Baruch Goldstein

OK here is one sure to start a fight. The Rav of Kiryat Arba supported Baruch Goldstein's attack on the Arabs of Hebron, Rav Shach has refused to comment and Rav Menken has disagreed, on another forum, with me on this issue. Can someone give me an overview of the halachic communities response to this issue?

Regarding the post by Mordechai Horowitz in V1 N23, I venture the following thoughts.

There are several issues that should be discussed.

1. The dictum "ha ba l'horgecha, hashkem l'horgo" - if one is being attacked (by someone with the intent to kill), then it is incumbent for you to kill that person first in self defense.

It is interesting to note that the Hebrew "ha ba l'horgecha" may mean not only if one has actually started to physically attack you, but who has actual intent and is about to do so. In this case, halacha would seem to mandate pre-emptive self defense on the part of the about-to-be victim.

2. The concept of "rodef" - that is one who is engaged in active persecution of, and who maliciously intends to harm a Jewish person.

3. The concept of "milhemet mitzva" - a war whose active participation in by all Jewish physically able males is required by Jewish law.

As far as point 1 above is concerned, the Arabs in the Cave Of Machpela on Purim morning a year ago were not engaged in physically attacking any Jews. Arguably, it should be noted that virulent anti-Jewish sentiment is regularly whipped up among the crowds of Moslem worshippers when they go to their Mosques. Anyone who lives in Israel can readily testify to the uneasiness and dread that greets all Jewish Israelis when Friday rolls around. Will the Arabs riot when they come out of the mosque on Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount) ? , is a question whose answer has all to often been anwered with a chilling "yes".

So while the Arabs at the Cave of Machpela on Purim were not physically attacking any Jews, there is evidence (I believe it was recorded in the Inquiry following the incident) that anti-Jewish statements "itbach el-yahud" (slaughter the Jews) were being made in the Cave.

Does this confer upon them the status of an enemy who has revealed his deadly intent to attack (but hasn't yet done so), thus requiring a preemptive act of self defense?

2. The concept of "rodef" would also seem to apply here to the hostile elements of the Arab population in Hebron. The situation of the Jewish community in Hebron, and quite possibly in all of Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) is one of "sakanat nefashot" (life threatening situation), because the hostile Arab population is engaged in active persecution of the Jewish population.

3. Regarding "milhemet mitzva" (a war, the partcipation in which is required (a postive commandment)) - I think that there is no doubt that there is a common halachic concensus that the security situation in Israel is one of "milhemet mizvah". Regardless of the various "peace" treaties and agreements that have been signed with Israel's Arab neighbors, the intent to destroy the Jewish state is still the major driving force in the Arab world.

Another halachic issue that should be raised is: Is an action permitted, given that it probably will lead to additional murderous attacks by the Arabs on Jews ?

Obviously, in a state of war, on the conventional battlefield, this issue is overridden by the rule of self defense. The question here is are we dealing with a conventional battlefield situation in current day Israel, or are we all (Jews living in Israel) in a non-conventional battlefield , where the same rules of self defense would apply ?

I welcome any thoughts and comments
Jeff Weiner

Jeff Weiner <weinerj@smtplink.Indigo.co.il> raised a number of interesting points concerning Baruch Goldstein; I will to limit my thoughts to technical halachic issues, and leave the application of these principles to others more versed in the milatary and cultural conditions of our times. He states:

2. The concept of "rodef" - that is one who is engaged in active persecution of, and who maliciously intends to harm a Jewish person.

The paramaters of rodef are well discussed in halacha. Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky seems to adopt the posture that in order for one to be a rodef, it must be an amdana demuchach (very likely: <90%) that this person will kill you. This is used, and the precise numbers are discussed by Rav Unterman, in an abortion question. A claim that a particular person is a rodef must be backed by clear evidence of that fact. It is important to note that the rodef status can never be used to justify killing an innocent person (one who is not threatening you).

The application of haba lehargecha (the first point of the post) is vastly restricted as the Sages understood that as a manifestation only of the rodef rules.

I would thus ask with what level of certainty can one say (as Mr. Weinerdoes) that:

Arguably, it should be noted that virulent anti-Jewish sentiment is regularly whipped up among the crowds of Moslem worshippers when they go to their Mosques. * * * Does this confer upon them the status of an enemy who has revealed his deadly intent to attack (but hasn't yet done so), thus requiring a preemptive act of self defense ?

3. Regarding "milhemet mitzva" (a war, the participation in which is required (a postive commandment)) - I think that there is no doubt that there is a common halachic concensus that the security situation in Israel is one of "milhemet mizvah".

I find this very very difficult to fathom as related to Goldstein. Certainly the modern Israeli security situation rises to the level of milchemet mitzvah [War required by Divine Command] (and that somtimes permits the killing of innocents); however, the "heter milchama" [permission to conduct a war] can only be used with goverment sanction. The essence of the heter milchama is that the will of the people (as well as other conditions) directs this war as proper and prudent. It is not within the authority of any particular person to decide that a particular killing is needed by the country and is good for the country, and thus kill a person. Rav Waldenburg and Rav Gershuni, as well as many others have addressed these issues at great legnth and all have come to the conclusion that heter milchama requires govermental sanction.

Michael Broyde

In V1, N25, Jeff Weiner made some comments on Goldstein that I wish to respond to.

As far as point 1 above is concerned, the Arabs in the Cave Of Machpela on Purim morning a year ago were not engaged in physically attacking any Jews. Arguably, it should be noted that virulent anti-Jewish sentiment is regularly whipped up among the crowds of Moslem worshippers when they go to their Mosques. Anyone who lives in Israel can readily testify to the uneasiness and dread that greets all Jewish Israelis when Friday rolls around. Will the Arabs riot when they come out of the mosque on Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount) ? , is a question whose answer has all to often been anwered with a chilling "yes".

So while the Arabs at the Cave of Machpela on Purim were not physically attacking any Jews, there is evidence (I believe it was recorded in the Inquiry following the incident) that anti-Jewish statements "itbach el-yahud" (slaughter the Jews) were being made in the Cave.

I cannot accept the premise that because some (or even one) people inside a mosque were MAYBE chanting "slaughter the Jews, that allows one to, in self defense, enter said mosque and indiscriminitely shoot anyone you get between your sights. I cannot believe that Judaism would EVER contenance this.

1) in the US legal system, you can only use self defense if the danger is immediate. I think that this makes sense here, as well. Was Goldstein in any apparant danger? It seems impossible to believe so.

2) can you tell me that everyone shot by Goldstein was involved in these alleged "chants"? If not, does that make the people that he shot innocent victims?

3) also in the US system, words are NEVER enough to justify killing in self defense. NO matter how inflamatory. This, too, seems to make sense to me here. Would an arab be justified in shooting a Kahane follower who shouts "death to the arabs?

2. The concept of "rodef" would also seem to apply here to the hostile elements of the Arab population in Hebron. The situation of the Jewish community in Hebron, and quite possibly in all of Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) is one of "sakanat nefashot" (life threatening situation), because the hostile Arab population is engaged in active persecution of the Jewish population.

Again, I cannot justify saying that the entire Arav population of Hebron is guilty of placing the Jews in a life threatening situation. Even the babies? Even the 90 year old blind women? Is there ANYONE we can't justifiably shoot in "self defense"?

3. Regarding "milhemet mitzva" (a war, the partcipation in which is required (a postive commandment)) - I think that there is no doubt that there is a common halachic concensus that the security situation in Israel is one of "milhemet mizvah". Regardless of the various "peace" treaties and agreements that have been signed with Israel's Arab neighbors, the intent to destroy the Jewish state is still the major driving force in the Arab world.

I agree that Israel, and all Jews, must remain on guard, and that this justifies all Jews serving in the Israeli army.

Another halachic issue that should be raised is: Is an action permitted, given that it probably will lead to additional murderous attacks by the Arabs on Jews ?

I don't know the halactic answer, but common sense tells me this: the attacks will, sadly, occur anyway. In justified situations, therefore, I strongly believe that it is imperative that we assert our right to defend ourselves.

Don't get me wrong: in many circumstances, Jews are absolutly justified in defending themselves against the perpetrators of terror and murder. However, what makes us different from the other side in this war is that we DON'T do what Goldstein did - indiscriminatly kill. We, as Jews, value life too much.

Jonathan David Robbins
Jonathan@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu

[A disclaimer on my own post: this is a controversial subject, and my
comments here offer ample opportunity for those from left to right to be
offended.  They do NOT represent the official "Torah Perspective" or
"Project Genesis position".  Just my own.                    -- Mod.]

This past Friday night, Rabbi Alfred Cohen of Spring Valley's "Blueberry Hill Shul" (where I frequently daven, esp. Friday night) gave a wonderful answer to the question of Boruch Goldstein. Rabbi Cohen is truly in the middle of the Orthodox community - from just about any perspective - and I think this particular commentary was middle of the road, & dead on the mark.

It says in the past parsha that Nadav and Avihu took a "strange fire" before HaShem, and they were burned to death. According to many sources (see Rashi, Midrash - referring _not_ to the opinion that says they were drunk at the time) they really didn't do much that was wrong: they definitely went with all of the right intentions and wanted to bring a Holy offering to G-d. So why were they burned? Because they tried to offer a Halachic ruling in front of their teacher Moshe, or because they didn't ask advice from Moshe, or they didn't show proper respect for Aharon... all depending on which Midrash. The point of all three is the same.

The Torah is telling us something here that we see in many other places as well: if you want to know what G-d wants, you have to ask Moshe and Aharon. End of story. You want to offer your own innovation? Good - take it to Moshe and Aharon and ask about it. The Torah doesn't offer you and me the opportunity to create our own innovations. This, Rabbi Cohen noted, can be tough - because once inspired to do something, we _want_ to do it, and it's hard to hear Moshe and Aharon telling us to back off.

The basic problem with Boruch Goldstein may or may not be what he did. Please excuse a strong personal statement (Rabbi Cohen did _not_ say this), but I believe that there is enough evidence that mosques throughout Israel are being used to encourage terror attacks and indiscriminate murder of Jews. I think many Jews outside Israel (even inside) have a dangerously naive attitude about what these Mullahs really want. It's hard for me to call a minaret broadcasting "KILL THE JEWS" part of "religious worship," yet such are regular features of Islamic services in Israel. They are training their so-called "worshippers" to kill Jews, and I do believe that Goldstein stopped many potential murderers before they got the chance.

BUT - and this is crucial - WHO told Boruch Goldstein that this was how to react? WHERE did he get the authority to open fire? This is the same question that we can ask of the JDL / Kach / Kahane Chai groups around the world - you want to tell us that this is all according to Torah Law? Good - what have Moshe and Aharon to say of all this?

I'm reminded of a lecture I once heard featuring Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr Somayach Jerusalem. He in turn recalled hearing Meir Kahane speak in Boston many years earlier - before his followers became a movement of their own. For two hours, Rav Kahane explained to his audience how _important_ it is to ask Gedolei Torah, leading Torah scholars, about any major issue affecting our People. Rabbi Gottlieb was very bothered: "what HAPPENED to him?" Where is the backing of Gedolei Torah for Kach?

This is the problem: assuming we're confronted with bloodthirsty murderers (which can hardly be proven for _every_ Arab in Ma'arat Machpelah, that's obvious), what is the appropriate reaction? Is it really an indiscriminate discharge of bullets in the midst of services - one that shows no concern for the possibility of innocents, even righteous gentiles, amidst the victims? In the final analysis, the Goldstein shooting cannot be deemed appropriate without consultation with Moshe and Aharon... and that never happened. To the contrary, every major authority has expressed the opinion that Goldstein's behavior was inappropriate, and put Jews into _more_ danger than before - and this is well-supported by recent history.

Obviously, the point here is far more general than this one situation, but is a fundamental outlook upon major issues that is too often ignored. Many groups and individuals today claim that the Torah is their ultimate authority, and the Torah grants legitimacy to their positions. Only those who have the blessings of Moshe and Aharon can claim that they are not repeating the error of Nadav and Avihu.

Yaakov Menken

In V1 N30, Jeff Weiner responded to my response on Goldstein.

First, I would like to clarify that I do not support the actions of Dr Goldstein at the Cave of Machpela on Purim 5754.

This makes me happy - I was under the opposite impression from his last post.

I was merely trying to point out some of the possible issues that MIGHT have served as a backdrop to Dr Goldstein's actions. We will never know what motivated him to act as he did, but it is a publicly known fact that, in his capacity as a medical doctor in the Hebron area, he performed many acts of chesed in treating Jewish victims of Arab terror.

Granted. However, previous acts of kindness cannot excuse - or justify - an extreme act of barbarism. For example, Hitler would be evil even if in his first 30 years he ran an orphanage.

As a general aside to Mr Robbin's comments, and without trying to offend him in any way, I would like to comment on his raising the justification that "in the US legal system one could never justify..."

No offense taken, as it should never be in a discussion.

Israel is NOT the United States. We live in a part of the world where the precepts and legal traditions that are so hallowed by the "enlightened Western (i.e. Christian) world" do not count for anything. If anything, they serve to our enemies in the Arab world as a sure sign of moral decay and inner weakness. This obviously does not mean that they are right, but we here in Israel must understand the mentality and moral underpinnings of our adversaries. And they are radically different from the commonly accepted Western value system prevalent in the United States.

Granted, the US is not Israel. I never pretended it was. All that I sought to do is frame the issue in a way that I -as a law student in the US- and perhaps other residents of the US, can appreciate. I understand the point that Israel's "adversaries" do not comply with the Western value system. But here, the one committing the crime is one of us, not one of them.

Another interesting point, somewhat of an aside, that I would like to raise is this: When the Nation of Israel entered the Land Of Israel, at the end of 40 years in the desert, they were commanded to eradicate the 7 nations living in the Land at that time. Eradicate = including 90 year old blind women and babies. Seems pretty barbaric doesn't it ? How about the physical annihilation of Amalek, an act that Shaul (King Saul) did not carry out to its fullest (he spared their king and their choicest flocks), and because of which Haman the Wicked came many centuries later to (almost) destroy the Jewish people?

A fair point that has always bothered me. For example, in the time of Noach, a whole world was practically destroyed. I have always had trouble dealing with this: were even the babies born a day before worthy of such a fate? I have difficulty reconciling this with Judaism's love of life.

Of course I am NOT suggesting that the Arab population currently living in the Land of Israel come under the defeinition of the 7 nations or Amalek.I am just trying to show that some of the Torah's commandments wouldn't seem to go over fairly well in today's Westernized society. Does that make them wrong, just because they wouldn't necessarily coincide with American standards of legal jurisprudence ? To quote the words of a popular Israeli song by Matti Caspi, D'varim sheh ro'im mikan lo ro'im mi'sham (Things that may be seen from here are not always seen from afar).

Of course western law is not going to reconcile with the Torah in every sense; I wouldn't expect it to. And, of course, that by no means makes the Torah "wrong"; just the opposite.

My basic premise remains this: what Baruch Goldstein did violated the Torah, US law, Israeli law, and every other law that I would want to live under. Period.

Rav Kahana zts"l NEVER told him or anyone else to open fire on anyone. His was not an action of kach or Kahana Chai or whatever. One must know what goes on day to day in Hevron, the mosques, etc., and what the Israel government is doing to isolate, disparage and destroy the settlers and settlements to even try to understand. I was in the US for Pesach that year and saw posters around New York (by the reform movement) calling upon Jews to reject this murderer and support the piece process. In so many words: We chose our murderers to suit ourselves!

In v1n32 R. Yaakov Menken, based on the words of R. Alfred Cohen, writes:

The basic problem with Boruch Goldstein may or may not be what he did. ... BUT - and this is crucial - WHO told Boruch Goldstein that this was how to react? WHERE did he get the authority to open fire? ... ... you want to tell us that this is all according to Torah Law? Good - what have Moshe and Aharon to say of all this?

Similarly, a little later R. Menken quotes R. Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr Somayach, about R. Meir Kahane:

Rabbi Gottlieb was very bothered: "what HAPPENED to him?" Where is the backing of Gedolei Torah for Kach?

A tenet of Orthodoxy is that one should ask a Rav for advice on halachic issues. (And doesn't every problem in our lives have some halachic component?) Also, anyone would agree that a more complex question, or a question with life and death consequences should be addressed by a more knowledgable -- both in mind and in heart -- Rav than the regular, day-to-day, issues.

So, I don't really know anyone with an Orthodox life perspective who would argue with R. Menken's assertion that Baruch Goldstein failed in not asking a Gadol Batorah (one who is great in Torah) before making a decision that would end the lives of dozens of people. (Assuming, of course, that the opportunity was there. If faced with a mugger, don't say "One moment please, I must go ask my Rabbi if I am permitted to fight back". :-)

The problem I have with the post is that is presupposes the resolution of a very hard question: Who is a Gadol? Movements tend to have the support of gedolim (pl for Gadol), yet go in very different directions. Are we to start playing a "My Gadol is bigger than your gadol" (mgibtyg) game?

Is the indictment against Kach that they didn't seek any gadol? Yet, they feel R. Meir Kahane WAS their gadol. I disagree that he would qualify. But how is my disagreement different in any fundamental way, from the mgibtyg game?

ON A very different subject... AFAIK, the Mir Yeshiva never anulled R. Kahane's smichah (ordination). IMHO, calling him "Meir Kahane" or just "Kahane" is an insult to that august Yeshiva -- regardless of your opinion about the musmach (the ordained).

Micha Berger                   Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3074 days!
berger@sbcm.com  212 224-4937             (16-Oct-86 - 23-Mar-95)
aishdas@iia.org  201 916-0287
AishDas Society's Home Page

I am skeptical as to R. Menken's rationalization of Goldstein's activities (I know he did not condone them, and I am not accusing him of such. I again, am merely questioning the logic). I believe the bottom line is that as a result of Goldstein, the stakes were driven dramatically higher, and the Arabs felt free to descend to a more devastating level of suicide bombing than ever before. The point of this being anti-Halchic behavior is thus highlighted by the greater incidence of tragedies we have therefore suffered as a result. It is true that direct causality is hard to prove in any case, but certainly the number of fatalitites and their timing must give us - sad - pause.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer

Interesting issue regarding the Gedolei Yisrael and Kach. During Rav Kahane's z"l lifetime, we were always asking where were the Gedolei Yisrael regarding Kach. Yet at his funeral, if I remember correctly, he was eulogized by the Chief Rabbi of Israel.

Also in a situation of Pikuat Nefesh, which would be the main justification for Baruch Goldstein Z"L action, aren't we prohibited from risking Jewish lives by running to a Rav to ask for a heter.

Also hasn't Rav Lior, the Rabbi of Kiryat Arba, and presumably Baruch Goldstein Rabbi (He was from Kiryat Arba himself) written responsa indicating that actions such as Baruch Goldstein Z"L taken are halachically permissable?

Also I've been told, that among others Rav Shach refused to condem Baruch Goldsteins action.

Please read this note as a series of questions rather than arguments. Thank you.

One problem I've noticed in some posts, people who claim that Baruch Goldsteins action must have violated Torah law because they emotioanally oppose his action. Yet these individuals cite no Torah source for their view.

One issue, regardless of what one thinks the Torah position is on this debate, is that Torah is not our personal moral code. It is external to us, and may differ from what we may personally view as moral or not. A good example given by a previous poster is the order to commit genocide against the seven nations. Emotionally from a personal moral perspective I can't justify it. But as a Torah Jew I don't have the luxury of ignoring it either.

As I've understood it this is the true lesson of the Akeida. Certainly in our own human created morality, we can't understand why G-d would order us to sacrifice, to murder, a son, an innocent. Yet Abraham did this, or was prepared to, because it was the command of G-d. The only reason Isaac was spared was because that was the command of G-d. Morality was not determined by Abraham's personal subjective belief, but soley by G-d.

So when we discuss an issue such as Baruch Goldstein z"l, the issue shouldn't be what the west, or what I think is moral, but what the Torah has to say. The morality or immorality of his heroism should be determined by halacha, not by us.

My original post on this issue appears in #32, and the responses mentioned below in #34. Concerning those responses, we have observed the following: once one has found a happy medium, one is then fired upon from all sides...

Let me first respond to Rabbi Yosef Bechhofer, who was concerned by my "rationalization" of Goldstein's behavior. As I said, I think the rationale for his actions was clear and obvious - the continuing acts of terror against Jews, and possibly his concern that another attack was imminent. I do not believe that our attempts to understand him make it any more difficult for us to condemn his actions as totally and unquestionably wrong. I agree entirely with RYB that Goldstein was ill-advised both Halachically and practically, and I too feel that the repercussions are felt both in the number and the intensity of Arab attacks on Jews over the last year.

I also agree with David Baron, who was concerned that Rav Kahane's name was perhaps being used to justify an attack that Kahane might well not have supported. I only drew a parallel in that Boruch Goldstein, like Rav Kahane, Kach and Kahane Chai, all felt full Halachic support for extreme behavior and/or positions -- and yet the necessary approbation of leading Torah scholars has been entirely lacking. Incidentally, while it is true that Goldstein did not act as a member of any organization, it is also no secret that many leaders of Kach and Kahane Chai have praised his actions.

Micha Berger's question - "Who is a Gadol?" [great Torah scholar] - is a separate issue worthy of its own discussion here. The process of becoming an outstanding scholar and leader in the Jewish community is entirely different from ascendance to leadership anywhere else, and it can be perplexing. Nonetheless the end results of a process based upon acclaim from teachers and peers are still easy to determine given a bit of practice -- so we know who the Gedolim are, and no, none of them supported Goldstein's actions in Hebron.

Yaakov Menken
menken@torah.org

Note that not only kachnik groups praised this action but almost every charedi group that Purim. People were saying that this was a matanah, a gift, for Purim.

My first reaction to the news was: Why did he shoot them?

I agree entirely with RYB that Goldstein was ill-advised both Halachically and practically, and I too feel that the repercussions are felt both in the number and the intensity of Arab attacks on Jews over the last year.

There are quite a number of good Jews who support BG without reservation. For those interested in some of the Torah behid it they might find some of it in the recently published Baruch Hagever, recently published in Israel.

What happened in Hebron was a total Chilul-Hashem [desecration of G-d's name] and was cold blooded murder. As Rav Dessler states in Strive for Truth - Jews are meant to practice the attribute of Chesed. The Attribute of Lovingkindness is one of the principles on which the world was created and for a Jew to do the opposite is going against everything judaism says. How can one think this was a Matanah [gift] as opposed to a gross Chillul HaShem? Is this what Judaism stands for?

In # 59 "ben" wrote regarding the actions of Baruch Goldstein:

As Rav Dessler states in Strive for Truth - Jews are meant to practice the attribute of Chesed. The Attribute of Lovingkindness is one of the principles on which the world was created and for a Jew to do the opposite is going against everything judaism says. How can one think this was a Matanah [gift] as opposed to a gross Chillul HaShem? Is this what Judaism stands for?

Allowing Amalek to continue to flout the Kingship of Hashem is the ultimate Chillul Hashem.