NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS CURRICULUM SUPPORT
Religious, Moral and
Philosophical Studies
Morality in the Modern World:
Judaism
[INTERMEDIATE 2;
HIGHER]
Paula Cowan
Henry Tankel
The Scottish Qualifications Authority regularly reviews
the arrangements for National Qualifications. Users of
all NQ support materials, whether published by LT
Scotland or others, are reminded that it is their
responsibility to check that the support materials
correspond to the requirements of the current
arrangements.
Acknowledgement
Learning and Teaching Scotland gratefully acknowledge this contribution to the National
Qualifications support programme for RMPS.
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part for educational purposes by educational
establishments in Scotland provided that no profit accrues at any stage.
2
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
Contents
Introduction
Section 1:
Section 2:
Section 3:
Section 4:
Section 5:
4
Crime and punishment
The purpose of punishment
Capital punishment
7
11
Gender
Gender stereotyping
Economic issues
14
18
International issues
Globalisation
International aid
20
22
Medical ethics
Genetic engineering
Euthanasia
25
28
War and peace
Responses to war
Modern armaments
35
38
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
3
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
This pack provides an introduction to the application of Jewish moral principles in
today’s modern world. It can be studied as part of the Morality in the Modern World
units (Intermediate 2 and Higher). The five main sections of the pack cover moral
principles and viewpoints on ten ethical issues, from the perspective of Judaism.
References are made to the Talmud, the Torah – the Five Books of Moses, the Ethics
of the Fathers (a collection of the moral and practical teachings of ancient rabbis and
sages that teaches how people should act towards their fellow men and God), as well
as to more recent writings.
Teachers should discourage students from relying exclusively on the information
provided here: an appropriate depth and breadth of knowledge will be acquired only
through further reading and research. The pack includes a selection of internet sites
and books for further reading on specific issues. Visiting speakers from the Jewish
community can be invited to talk to students. This will help to bring the information
alive. It will also help students to develop their understanding of how Judaism
influences the moral choices of its members in contemporary Scottish society.
Definitions of several terms which are referred to in this pack, for example Torah,
Beth Din, can be found in the glossary of the National Qualifications World Religions
– Judaism pack (2004, pp. 85–87).
The ten ethical issues covered are related to five key themes:
1.
Crime and punishment:
a.
b.
The purpose of punishment
Capital punishment
2.
Gender:
a.
b.
Gender stereotyping
Economic issues
3.
International issues:
a.
b.
Globalisation
International aid
4.
Medical ethics:
a.
b.
Genetic engineering
Euthanasia
5.
War and peace:
a.
b.
Responses to war
Modern armaments
4
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
INTRODUCTION
Overview of ethical principles in Judaism
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(Leviticus 19:18)
Judaism was the first religion to believe in only one god. The early story of that
religion is told in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, which are called the Torah
– the Five Books of Moses. The remainder of the books of the Hebrew Bible, of which
there are 24, relate some of the history of the Jewish people up till about 400 BCE
(Before Common Era). However, it is important to note that the Torah is not a history
book or a book of law. While it gives some historical information, its major purpose is
to lay out a way of life which is all inclusive.
The goals of life in Judaism are to obey God and to build and maintain a close
relationship with God. For Jews this means study and observance of the Torah, which
includes guidance on ethical living, social justice and prayer. There are 613 different
commandments in the Torah, which can be categorised into religious, ethical and
social obligations. Every Jew has a duty to carry out these obligations, to learn as
much about Jewish beliefs and practices as possible and to teach them to their
children. The ethics of the Torah require individuals to be good to others because this
is according to God’s will and not because it makes the benefactor feel good.
The Torah tells Jewish people how they should behave towards God. It tells them how
God wishes to be served by the Jewish people. However, these rules are only for Jews
and do not apply to those who are not Jews. In this respect Judaism is a family
religion, or the religion of an extended family who have accepted these responsibilities
and requirements in each new generation.
In addition to the laws between man and God, the Hebrew Bible also contains laws
between man and man. It covers the whole area of civil law, criminal law and even
public health. It also contains the principles on which all subsequent laws were
derived.
Among those principles are the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–14), which are
effectively a summary of many of the most important commandments of the Torah. As
explained in the NQ World Religions – Judaism pack (2004, pp. 63–64), although the
Ten Commandments have a special value for Jews, they are not exclusively for Jewish
people; they promote a code of conduct for the world at large. The essence of the Ten
Commandments is repeated in Leviticus Chapter 19 where emphasis is placed on the
concepts of respect for parents, consideration of the needy, prompt payment of wages,
honourable dealing, love of one’s neighbour and equal justice to rich and poor.
Another important point is that, in addition to the written tradition of the Hebrew
Bible, there is an oral tradition which runs in parallel with it. This oral tradition
interprets and amplifies the laws of the Torah, which outline the basic principles on
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
5
INTRODUCTION
which all future interpretation must be based. Gradually, from about 200 BCE till 400
CE, this oral tradition was extended and codified by the rabbis (rabbi means teacher,
not lawyer) in the form of the Talmud. The Talmud contains the various arguments,
discussions and differences of opinion on how the Torah should be interpreted, as well
as a wealth of detail on the social environment and how people behaved at the time. It
forms an invaluable piece of evidence into what it was like to live in those days.
It is on this basis that all the topics in the sections that follow are developed and
argued, referring constantly to original sources for guidance. These basic principles,
being divinely inspired, remain valid for all time; they are not subject to fashion. They
declare that there is a right and a wrong, that there are some moral absolutes and that
there is a standard to which we must constantly aspire.
In Jewish terms a moral individual, irrespective of their level of religious observance,
or whether they are from the Orthodox tradition or Progressive movements (see NQ
World Religions – Judaism pack, 2004, pp. 3–4), combines personal spiritual
development with concern for other people. Acting in this way is an essential part of
serving God. Respect for one’s parents and the elderly, care for the weak and
vulnerable, the giving of charity and regard for the rights of others – in other words,
love for one’s fellow man irrespective of their race, beliefs or colour – are important
virtues that are taught in Judaism.
The Talmud relates that Rabbi Hillel the Elder, who lived 2000 years ago, was
approached by a non-Jew who wished to convert to Judaism but on condition that the
rabbi should teach him the whole Torah while he stood on one foot. Hillel replied:
Do not do unto others what you would not wish done to yourself. That is the whole
Torah. The rest is commentary. Therefore go and learn.
(Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a)
This quotation summarises and emphasises the most important underlying principle of
Jewish ethics and behaviour. Indeed, it should be the principle underlying the ethics
and behaviour of any truly civilised society. It is as relevant today as it was 2000 years
ago and it can be applied to all the areas covered by the ten ethical issues in this pack
– and many others.
As you will see from the following sections, which describe and explain a few basic
moral rules and/or laws, Jewish ethics present a reasoned, balanced approach to many
moral dilemmas posed by the technological advances and developments of modern
life. Hence the Torah is a guidebook for living in this world over generations and
millennia.
6
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
Section 1: Crime and punishment
There have been times in contemporary history when the rule of law has become
tainted and, at worst, perverted. An example of this was reported at the Eichmann trial
in Israel in 1961, when the accused, former Nazi SS officer, Adolf Eichmann1
explained his actions during the Holocaust as ‘just following orders’ or ‘just enforcing
the law’. This demonstrates that laws alone are not always the safeguard of society
and human values. The Torah (the Hebrew Bible) states that the law is never to be
used for evil purposes and repeatedly makes the point that justice is served only by
acting justly.
It is important to understand that in Biblical times almost all Jews lived in the part of
the world now known as Israel, where they lived by the laws of the Torah. As Jews
began to disperse across the world, they found they had to live by these laws and the
laws of the country in which they lived. Where there was a conflict between these two
systems, the rabbis ruled that Jews were to live by the law of the land. This is still the
situation today. Small rabbinic courts (Beth Din – see page 6 for further explanation)
continue to sit in cities where large numbers of Jews reside, to rule on civil matters
such as divorce cases and conversion to Judaism, and also on other civil matters (for
example, breach of contract or claims arising out of commerce) by mutual agreement
of those involved in the lawsuit (the litigants). There are no rabbinic courts that judge
any kind of criminal cases.
In present-day Israel, religious courts run in parallel with the secular courts in civil
cases, for Jews who observe religious laws and are willing to abide by them.
(Information on the current functions and structure of law courts in Israel can be found
at www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/judiciary.html.)
The purpose of punishment
From the Jewish point of view, the purpose of punishment is to act as a deterrent to
potential criminals as a means of eliminating crime and not to make the offender
suffer, or to exact revenge for evil deeds. The purpose of laws is to convey the
acceptable moral tone of society, so that its present and future citizens will not tolerate
certain types of behaviour, such as rape, theft or adultery. An example of this is the
1
As Head of the Department for Jewish Affairs in the Gestapo from 1941 to 1945, Eichmann
was chief of operations in the deportation of about 3 million Jews to death camps.
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
7
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
seventh commandment, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ (Exodus 20:14), which is a
law that is very difficult to enforce in practice and may be considered by some to be
irrelevant. However, Jewish law argues that a strong declaration that adultery is wrong
must be made to society to set the moral tone, or else societal values will fall.
The phrase ‘Justice, justice shalt thou follow’ (Deuteronomy 16:20) is regarded as the
keynote of the humane legislation of the Torah, and of the demand for social
righteousness by Israel’s prophets, psalmists and sages. There are several explanations
as to why the word ‘Justice’ is repeated.
One explanation is that the repetition indicates that the phrase applies to everyone, Jew
and non-Jew alike, whether to one’s profit or loss, whether by word or action. Another
explanation is that it emphasises that justice must be pursued by just means, i.e. no
‘stitching up’ a criminal by allowing false evidence because real evidence has been
hard to come by – no resorting to any form of injustice.
Others see in the Torah’s double usage of the word ‘justice’ the need to seek true
judgment whether one is in the right or in the wrong. That is to say, just as an
individual desires that true justice be served when he has something to gain, so too
must that same individual actively accept that true justice has been served even when
he has something to lose. An honest individual will welcome both rulings equally, the
one in his favour as well as the one against him which may involve loss, since he
knows that both decisions represent correct judgment.
Whether we have the need to carry out punishment or not, it is important to be aware
of the scale of the punishments that apply to the crimes. If society has no stated values,
a child may experiment with anything and walk down immoral paths. For example,
should we rebuke a young teenager who shoplifts (assuming it is a clear-cut case with
no mitigating circumstances) and treat him/her as a thief, or suggest that he/she should
not do that because he/she does not want to get a criminal record? The Jewish point of
view would support the first response and not condone the wrongdoing, yet would
deal empathically with the juvenile. In deciding appropriate punishment the main
factor to be taken into account is the Torah’s insistence that, where possible,
punishment includes compensation for damage caused and facilitates rehabilitation in
the community.
On what grounds can punishment be morally justified?
Court systems have always been important to Jews. ‘Judges and officers shalt thou
make thee in all thy gates, … and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment’
(Deuteronomy 16:18). The officers’ duties were to execute the verdict of the judges.
In Exodus (18:13–27) Moses spent the whole day ‘judging’ Israel in the desert until
Jethro, his father-in-law, recommended that he set up a court system – which he did:
8
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses,
but every small matter they judged themselves.
(Exodus 18:26)
The Jewish legal system comprised three levels. The Great Sanhedrin was the highest
Jewish court or court of justice, consisting of 71 members who were ordained
scholars. The Sanhedrin administered matters of great importance, for example trying
a high priest or a judge and judging matters of state. However, its main function was
make laws rather than to act as a law court. It was also responsible for interpreting and
laying down the law and deciding a number of religious matters of importance. A
lesser court of 23 judges dealt with criminal cases including those which could in
theory involve the death penalty. The general term ‘Beth Din’ refers to a court of three
judges who deal with civil matters. In all trials the judges themselves question the
witnesses, consider the evidence and give the verdict.
Judges are required to be totally impartial and to take care while interrogating the
litigants and witnesses to ensure that they are not leading the witness or being overly
forceful. The accused can be convicted only if independent witnesses provide
testimony of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is not acceptable on its own. It follows
that, in Judaism, the punishment of crime is morally justifiable, provided guilt has
been proven in a court of law.
The crime of homicide is taken very seriously in the Torah, with no less than 29 verses
discussing the various consequences of all kinds of murder.
Whoever destroys a single soul, is considered to have destroyed a complete world.
And whoever saves a single soul, is considered to have saved an entire world.
(Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5)
The Torah includes only minor references to prison, as prisons were not a favoured
means of punishment; they were primarily used to detain offenders before trial and
sentencing to prevent their escape, and as a means of enforcement in civil decisions.
The Torah does not advocate incarceration (imprisonment) for the following reasons.
1.
2.
3.
It is not considered to be a deterrent.
It does not facilitate rehabilitation of the offender.
It conflicts with the basic principle of Jewish faith, which believes in the
intrinsic value of every individual.
Incarceration is not a deterrent
Research (see Harary, ‘Incarceration as a modality of punishment’) suggests that not
only does incarceration not deter offenders but it may actually cause offenders to
commit further crimes by providing them with opportunities to become acquainted
with other offenders, and to develop a social network. It can also cause difficulties for
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
9
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
offenders on release from prison, as they may find it difficult to obtain legitimate
employment, and be labelled as a ‘criminal’ in the place where they live. Isolation
from the community may lead to stigmatisation and problems of integration.
Incarceration does not facilitate rehabilitation
The family is of central importance in Judaism and is considered a significant factor in
the individual’s rehabilitation. Incarceration often leaves the offender ostracised by his
community, and angry, neither of which help to bring about the desired responses of
penance and atonement, which are vital for rehabilitation. Therefore incarceration
does not facilitate rehabilitation and can destroy families. It follows that Jewish
principles would approve the recent introduction of ‘tagging’ of offenders rather than
incarceration, and that, in accordance with the Jewish view on rehabilitation, when the
punishment is completed, the individual starts with a clean slate, and the community
must accept the offender as before.
Incarceration conflicts with Jewish faith
In Judaism, every individual is seen to be created in the image of God and every
individual is equally given the task of making the world a ‘dwelling place’ for God.
Incarceration inhibits man’s potential by preventing him from fulfilling his purpose in
the world and limiting his ability to function in society. As stated above, incarceration
also prevents the offender repenting and atoning for his sins.
The Jewish tradition teaches that everything in this universe was created by God with
a positive purpose. Accordingly, in the criminal justice system, punishment should
produce direct results and benefits for all parties involved: the perpetrator, victim and
society in general.
The Torah’s rationale for proposing certain programmes in prison would thus be to
improve the chances for the offender’s rehabilitation. Only when incarceration
provides the opportunity for rehabilitation and restructuring of the offender’s values,
priorities and lifestyle can its valid purpose be established and be morally justifiable.
For all these reasons Judaism has always laid stress on compensation, making good
the damage or loss, rather than incarceration. The knowledge that the criminal has to
compensate for the damage done – especially if this were effectively enforced – could
have a salutary effect on the contemporary idea that crime pays.
10
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
Capital punishment
To understand the Jewish concept of justice, one must understand that man is created
in the image of God, that in every individual there is a divine spark and that each
human life is sacred and of infinite worth. One consequence of this is that Judaism
requires that human personality be respected in every human being. Thus, while
Judaism puts a supreme value on the protection of human life, and views homicide as
a capital crime, it also considers that a criminal who is condemned to death has the
right to his human dignity being respected. This is based on the Biblical
commandment ‘Love your fellow as yourself’ (Leviticus 19:18). In Judaism even a
condemned felon is considered to be a ‘fellow’ and is treated as such.
If a criminal was condemned to death, the particular form of execution to be
administered depended on the nature of the offences and was prescribed by Jewish
Law and Talmudic (rabbinic) rulings. Each form had to be administered in the most
humane manner possible. The medieval Talmudic scholar, Rashi – one of the most
important and influential commentators – explained that when the Talmud says a
‘humane death’ it means a quick death. The other primary concerns under Talmudic
law were the prevention of unnecessary pain and avoidance of mutilation or
disfigurement of the body. These three principles were paramount in administering
capital punishment, which in Biblical times involved stoning (Exodus 17:4), burning
(Leviticus 20:14 and 21:9), strangulation and decapitation (Sanhedrin 52b).
Modern application of Jewish law implements the same principles of humanity and
consideration. Israel has abolished capital punishment for all offences other than
genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against Jewish people, and
treason in wartime. Yigal Amir, who assassinated the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin in 1995, was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life (16–25
years) in prison. It is clear that Israel would only use the death penalty for the most
heinous crimes. The only execution that has ever taken place in Israel was that of
Adolf Eichmann in 1962, when he was found guilty of organising and being
responsible for the deaths of millions of Jewish people. The trial lasted eight months
and Eichmann was sentenced to death by hanging.
Is capital punishment morally justifiable?
Capital punishment was a penalty that was available to a Jewish court for the most
serious offences, for example violation of laws regarding interpersonal relationships
such as murder, rape, kidnapping.
The death penalty was therefore a possibility and used as a means of indicating to
society the crimes that were the most serious. However, it was also a subject of great
controversy among the rabbis of the time. This is demonstrated by the following
exchange of rabbis living in the first and second centuries, recorded in the Mishnah:
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
11
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
The Sanhedrin that executes one person in seven years is called ‘murderous’. Rabbi
Elazar ben Azariah says that this extends to one execution in seventy years. Rabbi
Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say, ‘If we had been among the Sanhedrin, no one would ever
have been executed.’ Rabbi Simon ben Gamliel responds, ‘Such an attitude would
increase bloodshed in Israel.’
(Makkos 1:10)
This shows that some rabbis (such as Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva) were unwilling
to participate in a process that takes human life, while other rabbis (such as Rabbi
Simon ben Gamliel) viewed capital punishment as having a deterrent effect that
justified its usage. Rabbi Simon ben Gamliel was concerned with the sin of murder in
particular, because it is the most destructive one, and he was convinced that there
would be an increase in the number of murderers if capital punishment was not
available. Yet, although he criticised his colleagues for being too lenient, he agreed
that a court should not execute a criminal, even for a capital offence, more than once
in seven years.
This exchange reflects differences over the deterrent value of capital punishment that
continue among legal scholars to this day. In general, Judaism recognises that harsh
sentences are very poor deterrents of crime.
The reason that the death penalty was rarely administered was because there were
stringent rules about what evidence would be admissible and sufficient. A court of at
least 23 judges had to be fully satisfied that the capital offence had been committed in
the presence of two witnesses who were subjected to detailed interrogation by the
court. The rabbis also demanded a condition of premeditation in the act of the crime;
they therefore also required evidence that the witnesses had warned the criminal of its
seriousness and of its consequences prior to the crime, and that the criminal had
responded to the warning, that he/she was fully aware of the deed but was determined
to go through with it.
A man could not be found guilty of a capital offence through his own confession
alone. If people had heard a scream and then rushed to the scene of the crime where
they saw a man standing over a dead body, holding a weapon that was dripping with
fresh blood, and the man confessed to the killing, the death penalty would not be
enforced because the sentence would have relied on circumstantial rather than actual
evidence. Such requirements prevented any miscarriages of justice. The message of
the rabbis was that capital punishment was only morally justifiable in the most blatant
of circumstances. In effect this ensured that the death penalty was very rarely carried
out.
The rabbis were well aware of the dangers of a miscarriage of justice, which could not
be reversed if a death sentence had been carried out. Sometimes new evidence is later
uncovered which establishes an individual’s innocence. While injustice can be
partially undone by opening the doors of a prison and freeing the wrongly accused, the
12
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
dead cannot be brought back to life and justice can never then be even partially
achieved.
Yet the inclusion of capital punishment as a penalty for severe crimes such as murder
instructed society that taking someone’s life warrants the forfeiting of the murderer’s
own life. It clearly expressed the values of society. Jewish law conveyed the message
that murder is unacceptable and deserving of death, whether society is able to punish
all murderers or not.
Finally, in the Jewish tradition, atonement is achieved by genuine remorse
accompanied by appropriate compensation; it also requires obtaining the forgiveness
of the injured party and praying for forgiveness on the annual Day of Atonement
(Yom Kippur). However, in more serious offences these actions may only provide
partial forgiveness which is completed only by suffering. In the most serious offences,
those for which a death sentence might theoretically be passed, even this is insufficient
and atonement is achieved only by death. This death does not need to be by execution
but may occur prematurely from other causes such as accident, illness or other natural
causes.
It follows that capital punishment is regarded as morally justifiable in Judaism in the
rare cases when all the conditions which have to be satisfied by Jewish law have been
fulfilled, since it is a means to achieve atonement and receive divine forgiveness. This
is moral justification in a situation where a person commits a capital crime in the
presence of two witnesses who have warned him of the consequences. A capital crime
committed under such circumstances shows a total disrespect for human life and
Jewish law, which could only be expiated by the death of the accused.
Further reading
The purpose of punishment:
Information on the Sanhedrin: www.jewishencyclopedia.com
Encyclopaedia Judaica (26 vols.), Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1971–2
Information on incarceration (and articles on prisoner rights) available at
www.jlaw.com:
Harary, Charles J., ‘Incarceration as a modality of punishment’
Lipskar, Shalom D., ‘A Torah perspective on incarceration as a modality of
punishment and rehabilitation’
Capital punishment:
www.aish.com/torahportion/kolyaakov/Capital_Punishment_and_Curbing_Crime.asp
www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
13
GENDER
Section 2: Gender
Gender stereotyping
The principal roles of women in Orthodox Judaism are that of wife, mother and
keeper of the household. Historically in Judaism, women’s lives have centred around
the home and family, while men’s lives have centred round the synagogue. Women
were traditionally discouraged from learning the Talmud and other advanced Jewish
texts, as engagement in these pursuits might have led to a neglect of their household
responsibilities. In modern times such attitudes have changed and Judaism considers
that it is important for women to receive a secular as well as a Jewish education.
Reform Rabbi Julia Neuberger writes that:
[Jewish women] were relatively uneducated, until the modern age. Jewish law
prevented them from learning Talmud, though they could study Torah and Mishnah…
The women did not have great fluency in reading Hebrew or Aramaic.
(Neuberger, On Being Jewish, Mandarin, 1996)
Yet, within these primary roles of women, women have always been given respect in
Judaism, with some holding elevated positions, for example Deborah who was a
judge, and the seven female prophets (of the 55 prophets of the Bible). The wife of a
rabbi is referred to as the ‘rebbetzin’, which is a title in its own right, and has always
implied a significant role in Jewish life. There are also several worthy, educated
women in the Talmud, for example Berurya the wife of Rabbi Meir who lived in the
second century, whose views on halachic matters were seriously considered by the
scholars of her time (Tosefet, Kelim). This suggests that Julia Neuberger’s view of
Jewish law preventing women from learning Talmud is not quite accurate.
As most women would have been relatively uneducated, they would have prayed in
their own words; this was permitted. In Judaism, women are welcome but not obliged
to pray since Jewish prayer is time related and women may not be able to keep to a
regular schedule because of their responsibilities to children and/or their home,
whereas men are required to pray three times a day. Chana, the mother of the prophet
Samuel, is recognised as a role model for prayer (Samuel 1:11). Her prayer was silent,
at a time when people prayed aloud, and because it came so obviously from the heart
it became the custom to say the main prayer silently and standing. This custom is
followed to the present day.
14
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
GENDER
The Torah attributes to women a special intuition, or intelligence, called binah (pr.
bee-na), which has the potential to exceed its equivalent in men (Genesis 2:22).
Binah can be defined as the ability to analyse and then distinguish between situations
or entities that on the surface seem similar, but are really quite different. An example
of this is displayed by the rooster when it crows at the beginning of a winter morning,
although darkness makes it look as if it is still night. An example of the use of binah
in the Torah is when Rebecca orders her son Jacob to disguise himself as Esau to
receive his father Isaac’s blessing of the firstborn. She understands Esau’s personality
and can foresee that he will undermine his brother Jacob’s scholarly pursuits and
jeopardise the future of Judaism if he (Esau) receives his father’s blessing. The Torah
tells us that even when Isaac discovers what has happened – and why – he
acknowledges the righteousness of his wife’s plan (Genesis 27:33).
Such is the importance of women in Orthodox and Reform Judaism that a Jewish
person takes his/her religion from the mother. This is because it is the mother whom
Judaism regards as having the most contact with the infant; she is the first person to
teach Judaism to the child. Liberal Judaism, however, allows religious descent
through the father’s line as well.
Is stereotyping of male and female roles morally justifiable?
The ‘yes’ viewpoint
In Judaism, while women’s obligations and responsibilities are different from men’s,
women are considered no less important than men as each gender has complementary
roles. Women are not obliged to follow the set daily prayer services and the positive
commandments that are time related but are obliged to follow many commandments,
such as Honour your father and your mother, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it
holy. In fact it can be argued that it is because the woman’s duties as wife and mother
are so important that these cannot be postponed to pray. For example, a woman
cannot be expected to leave a small child or crying baby when it is time to perform a
commandment. Women are free to pray wherever and whenever they choose and are
not tied to set times for prayers, as men are.
It is the exemption from these commandments that has led to the misunderstanding of
the role of women in Judaism, as this exemption is often perceived as a prohibition.
The argument is that although women are not obligated to perform many positive
commandments, they are, of course, permitted to observe such commandments if they
choose. For example, a woman may attend the daily prayers three times a day but her
attendance will not count towards a minyan (a quorum of ten males over the age of 13
that is required before prayers can be said as a congregation).
Further, because this exemption reduces the role of women in the synagogue, this
does not mean that women have no role in religious life, as Jewish life does not
revolve around the synagogue but around the home, where the woman’s role is as
important as, and can be argued to be more important than, the man’s. Also relevant is
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
15
GENDER
the claim that the woman’s capacity for privacy enabled her ‘to have a rich spiritual
life at home’ without the need of a busy congregational life of the men (Neuberger,
On Being Jewish).
Furthermore, there are several commandments that are reserved for women. These
include the lighting of the candles for Shabbat and festivals, and separating the dough
for the challah (bread for Shabbat and festivals) (Numbers 15:20). The candle lighting
officially marks the beginning of a holy time for the home; once candles are lit, any
restrictions or observances of the holy day are in effect.
The concept of equality of the genders is supported by:

The fifth commandment ‘Honour thy father and thy mother’.
This places the father first in Exodus 20:12, and places the mother first in
Leviticus 19:3. Many consider that this is not an accident but is intended to show
that both parents are equally entitled to respect and honour.

The creation of mankind (Genesis1:27).
Man and woman were created in the image of God and, according to most Jewish
scholars, ‘man’ was created with dual gender, and later separated into male and
female (www.jewfaq.org/women.htm).
In recent years, many women have wanted to take a more active part in the religious
service and pray as a congregation in their own right. Women’s prayer groups have
been formed and this has allowed women to achieve a deepening religious experience.
Even if one accepts that women’s participation in synagogue life is somewhat
restricted because of gender roles, it should be understood that expressing one’s
Judaism is not something that exclusively happens in synagogue but permeates every
aspect of one’s life. Prayer groups and synagogue life are only small, though
important, parts of Judaism.
The traditional Orthodox Jewish view would be that gender stereotyping is morally
justifiable in that it is fulfilling for both genders. It allocates to men and women
separate but equivalent roles and allows scope to broaden and develop these roles to
meet the needs of contemporary Jews. It does not indicate or suggest any inferiority
on the part of either gender.
The ‘no’ viewpoint
Many Jewish people view Orthodox Judaism as sexist in that, while women receive
respect, there are many responsibilities that are given to men that are forbidden by
women.
16
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
GENDER
These include the following:



Women are not allowed to lead services or read from the Torah in Orthodox
synagogues.
Women are not eligible to be counted in a minyan, as a minyan is a quorum of
those who are obligated (males over the age of 13).
Women cannot be ordained as rabbis.
Regarding the commandments that are reserved for women, many of them can be
performed by a man under special circumstances – the same cannot be said for the
commandments reserved for men. A man can light the Shabbat candles if there is no
woman present, but a woman can never be called to read from the Torah in
synagogue.
Another issue is that of choice. Is it likely that the domestic situation expected of
women would have satisfied all women – especially as more women became
educated? The claim that women are always fulfilled by their spiritual life at home is
convenient in that it encourages women to accept a second-class role in the synagogue
and in Judaism. However, the fact that men are encouraged to debate theological
issues while women are encouraged to discuss cake recipes, for example, is an issue
which is challenged in Judaism today.
This challenge comes not only from women seeking more intellectual stimulation and
acceptance in Judaism, but also from men who wish to enjoy a greater involvement in
the daily lives of their family than their father, grandfathers, and great grandfathers
had.
Blu Greenberg, an American Orthodox Jew and author, has advocated since the mid
1980s that Orthodox Jewish women should be allowed to become rabbis. He presents
a strong argument for a change in roles:
Orthodox women should be ordained because it would constitute a recognition of
their intellectual accomplishments and spiritual attainments; because it would
encourage great Torah study; because it offers wider female models of religious life;
because women’s input into p’sak [interpretation of Jewish text] absent for 2,000
years, is sorely needed; because it will speed the process of re-evaluating traditional
definitions that support hierarchy; because some Jews might find it easier to bring
halachic [according to Jewish Law] questions concerning family and sexuality to a
woman rabbi. And because of the justice of it all.’
(Greenberg, Moment Magazine, 1992, 52, 74)
The current situation is that several Orthodox women are studying under an Orthodox
rabbi in Israel to receive the required certification to become an Orthodox rabbi.
However, most Orthodox Jews reject this idea as they feel that this contradicts Jewish
law.
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
17
GENDER
Reform Judaism believes in a different concept of equality from that of Orthodox
Judaism; it asserts that all of its members have total autonomy in deciding how to
practise their faith and this is not bound by Jewish law or tradition. It ignores
traditional prohibitions on women’s role in Jewish life, and holds that women, if they
choose to do so, may perform any ritual done by a man. These equalities apply in the
synagogue and in the home. Hence Reform Judaism allows women rabbis, and the
first ordination of women rabbis took place in 1972.
Stereotyping is not morally justifiable because women are restricted from full
participation in synagogue life and have a minor role in this aspect of Jewish life. This
viewpoint, though predominantly held by Reform and Liberal Jews, is also shared by
some Orthodox Jews as well.
Economic issues: Will economic equality between the sexes lead to a
more just society?
There is nothing in Jewish law that restricts women from working outwith the home.
There are many examples of women running the home in the sense of managing the
budget, the economics of the household. Often the women were the breadwinners of
their families and they worked in a variety of occupations. In this respect economic
equality between the sexes has always existed in Judaism. While the situation where
the women are the breadwinners because the men are involved in full-time study
continues for some people to this day (particularly among ultra-Orthodox
communities), most Jewish men work in gainful employment.
Jewish women have always had the right to buy, sell and own property and make their
own contracts. Women in Western countries did not have such rights and obtained
these rather more recently, i.e. approximately 100 years ago. Evidence of such
economic equality for Jewish women can be found in Proverbs 31:10–31 which
emphasises that business acumen is a trait that is prized in women.
Glückel of Hamelin, Germany (1646–1724), is a famous example of a woman with
such acumen, and the business partnership she had with her husband is an example of
the economic equality that could exist within a Jewish marriage. As business partner,
Glückel drafted the business agreements and kept the books. She was her husband’s
adviser in all practical matters, even while bearing and raising their twelve children.
Glückel continued to manage her husband’s business and financial enterprises after
his death in 1689.
Centuries before career women were dreamed of, Glückel was engaging in business,
conducting financial transactions on the Exchange, attending fairs in different parts
of the country and even running a stocking factory.
(The Life of Glückel of Hamelin, 1962, p. xiii)
18
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
GENDER
The existence of such equality and partnership in the running of a household and its
economics leads to mutual respect and appreciation between genders. It does not
permit the sort of injustice which can occur when a married or unmarried woman,
whether young or old, is in a totally submissive domestic situation and suffers a loss
of basic human rights. The relationship described above leads to a more just society.
Further reading
Gender stereotyping:
Hein, Avi, ‘A history of women’s ordination as rabbis’,
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ jsource/Judaism/femalerabbi.html
‘Women in Judaism: The story of Chana’,
www.torah.org/learning/women/class11.html
‘Binah: A woman’s power’, www.torah.org/features/wperspective/binah.html
Neuberger, Julia, On Being Jewish, Mandarin, 1996
Attitudes of Reform and Orthodox Judaism:
Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies, World Religions – Judaism, Intermediate
2; Higher, Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2004, pp. 70–71
Economic issues:
Gluckel, of Hamelin: The Life of Gluckel Of Hamelin 1646–1724: Written by Herself.
London, East and West Library, 1962
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
19
INTERNATIONAL ISSUES
Section 3: International issues
Globalisation
The process of globalisation is not a phenomenon that is distinctive to modern times.
The culture of the great empires of the ancient Near and Middle East such as Greece
and Rome was imposed by the conqueror on a multitude of poorer and smaller
countries in much the same way as ‘the West’ is sometimes considered to be engaged
in globalisation of the world today. The sages of the Talmud would thus have directly
experienced some form of globalisation.
Is the process of globalisation morally justifiable?
Does globalisation bring growth, democracy, peace and integration of cultures,
leading to brotherhood? Or does it bring competition and resentment, leading to
conflict, loss of indigenous cultures, exploitation of human beings and at the very
worst a degraded world culture?
In Judaism, the broad definition of ‘justice’ includes international justice which
demands respect for the integrity of each and every national group, and proclaims that
no people can, by right, be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or
spiritual heritage.
The Torah’s vision of a just and caring society is central to the understanding of the
Jewish views on this, as all Jewish law and ethics is derived from the principles set
out in the Torah, the Hebrew Bible. It follows, therefore, that mistreatment or taking
advantage of workers in, for example, Africa or Southeast Asia by international
businesses is in direct conflict with the moral and ethical values of Judaism, but
globalisation is welcomed if it brings economic and material benefits, which in turn
may bring about a greater understanding and cooperation between groups of peoples.
Also important are the rabbinical discussions and arguments on this area that are
recorded in the Talmud. For example, the benefits and disadvantages of Roman rule
were discussed by Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Simon bar Yochai (Babylonian Talmud
Shabbat 33b). The former praised the Romans for their enterprise in establishing
markets, and building bridges and bathhouses. The latter criticised this viewpoint
stating that each of these benefits was really for the benefit of Rome and not for the
good of mankind. He explained that the markets were the workplace for prostitutes,
the bathhouses were for individuals (usually the rich) to indulge themselves, and
20
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
INTERNATIONAL ISSUES
bridges were used to collect tolls from people. That said, Rabbi Simon bar Yochai did
not deny the human benefits of marketplaces, bathhouses or bridges; but questioned
the way in which they are used.
In judging globalisation, the following concepts need to be examined:
Intention: Is it the intention of the enterprise initiative to make people self-indulgent
and pay more to the advantage of those in power, or is it the intention to improve the
wider community?
Morality: Is the morality of the enterprise initiative adversely affecting the
community or are modesty and morality being sustained or improved upon?
Respect for local leadership: Is there a cooperative approach in place that recognises
and considers the existing leadership, or is no consideration given to this?
Consistency: Are enterprise initiatives being encouraged equitably across the nations
or is the dominant nation prepared to turn a blind eye to its responsibilities in
exchange for special political favours?
Judaism is not against globalisation as such, but opposes any globalisation in which
the benefits are overwhelmingly weighted against the poorer partner.
In contrast, the Torah tells of Jacob’s return to the Land of Israel after an absence of
more than twenty years. On arrival in the unfamiliar city of Shechem, he purchased a
plot of land on which to live, and erected an alter as a place to pray to the one God
while surrounded by heathen neighbours (Genesis 33:18–20). He showed a sense of
proportion and propriety by showing friendship to the city’s inhabitants, behaved in
an appropriate moral way, and paid the full price for his field. The Midrash (a
collection of commentaries and legends) states that he sent gifts to all the local
leaders. The Torah states that he ’came in peace’. While Jacob’s return was not a
conquest and is not strictly globalisation, nevertheless the principle remains, and is a
model for globalisation to which human beings should aspire.
Globalisation and business ethics
One aspect of globalisation which often comes under debate is the buying and selling
of consumer products that have been manufactured in Third World countries under
sweatshop conditions. The Torah imposes strict standards on the employer regarding
fair wages and working conditions. In Jewish law the relationship between an
employer and an employee is a contract. Violating such a contract is wrong.
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
21
INTERNATIONAL ISSUES
When you make a sale to your fellow, or make a purchase from the hand of your
fellow, you shall not wrong [act unjustly, exploit] one another.
(Leviticus 25:14)
The critical question then becomes, who is my ‘fellow’? Is it my neighbour, for
example in Scotland? Is it my fellow citizen, for example in the UK? Is it any fellow
human being, for example anyone in the world? While the Hebrew actually means
‘friend or associate’ and in Biblical times would have applied only to those who were
close because of basic communication and mobility; in the age of globalisation, our
‘fellows’ may be interpreted as ‘all human beings’. If so, cheating a fellow human in
business is forbidden according to Judaism, and human beings should not exploit each
other in commerce by charging an unfair price.
Another relevant issue is that of investing monies in companies that use child labour
and/or damage the environment. The values of the Torah are not compatible with such
financial investments.
Keep far from a false matter, and don’t slay [do harm to] the innocent and the
righteous: for I will not justify the wicked.
(Exodus 23:7)
Individual Jews should always act according to Judaism’s values in dealing with
people and in that way deal with the problems of globalisation (see Friedman below).
International aid
Like all issues of morality, Judaism’s attitude to international aid is deeply rooted in
the Torah, which sets out the moral code of behaviour. The obligation to give
tzedakah (charity) to help the poor and the needy is stated many times in the Torah
and is considered by rabbis throughout the centuries to be one of the most important
mitzvot (commandments) of Judaism. This applies equally to men and women.
A woman of valour is one who stretches out her hand to the poor.
(Proverbs 31:20)
It is important to understand that in Judaism, charity is not perceived as a favour to the
poor but as something to which human beings have a right. This includes assisting the
poor and needy in Jewish and non-Jewish communities; the latter being additionally
important to building and maintaining good public relations.
The concept of tikkun olam (pr. tee-koon o-lam) is also central to understanding the
Judaic point of view. Its literal meaning is ‘repairing the world’ and this is achieved
through social action. The prophets considered it a religious hypocrisy for a Jew to
carry out the mitzvot without taking on a social responsibility and being involved in
22
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
INTERNATIONAL ISSUES
some type of social action. They took the position that doing so emulates God’s
holiness as the model for human righteousness. It can also be argued that engaging in
such acts is the primary means of satisfying the need to create a sense of community
and identity. An example of this would be Jewish people collecting unwanted books
to contribute to a book bank for children in poorer countries during the festival of
Shavuot, when Jews celebrate the value of the Torah.
Is international aid an appropriate moral response to world poverty?
If tikkun olam is perceived to be something that obliges Jews to help alleviate hunger,
homelessness, disease, ignorance, abuse and political oppression among all people,
then it follows that Judaism considers giving international aid to those in need as an
appropriate moral response to world poverty.
Yet, the following questions are sometimes raised:
(i)
(ii)
Should Jews come to the aid of non-Jews who have themselves, or belong to a
community whose members have, shown contempt for Jews?
Should Jews come to the aid of non-Jews who have themselves, or belong to a
community whose members have, killed Jews?
For Jews the biggest mitzvah (commandment or good deed) is to save life and this is
paramount to understanding the Jewish moral response. Furthermore, the Torah states
that ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Leviticus 19:18).
An example of (i) is Israel’s response of aid in the form of blankets, water, food and
medicines to Indonesia (January 2005) after the Tsunami. Indonesia has frequently
openly condemned Israel and this assistance heralded the first public contact between
these countries in several years.
An example of (ii) is the actions of the Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem. Yoni Jesner, a
Scottish Jew, was murdered by a Palestinian bomber in a terrorist attack on a bus in
Israel in 2002. The Jesner family gave permission for Yoni’s kidney to be donated to
a sick patient so that someone would benefit from their son’s death. The recipient was
a young Palestinian girl. Yoni’s brother Ari stated ‘I think that the most important
principle here is that life is given to another human being.’
One current example of the Jewish response to world poverty is shown by the
activities and initiatives organised by the World Jewish Aid (WJA) organisation. This
organisation has cross-communal support from all the branches of Judaism –
Orthodox, Masorti, Reform and Liberal. It acts on behalf of the UK Jewish
community to provide emergency and development aid to those in need throughout
the world, regardless of race, religion or ethnic origin, and to bring people out of
poverty in Africa, Asia, and Eastern and Central Europe.
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
23
INTERNATIONAL ISSUES
Also relevant is consideration of the Torah’s viewpoint on the treatment of the poor
who are in debt.
At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. And this is the manner of
the release: every creditor shall release that which he hath lent unto his neighbour;
he shall not exact it of his neighbour and his brother; because the Lord’s release hath
been proclaimed.
(Deuteronomy 15:1–2)
This states that all debts are to be cancelled after seven years – an interesting model
for the issue of Third World debt in our era.
As stated previously there are close links between tzedakah and tikkun olam and
further examination of these provides insight into the Jewish moral response to world
poverty. There are many forms of tzedakah, and the drawback with simply giving
tzedakah in the form of money or material goods is that the poor person may be
humiliated, may remain poor and will probably need more help in the future. In
Judaism, the best form of tzedakah is helping a poor person to become selfsupporting, thereby preserving his/her human dignity. Giving aid to poor countries
requires the same consideration. While it significantly helps people in the short term,
for example distributing food to starving refugees and distributing blankets to the
homeless, it does not contribute to solving the actual situation. Judaism considers
relief programmes that help people to become self-supporting to be the best form of
aid: for example, providing farmers with tools, and teaching them skills to use
fertilisers and pesticides.
Further reading
Globalisation:
Interview with Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of UK.
www.surefish.co.uk/faith/features/sacks_interview.htm
Friedman, Hershey H., ‘The impact of Jewish values on marketing and
business practices’, Sections on social responsibility, and responsibility for the
environment, www.jlaw.com/Articles/impactjewish.html
International aid:
World Jewish Aid: www.worldjewishaid.org
Victim’s final gift: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2274298.stm
24
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
MEDICAL ETHICS
Section 4: Medical ethics
Genetic engineering: Can any forms of human genetic engineering
be morally justified?
Introduction
What we look like, and to some extent the limits of what we can do, depend on our
genes. These genes are chemical structures (proteins) which lie in a chain that looks
like two intertwined springs known as a double helix. This double helix is called a
chromosome and humans have 48 of these which form the nucleus of every cell in our
body. Together they constitute the DNA code which is the unique programme for our
creation. In the last few years scientists are gradually producing a map (the Human
Genome Project) which tells us the function of each gene and where it is situated. If a
gene is defective it may produce defects in our structure and function, which can be
the cause of certain diseases.
Genetic engineering is the process by which changes can be made to the genetic
make-up of our cells with the objective of changing certain characteristics of the
individual. The method of genetic engineering also includes the necessary research to
perfect the procedures. Such research might include research on cells from very early
embryos – stem cell research.
In deciding questions of morality, Judaism considers several different issues. It wants
to know what is being done, the method and why. It also wants to know the risks of
the procedure and the likely outcome. It also wishes to make the decision on an
individual basis after carefully weighing the balance of all the evidence in the
particular case. To help in this, there are certain important guiding principles which in
the practical consideration of individual cases may sometimes conflict, requiring
evaluation and prioritising.
The requirements of Jewish law do not apply to non-Jews and only seek to decide
what is ethical behaviour for a Jewish person.
All Jewish medical practice is guided by a number of principles. The following apply
to genetic engineering:

The importance of the preservation of life – pikuach nefesh (pronounced pee-kooach, ch as in loch)
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
25
MEDICAL ETHICS





The importance of not doing harm to the patient
The mandate to heal – ‘and he shall cause him to be healed’ (Exodus 21:19)
The command not to stand back when someone needs help – ‘you shall not stand
idly by the blood of your neighbour’ (Leviticus 19:16)
The command to be fruitful and increase – pru u'revu (pr. proo oo-r’voo) (Genesis
1:28)
The idea that the creation of the world is not complete and it is man’s duty to
improve it – tikun olam (pr. tee-koon oh-lam) ‘And God created man in His
image’ (Genesis 1:27). As God was a creator so man is a creator.
It follows from these principles that none of the techniques involved in genetic
engineering are of themselves either always forbidden or always acceptable. It all
depends on the individual circumstances and the aim of the procedure.
Without going into the detail of technique, which is beyond the scope of this
discussion, the following conclusions can be reached based on the principles above.


Any procedure designed to cure or alleviate an illness or congenital defect would
be permissible because of the obligation to heal.
Any procedure designed to help in the conception and birth of a live child is
acceptable because of the obligation to be fruitful and increase. Thus, artificial
insemination, the fertilisation of the egg within the womb, would be permissible
as would in vitro fertilisation, where the egg is fertilised in the laboratory and then
implanted into the womb.
These would be permissible provided that:




there is no unacceptable risk to the life or health of the mother because of the
obligation to preserve life and to do no harm
the insemination or in vitro fertilisation of a married woman must only be by her
husband as it would otherwise be considered as adultery
the procedure is not carried out for trivial reasons such as producing a child of a
particular sex, or a particular colour of hair, or anything else which has nothing
whatsoever to do with health and the preservation of life
we do not destroy one life to save another.
Observant Orthodox Jews would not leave these decisions in the hands of the patient
or their doctor but would prefer the decision to be made by an independent
knowledgeable Jewish authority so that there was no possibility of a conflict of
interest or undue pressure from interested or involved parties.
26
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
MEDICAL ETHICS
Thus, from a Jewish point of view, there are a variety of forms of genetic engineering
which could be morally acceptable under carefully controlled circumstances when
considered on a case-by-case basis.
Cloning
Normally half of our genetic material comes from the mother and the other half comes
from the father. Cloning involves the creation of a duplicate entity by removing the
genetic material from a female ovum and replacing it with the genetic material of the
entity to be cloned and then stimulating it to begin to grow. The result of this process
– the clone – therefore has a mother but does not have a father.
So far there have been no proven cases of human cloning. The first cloned mammal
was Dolly the sheep, who was created in Edinburgh. Although it was an identical
twin, time proved that there were unexpected health problems such as an undue
tendency to arthritis and possibly a reduced life span.
The reasons why one might wish to clone a human being, include a desire to replace a
‘lost’ child (or adult), i.e. a child (or adult) who has died, or to produce spare parts
from the clone to help the person who has been cloned. In theory it might be possible
to clone someone to provide an organ for a kidney or heart transplant, which would be
known to be a perfect match.
If we apply the same principles that were applied to genetic engineering, then cloning
in order to duplicate a ‘lost’ individual is unlikely to be acceptable. It this case it does
not cure disease. Also if its primary object is to replace a dead individual, it doesn't
achieve it. It will not produce a live person of the same age, knowledge and
experience as the original and so the clone can never respond in the same way as the
original would have. To try to do so is a dream.
To clone in order to produce spare parts is also of doubtful morality. It might cure a
disease but does so at a price to the clone and the original. This would not fulfil the
criteria of not causing harm.
Arguments about interfering with nature are not relevant either here or in the
discussion on genetic engineering, since Judaism believes that we are entitled to
interfere with nature in order to save life or cure disease.
However, this subject is still under active discussion and no final decisions have yet
been made.
Stem cell research
None of the procedures that we have discussed would be possible without stem cell
research, that is, research on cells and early embryos. This leads to the destruction of
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
27
MEDICAL ETHICS
spare embryos which might have had the potential of human life. Is this morally
acceptable?
There are two main points to be considered – the object of the research and whether
the research infringes a basic human right of the embryo. Some people feel it
diminishes respect for life.
As said before, interfering with nature is not a moral problem for Judaism as long as it
is done for a legitimate purpose, as argued above. The question of the destruction of a
potential life must next be considered.
Stem cells for research are acquired from very early embryos (less than 14 days old),
which are extras left over from in vitro fertilisation where a number of embryos are
produced so that the best one can be harvested for implantation. They will in any case
be destroyed after 14 days. These embryos therefore have no future.
From a Jewish point of view these embryos are not human beings. Even a welldeveloped foetus does not have equal rights to survive until the head or the greater
part of the body has been delivered. While this means that Judaism does not consider
abortion to be murder, nevertheless it considers it to be morally repugnant unless there
is an overriding reason such as the maintenance of the life or health of the mother.
The destruction of very early embryos in stem cell research is not considered the same
as abortion since the cells have never been implanted into a mother and so can never
develop into a foetus. Also, they are destroyed at a stage before the development of
any nerve tissue, brain, heart or blood vessels, or indeed any other recognisable
structure, and so do not rank as a human being.
Euthanasia: Can any forms of euthanasia be morally justified?
Euthanasia is defined as an easy way to die – the act or practice of putting painlessly
to death, especially in cases of incurable suffering.
Some facts
Someone who is suffering from an incurable disease and is in great pain may feel that
life is no longer worth living. Some might wish to commit suicide but, lacking the
knowledge and the means, request help from a relative, a friend or their doctor. If
none of these people actually carries out the act, but one of them merely provides the
method, that is called ‘assisted suicide’. However, if the relative, friend or doctor
actually administers the fatal dose of morphine or whatever, then that would be
‘euthanasia’, because it would be putting them to death painlessly. If they put a pillow
over the patient’s face, it might not be quite painless but still might come under the
heading of euthanasia because it was a ‘mercy killing’ – a killing carried out to end
suffering.
28
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
MEDICAL ETHICS
Some people might decide, while they are still in reasonable health, that they would
not wish to be kept alive under certain circumstances, such as a painful terminal
illness, or a stroke which makes them unable to walk or to speak or to look after
themselves. If they put this request in writing then it is a ‘living will’. However, while
it is comparatively easy in good health to think that one would wish to have one’s life
end if one had an incurable and painful condition, it is quite another thing to keep the
same opinion when actually faced with the real situation. So, many people change
their minds at the vital moment and some of these may tragically not be fit enough to
be able to let people know that they now wish to live, and lose the opportunity.
There are other reasons, apart from a painful incurable disease, why ill people might
wish to die. They may not wish to be a burden on their relatives. They may feel that
they are unable to tolerate the indignities of incontinence or paralysis, or they may
feel that they do not have the courage to withstand the demands of the procedures
required to keep them alive. However, this may not always be in the terminal stages of
an incurable illness. We are now in the position of having to decide whether they are
truly incurable. Are they really near to death? Or do they simply need moral support
and encouragement, some sedation and adequate pain relief?
Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia carried out with the full permission of the patient
at the time. Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia carried out according to a set of
rules which would allow a doctor to end life in certain situations because it was
thought best for the patient, regardless of what the patient thought at that time.
For example, someone who has looked after a partner or a friend over a long period
with great care, love and devotion may consider that the patient has suffered enough
and decides to kill them. If the matter had been discussed with the patient and had
been agreed or even requested, then this would be voluntary euthanasia. If the patient
was killed without any discussion because the carer felt that they had suffered enough,
then that would be involuntary euthanasia. Euthanasia carried out in response to a
living will lies somewhere between the two.
The present position in UK law is that euthanasia, whether voluntary or involuntary, is
a crime, the charge being murder. The same attitude applies to assisted suicide.
However, the courts decide each of these cases on their individual merits and are often
very understanding, especially in the case of partners or relatives, and decide on the
sentence accordingly.
At the present time, legislation is before parliament with a view to legalising living
wills. There has been a good deal of opposition to this. Some of this has come from
MPs with personal experience of relatives who changed their mind at the last moment
and went on to live for some time with a reasonable quality of life, playing a part in
the life of their family. This brings into question the whole concept of incurability, the
degree of suffering, and the reliability of assessing how long someone has to live.
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
29
MEDICAL ETHICS
These days, we can do more and more for pain relief and making people more
comfortable. We are continuing to develop new methods of treatment and improve old
ones. So it becomes more and more important for us not to make irreversible
decisions about the life of other people. There is also a danger that we may be
carrying out euthanasia for our own sakes not for the sake of the patient, because care
is too demanding on us as relatives and friends or because, as doctors, we need to
release hospital beds or equipment. That really would be murder.
The Dutch parliament has recently legalised the ‘mercy’ killing of patients, provided
that the patient has clearly asked to die and the doctor is convinced of their sincerity.
This follows what had been common practice for some time. As a result, many elderly
Dutch patients in old age homes are afraid that they might be the victims of
involuntary euthanasia because they might be judged to be too old, useless and not
worth the expense of keeping alive.
In the USA, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, has proposed
the killing of those he terms ‘miserable beings’. Once society gets rid of ‘doctrines
about the sanctity of human life’ he predicts that it will be ‘the refusal to accept
killing that, in some cases, [will be seen as] horrific’. What a dangerous idea to be
seriously suggested! It is a warning of a very slippery slope. There are many people
who feel that everyone should have the right to die and the right to be helped to die
whenever they want.
The Jewish view
All Jewish law is derived from principles set out in the Torah, the Hebrew Bible. The
same applies to Jewish medical ethics. From the Torah the Jew can learn both the
obligations and the limitations of the doctor.
‘Thou shalt not murder’ (Exodus 20:13) is one of the Ten Commandments and a
command respected by all civilised peoples. Judaism only allows killing another
human being under two circumstances:
1.
Execution for a crime for which there is a death sentence. This is an event of
extreme rarity – since the courts apply conditions which can only very rarely be
satisfied.
2.
In self-defence against an enemy who is trying to kill you.
As euthanasia does not come under either of these categories, it is therefore murder
and is clearly not permissible in Judaism. Nor, in Jewish law, is it permitted to assist
anyone to commit suicide.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide require the carrying out of a specific act. However, the
question often arises as to whether it is appropriate to initiate or continue to
30
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
MEDICAL ETHICS
administer certain treatments which cannot cure a terminally ill patient but merely
prolong a painful existence. This would not be active euthanasia, as no one is giving a
fatal injection. Even though it could lead to a more rapid death, there is a world of a
difference between this and euthanasia.
For example, if an elderly man with a bad heart and poor lungs comes into hospital
with a cancer of the bowel which is preventing it from functioning, an operation might
remove the cancer, but because he is so ill it is certain that he would not survive the
operation.
Should the man be kept comfortable and be allowed to die with dignity?
or
Should the man be subjected to the pain and suffering of an operation from
which he will not recover?
Judaism would consider that the ethically correct solution lies in the first option as it
considers it to be the more humane response. It would also allow his relatives to make
the decision on his behalf if he was not able to make the decision for himself.
Another example might be a patient who is receiving chemotherapy for cancer, which
makes him sick and ill for several days. Initially the chemotherapy helps him for
weeks or months but gradually it helps him for a shorter and shorter time and it is
obvious that he is soon going to die. Jewish medical ethics would allow him to say
‘Enough is enough. I don't want any more treatment that is just making me more
miserable. Let it end.’ This too, is not a very difficult decision.
However, the withholding of treatment has its limitations. Jewish medical ethics do
not permit the withholding of oxygen, fluid or food from a patient, as they are not
considered to be treatment but a human being’s basic human rights. However, there
might be some disagreement as to whether the obligation to give food only refers to
food by mouth and not to food or fluid given by an intravenous drip.
Judaism, however, does not like to answer hypothetical questions, i.e. it does not like
to come to firm decisions, either for or against, in moral and ethical questions on
theoretical grounds. It prefers to look at each person or question on an individual
basis, as no two problems are exactly the same. Judaism also considers that decisions
on such matters should be made by a recognised authority who is appropriately
knowledgeable in Jewish law and ethics and also in understanding of the patients’
needs. The advantage of this is to remove the final decision from people who might
have a conflict of interest in the outcome, whether this be the hospital administration,
the doctor, or the relatives or friends, any of whom might have interests which
conflict with the best interests of the patient.
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
31
MEDICAL ETHICS
Living wills
We have already mentioned that some people put in writing how they wish to be
treated when they have an incurable condition and may be approaching death. They
do so because they fear that when the time comes they may be too ill to make their
wishes known. Sometimes such a will may also say whose decision should be
requested if the individual cannot make a decision for themselves.
Jews who wish the decision to be made in accordance with Jewish practice may lay
down the particular authority they would trust to make the decision on their behalf
instead of themselves indicating the circumstances under which they would wish
treatment discontinued and be allowed to die.
Judaism’s view of life is that life is precious and that it is the most valuable thing
human beings possess. Therefore the preservation of life – pikuach nefesh (pr. peekoo-ach, ch as in loch) is of the greatest importance and takes precedence over almost
all other religious commandments. Judaism also believes that our bodies are not our
own property to do with as we will, but are, as it were, given on loan by the Almighty
to be looked after and returned, as far as possible, in good shape in due course. We do
not have the moral right to kill or injure ourselves, or to authorise others to do so on
our behalf.
This could be taken as an absolute obligation to maintain life under all circumstances,
regardless of pain, suffering or the clearly expressed will of the patient. This opinion
is in fact held by some, but is a minority viewpoint.
Jewish law and ethics try to balance the conflict of ethical concerns. On the one hand
we have an obligation to preserve life, but we also have an obligation to relieve pain
and suffering. It is in the prioritising of these conflicting factors that Judaism insists
on the advice of an experienced, independent and recognised authority. Most
authorities allow a patient to refuse treatment, but only under the following strict
conditions:



The patient must clearly wish to refuse treatment.
The patient must not be expected to live for more than a year and the pain or
suffering must be unbearable.
If the patient is unable to make the above decisions, the next of kin may make the
decision on the basis of what they feel that the patient would have wanted – and
not what they themselves might have wanted in the same situation.
Even if all these conditions are met, the patient may refuse surgery, chemotherapy and
painful invasive procedures but may not decline food, water and oxygen. A patient in
this situation may also refuse treatment for an intercurrent infection (an additional
infection to the main life-threatening condition) such as pneumonia, even though this
32
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
MEDICAL ETHICS
may be treatable on its own. Neither the patient nor his doctor may take a positive step
which would result in the patient’s death.
Thus the living will, from a Jewish point of view, is a very limited authority. It also
takes into account the fact that what seems intolerable at the age of 30 or 40 may seem
much more acceptable at 70 or 80 years of age. It also avoids the problem of a change
of mind. An example of such a will acceptable to Jewish ethics can be found at
www.jlaw.com/forms/hlw_general.html
One final point, a patient who is not terminally ill may refuse treatment if the risk of
dying as a result of the treatment is high, or the results of such treatment are not really
known.
Further reading
Genetic engineering:
Articles found at www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature
Am Echad Resources, ‘Reminded by science’
Eisenberg, Daniel, ‘Is stem cell research ethical?’
‘Cloning and stem cells’, www.srtp.org.uk/cloning.shtml
‘Genetic engineering’, www.srtp.org.uk/geneng0.shtml
Eisenberg, Daniel, ‘The ethics of cloning’,
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/clone.html
Broyde, Michael, ‘Cloning people and Jewish law’,
www.jlaw.com/Articles/cloning.html
Euthanasia:
Articles found at www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature
Bernstein, S., ‘Doctor assisted suicide’
Eisenberg, D., ‘The Terri Schiavo Case: Related ethical dilemmas’
Rutman, Y., ‘Killing mercy’
Breitowitz, Y., ‘Physician-assisted suicide: A Halachic approach’,
www.jlaw.com/Articles/suicide.html
Breitowitz, Y, ‘The right to die: A Halachic approach’,
www.jlaw.com/Articles/right.html
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
33
MEDICAL ETHICS
Eisenberg, D., ‘End of life choices in Halachah’,
www.jlaw.com/Articles/EndofLife.html
Both websites www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature and www.jlaw.com/Articles
provide very full information on physician-assisted suicide.
34
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
WAR AND PEACE
Section 5: War and peace
Responses to war: Is war ever morally justifiable?
Introduction
Judaism recognises two types of war: milchemet mitzvah, an obligatory war (pr. meel
chem (ch as in loch) -et meetz-va); and milchemet reshut, an authorised war (pr.
r’shoot).


An obligatory war includes wars fought in self-defence against an attack, and
coming to the aid of another nation who has been attacked unjustly. It also
included the wars in Biblical times which were commanded by God, but these are
not relevant today.
An authorised war was a war outwith these conditions for which approval had to
be given by the government and the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish court) of 71
members (see also Section 1). However, there has not been a Sanhedrin for almost
1,600 years.
General principles
There are two principles which are relevant when considering the moral justification
for war. One is to be found in the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus 19:16) – ‘neither shalt thou
stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour’. This means that if you see someone being
attacked then it is your responsibility to help against the attacker. The second
principle is that of the rodef (pursuer). If someone pursues his neighbour to kill him,
then the pursued is permitted to defend himself even at the cost of the life of the
pursuer (Sanhedrin 73a). Further, anyone who sees someone pursuing another in order
to kill him is also obliged to intervene to save the life of the pursued even if he has to
kill the pursuer in order to prevent him killing his prey. Moreover, if the intention of a
pursuer to kill someone is obvious, then one does not have to wait for him to deliver
the first blow but can pre-empt the attack.
This does not mean that you must kill the assailant. It is important to note that only
the minimum force necessary to achieve the object of saving the intended victim
should be used (Sanhedrin 74a), but the principles give a license to go as far as killing
the assailant if that is the only way possible.
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
35
WAR AND PEACE
Although these principles are only stated with reference to individuals, they have been
accepted as applying to groups and nations as well, and are therefore relevant in
considering the morality of war between states.
A further principle can be derived from Deuteronomy 20:10 which says ‘When you
draw close to a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace to it.’ This is the principle
of negotiation before an attack in order to give the enemy an opportunity to consider
his position in the hope that fighting can be avoided and lives can be saved. An
opportunity was also to be given to the civilians to leave the area if they wished. Even
an obligatory war in self-defence or in aid of another state is only moral if this
negotiation condition has been fulfilled or, at least, attempted.
The following three principles have very important implications for the moral
justification for war:



the right to kill in self-defence against an assailant who is trying to kill you
the obligation to help someone who is being attacked
the duty to attempt negotiation in order to save lives.
Principles in practice
If one has been attacked, then clearly one has the right, indeed the duty, to defend
oneself and with whatever force seems appropriate. In practice, if the defender is
weak and the aggressor very strong then defence may be impossible, and surrender
inevitable. What is desirable and morally correct may not always actually be possible.
Here a further principle can be relevant. It is the principle of pikuach nefesh (pr. peakoo- ach (ch as in loch) neh-fesh), the saving of life. This principle states that, when a
life can be saved, almost all laws can be temporarily suspended. It is a principle
mainly employed in medical ethics but it has been used to support a course of action
in conflicts between nations.
If one country has a pact with another country for mutual defence against a third
country, and one of them is attacked, then the other is also morally obliged to go to
war because ‘thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour’. This can also
apply when there is no formal pact. One of the presumptions here is that if the
aggressor was successful in his first conflict he would then go on to attack the second
nation. This would also fall into the category of legitimate pre-emptive action against
a pursuer.
If one country is obviously preparing for war, making warlike threats, and moving its
armies forward in an attacking posture then the country being menaced has the right
to make a pre-emptive strike since it is as if it were being pursued by a rodef. As
mentioned above, when you are pursued you do not have to wait till the pursuer fires
the first shot.
36
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
WAR AND PEACE
Nevertheless, a decision to go to war should never be taken without very careful
consideration. If one is weak and the enemy is strong, war may be a very unwise
solution regardless of the moral imperatives. Sacrificing lives in vain benefits no one.
However, at all points, negotiation should be attempted. Of course an attack may be
so sudden that there is no time to enter negotiations before having to defend and strike
back. It also does not mean that unsatisfactory terms must be accepted. It is accepted
that there are conditions and principles for which it is worth defending oneself and
one's country.
It is interesting to consider the fight against terrorism in the light of the principle of
the rodef. There is no doubt that the terrorist is a pursuer with the intent to kill
innocent or unsuspecting people. There is therefore no doubt that, according to Jewish
ethics, at war or any other time, one is entitled to try to stop them, even at the cost of
their lives, and also one may pre-empt their attacks by getting in first where possible.
All these wars would be obligatory wars and therefore morally justifiable; the
casualties incurred by the aggressor would also be morally justifiable.
An example of an authorised war would be when there are numerous small raids or
attacks from a neighbouring country over a long period of time. No individual attack
would be sufficient provocation for a full-scale war. Yet taken together the situation
becomes intolerable because of the casualties, damage and interruption to normal
living. Then a government might decide, after warnings and attempted negotiations,
that there was no alternative but to wage a full-scale war in order to try to resolve the
problem. Even in the absence of a Sanhedrin, this would be a justifiable and therefore
moral war.
Wars purely to enlarge territory or for revenge are not permitted and do not constitute
a moral reason for war.
Moral behaviour during a conflict
Even when fighting a morally justifiable war, Judaism makes a number of conditions
for the moral behaviour of those who are fighting.



An enemy is to be given the opportunity to surrender so as to avoid casualties
(Deuteronomy 20:10–12).
Civilians are to be given an opportunity to escape if that is possible (Maimonides
Laws of Kings 6:1 quoted in Broyde, ‘Fighting the war and the peace’).
No unnecessary damage should be done. Fruit trees were not to be destroyed
(20:19) unless they were a danger to life because they were a cover for ambushes
or weapons such as artillery or mortars.
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
37
WAR AND PEACE


An enemy is to be treated with consideration. ‘If your enemy is hungry, give him
bread to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink’ (Proverbs 25:21).
It is not permitted to inflict more casualties than a sixth of the enemy (Talmud
Shavuot 35B).
Pacifism
What then is the Jewish attitude to pacifism? In an obligatory war, Judaism does not
recognise the right of a person not to take part. An obligatory war (milchemet mitzvah)
is a war that one is commanded to fight. Mitzvah means commandment. There is also
the moral duty ‘not to stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour’ and that therefore no
one has the right to say ‘I don't want to fight’. However, it might be that this
obligation is fulfilled by someone who volunteers for non-combatant duties such as
medical orderlies or any other duties that may not require the use of a weapon. But
one is not entitled to opt out altogether.
Modern armaments: Can the use of any types of modern armaments
be morally justified?
Let us suppose that we are fighting a moral and justifiable war. We must be prepared
to use such force as is necessary to force the enemy to give in and stop fighting. We
can only do so if we have armed forces – army, navy and air force – which are
properly equipped with sufficiently powerful weapons which they have been trained
to use effectively. There are no half measures here. If we fight effectively and
efficiently then the war is likely to end more quickly and damage may be limited. If
we are not effective, then a war could drag on for a very long time and in the end be
more expensive in lives and material. But we can only do this by inflicting losses on
an enemy which they are unable to sustain. It is for this reason that armies are armed
to develop maximum destructiveness. This is mainly achieved by powerful explosives
in shells, bombs or rockets. Many personal weapons such as rifles and machine guns
have astounding rates of fire. The delivery systems have become more efficient and
more accurate. If war can be morally justified, then can these weapons, designed to
bring a war to a rapid end, also be morally justified?
If a war is morally justified then weapons to fight it must also be morally justified.
But are there weapons which cannot be justified under any circumstances? Although
many of the weapons in use today are very sophisticated they are still conventional
weapons. That is to say that they are weapons which could be considered to be simply
developments of weapons that have been in use for centuries. They have local effects
and are designed for use on the battlefield. Even aerial bombardment, which often hits
civilian populations, is not primarily intended to do so but to hit military targets, that
is, targets which aid the enemy's war effort.
38
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
WAR AND PEACE
We have to accept that war is a nasty business. People do get killed and injured, often
seriously. If a war is morally justifiable, then that must also be accepted. We do not
live in an ideal world and there are rogue states which are a danger to their
neighbours.
Judaism accepts this. However, while accepting that people do get killed in war, it
demands that attempts be made to minimise the loss of life and injury. It also accepts
that civilians may also be involved but demands that they must also be protected when
possible (Deuteronomy. 20:10).
However, we now have weapons which are not conventional: weapons of mass
destruction, whose effects are not local on the battlefield but which produce effects
over a wide area, often in a way which is uncontrollable. Examples of such weapons
are the atomic bomb and various forms of biological warfare, the effects of which
could be worldwide.
We could still argue that if the war is morally justifiable then the use of these weapons
also is morally justifiable. The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended
Japanese resistance and brought an end to the Second World War in 1945. They
certainly reduced the number of casualties that would have been suffered had the war
continued for a long time against such a very determined enemy. However, it was at
the price of a very large number of civilian casualties. The argument about this
continues to the present day. It could still be considered moral and certainly seemed
so at the time.
Would it have been justified to use it earlier? Many lives might have been saved had
the Nazis been subject to atomic bombardment in 1939 or 1940. In fact if the atomic
bomb had existed in 1939, then the Second World War may not have started at all. So
the moral argument is a difficult one.
Since that time, atomic weapons have acted as deterrents to all-out war. The nations
that have them at the moment are unlikely to use them because the response from
another nuclear power could be so devastating. There is a balance of fear. However,
there are nations such as Iran, who have the declared intention of wishing to wipe out
one of their neighbours, who are trying very hard to develop their own atomic
weapons.
Another difficulty arises about the use of atomic weapons. Conventional high
explosives, however powerful, are local in their effects. When an atomic bomb goes
off, radio-active material may be carried all the way round the world with an
incalculable risk of damage to humans, to animals, and to agriculture and the food
chain. We were not really aware of all these dangers in 1945 but are very aware of
them now because of the effects of explosions in atomic power plants such as
Chernobyl in Russia in 1986, which even affected sheep in Wales. We are not really
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
39
WAR AND PEACE
capable of calculating the balance between the casualties that may be saved by the use
of an atomic bomb against the damage caused by its use.
There is no doubt that the balance of deterrence has made all wars since 1945
conventional ones.
If there is some possible doubt about the morality of atomic weapons, is there any
doubt about the morality of biological weapons? This is not a battlefield weapon.
Biological warfare is designed to terrify and destroy a civilian population along with
its army. There can be no control over the distance such infections might travel, nor
how many deaths and seriously ill people it might cause. It is an indiscriminate
weapon. While it might bring a war to an end, the cost is incalculable. There is no
balance sheet you can draw up. That would seem to remove all moral justification for
its use. The Talmud explicitly prohibits the waging of a war where the casualty rate
exceeds a sixth of the population (Shavuot 35b). Lord Jakobovits, a former Chief
Rabbi of the United Kingdom, said:
in view of this vital limitation on the law of self defence, it would appear that a
defensive war likely to endanger the survival of the attacking and the defending
nations alike, if not indeed the entire human race, can never be justified. On this
assumption, then, that the choice posed by a threatened nuclear attack would be
either complete destruction or surrender, only the second may be morally vindicated.
(quoted in Broyde, ‘Fighting the war and the peace’)
The same logic would apply to biological warfare.
Judaism might consider the possession of atomic weapons as a deterrent perfectly
legitimate but it is difficult to find a clear source in the Jewish tradition which permits
a person or nation to threaten to do that which it is prohibited to do.
Nevertheless the matter is still under consideration and there are conflicting views. It
is one thing to speculate in theory and quite another to be faced with the actual
situation.
40
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
WAR AND PEACE
Further reading
Responses to war:
Broyde, Michael J., ‘Fighting the war and the peace: Battlefield ethics, peace talks,
treaties, and pacifism in the Jewish tradition’,
www.jlaw.com/Articles/war1.html
Forta, Arye, ‘Judaism – war and peace’, in Cole, W. O. (ed.), Moral Issues in Six
Religions, Heinemann, 1991, pp. 178–80
Modern armaments:
Broyde, Michael J., ‘Fighting the war and the peace: Battlefield ethics, peace talks,
treaties, and pacifism in the Jewish tradition’,
www.jlaw.com/Articles/war1.html
MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD – JUDAISM (INT 2/H, RMPS)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005
41