Reaction to the Burning of an Arab Home and Stabbing at the Gay Pride Parade
Adapted from Rabbi Braun’s sermon in 5775
Regretfully, in the last day there were two shocking and despicable acts of murder and attempted murder.
A man set out – supposedly in the name of the Torah, purity and holiness, to eliminate impurity by an act more horrible than all others – itself, the source of all impurities – willful murder. Thank God, his abominable scheme was not fully carried out, and we hope that all the injured will have a speedy recovery, and return to full strength.
Unfortunately, in the second case of the Arab family, a baby was murdered and members of his family were very seriously injured, and who knows how much more pain they will have to endure due to their severe wounds. Adding insult to injury, the perpetrators wrote graffiti on the wall of the house: “Long live the king the Mashiach forever,” as though for the sake of world peace in the days of the Mashiach, people must be killed in their sleep.
That was the beginning of Rabbi Eliezer Melamed’s reaction to the two events. Every reaction should begin as he did, denouncing these acts as terribly wrong. But what is the next step, after we have denounced it? Do we try and ask ourselves – how did it come to this?
Rabbi Melamed continues: But that these criminals dare to wrap themselves in cloaks of zealousness for God and His Torah is possible because large sectors of society – Torah observant Jews, God-fearing and upright, Haredim and Mitnachalim (settlers) – live in deep frustration and helplessness. They see how the government, State-run institutions, and the public media frequently discriminate against them and their values. This frustration is interpreted by the criminals as permission to carry out horrendous.
I was certainly saddened and disappointed when I read that. Firstly I am not exactly sure what he means. Secondly and more importantly, his reaction seems to be justification at some level. He understands why they did it, and I would imagine that he is not alone.
That I believe is the wrong approach. In confronting evil and murder and terrorism, you can’t argue, it is wrong but! It takes some of the wind out of the absolute condemnation that is required. It also seems to place the blame on the non religious community as opposed to looking inward to our own communities.
In helping to formulate my thoughts and response I re-read Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein’s response to the murder to Yitzchak Rabin. I understand that there is some difference between the cases but they are similar in that a murder was perpetrated by someone from within the religious community claiming to be acting in the name of God.
I want to share two pieces from Rabbi Lichtenstein’s speech. Towards the beginning he recounts his meeting with Rabbi Ahron Soloveitchik.
Last week I visited mori ve-rabi Harav Aharon Soloveitchik shlit”a, whose fierce opposition to the peace process is well-known. As soon as I walked in, he repeated over and over – “A badge of shame, a badge of shame.” For two days, he hadn’t slept, out of shame and humiliation. This shame, that our state, our people, should have fallen to such a level, should be felt by everyone –
religious, secular, right and left. For to the extent that we feel any sense of unity within Am Yisrael, to the extent that we feel like a single body, then the entire body should feel shamed and pained no matter which limb is responsible for this tragedy. We should feel deep shame that this method of supposedly solving conflicts has become part of our culture.
Rav Amital zt”l expressed similar sentiments in his reaction:
Aside from this, we are obligated to rend our garments over the desecration of God’s name. Have we become like Sodom, do we resemble Gomorrah? The Jewish people, who taught the world absolute morality, beginning with the prohibition on murder; the Jewish state, the only
democracy in the Middle East, a nation founded on the vision of redemption – now resembles some Third World banana republic. This obligates us in keri’a (tearing), if not in rending our clothes, then in rending our hearts. What has happened to us?
Rav Lichtenstein then quotes a fascinating Talmudic story.
Yoma (23a-b) relates: “It happened once that two Kohanim (priests) were running evenly up the ramp [of the altar in the Temple, in order to be first and thus be the one to perform the sacrificial service of the day.] One of them intruded within the four cubits of the other. He drew a knife and plunged it into his heart. R. Zadok stood on the steps of the Sanctuary and said: My brothers, the House of Israel, pay heed! It is written, ‘If one be found slain in the land [and it is not known who the killer is]… your elders and judges shall go out…[and the elders of the town nearest the corpse shall… break a heifer’s neck… and wash their hands… and declare: Our hands did not shed this blood…](Deut. 21:1-9).’ In our case, who should bring the egla arufa (broken-necked heifer), the city or the azarot (Temple courtyards)? And the people burst out crying. The
father of the [slain] youth came and found him in his death- throes. He said, ‘May he be your atonement – my son is yet in his death-throes and the knife is not yet defiled!’ This teaches us that ritual purity was more serious in their eyes than bloodshed.
Rav Lichtenstein highlights two relevant points for us.
First, why does Rav Tzadok reference the Egla Arufa- the heifer brought when we don’t know who the killer is – here we know exactly who the killer is? Secondly – the Gemara continues – we don’t bring this egel in Jerusalem – so what is the Gemara actually asking?
He suggests that we invoke this ritual because even though it does not apply practically in this case, its message it poignant and relevant. The message of the Egla Arufa is one of communal responsibility. What role did we, the people and the leaders, play in this murder? That is the question that the Gemara raises and that is the question that Rav Lichtenstein and Rav amital suggest we ask ourselves. I would suggest that the beginning and end of the story teaches us the answer to that question. In the beginning the priest pits two values- “running to serve God” versus “do not murder” and running to serve God wins.
At the end the father stands over the body of his dying son and tells them to remove the knife from his body before he dies lest the knife become impure. Again there is this focus on purity and impurity while the human loss/ murder component is gone.
Our communities have to ask ourselves – have we overemphasized the land over murder. Have we not educated our children and communities sufficiently regarding the sanctity of human life?
