jewish philosophy place

[I found these words at Panarchy by David Ben-Gurion about Palestine, and wanted to share them at this particular moment in the history of Israel and Palestine. In their own way, they are today utterly strange. From a long time ago, the spirit of self-determination and mutual recognition reflects a ghostly presence from the past, the middle path of what has become an unfamiliar Zionism, one that does not wallow in national domination and religious supremacy borne of self-pity. The editors at Panarchy, an online archive of anarchist sources, made sure to add short critical caveats to the entry. But for all that and for whatever strange reason, the editors included these selections to their website alongside varied and storied anarchist sources against the very idea of the state tout court and against Zionism in specific]

Zionism – The Hard Way and the Easy
Opening Debate of the 17th Congress of Basle, June-July 1931

We are not blind withal, to the fact that Palestine is no void. Some million Arabs inhabit both sides of the Jordan, and not since yesterday. Their right to live in Palestine, develop it and win national autonomy is as incontrovertible as is ours to return and, by our own means and merit, uplift ourselves to independence. The two can be realized. We must, in our work in Palestine, respect Arab rights, and if our first contact unhappy, we were not in the wrong. Nor, perhaps, were the Arabs, for there are historic imponderables. (p. 35)

The education imparted to our youth by ‘easy’ Zionism, that chauvinism steeped in racial animosity and a phobia of labor, darkens the moral value of Zionism and brands us as adversaries of the Arabs.
The moral content of Zionism and its necessary practical objects demand a policy of rapprochement and mutual understanding toward the Palestinian Arabs, in economics, enlightenment and politics. (p. 37)

Here to the Jewry, to Labor, and to the Arab nation, we vow that we shall never agree to one national group in Palestine dominating the other, now or evermore. We dissent from dominion of present majority over present minority … So, too shall we dissent from Jewish dominion over Arabs when the dynamism of Aliyah (immigration) alters the balance of power in our favor. (p. 38)

Jewish Labor: The Origin of Settlement
An address before the Elected Assembly, March 2, 1932

The Jewish people is trekking back homeward, but no one in his senses dreams of evicting the people that settled here when we were driven forth. We accept the Arab populations a fact and base our future on new means and sources of livelihood, not replacing what exists bit over and above it, so that we may plant our myriads deep-rooted on the land, side by side with the Arabs. (p. 71)

Tomorrow or the next day Arab labor will echo the demand, for who is so short-sighted as to think that the Arab will meekly consent to be robbed forever of his right, to be exploited mercilessly, and never once claim a plot and patrimony of his own? (p. 81)

On Three Fronts
August 3, 1938

The first principle is not mere negation, It means we reject the infamy of assailing an Arab just because he is one. It means we reject revenge wreaked upon Arabs that had no hand in terrorism. We will not play the terrorists’ beastly game. (p. 90)

The Arabs are fighting to keep this country Arab; why should our ambush and killing of Arabs stampede the Arab terrorists, when the [British] Army’s many killings and hangings failed to? The Arabs gangs murder without distinction any Jew they can lay hands on. Are we to be as vile? Is not exactly what the Mufti would have us to do – kill every Arab that crosses our path, innocent or guilty? Those who protest against the policy of ‘self-restraint’ are really not asking for self-defense or an organized campaign against the gangs, but for retaliation, which is no earthly good to us, let alone being morally wrong. (pp. 92-93)

What is wrong for Arabs is wrong for Jews; if we insist on Government suppressing Arab terrorism, how can we not insist on it suppressing Jewish terrorism? … if an Arab ‘patriot’ who kills a Jew is a murderer, so is the Jewish ‘patriot’ who kills harmless Arabs, (p. 93)

We must cast out any that would spill innocent blood in the name of the ‘kingdom of Israel.’ (p. 94)

Our strength lies in the one great asset we possess – the moral asset, the moral purity of our lives and works, our aspirations and our philosophy. Given these three – courage, understanding and clean hands – we shall win. (p. 104)

Test of Fulfillment
From an Address delivered at an Extraordinary Zionist Congress in New York, May 1942

Mass immigration and colonization on the largest possible scale such as we must expect after this war, can be effected without the slightest need to displace the present population. (p. 120)

The Arab problem really means political opposition by the Arabs to Jewish immigration. Many people, ignoring this simple but unpleasant truth, try to solve the problem where it does not exist. One solution offered is a bi-national State. If this means simply the all the inhabitants of Palestine, Jews and Arabs alike, must enjoy complete equality of rights not merely as individuals but also as national entities, which means the right freely to develop their language, culture, religion and so forth, then certainly no Jew, much less a Zionist, will hesitate to support it. But I am not altogether convinced that the Arabs will agree in that equality if they have the power to determine the constitution. (p. 121)

It is an historical fact that there are a million Arabs in Palestine, who legitimately regard themselves as its children, whether we like it or not. (p. 113)

In a letter written on March 3, 1919, to Felix Frankfurter on behalf of the Hejaz Delegation, Faisal said this:

“We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposal submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home … The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria [Syria is meant to include Palestine] for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other.” (p. 124)

There must be a continued willingness to cooperate closely with the Arabs in Palestine as well as in neighboring countries, (p. 128)

Reply to Aneurin Bevin (Welsh Labour Party politician)
An Address delivered at an extraordinary session of the Elected Assembly, held at the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus, November 28, 1945

Mr. Bevin … declared war on Zionists, while paying compliments to the Jews, as if they were different breeds. … he tries to muster against Zionism the few Jews dissidents and renegades, the Quislings of our nation. (p. 165)

We know that there are Jews who are not merely non-Zionists but anti-Zionists. (p. 166)

There is tension at the moment, perhaps a little more than tension, between us and the Arabs. It is very unfortunate. But it is transient. It is not a danger. We may be of great help to them as they to us. I believe we need each other. We have something to offer each other as equals, but only as equals. (p. 208)

The Southern Front
At the twenty-fourth session of the Provisional State Council, October 28, 1948

We believe that our interest as Jews and as men is to enhance the jurisdiction and the efficacy of the United [Note]. Were the United Nations to perish, it would be the blackest day in man’s history, and the most tragic in ours. No less than other nations, maybe more, we are concerned with world peace, with international cooperation, with the universal rule of law, with peaceful settlement of international squabbles, with amity between East and West. (pp. 281-282)

An Address to the General Staff and Commanding Officers the Israel-Defense Force, 1950

Saul of Tarsus [Saint Paul] was perhaps the most potent assimilationist the Jewish people ever had. He denied the practical precepts which constitute the essence and foundation of Judaism and based all religion on faith alone. He recognised only the individual and not the nation. He tried to destroy the faith and hope of the Jewish people in national and territorial redemption. Rejecting the ultimate vision of the Prophets, which looks far into the future and there makes one the redemption of the nation and of the whole world, the dignity of Israel and the kingdom of peace and justice on earth, Saul founded Christianity on faith in heavenly redemption through a Messiah already come. (pp. 324-325)

We shall not shut ourselves up in our shell. We shall be open to take in all cultures of the world, all the conquests of the spirit. We shall not segregate or isolate ourselves. We shall maintain our bond with the great world: a bond but not bondage in any form. The criterion of spiritual and moral freedom is free judgment and free conscience. The Jewish people have always spurned physical supremacy. (p. 339)

To us human life is sacred and dear. Men created in God’s image are equal. They are an end in themselves, not a means. No wonder then that our sages based the Torah on the golden rule – ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself.’ Not only the fellow Jew: ‘But the stranger that dwellleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.’
From the earliest time Judaism held a universal outlook and embraced all of humanity. (p. 341)

Not a feeble craving for a fictional splendor of the past, but a vision of the future, of a reign of justice and peace between all nations – that was the historical philosophy which the Prophets of Israel instilled into their people, and which was handed down by the people to the best of the nations in all lands. (p. 342)

The Call of Spirit in Israel
From The Government Yearbook, October 1951

The State of Israel will be judged not by its riches or military power, nor by its technical skills, but by its moral worth and human values. (p. 399)

But one thing history granted us from the very start – incomparable moral strength. (p. 402)

First of all let us rid ourselves of the foolish error that with the Army alone we can maintain the security of the State. (p. 404)

Security rests on a foreign policy of peace: a sincere intention to be at peace with our neighbors, and with all the nations; a determined effort to establish relations of friendship with countries great and small, in east and west. (p. 405)

Aspiring to peace, freedom and justice as we do, we condemn all domination, save over the elements. (p. 418)… ‘and you shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ Here is crystallized the eternal law of Judaism, and all the written ethics in the world can say no more.
Human relations must be constructed on partnership in destiny, mutual aid, reciprocal attraction; on a comradeship of equals and on love of mankind. (p. 420)

The terrible instruments of destruction which modern science has created may blast our whole civilization to pieces, perhaps the very globe itself, unless, while there is yet time, a sure way to peace and unity among nations is revealed, and to liberty and equality for every human being. (p. 430)

Only being true to mission and vision shall we live on. Small but in ethics and intellect marvelous, Israel walks with the greatest among the nations. (p. 441)

Israel Among the Nations
From The Government Yearbook, October 1952

Israel does not believe that any powerful State has the right to impose its will on a weaker, even under the cloak of reforms. (p. 473)

These two Semitic people, Jews and Arab, share one mission in this corner of the world. The Jews will not budge hence, nor will the Arab change his place. History has pronounced us neighbor, and it is not merely a geographical proximity. There is much nearness in language, culture and history. Cooperation between the Jewish people in its land and independent Arabia is an historical necessity, and it will come about for the Arab people need it no less than does Israel. It is feasible only on a basis of equality, mutual respect and reciprocal aid. It will convert the Middle East into one of the cultural centers of the world as in Bible time it was. Each of the two peoples has something to offer to the other, without giving up anything of its own. This fertilizing exchange will be a boon to the Middle East and to the whole world. (p. 488)

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