The Responsa Project
Blind in Gaza - Ze’ev Maor
1. On War, the Enemy, and Humanitarian Duty Question: As far as I know, the Torah instructs us, when waging an offensive war, to first call for peace (meaning the enemy must agree to total submission). One can also find further instructions on how to deal with the enemy. Yet in principle, at least in wartime, I don’t see in the Torah any consideration of the enemy’s suffering. Moreover, equating Israel with the other nations seems to contradict fundamental Jewish axioms about the essential gap between Israel and the nations. Answer: Peshat – the factual level “The religion of Israel, as kept by faithful Jews who observe Torah and mitzvot, is not ‘the religion of the Bible alone.’ It is founded on Mishnah, Talmud, and halakhic authorities throughout the generations, together with works of philosophy, ethics, and moral thought… Just as Jews do not keep kashrut, niddah, or many other commandments on the basis of the Written Torah alone, so too in matters of war. The issue is unequivocal… The halakhic category of reshut melkhei ha-umot (‘the license of the nations’) and the concept of shi‘bud malkhuyot (‘subjugation to the kingdoms’) still apply even after the establishment of the State of Israel. Since the entire world is governed by global systems of power, this obligates Israel in every situation to act in ways politically realistic and acceptable to the nations. At present, this is not being done.” Remez – the psychological / imagined dimension “All the more so—when we withhold food from collapsing Gaza, we heap coals upon our own head and upon Jews everywhere… What a broad public here does not see, the whole world does see. Even if propaganda and campaigns play a role, the reality of famine goes far beyond imagination.” Derash – the moral demand “What is meant by being a ‘light to the nations’? Compassionate children of compassionate ancestors. One who lacks shame—it is known that his ancestors did not stand at Sinai. If your enemy is hungry, feed him bread; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. The same prophets who called Israel to be a light to the nations are those who accused Israel when it became like all the nations, warning it not to let its heart be lifted up when conquering houses and lands that were not its own.” Sod – the kabbalistic dimension “Whoever feeds the hungry and gives drink to the thirsty brings repair to the world: ‘Compassion for all creatures, to do them no harm, depends on wisdom’ (R. Moshe Cordovero, Tomer Devorah).” The Fifth Dimension – summary “The broad punishment of starvation is a direct blow to masses of women and infants—it contradicts the very spirit of Torah. We are not in the midst of war but at its end—Gaza has been subdued. The siege has led to population collapse, hunger, malnutrition, death, and disintegration. People must be given an outlet for survival and life—food is that outlet. Israel must not, in the name of its distinction from other nations, act as judge in its own cause and sink to a morality lower than all the nations of the earth.”
2. On Hostage Release and Its Cost Question: If hostages are released at a high price, who can guarantee that we and our children will not pay the price in the future? And why are we accused of seeking to sacrifice them? Answer (with David Sorotzkin): “The central principle behind discussions in the Jerusalem Talmud (and also in other rabbinic sources incorporated into the Mishnah and Bavli) is: ein doḥin nefesh mipnei nefesh—one life cannot be set aside to save others. The only exception is when the hostile force singles out a named individual (‘so-and-so’), in which case it is permitted, according to Rabbi Yohanan (against Resh Lakish), to hand that person over to save the community. Why is this principle relevant to the issue of a hostage deal? Because opponents of such a deal often argue from utility: ‘If we save the living hostages by making a deal before defeating our enemy, it will harm us and our children in the future.’ But the surrender of an individual by the community to an enemy community raises the very question of whether the community forfeits its own reason to exist by such betrayal. Maimonides ruled that such surrender is a moral boundary not to be crossed. Crossing it collapses the very purpose of the community as a real and ideal anchor for its members. Thus the absolute moral imperative also penetrates the utilitarian plane: not only morally but also practically, one must decide in favor of immediate hostage return. As for the rule ‘we do not redeem captives for more than their worth, for the sake of tikkun olam’ (Mishnah Gittin 4:6), this is not operative here. Many authorities ruled that even in a case of pure danger to life, captives must be redeemed even beyond their worth. Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabi‘a Omer X, Ḥoshen Mishpat 6) ruled explicitly that captives of terror must be redeemed at any price. In the present case, far from tikkun olam, not redeeming them is kilkul olam—destruction of the world—especially since these hostages were taken due to military and governmental failure, and include both soldiers and civilians seized in the state’s service. If the state does not ‘turn the world upside down’ to bring them back, mutual responsibility, which undergirds Zionism itself, collapses. As the Sages taught: certain versus doubtful—certain prevails. It is certain these hostages will die, certain that this humiliation will scar generations, certain it will damage social cohesion and the will to defend. The supposed future harm is only doubtful. Therefore, one must act now to redeem them, strengthen society, and only then rebuild security and deterrence. In Maimonides’ own halakhah (Yesodei HaTorah 5:5), he sided with Resh Lakish and the ‘teaching of the pious’: better all be killed than surrender one soul not deserving of death. This shows his commitment to an absolute moral boundary, shaped by his existential experience of persecution, by historical and mystical notions of the ḥasidim, and by a categorical moral logic akin to Kant: an act must be fit to be universal law. To abandon a singled-out individual for the collective is destructive of the very collective it claims to save. Conclusion: The categorical moral law and utilitarian reasoning converge: both compel immediate redemption of the hostages. The absolute dignity of human life and the cohesion of the nation demand a deal—and the sooner, the better.”
3. “Chosen People” and the Perils of Superiority Question: In recent decades, many Jewish circles emphasize Jewish chosenness in a way that heightens superiority over the nations: “I am better than you, therefore entitled to privileges, exempt from empathy toward non-Jews.” Instead of focusing on the spiritual mission of spreading light, goodness, and respect for all creation, this shift begins with separateness, becomes division, and ends in arrogance. Was there ever such a tendency in earlier times? Does Torah (Written or Oral) warn against this egoistic distortion? Answer: The notion of Israel as unique rests on Torah and the covenant God made with Israel. Moses repeats this in Deuteronomy, including the phrase am segulah (“treasured people”). Interpretations of Israel’s uniqueness fall into three main channels: Ethical/behavioral uniqueness – seen in character, observance, moral conduct, even martyrdom (Maimonides, Ramban, Rashba, Ran, Maharal). Essential/ontological uniqueness – an inherent quality (R. Yehudah HaLevi, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, in part Maharal, Ba‘al HaTanya). Missional uniqueness – Israel’s task toward humanity, whether moral or cosmic (Maimonides on monotheism, Ramḥal on tikkun olam, modern thinkers of the Enlightenment, Zionism). Modern nationalism, and later the State of Israel, strengthened the essentialist trend—justifying the secular Jew as part of the collective. But this easily turns into arrogance and superiority. Deuteronomy 7:6-11 makes clear: Israel was not chosen for being many or strong—rather for being few, and because of God’s love and oath to the patriarchs. “Segulah” was understood by commentators as a quality of humility and self-diminishment (Rashi), not power. Ramban emphasized love as tested by suffering—Israel is chosen because it endures trial and remains faithful. The Rashba explicitly rejected essentialist interpretations: Israel differs from the nations only through Torah and mitzvot. Maimonides insisted prophecy is not exclusive to Israel; Israel is marked instead by mercy, modesty, and kindness. By contrast, R. Yehudah HaLevi (Kuzari) defined “segulah” as a prophetic essence, and this influenced later mysticism and modern religious nationalism (R. Kook). R. Kook tried to synthesize essence and mission, but Hasidut Chabad (Tanya) and later R. Ginzburgh pressed the essentialist line to extremes: distinguishing a divine soul in Jews from a merely animal soul in non-Jews—opening the way to nationalist racism and moral blindness. In sum, classical sources already contain both warnings and temptations: warnings (Rashba, Rambam, Rashi) against arrogance, and temptations (R. Yehudah HaLevi, Tanya, modern extremisms) to reify chosenness into superiority. The Torah itself insists: chosenness is covenantal, ethical, and humble—not license for contempt of others.