jewish philosophy place

TORAH PHARMAKON: DRUG OF LIFE/DRUG OF DEATH

YOMA 72b

אִלְמָלֵא בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה, לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר מִשּׂוֹנְאֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׂרִיד וּפָלִיט.

He offers a homiletic interpretation: Were it not for the priestly vestments, which provide atonement for the Jewish people, there would not remain a remnant [sarid] or survivor from the haters of the Jewish people, a euphemism used to refer to the Jewish people themselves. Due to the atonement provided by the priestly vestments, a remnant [sarid] of the Jewish people does survive.

רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: דְּבֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תָּנָא: בְּגָדִים שֶׁגּוֹרְדִין אוֹתָן כִּבְרִיָּיתָן מִכְּלֵיהֶן, וּמְשָׂרְדִין מֵהֶן כְּלוּם. מַאי הִיא? רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵלּוּ מַעֲשֵׂה מַחַט.

Another interpretation: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that the school of Rabbi Shimon taught: The priestly vestments are referred to as “serad garments” because they are garments that are woven in their completed form upon the loom, as opposed to weaving the material and then cutting and sewing pieces of the material together to create the required form, and then just a small part of them remains [masridin] which is not completed upon the loom. What is the remnant, the part that was not woven? Reish Lakish said: This is the needle-work required to complete the garment.

מֵיתִיבִי: בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן מַעֲשֵׂה מַחַט, אֶלָּא מַעֲשֵׂה אוֹרֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מַעֲשֵׂה אוֹרֵג״! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְבֵית יָד שֶׁלָּהֶם. כִּדְתַנְיָא: בֵּית יָד שֶׁל בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה נֶאֱרֶגֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, וְנִדְבֶּקֶת עִם הַבֶּגֶד, וּמַגַּעַת עַד פִּיסַּת הַיָּד.

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: Priestly vestments should not be made through needle-work but though woven work, as it is stated: “Woven work” (Exodus 28:32). The Gemara answers that Abaye said: Reish Lakish’s statement is necessary only for, i.e., refers only to, the sleeves. As it was taught in a baraita: A sleeve made for the priestly vestments is woven separately and then attached to the garment by sewing, and the sleeve is made to reach as far as the palm of the hand. However, the main body of the garment must indeed be made exclusively though weaving.

אָמַר רַחֲבָה אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרוֹנוֹת עָשָׂה בְּצַלְאֵל, אֶמְצָעִי שֶׁל עֵץ תִּשְׁעָה, פְּנִימִי שֶׁל זָהָב שְׁמוֹנָה, חִיצוֹן עֲשָׂרָה וּמַשֶּׁהוּ.

§ The Gemara cites statements concerning other Temple vessels: Raḥava said that Rav Yehuda said: The Torah states that the Ark should be made of wood with gold plating inside and out (Exodus 25:10–11). In order to achieve this Bezalel made three arks: A middle one made of wood, whose height was nine handbreadths; an inner one made of gold, whose height was eight handbreadths; and an outer one of gold, whose height was ten handbreadths and a bit. These arks were nested.

וְהָתַנְיָא: אַחַד עָשָׂר וּמַשֶּׁהוּ! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ בְּעׇבְיוֹ טֶפַח, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין בְּעׇבְיוֹ טֶפַח. וּמַאי מַשֶּׁהוּ — זֵיר.

The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that the outer ark was eleven handbreadths and a bit? The Gemara explains: This is not difficult: This statement in the baraita is in accordance with the one who said that the thickness of the gold plating was one handbreadth. According to this opinion, the outer ark’s base took up one handbreadth of its height, ten handbreadths were then needed to contain the middle ark within it, and then a bit more was needed so it could also contain the Ark’s cover. That statement of Rav Yehuda is in accordance with the one who said that the thickness of the gold plating was not one handbreadth but was a plate of gold of negligible thickness. According to this opinion, the outer ark needed to be only ten handbreadths and a bit and could still contain the outer ark and have room for the cover. And what is this additional bit? It is the ornamental crown on the edge of the outer ark.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, שְׁלֹשָׁה זֵירִים הֵן: שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ, וְשֶׁל אָרוֹן, וְשֶׁל שֻׁלְחָן. שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ — זָכָה אַהֲרֹן וּנְטָלוֹ. שֶׁל שֻׁלְחָן — זָכָה דָּוִד וּנְטָלוֹ. שֶׁל אָרוֹן — עֲדַיִין מוּנָּח הוּא, כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לִיקַּח — יָבֹא וְיִקַּח. שְׁמָּא תֹּאמַר פָּחוּת הוּא, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בִּי מְלָכִים יִמְלוֹכוּ״.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There were three crowns on the sacred vessels in the Temple: The crown of the altar, and of the Ark, and of the table. The regal appearance they provided symbolized power and authority: The crown of the altar symbolized the crown of priesthood; Aaron was deserving and took it, and the priesthood continues exclusively through his descendants. The crown of the table symbolized the abundance and blessing associated with the crown of kingship; David was deserving and took it for himself and his descendants after him. The crown of the Ark symbolized the crown of Torah; it is still sitting and waiting to be acquired, and anyone who wishes to take it may come and take it and be crowned with the crown of Torah. Perhaps you will say it is inferior to the other two crowns and that is why nobody has taken it; therefore, the verse states about the wisdom of Torah: “Through me kings will reign” (Proverbs 8:15), indicating that the strength of the other crowns is derived from the crown of Torah, which is greater than them all.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רָמֵי. כְּתִיב: ״זָר״, וְקָרֵינַן ״זֵיר״. זָכָה — נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ זֵיר, לֹא זָכָה — זָרָה הֵימֶנּוּ.

§ The Gemara presents a number of statements based on the idea that the Ark symbolizes the Torah: Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a contradiction: According to the way the word crown is written in the Torah (Exodus 25:11), without vowels, it should be pronounced zar, meaning strange, but according to the traditional vocalization we read it as zeir, meaning crown. These two ways of understanding the word appear to contradict each other. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: The two understandings apply to two different situations: If one is deserving by performing mitzvot, it becomes a crown [zeir] for him; but if one is not deserving, the Torah will be a stranger [zara] to him and he will forget his studies.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רָמֵי. כְּתִיב: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים״, מִכָּאן לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם, שֶׁבְּנֵי עִירוֹ מְצֻוִּוין לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ מְלַאכְתּוֹ.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a contradiction: It is written: “And you shall make for yourself a wooden Ark” (Deuteronomy 10:1), implying that Moses alone was commanded to construct the Ark; and it is written: “And they shall make an Ark of acacia wood” (Exodus 25:10), implying that the Jewish people were all commanded to be involved in its construction. The apparent resolution to this contradiction is that although only Moses actually constructed the Ark, everyone was required to support the endeavor. So too, from here it is derived with regard to a Torah scholar that the members of his town should perform his work for him to support him and allow him to focus on his studies, since it is also the town’s responsibility to enable him to study.

״מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ תְּצַפֶּנּוּ״. אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאֵין תּוֹכוֹ כְּבָרוֹ — אֵינוֹ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם.

The verse states concerning the Ark: “From within and from without you shall cover it” (Exodus 25:11). Rava said: This alludes to the idea that any Torah scholar whose inside is not like his outside, i.e., whose outward expression of righteousness is insincere, is not to be considered a Torah scholar.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: נִקְרָא נִתְעָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַף כִּי נִתְעָב וְנֶאֱלָח אִישׁ שׁוֹתֶה כַמַּיִם עַוְלָה״.

Abaye said, and some say it was Rabba bar Ulla who said: Not only is such a person not to be considered a Torah scholar, but he is called loathsome, as it is stated: “What then of one loathsome and foul, man who drinks iniquity like water” (Job 15:16). Although he drinks the Torah like water, since he sins, his Torah is considered iniquitous and this makes him loathsome and foul.

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״לָמָּה זֶּה מְחִיר בְּיַד כְּסִיל לִקְנוֹת חׇכְמָה וְלֶב אָיִן״ — אוֹי לָהֶם לְשׂוֹנְאֵיהֶן שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁעוֹסְקִין בַּתּוֹרָה וְאֵין בָּהֶן יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Why is there a price in the hand of a fool to buy wisdom, as he has no heart?” (Proverbs 17:16)? This expresses the following sentiment: Woe to them, haters of Torah scholars, a euphemism for the Torah scholars themselves, who immerse themselves in Torah and have no fear of Heaven. They are fools; they try to acquire the wisdom of Torah, but since they have no fear of Heaven in their hearts they lack the ability to do so.

מַכְרִיז רַבִּי יַנַּאי: חֲבָל עַל דְּלֵית לֵיהּ דָּרְתָּא, וְתַרְעָא לְדָרְתֵּיהּ עָבֵיד.

Rabbi Yannai declared that the situation may be expressed by the following sentiment: Pity him who has no courtyard but senselessly makes a gate for his courtyard. Fear of Heaven is like the courtyard, and the study of Torah is the gate that provides entrance to the courtyard. The study of Torah is purposeful only if it leads to fear of Heaven.

אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא לְרַבָּנַן: בְּמָטוּתָא מִינַּיְיכוּ, לָא תִּירְתוּן תַּרְתֵּי גֵּיהִנָּם.

Rava said to the Sages in the study hall: I beg of you, do not inherit Gehenna twice. By studying Torah without the accompanying fear of Heaven, not only are you undeserving of the World-to-Come, but even in this world you experience Gehenna, as you spend all your time in study and fail to benefit from worldly pleasure.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר שָׂם מֹשֶׁה״, זָכָה — נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ סַם חַיִּים, לֹא זָכָה — נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ סַם מִיתָה. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רָבָא: דְּאוֹמֵן לַהּ — סַמָּא דְחַיָּיא, דְּלָא אוֹמֵן לַהּ — סַמָּא דְמוֹתָא.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And this is the Torah which Moses put [sam] before the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 4:44)? The word sam is written with the letter sin and means put; it is phonetically similar to the word sam written with the letter samekh, meaning a drug. This use of this word therefore alludes to the following: If one is deserving, the Torah becomes a potion [sam] of life for him. If one is not deserving, the Torah becomes a potion of death for him. And this idea is what Rava said: For one who is skillful in his study of Torah and immerses himself in it with love, it is a potion of life; but for one who is not skillful in his studies, it is a potion of death.

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״פִּקּוּדֵי ה׳ יְשָׁרִים מְשַׂמְּחֵי לֵב״, וּכְתִיב: ״אִמְרַת ה׳ צְרוּפָה״. זָכָה — מְשַׂמַּחְתּוֹ, לֹא זָכָה — צוֹרַפְתּוֹ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר, מִגּוּפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא נָפְקָא: זָכָה — צוֹרַפְתּוֹ לְחַיִּים, לֹא זָכָה — צוֹרַפְתּוֹ לְמִיתָה.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan raised a contradiction: It was written: “The precepts of the Lord are upright, gladdening the heart” (Psalms 19:9), but it is also written: “The word of the Lord is refining” (Psalms 18:31), which implies that the study of Torah can be a distressing process by which a person is refined like metal smelted in a smith’s fire. He reconciles these verses as follows: For one who is deserving, the Torah gladdens him; for one who is not deserving, it refines him. Reish Lakish said: This lesson emerges from that second verse itself: For one who is deserving, the Torah refines him for life; for one who is not deserving, it refines him for death.

״יִרְאַת ה׳ טְהוֹרָה עוֹמֶדֶת לָעַד״. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: זֶה הַלּוֹמֵד תּוֹרָה בְּטָהֳרָה. מַאי הִיא? נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ לוֹמֵד תּוֹרָה.

The verse states: “Fear of the Lord is pure, it stands forever” (Psalms 19:10). Rabbi Ḥanina said: This is referring to one who studies Torah in purity; for such a person the Torah will remain with him forever. What is this; what does it mean to study in purity? One first marries a woman and afterward studies Torah. Since he is married, his heart will not be occupied with thoughts of sin, which could lead him to become impure.

״עֵדוּת ה׳ נֶאֱמָנָה״, אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: נֶאֱמָנָה הִיא לְהָעִיד בְּלוֹמְדֶיהָ.

In the same Psalm the verse states: “The testimony of God is faithful” (Psalms 19:8). Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: This alludes to the fact that the Torah is faithful to testify about those who study it and those who do not.

״מַעֲשֵׂה רוֹקֵם״, ״מַעֲשֵׂה חוֹשֵׁב״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שֶׁרוֹקְמִין בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחוֹשְׁבִין.

The Gemara returns to its discussion concerning the sacred vessels: The verse states with regard to the covers for the Tabernacle that they are “work of an embroiderer” (Exodus 26:36), and it also states they are “work of a designer” (Exodus 26:31). How can both descriptions be reconciled? Rabbi Elazar said: They embroidered the place where they had designed. They first marked a design on the material in paint, and then they embroidered it.

תָּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: ״רוֹקֵם״ — מַעֲשֵׂה מַחַט, לְפִיכָךְ פַּרְצוּף אֶחָד. ״חוֹשֵׁב״ — מַעֲשֵׂה אוֹרֵג, לְפִיכָךְ שְׁנֵי פַּרְצוּפוֹת.

A Sage taught in the name of Rabbi Neḥemya: “Work of an embroiderer” refers to needlework, which therefore produces only one face. The design is made with a needle passing back and forth from both sides of the curtain, and consequently an identical parallel image, or one face, is formed on both sides. “Work of a designer” refers to woven work, which therefore produces two faces. Although formed together, the two sides of the material were not identical; for example, sometimes an eagle appeared on one side while a lion was on the other side.

בְּאֵלּוּ נִשְׁאָלִין בְּאוּרִים וְתוּמִּים. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: בְּגָדִים שֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבִגְדֵי הַקּוֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר לְאַהֲרֹן יִהְיוּ לְבָנָיו אַחֲרָיו״, לְמִי שֶׁבָּא בִּגְדוּלָּה אַחֲרָיו.

§ It was taught in the mishna: When dressed in these eight garments, the High Priest may be consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The garments in which the High Priest serves are also worn when the priest anointed for war serves. This priest is appointed to recite words of encouragement to the nation before it goes out to war (see Deuteronomy 20:2). As it is stated: “And the sacred garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him” (Exodus 29:29), which is taken to refer to the one who comes after him in greatness, meaning the priest whose rank is one lower than the High Priest, i.e., the priest anointed for war.

מֵתִיב רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּדִי: יָכוֹל יְהֵא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ תַּחְתָּיו כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְשַׁמֵּשׁ תַּחְתָּיו —

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection, and some say it unattributed: It is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that the son of the priest anointed for war serves in his place, i.e., he inherits the position, in the same way that the son of a High Priest serves in his place if he is fit for the job;

Nicholas Kristof’s recent, incendiary op-ed about mass rape committed against Palestinians is now a confusing case in point about the political and moral morass that is Israel under Netanyahu after October 7. There is, in fact, reliable reporting about the systemic abuse, including a pattern of sexual abuse and rape, suffered by Palestinians at the hand of the Israel Prison Service. Kristof’s op-ed builds off that reporting. What begs belief is the sourcing behind the malicious claim by Kristof that Israel has trained dogs to rape Palestinians and the imputation that the government of Israel, in the mirror image of Hamas and worse, pursues a policy of systematic, mass rape. That the New York Times is no longer a reliable source of information and analysis on Palestine and Israel is its own professional responsibility –while the government of Israel has only itself to blame for the moral and political confusion and morass with which it has surrounded the country.

On its own, the op-ed by Kristof is a mix of truth and lies. There is every reason to believe as reported by Kristof the accounts told by victims of alleged rape and other acts of sexual violence at the hands of Israeli authorities. But when you break the op-ed into component parts, you begin to see how the larger takeaway does not hang together. Because for whatever reason, Kristof chose to rely heavily on Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, a Hamas-linked NGO based in Geneva, to frame this narrative about Palestine and Israel. About Euro-Med you can read here more at the rightwing site NGO Monitor. That Kristof did nothing in the op-ed to identify Euro-Med and the controversy about it makes for dishonest opinion, at the very least.

The op-ed follows a point-by-point logic:

[1] Kristof writes, “There is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes.”

[2] Kristof continues, “But in recent years they have built a security apparatus where sexual violence has become, as a United Nations report put it last year, one of Israel’s “standard operating procedures” and “a major element in the ill treatment of Palestinians.” A report out last month, from the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based advocacy group often critical of Israel, concludes that Israel employs “systematic sexual violence” that is “widely practiced as part of an organized state policy” (emphasis added). Kristof goes on to compare this sexual violence with alleged accounts relating to the extraordinary scale of organized mass rape in the Tigray conflict in Ethiopia and in Sudan.

[3] Kristof concedes, “It’s impossible to know how common sexual assaults against Palestinians are.”

[4] At this point, the analysis goes off the rails. After terrible stories by credible Palestinian witnesses is the claim that Israel is using trained dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners. This unhinged and impossible story has gotten the lion’s share of critical attention drawing attention away from grave and confirmed allegations about the ill-treatment of Palestinians under Israeli authority. Then, the final word of the op-ed compares the pattern of abuse in Israel with the mass scale of sexual assault by Palestinians against Israeli civilians on and after October 7. Again to draw a moral equivalence, Kristof claims that, “The horrific abuse inflicted on Israeli women on Oct. 7 now happens to Palestinians day after day” after having just said that it is impossible to know how common these assaults are.

How, then, to explain this garble on the part of a distinguished journalist? Absent the decision to allow Euro-Med to frame the analysis, Kristof’s op-ed would have more than held up based on the interviews alone; and the allegations would have not been so easy to dismiss by Israeli government officials and others acting in bad faith. If one were to hazard a guess, it is that, between Palestine and Israel, Kristof wants to maintain something by way of moral balance; and gets lost in the radicalized politics of the region. This is a sign of the times. To balance the ethno-religious fascism of an Israeli government hellbent on war crimes, Kristof goes to a Hamas front cum European NGO. But there is no balance to be had. Between the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea, the entire region running through Israel and Lebanon and Palestine and Syria has gone helter-skelter after October 7.

As recognized by Kristof, the problem is that “The Israeli government rejects suggestions that it sexually abuses Palestinians, just as Hamas denied raping Israeli women.” Both claims are unbelievable. But the op-ed is also unbelievable, not in whole, but in some large and significant part. Introduced is a third element in the story, this one about Nicholas Kristof himself and reporting at the New York Times, responsibility for which lies on him and his editors.

By way of establishing moral equivalence, Kristof wants to establish a single narrative throughline. But, per here by Haviv Rettig-Gur, there are, in fact, two separate stories now surrounding the op-ed. . One is the election of the unhinged government of Netanyahu in November 2022 and the systemic abuse of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, including grave instances of sexual assault, the destruction of Gaza, and galloping annexation in the occupied West Bank after October 7, 2023. The other story is the assault on Israel by the Iran-backed Axis of Resistance and, with it, the systematic demonization of Israel, and a tsunami of anti-Semitism, also after October 7, now based on narratives shaped in mainstream media by members of the so-called human rights community in synch with Hamas style talking points.

Responding to the Kristof op-ed, Hen Mazzig notes here that the New York Times has not had on staff a public editor since 2017. The public editor is an internal ombudsman position meant to ensure fair, accurate, and transparent reporting. You can read more about the decision here and here as reported at the New York Times itself, and wonder about the impact on the publication. Removing this layer of journalistic accounting sheds further light upon coverage and analysis of Israel and Palestine, now at a moment of radical crisis. Responding to the digital age, the decision by Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. was based on the assumption that “readers and social media followers collectively serve as a modern watchdog.”  Those of us who want to understand better about physical and moral injury and politics in Palestine and Israel are caught between a rock and a hard place in this challenging digital environment, assessing the difference between a truth and a lie, and the way they fold into each other with such stunning ease.

Religion is the beating heart of the rot in Israel today, but Netanyahu and Israeli society are ultimately responsible for activating and tolerating this dangerous mutation in Judaism

Ihab Hassan @IhabHassane:

Israeli settlers exhumed the body of Hussein Mahmoud Asasa, an 80-year-old Palestinian man, and dug up his grave because it was near an illegal settlement — most likely built on land stolen from him and his family — in the West Bank. Even dead Palestinians are not spared from settler terrorism.

Ihab Hassan is too polite to mention the deep religious rot inundating Israel and Israeli society under Netanyahu and his Kahanist government. There is not much more depth to the depravity of state and army sanctioned anti-Palestinian religious-Jewish terrorism in the occupied West Bank, in complete violation of the image of God in this human person and a desecration of the divine Name.

You can find more information about this story and others here at Times of Israel.

Dr. Jordan Loewen-Colón presented this very sharp and critical talk at Syracuse about the intersection of AI, the world of business, tech and society, and the Humanities before a large and rapt crowd. Colleagues should invite him to campus and learn more about the now-future of humanistic study and culture.

Dr. Loewen-Colón wrote his dissertation in the Department of Religion at Syracuse on VR and religion, and digital dualism. He is cofounder of the AI Alt Lab and adjunct assistant professor of AI Ethics and Policy at Queen’s University’s Smith School of Business in Ontario, Canada

A letter from the liberal-left London Initiative against the unprecedented wave of state-sponsored Jewish terror against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank

Click here to add your name

List of Signatories

March 2026

Dear President Herzog,

In a letter from Diaspora Jewry to Prime Minister Netanyahu dated 7^th August 2025, over 6,300 members of world Jewry from 20 countries implored the Prime Minister to “Enforce the law in the West Bank, where the frequency and intensity of deadly violence by Jewish extremists is unprecedented”.

Facilitated by The London Initiative and signed by many prominent Diaspora leaders with lifelong commitments to Israel, the letter urged The Prime Minister  “to prevent attacks by settlers and their supporters and ensure arrests and prosecutions of those responsible”.

Since then, the situation has only deteriorated, reaching a new nadir during the war with Iran. On Wednesday 18^th March, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir issued his own stark condemnation. He described attacks by Jewish extremists against Palestinian civilians and IDF soldiers in the West Bank as “morally and ethically unacceptable” and a major strategic threat to Israel’s security and future.

Israel’s security forces are clearly better able to protect Palestinian civilians in the West Bank, living under different levels of Israeli military and civil control, from Jewish terror. That they do not act decisively suggests a lack of directives from the government.

Mr. President, the terror, death and destruction inflicted by Jewish-Israeli extremists against innocent Palestinians across the West Bank is an abomination.

It is not only morally shameful but a strategic threat to the future of Israel. It damages world Jewry and the relationship of future generations with Israel. Sadly, based on events and on the statements of the most extreme coalition partners it can be concluded that the violence now engulfing the West Bank is not only condoned by the government but is in fact policy.

Our commitment to Israel as the national home of the Jewish People is unwavering. It is grounded in the Jewish and democratic values enshrined in Israel’s Declaration of Independence – values of mature liberal democracy, fairness for all citizens, and a striving to live in secure peace with Israel’s neighbors, including the Palestinian People.

It is a commitment to the dignified partnership between Diaspora Jewry, all citizens of Israel and the State of Israel of which you frequently speak.

Mr. President, you have consistently affirmed our conviction that as Diaspora Jews it is both our right and obligation to speak up and speak out. In this regard we will continue to support citizens of Israel of all backgrounds working courageously to protect the safety, dignity and freedom of innocent Palestinians and uphold the rule of law.

We note with deep regret the absence of such a commitment from this government and call on you to share our profound concerns as here set out with The Prime Minister, members of the government, its ambassadors and members of the Knesset.

Mr. President, Pesach is upon us. As we have for millennia, Jews everywhere will reflect on the promise of freedom and responsibilities of power. We call on you to use your position to implore the government to put an end to the abomination of Jewish-extremist terror and the era of impunity for its perpetrators.

Should this scourge remain unchecked it will undermine the promise of the Jewish People’s freedom, security and sovereignty.

Yours Sincerely and Chag Sameach,

Hebrew Translation

Arabic Translation

The following is a summary of personal impressions followed by a few critical comments of my own a week after the second conference of Smol Emuni held two Sundays ago at Congregation Bnei Jeshurun in Manhattan. , My own thoughts about Judaism as an elementary and protean form of power were only sharpened at the conference. About this more below, but in relation to the poison-politics of Isael and Palestine, I would see religion as a dyadic power –a profound source of moral and political culture, and a negative force and source of violence deeply structured into the life of a people.

Smol Emuni (Faithful Left) is the American sister branch of Ha’Smol Ha’Emuni in Israel. Smol Emuni is a Jewish religious left movement organizing opposition to the right and the religious right and in support of peace and justice in Israel and Palestine. Open to a diverse array of voices, Smol Emuni in the United Stats is dominated by voices on the progressive Zionist left. At least that was my impression at the conference, understanding that others might not have seen it that way. All of the plenary speakers, including Palestinian Americans, whose opposition to Zionism runs deep in their bones, avowed deep and open connection to the place and to all the people who live there, not disengagement.

The conference met two+ years after October 7 and the destruction of Gaza, a year into Trump’s second term of office, in the midst of an uptick of Jewish settler terrorism in the occupied West Bank, a day or so after the outbreak of war against Iran. In his words of welcome to the conference, Rabbi Roli Matalon of Congregation Bnei Jeshurun identified as chaos the overwhelming reality of our current moral and political moment. In her opening remarks, Rachel Landsberg (co-founder of Smol Emuni USA and its program director) defined the moment in terms of fear and uncertainty. In the face of radical chaos, fear, and uncertainty, Smol Emuni understands that the future of Israel and Palestine is bound up together with each other and with Judaism. Against the grain, the work of Smol Emuni was described by Landsberg in terms of human connection and critical reflection, and openness to new perspectives.

The central point made by professor of Jewish history David Myers who opened the morning plenary was to locate the critical work of Smol Emuni in relation to power and sovereign power. At the crux of the chaos today, not just in Israel but across the globe, power was described as a source of evil. Per Myers, the starting point for any discussion of Israel and Zionism today, the problem of state-sovereign power is basic to the work of the Jewish left. But what about religion? I cannot recall if Myers mentioned Judaism in this or any critical context. Also at the morning plenary, it was Greg Khalil (the president and co-founder of the Telos Group, a Washington-based peacemaking nonprofit that specializes in engaging with communities of faith) who described Zionism as a religion, i.e. bound up with ritual, community and identity, and perceived as being beyond critique.

I think it was journalist Amira Hass at the morning plenary who used the word “mutation” to describe Israel today. To my ear, her choice of the word echoes acid remarks made awhile back online by philosopher Asa Kasher to describe the radicalized and alien form of Judaism that today is consuming Israeli political life. As a historian, Myers wasasked when he thought this mutation of politics and Jewish religion first began to take shape. Various answers were suggested –1967, 1948, the Holocaust, or, per Dr. Eman Ansari at the afternoon plenary, at the very origin of the Zionist movement at the turn of the last century.

Unable to make it out of the country with the outbreak of the war with Iran, Mikhael Manekin, founder of Ha’Smol Ha’emuni in Israel, spoke on Zoom from Jerusalem. Manekin also addressed power, namely the enormity of history, and high-level scales of complexity and calculations which ordinary citizens are powerless to control. In the face of that, Manekin evoked the importance of grassroots work with Palestinians in the occupied West Bank in terms of small scale “moments and movements.” Not without critical pushback from his fellow panelists, Manekin described the problem of Israel and Zionism and state violence and settler colonialism in the West Bank as a “theological problem.”

Breakout sessions after the morning plenary varied. There was panels on Immigration & ICE, the One Homeland-Two States  confederation idea, a theology of strangers, Israel education curricula in Jewish schools, history and contemporary trends in Haredi communities relating to Zionism and nationalism, a screening of the film Children No More, and an experiential session based on teachings of Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

At the afternoon plenary, moderator Rivka Press Schwarts returned to the work to be done, as did Acting Chief Executive officer of the New Israel Fund Mickey Gitzin. Dr. Ansari described her own experience as a Palestinian woman growing up in Saudi Arabia and overcoming culturally imbedded assumptions and her own forging bonds of human connections with Jews in the face of the profound hurt and injustice that Zionism manifests at the heart of Palestinian life. Esther Sperber (Executive Director of Smol Emuni) concluded the conference with words about a Torah of justice, truth, and peace, about clarity, the imperative not to be silent, and the urgent need to amplify voices in Jewish tradition that seek repair and forgiveness, acknowledgment of harm done to others, and the need to start with uncertainty and honesty.

What I took from the conference about Judaism in Israel and the religious left:

About Judaism and religion, I would want to say that the spirit of the conference lacked a direct and critical sharpness. If anything, Rabbi of Bnei Jeshurun Roli Matalon’s brief words of welcome reflected the inverse of what needs to be said much more honesty on the Jewish left and on the Jewish religious left. For Matalon, malevolent political actors leading the State of Israel today are “using” Judaism to promote a rightwing political agenda. I would argue that this line of critique signals a basic confusion. It is easy for liberals and progressives to set themselves against Religious Zionism and state sponsored religious-settler terrorism. But American Jews have a hard time getting their mind around the deeper problem and painful reckoning. In Israel, the primary agent of chaos today is “Judaism,” not Zionism.

The desire at Smol Emuni to cultivate from the ground up a Judaism of morality and justice obscures the “root” of religion in power. Missing from the analysis at Smol Emuni and across the Jewish religious left is that Torah constitutes a complex source of power. As a protean force, Judaism lies at the heart of the abuse of power, an animating source of religious fascism in Israel. About protean power, the rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud understood things very well. Without fear of heaven, religion is toxic. The Bavli understands that Torah itself is a dyadic force, either a drug of life (sam ḥayyim) or a drug of death (sam mitah) that Moses put (sam) before the children of Israel (Yoma 72b).

I am old enough to remember when Israel was secular. On the whole, Israelis used to say they were Israeli first, and then Jewish. It seems to me that the mutation of Judaism currently transforming Israel and Israeli politics began during Oslo and in the wake of the Second Intifada. Two years after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by religious Zionism, it was 1997 when Netanyahu whispered with calculated wickedness in the ears of an aged Kabbalist that the left forgot what it is to be Jewish. It was around this time that the poison of Jewish ethno-religion begin to mark hegemonic power in Israeli political life. Once upon a time, the storied Jewish parties in Israel were organized under ideological rubrics marked by names like Mapai, Mapam, Alignment, Herut, Likud, Mizrachi, the National Religious Party. In the wake of the Second Intifada, new parties with weird names began to mushroom on the political scene — Israel Our Home Party, The Jewish Home Party, Blue and White, and, finally at the very bottom of the fetid barrel, Jewish Power. These were the political parties that were buoyed by and that carried the transformation in the discourse towards more Judaism in public and political life. Religious Zionism is the spearhead of extremism in Israeli society, including in the army. Religious Zionism is the sector most invested in annexing the occupied Palestinian West Bank. Religious Zionism was behind the judicial putsch. Abandoning the hostages to their fate, Religious Zionism extended the war in Gaza at the expense of Palestinian life. Backed up by the state, Jewish terrorism against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank is dati. Today, it is religion that poisons secular Zionism and Israeli democracy, not vice-versa.

Echoing the realization from many years ago by religious gadfly Yeshayahu Leibowitz is to consider the distinction between religion and politics. On the one hand, Smol Emuni registers in the mirror of the rightwing Religious Zionism it opposes. This goes to show that infusing politics and the public sphere with religious meaning and purpose is dangerous at worst and naïve at best. Against the combination of religion and state is to see that the political is not the reshut of absolute value and that the power of religion is not itself political in any self-obvious direction. Instead, religion provides a critical vantage position from which to reflect on society and to contribute to its wellbeing from off to the side without, on the other hand, seeking to dominate it.

Smol Emuni is a home for the lonely person of faith, a home for the Jewish left. The great value of Smol Emuni, in cooperation with partners in Israel and Palestine, lies in changing points of view among American Jews about Zionism and Judaism and Israel on an alternative alignment of spiritual and human values.

You can confirm or disconfirm my impressions of the event at this livestream and read about the conference at Ha’aretz.