So the Rabbi nominated to be the Chief Rabbi of the Israel Defence Force (IDF), Rabbi Karim, has been accused of permitting the rape of non-Jewish women during war in an online answer to a question several years ago (amongst other fairly hideous things he’s described as saying).
I have colleagues who have responded to the specific allegations and, according to the JC, state “As rabbinic leaders we fiercely refute the notion that any part of Jewish law has condoned the use of rape in wartime.” A fuller report from a different perspective can be found here.
What this does is demonstrate to us the problem of our texts of terror (a subject I deal with here). I agree that no part of Jewish law has condoned rape in wartime – and even those texts which deal with battlefield rape do not indicate that it is part of the military strategy.
However, there is no getting around the text of Deuteronomy 21:10-14 which states:
(In full disclosure aspects of this text are the subject of my PhD research)
How are we to interpret this text if not permitting battlefield rape? Of course, there are interpretations of this text, for which I have some sympathy. For example, this could be a demonstration of the Hebrew Bible trying to steer a vector away from a prevalent practice – in which women were raped and then abandoned by the rapist. The Bible may seem to steer the ancient Israelite world towards a protection of women – in which, whilst the woman may still be raped (there is no getting away from this horror), she cannot then be abandoned. Deuteronomy seems to imply, if a man is to be permitted to rape a woman on the battlefield, he must then marry her and provide for her for the rest of her life as a wife.
The rabbinic texts narrow this yet further – they define the specifics of the war being described, that the man cannot rape multiple women or take extra women for his father, the purposes of the rituals that she undergoes and, in relation to Rabbi Karim’s comments, the reason why the Torah may permit such an act in the first place (not to mention a disturbing – as 21st century readers – amount of victim blaming). Actually each layer of interpretation of this text – historically and through cultures – requires a serious engagement with the historical milieu in order to be understood fully.
Of course, the rabbinic texts from nearly 2000 years ago, are all only imagining a scenario that was never witnessed in living memory. The rabbis had not been out in battle. But they do imagine the possibility of a Jewish soldier raping a non-Jewish woman on the battlefield. From that plain sense there is no escape. Why do they imagine that case – well to understand what is going on here, we also have to understand many other things: Jerusalem (as symbol of the Jewish people) was portrayed as being carried away as a captive woman by Rome, as evidenced by Roman coins and the fantasy of violence is something that cultures and communities always have to contend with, especially when victims of violence. Moreover, we need to enter the debate about exogamous marriage – since the woman and man are married and this is not a commonly permitted state of affairs in the Jewish community of late antiquity. And connected to this, we have the way the rabbinic community imagined non-Jewish identity and behaviour. We also have to understand the nature of desire that the rabbinic community struggles to deal with in themselves – their own libido. Finally, we have another problem of widespread misogyny in many cultures of late antiquity – the rabbinic world was no different. These issues are really unpacked through the Deuteronomy text by the rabbis.
This, of course, is all with relation to the rabbinic period – around the time of the first 4-5 centuries of the common era. How this text is interpreted in the medieval period and modern period must also be analysed distinctly.
Does any of this mean that Jewish law today permits battlefield rape. Actually, I would say, we can be categorical in our answer: Judaism does not permit soldiers to rape women (Jew or non-Jew) on the battlefield or rape anyone at any time. But is there a part of our tradition that suggests under certain circumstances no longer applicable there was permission to rape, even if it was never condoned – well I think that needs to be dealt with openly. I also happen to think that, according to the reports, Rabbi Karim has misinterpreted the texts – nowhere have I seen in Jewish literature has battlefield rape been described as part of successful waging of war because of soldier’s sexual inclinations. Why the rape was permitted is a debate but it does not seem to be an attempt to keep up good spirits amongst soldiers – sickening as it is to even contemplate such a possibility. The Biblical texts are dealing with the consequences of warfare and horrific strategies of war in the Ancient Near East which included the rape and subjugation of your enemy by all sorts of means (let’s admit it is still the case today that rape is used as a weapon of warfare in many theatres of war). The rabbinic texts are also dealing with marriage, sexual desire and coping with men’s inability (at least as the rabbis imagined) to control their libido – and all the other issues mentioned above.
Horrific, disturbing, sad and challenging it may be, but I would argue, only by opening up our interpretative community, honestly and sincerely, can we deal with the problem of texts of terror like Deuteronomy 21.
And there is something else. I have just finished teaching rabbinic students at the Leo Baeck College a whole semester about some of these texts. In fact, we began starting with a Legal Case asked of Maimonides in the 12th century about a man and his servant who were having an affair – he was asked if she could be converted and the couple married. Maimonides is asked if the case of Deuteronomy 21 may be applied, not because of the rape, but rather because it is a text that explicitly permits ‘intermarriage’. As a result, Maimonides touches on the laws of warfare that include permission to eat unkosher meat during warfare (as mentioned by Rabbi Karim) – specifically warfare during the conquest of the land of Canaan described in the Bible (not present day – Maimonides’ or ours) – and Maimonides considers the problem of sexual desire.
Throughout our learning together at the Leo Baeck College we shared moments of disgust and horror. None of us contemplated the possibility of the laws of Deuteronomy ever being applicable to today. It wasn’t the purpose of the learning. However, that said, there is a point at which we do need to recognise that in a time of national sovereignty in the State of Israel someone might think not only is the defence of the land the same as the conquest of the land of the Bible, but that laws of warfare described in Deuteronomy might also be applicable. Even if that was not what Rabbi Karim intended his remarks to imply (a debate that I can’t answer here).
My PhD supervisor and I have discussed more than once the problem of at least two interpretative communities laying claim to Judaism (or indeed any religion). There are followers of religions who are interpreting texts in ways that are abhorrent. We must accept that this too could happen in Judaism. That is so scary, it is terrifying. But unless we confront it, the scourge of violent religious interpretations, of insular, racist, misogynistic, and unethical interpretations will not just fester, they will overtake us in the stakes of authenticity.
I concluded my last blog post on this problem as follows:
Read in isolation the texts are those of terror. From a visitor to synagogue hearing the words for the first time or a naïve zealot studying them alone at home – and everything in between – this isolation of context, history and interpretative tradition leave us vulnerable to undermining what our Judaism might stand for and/or inspired to carry out fundamentalist acts of violence.
Our contemporary social context and interpretative tradition is part of what protects us. And at the same time, we have a choice to make – we cannot remain silent in the face of the terror in our texts. We must read them to also verbalise a stance that says this is not our way. We have chosen to lead authentic Jewish lives that are different. We have to be cognisant of the parts of our textual tradition that are not all noble ideals and more than that, we have to accept that these strains of thought are in our library of sacred texts. They could have been Judaism, but they are not and we will never let them become Judaism.
Of course there will always be people who are willing to commit atrocities (most do not need religion to help them) and religious texts (of many faiths) can be used to justify horrendous acts (see this sermon on the subject). Our duty is to not allow humanity to be dragged back into the dark ages. Acknowledging texts of terror in our scriptural traditions and choosing another way is part of that duty to humanity.