"Give Me Shelter"

Rabbi Joshua Heller
Congregation B’nai Torah
rabbi@bnaitorah.org

Adapted from a Sermon Delivered July 22nd:

Until a few weeks ago, if I mentioned shelters, you most likely would have thought about how to shelter your assets, rather than your … anatomy. It’s possible that you remember the “duck and cover” drills from the cold war. For relatives and friends in the north of Israel it’s a new kind of reality. The Hebrew word for shelter is “Miklat”

Indeed, in Israel, almost every building or neighborhood has a Miklat. It’s a Boring, drab room. It might be a good place for teenagers to slip away to for a few hours without adult supervision, but not an exciting place to spend the night, let alone a long weekend. In some Northern cities, Israeis are the Miklat around the clock. A bit further from the border (say, about as far as the synagogue is from Alpharetta) there's about a minute of warning, so people sit in their homes, waiting for the signal to dash back down to shelter.

In the Torah, and indeed in rabbinic literature, the word Miklat takes on a different implication. Moses is told to establish 6 “arei miklat,” cities of refuge, “lanus shamah harotzeach”- for one who commits manslaughter to flee to. Indeed, in this week’s Torah portion, he designates three of them. If one commits negligent homicide, one must leave one's home and go to these cities. Then, there is an investigation- if one is guilty of intentional murder- (for example, if there was known to be enmity, or one attacked him on purpose) the penalty is death. Otherwise, he would be exiled there until the death of the Kohen Gadol, the high priest.

In the Middle East today, the whole passage is turned on its head. There are two kinds of shelters. Within the land of Israel, there are shelters for the totally innocent. At the borders of Israel, new kinds of shelters have been established in Gaza and Lebanon, not for those who were accidental killers, but for those who are purposeful murderers.

Nevertheless, the passage raises a question for us. As the war unfolds, Israel faces a moral dilemma- Hizbollah has hidden missiles, weapons stockpiles, and strategic bunkers, etc, in residential neighborhoods, using civilians as human shields. Do you say that you refuse to blow up a garage containing deadly rockets because in doing so you might damage the home next door? What are the implications of going after the enemy, knowing that civilians might be injured or killed, indeed, knowing that the risk is more likely?

The rabbis struggle with the question of who goes to an “Ir Miklat” what is murder, what is negligent homicide, what is regrettable, but excusable: What are exonerating circumstances? Clearly, when someone is coming to kill you, you have the right to kill them- "Haba Lo'hrgecha, kum v'horgo." Conversely, one is also blameless in a true accident. However, there are many situations which are more complicated, when one is using deadly force.

Our tradition offers a number of mitigating circumstances, including if the person shouldn't have been there in the first place. So, for example, the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:10) requires that before one goes to war, one must give the enemy a chance to surrender. Maimonides (Laws of Kings, chapter ) goes further, and requires that even once the siege has begun, one side must be left open for those who wish to lay down arms to flee. According to tradition, over three thousand years ago, when Joshua and the Israelites prepared to enter the land of Israel, they did just that. They sent three letters to the inhabitants. The first one said that those that wish to flee [the oncoming army] should flee. The second one said that those that wish to make peace should make peace. The third letter said that those that want to fight a war should prepare to fight a war.

Israel has dropped leaflets in Southern Lebanon- giving civilians 24 hours to get away from Terrorist emplacements and depots. Some intelligence indicates that Hizbollah has intentionally held civilians near their emplacements to maximize casualties.

Later scholars have interpreted our traditional to mean that in war time, one may indeed use violence to achieve specific ends- you can destroy enemy military targets, or to disable the enemy’s economic means to wage war. However, one may not use them to terrorize civilians at random, and certainly not for purposes of retaliation.

One of the criticisms that you will hear of Israel is that its response is “disproportionate.” As my colleague, Rabbi Barry Leff, has pointed out, after 2403 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor, no-one kept score to be sure to stop the war once 2403 Japanese soldiers had been killed?

The issue is that the math doesn’t add up. Israel does everything it can do to protect civilians, requiring bomb shelters in most new buildings, locating military facilities away from populated areas- giving up the element of surprise by announcing that is coming to attack. In just the last few days, Israeli troops suffered heavy casualties going door to door in the village of Bint Jbail, rather than bombing from the air. To the contrary, Hizbollah does everything to increase loss of life on both sids, hiding their weapons within highly populated areas. Hizbollah believes it’s good when they kill an Israeli, and they believe it’s good when one of their people gets killed and becomes a “martyr” because it makes Israel look bad. We can’t keep a scorecard with someone who uses a completely different kind of math.

Practically, Israeli army policy is stated in its code of conduct, and I believe it follows that code: The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat. IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.

I believe Israel is living by those rules- I hope they do not die by them. The ground assault which is coming in the days ahead will undoubtedly be very costly for Israel, and indeed, I can only hope that the Israeli commanders are able to solve these difficult equations, lives for lives.

In the Biblical text, the only way to escape an Ir Miklat was to wait until the Cohen Gadol, the high priest died. According to the Talmudic text, the mother of the Cohen Gadol would send care packages to those in exile so that they would not pray for his death. Why was this chosen as the sign of release? Why was any of this the Cohen’s fault? Perhaps he set a tone where people were not careful with the lives of others, with the lives of innocents. We can say much the same thing today- in order for the need for shelters to end, the world needs leaders, from the UN on down, who are willing to truly care about the wellbeing of civilians on both sides, rather than allow them to be held hostage by terrorists.