after Sennacherib.
These Halakhic issues come to solve a practical problem, and ensure people do not carry out these sentences or attempt at vigilante. Nowadays, the rabbis say, do not ever think of amputating a limb of an amputator, never consider killing someone for her or his ethnicity, and do not, at any time, put your children to death.
But not only concerning Jewish Law. Even vis-à-vis the story of Job, which is also entangled in questions of basic universal morality, we see a similar opinion among some Rabbis, that he never existed. The potential theological dynamite of denying the historicity of biblical narratives could not have been lost on the Rabbis, nevertheless some of our sages could tolerate even less the idea of a righteous man (“even” a Gentile) being punished for no fault of his own.
Several Qabalah sources discuss the Written Law as a father, and the Oral – as a mother. When the child truly misbehaves, Dad punishes accordingly, and grounds for a month. Mum then comes along and says that actually, a few days will suffice.
We now return to our own story, the Deviant Town. Killing everyone in the city echoes the annihilation of the four Jordan Plain cities: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah & Tseboyim. Abraham continually negotiated on behalf of all the people in Sodom on account of a few righteous people. God agrees with this, but not even ten righteous were found in the entire town. Yet both God and Abraham seem to fully concur that the righteous themselves unquestionably must be saved, as indeed Lot et al are. From this standpoint, the opposite idea – that the innocent ought to die on account of the city’s wicked sinners – is completely repudiated.
The current relevance may be apropos the four primary cities of the Gaza Strip: Jabalia, Gaza City, Khan Yunis & Rafah. Here too the question of the guiltless casualties due to exacting deterrence upon the October massacre perpetrators produces a real dilemma.
Dilemma drives from the Greek (via Latin) and literally means: two takes, two premises; two narratives, if you will. I won’t solve this dilemma now, but just point out one last thing. The so-called Causeless Hatred must be referring to generalizing, bigotry and racism. Hatred with no cause whatsoever is pure madness, and thus it is very likely that Causeless Hatred refers to hating someone for a reason, but not for anything she or he did or did not do, but simply for belonging to a group (or a city) that I hate in general. No room here, but I have much evidence that the tale of Kamtza et al refers specifically to this kind of bigotry. This hate is blamed for destroying our first century independence, and indeed may destroy our twenty first independence, if we do not repudiate it at all costs.
Good Shabbos!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Burke, father of four, is a rabbi, lecturer and tour guide. Graduate of several Yeshivas and the Hebrew University, He now resides in Haifa.