Parsahat Noach begins with telling us about Noah: “This is the line of Noah.—Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age; Noah walked with God.” Noah lived at a time when humanity was evil, analogous to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah who we read about in a few weeks. In the story God decides to destroy the world because of perpetual evil and tells Noah, the only righteous person left, to build an Ark so when this judgment comes as a storm upon the world, only he and his family alone would survive while all others will perish. While there is violence in the opening chapters of Genesis, such as the murder of Abel by his brother Cain, here in this parasha we see the first “battle” with mass casualties; the weapon of this war is a deadly flood where God does battle with evil. But this is also the first time experiencing what we call “collateral damage.”
Are we to think that each and every person who perished in the flood was evil? Most Jewish texts seem to deal with the reason as opposed to the ethics or morality of needless deaths. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 57a) the rabbis concluded that the reason for the flood was that “Wherever “corruption” is mentioned, it must refer to illicit sex and idolatry. Illicit sex, as it is written [remove it from your midst] Lest you corrupt yourselves.” There are other texts to consider regarding the flood, but in general both here and with other “wars” to follow, they were primarily religious in nature. Yet, in the same way we show compassion for the death of the Egyptians during our Passover seders, in a Midrash (Gen. R. 32:7) God mourns the deaths that will follow because of the flood, both of the wicked and the innocent. Because of the loss of life the wars of Torah are to be mourned and not just celebrated.
Still this war, whose weapon for the ancients was the flood, was between good and evil. In response to what happened Alexander Heidel (Christian Theologian) wrote, “the moral or ethical motive is almost completely absent,” and in like fashion J. David Bleich (Jewish Law/Ethics Professor at Yeshiva University) teaches, “there exists no discussion in classical rabbinic sources that takes cognizance of the likelihood of causing civilian casualties in the course of hostilities legitimately undertaken as posing a halakhic or moral problem.”
Michael Walzer, a political theorist at Princeton University in New Jersey, writes that Torah does not speak to the sensibilities of modern warfare regarding rules of engagement. Walzer makes two points. First, there is a big difference between needless killing and collateral damage, something that was called the “double-effect” by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas provided the early church (12th Century) a doctrine of ethics for war, something Walzer suggested should be incorporated by Israel to address the reality of civilian deaths during times of combat. Second, a reminder that Israel’s wartime ethic is based upon what is called “tahor ha-neshek,” or purity of arms, which says: “The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property.” While collateral damage is unavoidable Israel is charged with the duty to protect innocent life.
What we can take away from the Torah, the Bible or classical Jewish texts, is that although the complexities of modern warfare is not mentioned, the highest Jewish value of honoring life is, Jewish or otherwise. While yes there are “rules from Torah” during war they are limited to the principles they provide more so than policies. But the moral conundrum says the following: it is never just for people to die but in war death can be justifiable. Do mistakes happen, yes, are they avoidable, not in active war but we must try, is war necessary, yes and depends. Yet, with all the tangibles and intangibles of war in mind, it is an anathema to me that Israel is held in juxtaposition with Hamas over the issues of the moral value of life. The tragedy of the hospital deaths are heartbreaking and devastating, and if Israel did this they would admit to it. Instead, both Israel and Hamas are being held to the same standard - who should be believed - as if there is a moral equivalency between Israel who values life and Hamas who exists to kill. Like God who mourned the deaths of innocents before the flood, Israel’s pursuit to eliminate evil will always mourn the innocent lives that will unfortunately perish.
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Adam Ruditsky
No comments:
Post a Comment