Reviving the Torah of War

Abir — a Practical Torah

By

Today we celebrate the joyous festival of Purim.  As others have pointed out, Purim is not a celebration of the death of Haman(y”sh).  Haman was hung nine months before the 14-th of Adar.  Nor do we celebrate the thwarting of Haman’s plot to exterminate the Jews.  Haman’s plot died with him.  With the Persian army ordered to remain in barracks and Mordechai ascendant in the capital, who in his right mind would dare to attack the Jews?  To do so would invite retaliation from the second most powerful man in the kingdom!

So if we are not celebrating the death of Haman(y”sh) and the thwarting of his plot, what ARE we celebrating?  Well, the answer is pretty obvious from the Megillah itself.  On the 13th and 14th of Adar, the Jews, who had been given a royal guarantee that the Persian authorities would not intervene, gathered together and launched an attack against their enemies throughout the Persian Empire, slaughtering seventy five thousand men throughout the kingdom and eight hundred in the capital, including the ten sons of Haman.  There is no need to mention that the women and children of the enemy were likewise slaughtered.  We can learn this from the Megillah itself.

The Jews took none of the spoils from their slaughtered enemies.  Why is this?  Because the enemies in question were Amalekites.  The Torah commandment to extirpate Amalek includes not only the commandment to mercilessly slaughter Amalekites regardless of age and gender until none remain anywhere in the world, but also the commandment to destroy all the property of Amalek.  Spoils should not be taken from them.  It seems to me that taking arms, war materiel and funds to purchase both from dead Amalekites would be permissible under the rubric of pikuah nefesh and in order to further the mizvah by exterminating more Amalekites.  However, from the Megillah it is obvious that the Jews of Esther’s time had no need to avail themselves of such leniencies.

Consider what this implies.  Would any of today’s Jewish communities, even the ones in the Holy Land, have the wherewithal to gather together and slaughter the enemies of the Jewish People in their tens of thousands without the aid of any army?  Do today’s yeshiva bochurim, even in the dati leumi community, have the martial skills and arms to do this?  The answer, of course, is a resounding “no”.

In and of itself this should tell you that our communities have drawn much further away from the true spirit of Torah than even the assimilated, persianized Jews of Esther’s Shushan.  The chief reason for this are our methods of Torah study.  Amid the oppressions and humiliations of the past two thousand years, with Jews locked in ghettoes, surrounded on all sides by raging mobs of murderous goyim, prohibited from bearing arms and completely unable to defend themselves, the study of Torah became the sole means of ensuring continued national survival.  Only by clinging to the Torah, by ordering every tiny detail of their lives in a manner that would remind them of their Judaism, could our ancestors survive the bitterness of the exile.  Thus Torah study became solely a legal study.  Generations of rabbinical students studied solely those aspects that would enable the survival of Jewish culture, growing up uniformly as skilled lawyers capable of directing every little detail of their community’s day-to-day life.

However, the Holy Torah is not merely a book of law.  The Holy Torah is the sum of all knowledge in the universe.  Just as we can ground legal studies in the Torah, so too can military studies, administration and science be grounded therein.

This does not mean that we should seek to acquire all knowledge solely from the text of the Torah itself.  While the Holy Torah surely contains all the knowledge we seek, we are not adequate to the task of discerning all we need to know solely from the holy text itself.  Therefore we must, due to our inadequacies, apply the processes of secular science and knowledge acquisition.  If goyim discover some new principle or invent some clever, useful new device, we should certainly borrow it at once.  And if the processes of secular science and engineering lead us to some new knowledge, we should certainly apply it with alacrity.  Doing so increases the power and renown of the Jewish People and thus elevates the honor of the Holy Torah and increases the honor of Hashem.  And when we have done so, lest we become arrogant and think that we have discovered something truly new, we should always return to the text of the Holy Torah and sanctify our knowledge by showing how it is alluded to in the text itself.

Now, we know very well that our ancestors were formidable warriors.  We also know that before the invention of firearms, all nations and cultures created and practiced martial arts systems based on the principles of anatomy, the weapons available to them and the philosophies upon which the core of their civilization was based.

The martial arts of Western Europe died a slow death as firearms developed and improved and as centralizing nation-states sought to disarm the population and monopolize the tools of violence.  The martial arts of the Far East, on the other hand, had no time to die a slow death.  Japan went from swords to aircraft carriers in less than a hundred years.  Even as Japanese battleships sank the entire Russian navy at Tsushima, there were still old men alive in Tokyo who remembered Saigo Takamori’s quixotic attempt to pit swords and bushido against quick firing artillery and bolt action rifles.  And as the newly-disarmed citizens of Western nations sought means to defend themselves against criminals, it was only natural that they would turn to the vibrant martial arts of the East.

Responding to the new needs of a new era, Japanese masters modernized, systematized, updated and exported their samurai heritage.  Jujitsu systems were the first to make the jump across the ocean, with Jujitsu schools appearing in Europe and America as early as the 1880s.  Judo, a sporty “clean-up” of Jujitsu, and Karate, a systematization and modernization of Okinawan peasant fighting techniques, followed suit rapidly.  By the late 1890s, westerners were already teaching martial arts derivatives adopted to their particular needs, such as Bartitsu.  By the beginning of the twentieth century, Western governments were adopting Asian techniques as a means of training elite soldiers and policemen in hand-to-hand combat, developing effective and easy to learn martial arts systems such as Sambo.  Thus it is solely due to a combination of historical accidents and massive ignorance that we see martial arts as primarily an Asian phenomenon.

Given the fact that every culture in history has at one point or another developed martial arts systems, it is reasonable to ask whether there existed such a thing as a Jewish martial art.  The answer, of course, is not only did it exist, but it was extremely effective.  The Torah itself tells us so.  At the news that Hammurabi’s army has plundered Sodom and taken Lot captive, Avraham Avinu sets off in pursuit with his elite bodyguard of 318 Torah students, overtakes the Babylonians after a  series of forced marches and defeats them in a surprise attack at night.  King David, a great Torah scholar, personally kills hundreds of Philistine warriors, presenting their severed foreskins to Saul as token of his martial prowess.  There certainly existed a martial arts system, grounded in Torah and based on the concepts of Jewish mysticism, that was practiced by these men not only as a means to ensure physical prowess, but also as a method of Torah study.

Obviously, with two thousand years of persecution in situations where Jewish self-defense of any kind was essentially impossible and any attempt at martial training would bring on the massacre of the entire community, a Jewish martial art would have died out.  However, there is one man who claims that this is not entirely so.  This man, Yehoshuah Sofer, has compiled and systematized a Torah-based martial arts system he calls “Abir”.  Abir is entirely practical and highly effective, as can be seen, for example, in this video.

Yehoshuah Sofer claims that this art is based on the martial arts tradition preserved by the isolated Habbani Jewish community of Yemen, and that this tradition itself hearkens back all the way to King David and Avraham Avinu.  Scoffers point out that Yehoshuah Sofer happens to hold a 7-th dan  in Kuk Sool Won and that the circular movements and distinctive “hands-free” grapples of Abir as taught by Yehoshua Sofer strongly resemble corresponding techniques in Hapkido and Kuk Sool.  Based on this, they posit that Abir is somehow “fake” or “not authentic”.

Now, this argument is frankly ridiculous.  First of all, since when is outward similarity of technique proof of anything?  The grappling techniques in the Codex Wallerstein resemble Aikido and Jujitsu, while the longsword technique bears a striking resemblance to Japanese swordsmanship.  Would some imbecile declare based on these resemblances that this seminal fechtbuk, written in Germany circa 1470 C.E., is somehow based on martial arts systems codified on the opposite side of the world centuries later?

The fact is, given human anatomy and the laws of physics, there are only so many efficient ways to punch, kick and throw an opponent.  There are only so many ways to hyperextend, break or dislocate joints, only so many ways to upset a fighter’s balance and so forth.  Effective martial arts systems will naturally come to resemble one another.  And would it not stand to reason, flipping the scoffers’ argument on its head, that a man seeking to modernize and systematize a half-forgotten family tradition would find a martial art that most strongly resembles it and train in it in order to “fill in the gaps”?

The “hands free” grappling and throwing techniques of Abir and Kuk Sool are of great antiquity, hearkening back to the days when martial arts assumed a combat between two heavily armored, sword-armed opponents.  In such combat, a man who lost or broke his sword had to rely on secondary weapons such as a dagger, yet had to bring them to bear against very small targets, such as gaps in the joints of armor.  Since punching and kicking an armored opponent is an exercise in futility, one had perforce to grapple with him, upset his balance, dislocate his joints and otherwise place him in a position where a small weapon such as a dagger could be applied.  Yet since one’s hands were occupied holding a dagger, a shield, a spear shaft or other such implement, the grappling had to be performed by wrapping one’s limbs around the enemy rather than by grabbing him with one’s hands.  In fact, the very presence of such techniques tells us that a martial arts system is rooted in a tradition going back centuries if not millennia.  Who is to say with certainty which tradition it is?

Secondly, what in Heaven’s name is a “fake” or “not authentic” martial art?  Techniques have been borrowed back and forth from time immemorial.  Kuk Sool is itself a compilation of several Korean martial arts, with the primary component being Hapkido.  Hapkido, in turn, is a twentieth-century modernization of ancient Korean arts with heavy borrowing from Judo and Jujitsu, which are themselves compilations of earlier samurai techniques, which are based on ancient Chinese martial arts, and so on down into prehistory.   Going forward in the opposite direction, does the fact that they borrow heavily from Judo, Karate and Jujitsu make Sambo any less Russian or Krav Maga any less Israeli?  Trying to figure out whether a martial arts system is “authentic” is an exercise somewhat similar to an attempt to determine whether a firearm design is “authentic”. At best, such frivolity is of use to a small number of highly specialized historians.  At worst, it is a complete waste of time.

The only criteria that matter for a martial art are the same as the criteria for any other infantry weapon: whether or not it works well in almost any circumstances and whether or not it fits with the needs of the practitioner.  Abir is effective.  It is firmly grounded in Torah principles.  Its grand master is a pious Breslover hassid who wears begged ivri on a daily basis.  Therefore, it qualifies both as a Jewish martial art and a method of Torah study. Case closed.

If we seek to revive the Torah of Eretz Yisrael and to build a true Jewish State, we must perforce revive a Torah-based martial tradition.  If we do not do so, we end up with the perversions of secular Zionism, with its near-worship of muscular Hebrew-speaking goyish ignoramuses brandishing rifles and its contempt for the helpless frum Jew. King David and Avraham Avinu spent far more time practicing Torah as a military art than they did studying Torah as a legal system. And so should we. May the day soon come when our educational system, beginning in kindergarten, teaches effective Torah-based martial arts and military skills, both as a means to instill pride in our heritage and as a means to build the physical courage, fitness and skill necessary to maintain a true Jewish State in Eretz Yisrael.

14 Adar 5770

From The Virtual Medinat Yehudah, here.

Is Scripture Great Literature?

The Light of Purim

As we know, the Torah consists of both plain and exegetical meaning (known as Peshat and Derash respectively). What is tough to figure out is when each of these is being used. Since we are accustomed to learning Chazal, it is easy to fall into the trap of ignoring “Peshuto shel Mikra”. Some even come close to denying the Torah holds a simple meaning at all!

An ultimate result of such a perception is agreeing with Yeshayahu Leibowitz who once claimed: “Tanach is second-rate literature (or worse); its sole purpose is religious”. I agree that its purpose is religious, but I don’t agree scripture is without literary merit.

In fact, the Torah has all the literary features (both modern and ancient) of a good read. Inference, humor, metaphor, pun, sarcasm, irony, (maybe even repetition, cf. Ibn Ezra Exodus 34:4) and the like all coexist in the Tanach. Derash often depends on them.

The topic deserves a discussion of its own, and I cannot do it justice here. I would, however, like to point out one such example relevant to the Megillah we will read on the upcoming Purim.

Megillas Esther 8:16 says —

ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששן ויקר

“The Jews enjoyed light and gladness and joy and honor”.

So what do Chazal say? Megillah 16b (cf. too Yalkut Shimoni 8: 1059) —

ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר, אמר רב יהודה, אורה זו תורה כו’ שמחה זה יום טוב כו’ ששון זו מילה כו’ ויקר אלו תפלין.

“The Jews enjoyed light and gladness and joy and honor”. Rabbi Yehuda said: “Light” refers to Torah, “gladness” refers to Yom Tov, “joy” is Milah, and “honor” implies Tefillin.

Many tend to believe “Orah” means only spiritual light (as per the aforementioned Chazal on this being an allusion to Torah). In truth, the verse is a psychological description as well.

No number of textual difficulties can fully demolish the verbatim translation. This tells us our verse is more than a list of A, B, C, etc. But does the reader sense that when reading the translations and commentaries available? I think not. Refer to “Ta’ama Dekra” by Rabbi Chaim Kanievski, as well.

Here is another novel example of light being applied in the figurative sense.

In Genesis 19:15 discussing the angels with Lot in Sodom we read —

וכמו השחר עלה ויאיצו המלאכים בלוט לאמר קום קח את אשתך ואת שתי בנתיך הנמצאת פן תספה בעון העיר

The literal translation is: “And the sun seemed to come up when the angels etc.”

Of course, the simple connotation is “when the sun came up”, and Chazal (Pesachim 93b) say so too.

ArtScroll translates: And just as dawn was breaking, the angels urged Lot on saying: “Get up – take your wife and your two daughters who are present, lest you be swept away because of the sin of the city!”

The peculiar wording is seemingly insignificant. Taking the literary nature of scripture into account, however, another layer of meaning is evident.

You see, beforehand, concerning Chevron, we read (18:1) —

וירא אליו יהוה באלני ממרא והוא ישב בפתח האהל כחם היום

G-d appeared to him in the plains of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent in the heat of day.

Immediately subsequent to our verse, regarding Tzoar, it says (19:23) —

השמש יצא על הארץ ולוט בא צערה

The sun rose upon the earth and Lot arrived at Tzoar.

Chevron, and even Tzoar, can be described using terms such as “day” and “sun”, while Sodom cannot. Sodom is truly a “Land Where the Sun Never Rises”. No “golden sunup in the sky” is to be found. This is because Sodom was a cruel and evil place, as explained earlier in the text.

Likewise, we find in Job (30:28) —

קדר הלכתי בלא חמה קמתי בקהל אשוע

I walked mourning without the sun; I rose and cried in the congregation.

Similarly in Eichah (Lamentations) 3:2 —

אותי נהג וילך חשך ולא אור

He led me and made me walk in darkness and not light.

The object lesson is clear. Translations and commentators (and teachers) would do well to both learn and teach scripture this way.

P.S. I later found the following in Rashbam Genesis 37:2 –

ישכילו ויבינו אוהבי שכל מה שלימדונו רבותינו כי אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. אף כי עיקרה של תורה באה ללמדנו ולהודיענו ברמיזת הפשט וההגדות וההלכות והדינין ועל ידי אריכות הלשון ועל ידי שלשים ושתים מידות של ר’ אליעזר בנו של ר’ יוסי הגלילי וע”י שלש עשרה מידות של ר’ ישמעאל והראשונים מתוך חסידותם נתעסקו לנטות אחרי הדרשות שהן עיקר ומתוך כך לא הורגלו בעומק פשוטו של מקרא. ולפי שאמרו חכמים אל תרבו בניכם בהגיון. וגם אמרו העוסק במקרא מדה ואינה מדה העוסק בתלמוד אין לך מדה גדולה מזו ומתוך כך לא הורגלו כל כך בפשוטן של מקראות וכדאמרינן במסכת שבת הוינא בר תמני סרי שנין וגרסינן כולה תלמודא ולא הוה ידענא דאין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. וגם כו’.

Have something to say? Write to Avraham Rivkas: CommentTorah@gmail.com

Moshe ‘Rabenu’ Feiglin

Wedding on the Temple Mount: From Servitude to Liberty: By Moshe Feiglin

Apr-19-2016

I really envy the sweet Jewish couple who married last week in a surreptitious ceremony on the Temple Mount. I hear the cries of all the Temple Mountaphobes sitting behind the public broadcast microphones and in the name of the public rob my tax money in order to control the public’s consciousness.

I hear their genuine fear of the Temple Mount. And despite the fact that in just a few days we will be celebrating the Exodus from Egypt, the festival of our liberty, they are still stuck deep inside Purim. Not the end of the story of Purim, but its beginning.

Why was a total holocaust decreed upon Israel in the Purim story? Because when redemption didn’t seem to be coming following 70 years of exile after the destruction of the First Temple, ( according to Ahashverosh’s calculations),the enlightened king celebrated the ‘New World Order’; he celebrated the Pax Ahashveroshana. With no redemption for the Jews in the offing, all the nations celebrated, drank and generally gave free rein to their animalistic urges at Ahashverosh’s feast; at the capital of the pseudo-kind kingdom that ruled from India to Africa.

The king also invited the Jewish sages to his feast. Complete equality for all. All the chief rabbis attended: the Ashkenazic, Sephardic, ultra-orthodox and modern orthodox. They all came to drink at the feast. Not before they made sure that all the food would be strictly kosher, under the supervision of the most trusted kosher certification (I am not making this up. All of what I have written is taken from the sources on the Scroll of Esther)  including a partition to separate between men and women according to the most strict stringencies of Jewish law…

After all, it is unthinkable to insult the king. We are responsible leaders. And then, Ahashverosh serves them the wine…in vessels stolen from the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem. And they drink…

At least if they had shed some tears into the wine served to them in the Temple vessels…But Rabbi Shimon Bar Yocahi explains that this holocaust was decreed upon Israel because not only did the newscasters of the time reject the whole Temple Mount idea, Israel’s message of human liberty under the wings of the One G-d – and exchanged it for the message of the liberty to enjoy lavish feasts under the servitude to man – but Israel’s leaders of the time also found their place in the New Order. They had funds for their yeshivot and Torah institutions. So everything was under control. They felt that they had overcome the extremists and that now, politics were in the hands of level-headed people. So they drank a little bit of wine, so what?

Enter Haman – the Amalekite. Amalek always shows up just before the redemption, when Israel gives up on its destiny and it message, preferring sweet servitude. That is what happened just before the Jews were supposed to enter the Land of Israel. All of them sobbed, just like the afraid-of-the-redemption newscasters.

Ultimately, they entered the Land. But not before the entire sobbing generation died in the desert.

The same thing happened throughout history, until the Balfour Declaration in the 1920s, when the British called upon our Nation to return to its Homeland (and even provided us with a foundation for a modern state). But the Nation of Israel did not show up. And once again, destruction was decreed upon that generation.

Yes, it is always the flight from our message that precipitates the next holocaust. Not  a lack of ascent to the Mount, but estrangement from it.

And who saves the day?

Mordechai.

“Have we gone mad?” cried the Shushan broadcasters. This crazy man is throwing a match into a barrel of dynamite. What was so bad about bowing before Haman? Let him keep his vision to himself and stop endangering all of us!!! Now we will all die because of one old man who insists on sticking himself right in front of the eyes of the world. And he angered Haman, who is always on the lookout for a way to bring us trouble…

And then, it really happens! The intifada breaks out because of Mordechai! Haman decides to annihilate all the Jews! And the broadcasters are proven right. Those whose world is narrow like the world of an ant, who are completely detached from the message of the Nation of Israel, those whose only concern is survival – to reach 12 o’ clock at night and to worry about tomorrow when the sun rises – cannot understand the situation differently.

For the covenant that safeguards our nation’s wondrous eternity has a terrible price. The Creator, Who made an eternal covenant with us, is willing to put up with our temporary weaknesses in fulfilling the commandments. But the King is not willing to give up on the vision and on Israel’s destiny.

If an elite force errs in navigation and misses the mark, it is generally hit hard by the enemy and lessons are learned. But when the elite force decides not to carry out the mission, it makes its existence superfluous. That is the time to bring in a new elite force.

Mordechai understands that in order to save Israel, they must cling to their purpose, cling to their destiny and not fall into servitude to Haman. They must refuse to become servants to the Pax Ahashveroshana. They must choose liberty.

Mordechai would not kneel or bow to Haman, the Third Intifada brokr out and the Nation of Israel was redeemed.

Ben Gurion also understood this principle. The ‘mad old man’ (as he was called at the time) insisted on declaring statehood, ‘provoking’ the Arab armies to finish Hitler’s work and annihilate the small and hopeless Jewish community in Israel.

And how much death ensued! 6,000 fatalities, fully 1% of the Jewish population in Israel, were killed in the War of Independence. And all of our newscasters and talk show hosts today praise this extremist, who understood – from a completely secular perspective – that flight from our destiny makes Jewish existence in the Land of Israel superfluous. It leaves us in the Pax Brittania and sends us back to the desert for another 2000 years.

I really love you, dear couple. You are so beautiful, so simple and dignified. Continue to safeguard your anonymity. It is good that you are not being interviewed. You entered the covenant of marriage in the place of the covenant of the Jewish People with our Father in Heaven. You safeguarded that covenant for us all.

The frightened leaders have forgotten that covenant. But you are the Nation.

You are the Nation, you are its soul – its lofty spirit.

In your modesty, you brought us out of the servitude of Shushan to the Festival of Liberty.

And who knows how many people you saved.

From Jewish Israel, here.

On Yeshayahu Leibowitz

Yeshayahu Leibowitz

(1903 – 1994)


Born in Riga, Leibowitz studied chemistry and philosophy at the University of Berlin, where he received his doctorate in 1924. He also studied medicine and became a medical doctor in 1934 at the University of Basel. In 1935 he settled in Palestine and joined the staff of the Hebrew University. He was appointed professor of organic and biochemistry and neurophysiology. His research was concerned with saccharides and enzymes in chemistry and with the nervous system of the heart in physiology. He was the head of the biological chemistry department at the Hebrew University and professor of neurophysiology at the HU Medical School. He also taught the history and philosophy of science. Yet Leibowitz was not only an academician. He was involved in public affairs and had a unique approach to Judaism. As such he was a popular lecturer, who loved to appear before diverse audiences, also frequently on radio and television. Leibowitz served as editor in chief of several volumes of the Encyclopedia Hebraica. His writings are found mostly in periodicals: Gilyonot, De’ot, Be-Terem, Petaḥim, and Moznayim, and also in the newspaper Haaretz. A selection of lectures and articles from the period 1942–53 was published in book form, entitled Torah u-Mitzvot ba-Zeman ha-Zeh (1954). His book of collected essays, Yahadut, Am Yehudi u-Medinat Yisrael (“Judaism, Jewish People, and the State of Israel,” 1975) stated his philosophy and views. Other books (published in 1965 and 1982) testify to his broad knowledge and great interest in Jewish life. He also wrote on Maimonides, The Sayings of the Fathers, and the weekly Torah-portion. In 1992 Eliezer Goldman published a collection of Leibowitz’s essays in English under the title Judaism, Human Values and the Jewish State, making him known internationally.Yeshayahu Leibowitz was an Israeli scientist and philosopher.

Leibowitz regarded Judaism as a religious and historical phenomenon, which is characterized by a recognition of the duty to serve God in performing mitzvot. The service of God according to binding halakhic norms must be “for its own sake” (li-shemah), and its purpose is not designed to achieve personal perfection or to improve society. Religion is thus not a means toward any specific end. Judaism is for Leibowitz not humanism, or a sentiment or a bundle of memories. Jews have the obligation to take upon themselves the yoke of Torah and mitzvot. Leibowitz’s standpoint is thus neither anthropocentric or ethnocentric, but theocentric. Consistent with his own reasoning, Leibowitz refused to be called a “humanist,” because this is an anthropocentric notion that envisages the human being as a supreme value. Under the influence of Maimonides, Leibowitz stressed the transcendence of God, whom we cannot know. His thought also contains Kantian elements. Kant’s critique of pure reason led to a theological agnosticism, whereas his critique of practical reason led him to affirm that the realization of values follows from a person’s autonomous decision. There is a tension between Leibowitz the philosopher who read Kant on human autonomy, and regarded politics and ethics as domains where human autonomy is decisive, and the halakhic man who lived in conformity with his strict halakhic, theocentric conception of Judaism. For Leibowitz, morality is thus an atheistic category. Kant’s influence on Leibowitz is also clear when he states that the value of a religious act is determined by the intention. Only when one performs an act because it is a divine commandment does it possess a religious value.

Leibowitz repeatedly expressed his opinions on the religious aspect of Jewish life in Israel. Before the state of Israel was established, he stressed the religious importance that national independence would assume, provided it would bring about halakhic legislation designed to mold the character of the state. After the establishment of the state, he advocated the separation of the Jewish religion from the state and its confrontation with it. He adopted a negative attitude toward the system of party rule, including the religious parties with their economic and rabbinical institutions.

Leibowitz emphasized the necessity for innovation in the halakhah, due to the changed circumstances created by the establishment of the State of Israel. He wanted halakhic decisions to cope with the challenge of today. One can note a change in his thought concerning the state in the course of time, although he himself would have denied this. Leibowitz refused to grant to the state religious status: the aim of the state would be the fulfillment of the needs of the individual and of the community, nothing more. He thought it was idolatry to ascribe holiness to the land or the state, which is not (in the words of religious Zionism) “the beginning of the redemption.” The state – just like history – had for Leibowitz no religious significance. He was a Zionist, but he emphasized that the state need not realize values, it has merely to satisfy needs. The Jewish people, on the other hand, has to realize values. Against Ben-Gurion, he pleaded for the separation of state and religion. Whereas Ben-Gurion wanted religion to be an instrument in the hands of the state, Leibowitz asserted that religion had to be in opposition to the state. For Judaism, only God is holy, whereas country, nation, and state lack that status. The state is not a value in itself; indeed, “seeing the state as a value is the essence of the fascist conception.” Rather, Leibowitz argued, the state is an instrument, a means to an end. Its existence allowed him not to be ruled by the goyim. In addition, Leibowitz criticized the “sacred cow of national unity,” pointing out that the Jewish religion had always divided the people, whether between prophets and kings or between religionists or secularists.

Leibowitz further denied that Zionism had any religious significance, stating that, since the intention of many of its propagators had been completely nonreligious, it could not be retrospectively assigned religious value. In the same way, he refused to acknowledge any messianic significance in the creation of the State of Israel, citing Maimonides’ warning against such messianic fervor. He did, however, ascribe immense moral significance for the Jewish people to the establishment of the Jewish state: “Now – and only now,” he wrote,”with the attainment of the independence of the Jewish nation – will Judaism be tested as to whether indeed it has a ‘Torah of life’ in its hand …. Certainly there is no guarantee that the struggle on behalf of the Torah within the framework of the state will be crowned with success, but even so we are not free to desist from it, for this struggle is itself a supreme religious value, independent of its results.”

Leibowitz was well known in Israel for his provocative utterances on the political situation. After the 1967 Six-Day War, his position on the occupation of the Palestinian territories was sharply critical. His uncompromising stance and forceful, biting language made him a known and much-discussed figure in religious as well as secular circles. In his opinion, partition of the country would be the rational and moral resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With the outbreak of the Lebanon War in 1982, Leibowitz called upon the Israeli soldiers to refuse to serve in Lebanon. He also supported conscientious objection regarding military service in the territories on the grounds that occupation morally corrupts. His outspokenness on matters of conscience led to his vilification by those who saw him as a threat to their values, and the protest that ensued upon the announcement that he had been awarded the Israel Prize in 1993 was such that he turned it down.

In his antimystical approach to Judaism, Leibowitz wanted Jews to reach out toward transcendence, which is approached in the mitzvot that have to be performed without reward. Whereas *Levinas links morality and religion, Leibowitz differentiates between them and even separates the two. Levinas believed that the appeal of the other person is heteronomous, whereas Leibowitz maintained that only the divine command is heteronomous and that morality is autonomous. Therefore, their views on the relationship between religion and morality are radically opposed: for Levinas, religion and morality are intrinsically linked, for Leibowitz, ethical laws are religiously relevant only if a person accepts them as commanded by God. Another crucial difference between Levinas and Leibowitz lies in the fact that the former emphasizes the performance of the ethical act itself, whereas the latter highlights the intention of the act: an act is religious if performed “for the sake of heaven,” it is not religious when performed as a function of human needs and based upon a person’s arbitrary will. Since morality is autonomous, based upon human thought and will, and therefore not “for the sake of heaven,” but “for the sake of man,” it is not religious. Towards the end of his life, Leibowitz appreciated Levinas, but his concept of Torah and mitzvot prevented him from agreeing with him.

Leibowitz had a very negative view of Christianity as well as of modern Jewish thinkers like *Rosenzweig and *Buber, who showed intellectual and religious interest in Christianity. In contrast to scholars and thinkers like David *Flusser, who investigated the Jewish roots of Christianity, Leibowitz wrote that the very concept of a “Judeo-Christian heritage” is a square circle. A synthesis or symbiosis is impossible; Christianity is for Leibowitz the adversary of Judaism. In his view, Christianity is the heir who does not want to admit that the testator is still alive. Judaism and Christianity cannot coexist, because Christianity claims that it is true Judaism, and is interested in the liquidation of Judaism as the religion of Torah and mitzvot.

In his essays, Leibowitz produced sharp and thought-provoking insights on many subjects such as the nature of holiness, chosenness, Messianism, prayer, redemption, and general and personal providence. His consistent and provocative thought gave him a prominent position in contemporary Jewish thought, especially in Israel. His thinking, even when contested, is stimulating and powerful and invites or even forces people to respond by formulating their own views.

In 2005, Leibowitz was voted the 20th-greatest Israeli of all time in an online poll conducted by an Israeli newspaper.


Sources: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved; The Pedagogic Center, The Department for Jewish Zionist Education, The Jewish Agency for Israel, (c) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, Director: Dr. Motti Friedman, Webmaster: Esther Carciente

A. Kasher and Y. Levinger, Sefer Yeshayahu Leibowitz (Heb., 1977); H. Kasher, “‘Torah for Its Own Sake,’ ‘Torah Not for Its Own Sake,’ and the Third Way,” in: The Jewish Quarterly Review, 89:2-3 (1988-89), 153-63; A. Sagi (ed.), Yeshayahu Leibowitz. His World and Philosophy (Heb., 1995); Yeshayahou Leibowitz: le retour du sadducéen par Ami Bouganim (1999); A.Z. Newton, The Fence and the Neighbor: Emmanuel Levinas, Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Israel among the Nations (2001); D. Banon, “E. Levinas et Y. Leibovitz,” in D. Cohen-Levinas and S. Trigano (eds.), Emmanuel Levinas: Philosophie et judaisme (2002), 57-86.

From Jewish Virtual Library, here.

Learning the Lesson of Purim

Op-Ed: Understanding the Agagite ‘Other’

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the holiday of Purim. It is generally believed that the date for Purim is based on the celebration of the Jews of their rescue from the nefarious plans of Haman. That is not quite correct. The plans of Haman to destroy the Jews of the realm of Xerxes were actually undone by Mordecai, Esther and the King nearly a year earlier, in the month of Sivan (late May), long before the date of Purim, which is the 14th (and 15th) of Adar. The timing of the holiday is also not exactly a reflection of the date on which Haman and his tanzim were plotting to annihilate the Jews, thus it is not simply a celebration of the plot being prevented. That plot was for the 13th day of Adar, but Purim is celebrated afterwards, on a different date.

So if the timing of Purim is not to denote the date when the threat to the Jews was removed and if it is not timed to be simply a celebration of that rescue, then what does explain the timing and the essence of Purim?

The answer is quite simple: Purim is the celebration of the killing of anti-Semites. This is quite explicit in the Scroll of Esther. The Jews had been safe from Haman for nearly 10 months, but then, on the 13th day of Adar, they killed over 75,000 anti-Semites. Moreover, they killed them in a well-planned manner, without taking any loot or booty, lest they be accused of acting out of lust for the spoils of the anti-Semites, rather than killing the anti-Semites for its own sake.

Indeed, the entire season around Purim emphasizes the important place in the holiday for the killing of anti-Semites. On the Sabbath before Purim, a special section of the Torah is read in which Jews are reminded of their obligations for all eternity to track down and exterminate the anti-Semites of Amalek. Moreover, the special role for celebrating the killing of anti-Semites in Purim goes further. There is a Rabbinic tradition, that goes back at least to Maimonides, that holds that when the Messiah comes, all Jewish religious holidays other than Purim will be cancelled. Purim will still be celebrated in the Messianic Era. There will be no need to celebrate rescue in a Messianic era where there are no threats to Jews, but therewill be a need to recall the role of killing anti-Semites in human history, even when Succot and Passover have been melted into the general Messianic bliss.

Both Purim and the annual ceremony in which Jews are reminded that they must annihilate Amalek are designed to teach something about the nature of anti-Semitism. The fundamental lesson is that there are never any “underlying causes” for anti-Semitism and Jews must not seek them. Amalek represents base hatred of Jews, without any cause. The Amelekites did not attack the Jews in the desert because the Jews occupied their lands or exploited their resources or mistreated them or behaved in an insensitive manner towards them or created an unfair wealth distribution among them. They attacked the Jews for no reason. Anti-Semitism never has underlying causes. The anti-Semitism of the Haman plot is just as devoid of underlying causes, although the Scroll does mention Haman’s resentment at being snubbed by Mordecai. Haman is himself an Amalekite, descended from the King of the Amalekites who was foolishly spared by King Saul in an act of misplaced compassion. The hero of that earlier story is Samuel, who slits the throat of Agag, King of the Amalekites, without hesitation and without mercy. For his misplaced PC compassion, Saul is stripped of his dynasty. The hatred of the Jews in the kingdom of Xerxes was without real “underlying cause”, just as all anti-Semitism is Amalekite in nature.

The 14th (and 15th) day of Adar, the date for the celebration of Purim, is the day on which the Jews relaxed after killing the more than 75,000 anti-Semites of the Kingdom. It is the day on which they sat back, took in, contemplated and savored, much like the Almighty did Himself on the day after completing the six days of Creation.

To put this differently: The Jews did not offer to pay survivor pensions to the ten sons of Haman after Haman was hanged; the Jews did not whine about how killing those ten was unfair collective punishment of the innocent family of the guilty terrorist; the Jews did not allow Haman’s wife to keep her house; the Jews did not bleat about the horror of collectively punishing the 75,000 anti-Semites; Amnesty International and the EU were not invited in; international observers were not allowed to oversee the treatment of the anti-Semites by the Jews; CNN and BBC reporters were not allowed in to report stories about “what the Jews claim was Haman’s terrorism”; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Sanhedrin did not order that potential killers of Shushan Jewish children be put back on the streets; the Jewish media did not wring its hands over the sufferings of the Persians and Medes under Israelite occupation; Vashti was not invited to run for the parliament at the head of a lesbian party; Mordecai was not arrested for incitement; people did not spit at Mordecai and Esther as they walked down the street in religious garb and call them ?Dirty dosim; the press was not filled with reports about how Haman had been really trying his best to halt the violence; Jewish leaders did not explain how there was no military solution to the problem of Haman and his tanzim; the Jewish press did not insist that Haman was the only peace partner we have and so he must be cultivated, lest some really radical anti-Semite become the Minister for the King, nor did it insist that the Jews show understanding and sensitivity towards the Agagite ?Other?.
———————————
Dr. Steven Plaut teaches at the Graduate School of Business, University of Haifa, Israel.

From Arutz Sheva, here.