Rabbi Heller's Blog

The pall that has hung over our people for the last 11 months grew far darker this week, with the news that Hamas executed six more Israeli hostages. Because each human being is of infinite value, we cannot wrap our heads around its enormity.  The murder of just one individual, a face and name that we know, brings the loss into focus. Earlier this week, we marked this loss as it was reflected in the landscape of our own sanctuary.  The pain of this week does not fade, but with the passage of time, we cannot ignore the fundamental questions that the losses of this week raise for us, and what wisdom our tradition offers.

In Israel, the murder of the hostages brought on an intensification of the protests that have already wracked the country. For many months Israeli society has been torn apart by the question of what to do. The challenge is one that is reflected in the very beginning of our portion. In setting out the role of judges, the Torah notes that there are some cases and situations that defy easy answers, because the stakes on both sides are both so high. In particular they are ones where the decision is “between blood and blood, justice and justice, wound and wound.”

What faces Israel at this moment  is truly a question of blood against blood. Hamas knows that redeeming captives is one of the highest values of Judaism, and that its abuse of innocent civilians will cause unbelievable pressure on a Israeli society that values each and every human life, and cannot bear to see even a single soul captive. Since Hamas places hardly any value on human lives, including those of its own people, it knows that it can make any demand, no matter how unreasonable, and wait while people on both sides suffer, and Israel has no comparable leverage.

Reports indicate that negotiations are stuck on Hamas's demand that Israel return control of an area called the Philadelphi corridor- the border of Gaza with Egypt. This zone, which is largely uninhabited, is however the primary path for Hamas to bring weapons and other resources into the strip.  Israel leaving this area is a lifeline for Hamas, which will have the ability to resume restocking rockets and other weapons, and refill its coffers by taxing smuggled goods. Israel is being asked to perform an inconceivable calculus of blood against blood- how do we balance the blood of the hostages, against the potential of even more Israeli blood that might be spilled if Hamas is able to re-arm?  Some of those who planned and executed the horrors of October 7 were released from Israeli jail among over 1000 freed in exchange for one captive, Gilad Shalit.

All Israelis understand that they are facing an enemy force whose capacity for evil against innocent Israelis, and indeed against its own people, knows no bounds of decency. Whether to accept a particular deal with the devil involves both strategic and ethical calculations. Strategists can argue about whether Hamas is more likely to release hostages if it feels pressure, or in exchange for concessions. We learned this week that rescue of the hostage through military force is less likely than we had hoped. The ethical dilemmas are more intractable. Because we believe that human life has infinite value, we cannot get a clear answer to any ethical calculation that would attempt to balance the immediate horrific suffering of the hostages and their families against the harm that a particular concession today might cause lt in the future against other innocent Israelis.

Hamas’ strategy is particularly effective because Israeli society was already divided by questions of “justice against justice,” how its civil society would be organized. Many Israelis place blame on Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government for the fact that the conflict has lingered.  Our portion offers specific commandments that apply to a Jewish king: that he must not seek amass horses or wealth or wives, lest in doing so he bring the Israelites back to Egypt. The concern, understood more broadly, is that a leader might become so wrapped up in pursuing and maintaining the trappings of power that he neglects the needs of his people. Some Israelis feel that Netanyahu has been putting off a deal because the necessary concessions would torpedo his right wing coalition, and force him out of office. If a deal had been reached, they say, perhaps many of those who were murdered would be home, and Bibi would no longer be prime minister. Many who are protesting in Israel believe that Netanyahu has failed to reach an agreement, not because they the terms are not strategically acceptable, but because has put his own political fortunes ahead of the well-being of the hostages.

Obviously, it is absurd to blame any Israeli, from Netanyahu on down, for these deaths. It was Hamas terrorists who kidnapped these people, brutalized them for 11 months and murdered them, in a tunnel 60 feet under a children’s playground. Creating any equivalency between Hamas and Israel, or their respective leaders, is simply abhorrent and ethically blind.  

On the other hand, we do understand that leaders have a heightened level of responsibility for what happens under their watch Our Torah portion this week includes a passage which describes a commandment called the Eglah Arufah. If a murder victim is found out in the open, the crime unsolved, the leaders of the nearest town must perform a ritual where they wash their hands and declare “our hands have not spilled this blood.” Famously our sages, in Talmud Sota 38b and elsewhere, note that no-one is actually accusing these leaders of committing the murder. Rather they are saying that they did not ignore the plight of the victim when she came to them for help or protection. A leader has the obligation to protect his people from harm, and is responsible if murders take place “on his watch.

The implications of this verse resonate for the vast majority Israelis who feel that Netanyahu’s government failed this test on October 7 and the days that followed, by ignoring warnings and being ill-prepared and slow to respond. And so, the debate continues, in Israel’s cabinet and in its streets. Is Netanyahu taking a hard line in negotiations because he honestly believes that he is making a tough choice, (a choice that some might defend but others might reject) to endanger the remaining hostages in order to maintain Israel’s safety in the future, or is he dragging his own feet to maintain his own power? 

We all know that no matter who is in charge in Israel, its people are not safe as long as Hamas has the power to act.  The problem is that there are questions that defy consensus.  If we believe that Hamas cannot be eradicated, and war and bloodshed will continue no matter what course we take, should we not at least bring our beloved people home? On the other hand, if Hamas will not release our hostages no matter what, then should we not at least do what we can to make sure that their murderers cannot cause future harm? What if neither is assured? Then what? Either way, as the verse says, we are “between wound and wound.” We come away from the events of this week with the wounds in our own souls, and the wounds in Israel’s society opened even deeper and more raw. I hope we can find a path that brings our brethren home and enables us to begin to heal.