RABBI AVINER: Baruch Goldstein A "Saint"

Goldstein killed 29 Palestinians praying in the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron on Purim 15 years ago.

Rabbi Aviner refers to Baruch Goldstein as saint
Asked by a reader whether Jewish doctor who murdered 29 innocent Palestinians erred, Zionist rabbi says answer is 'complicated'
Tzofia Hirschfeld

Baruch Goldstein was a righteous man [tzaddik, saint], but what he did was wrong, Zionist Rabbi Shlomo Aviner said in a response to a question regarding the Jewish doctor who murdered 29 Palestinian civilians and injured another 125 at the Cave of Machpela on Purim eve 14 years ago.

Aviner replied to a reader's question posted on the Ma'ale website. The reader was wondering whether Goldstein's act was justified, "seeing that at the time many innocent Jews were murdered by Arab terrorists," or whether his act constituted "a heinous murder."

Rabbi Aviner agreed that the issue was complicated: On the one hand, Goldstein's act could not be viewed separately from the man himself, who, according to Aviner lived during a time of multiple terror attacks and dedicated his life to saving Jews; and on the other hand, a man cannot act of his own accord on behalf of the nation.

"Clearly Baruch Goldstein did not act out of personal vengeance. This is precisely why he should have asked for the nation's permission, because it is the nation that would later have to shoulder the responsibility.

"Had he asked us we would have told him not to do it. This is not the way to act. But he didn't. And he got killed. He knew that what he was doing was dangerous, so may the memory of the righteous be for blessing, may the memory of the saintly be for blessing. But what he did was wrong."

The Realistic Religious Zionism movement stated in response" We believe that the religious public understands the severity of Goldstein's act, is appalled by the murderer's actions and will not allow questionable words to divert them from observing the mitzvah of 'be killed but do not transgress'."

Comments

[Dr. Dave]

The difference between us and the exploding arab squatters is that we do not call someone who drops to their level a "saint".

[ah-pee-chorus]

let me get this straight aviner, it is assur to visit auschwitz, or leave eretz yisroel, but you can kill 29 people and still be called a tsaddik.

[maven]

Ah-Pee:

That's exactly the settler position. What is inconsistant about that? Eretz Yisrael is above all things, so it is halachically forbidden to leave (that's actually halachically so, one of those actual halachas that gets ignored in favor of microscopic examination of broccoli), and defending it to the max (after all, the settlers have a little local myth that there was going to be a pogrom eminating from the mearat hamachpelah on Purim that year).
Needless to say, none of this is my point of view; I had a flirtation with this whole Gush Emunim life many years ago, but after my chavruta went out and shot up that girls school in the West Bank, and then the Rav Uzi matter, and lots of similar wierd stuff, I went way in the other direction, seeing that alot was really sick in the settler world, (though they don't seem to have many cases of abuse (perhaps so many automatic weapons lying around makes it a bit risky...)

[Yochanan Lavie]

Broccoli is etymologically related to bracha, therefore it should scrutinized very carefully (/humor).

But are all settlers like this? My impression is that those who live in the suburbs of Tel Aviv and J'lem are more moderate than those who live further out. As for me, I like the Allon Plan and think it should be revived, in exchange for Arab-majority regions of the Galil. I think the '67 borders are indefensible and would create too great a temptation for the Arabs to try again. That said, murder and fanaticism are always wrong- whether by Jews (the exception) or Palestineans (the rule).

[ah-pee-chorus]

maven:

from my vantage point, these two are not only consistent with each other, but are consistent with the inherent danger of religious thought. once you know the whole truth from the torah (substitute all other books as you wish) then any act that a specific group finds written within becomes a good thing to do, no matter how objectively immoral it may be. literalism (or similar mind shutting off philosophies)is the only way for well-intentioned people to become evil. i know we part ways there....

[ah-pee-chorus]

yl: i have relatives and friends who say that most people in their "suburban" towns, outside 67 borders, moved for financial and commuting concerns and would gladly move within if houses could be exchanged at equal price. the ideological hardcore live farther out. but ironically, the final trade, if it happens, would include the suburbs and the others will be forced to move or live under arab rule.

[maven]

APC:

I think I made it clear these were not MY positions.
Though I suppose I'm not sure that with or without religion the concept of "objectively immoral" is so simple. If you can define anything that is "objectively immoral" you would earn a place in the history of philosophy, since morality is by definition a subjective concept, unless you are some kind of religious fanatic :)
I'm not sure that the concept of "objective" anything is valid.

[maven]

APC:

Also, is "literalism the only way for well intentioned people to become evil"? Where do you live, in the Vatican?

[ML]

I'm not sure that the concept of "objective" anything is valid.

It depends on how you define "objective." I believe that there are some math and physics concepts that are about as objective as one can hope for.

[ah-pee-chorus]

maven: i understood they werent your positions, sorry for the confusion.
there have been many studies done showing nearly similar answers to numerous "moral dilemnas" asked of various religions and to different tribes that have had little or no contact with any potential bible influence. every society ever studied that had rules to be studied outlawed murder and theft. to me, that shows that a certain moral gene is within us and would allow for the term objectively moral. certainly there are many areas where religious dogma has divided peoples thoughts, and there is no objective morality, such as honor killing, sacrificing one's child, killing animals for sacrifice, but even in these cases rational humans should have ther right to label things as rationally moral or immoral.
there is a good rule which can be used to ascertain morality in most cases at an objective level. that rule is to ask if the behavior in question were done by the majority of the people in a given society, would the society benefit or be hurt. this determination might seem to be subjective but yields pretty clear answer in most cases. it definitely leads to a more moral result than any book i have seen.

[David Bar-Magen]

Careful with the HTML tags, people. :-)

[ah-pee-chorus]

don't know how to use them, david, think it happened on typepads end.

[David]

Goldstein was a sick aberration. Aviner is a complete disgrace.

[maven]

APC:

You are proposing Kant's argument. Here is not the place, but thankfully the American experiment in government was created exactly to prevent moral and other decisions being made by the "majority". If "majority" rules make good ethics, then Germany would have been "morally correct" in killing its Jews, and Rabbi Aviner would be on moral high ground regarding Goldstein.
Where do you get that honor killing is religiously determined? Its common in Papua New Guinea and other such societies, pre-religion.
The concept of a "moral gene" is actually at the root of R. Kook's philosophy. Its amazing that your answer is actually the most religiously determined approach possible (and honestly, the most dangerous one, as I pointed out above). If you are going to be a really good apikorus, then you have to be better at philosophy :)

[Yochanan Lavie]

Some geneticists and evolutionary biologists say ethics are as hardwired as selfishness is, too.

[maven]

Oh, where's Archie when you need him? He would be popping up now and saying something like, maybe you have ethics derived from monkeys but not me.
Though there is a great passage in the midrash about learning various character traits from different animals.

[ah-pee-chorus]

maven :
you seem to have had trouble grasping my argument and then resorted to a strawman. i never said the majority should decide anything. what i said was if the majority (or in fact all) members of society practiced a given behavior, would society objectively benefit. the german argument is a great example. if many people around the world had come up with their own ideal race concepts and then killed those they deemed inferior, there would be nobody left. hardly a positive for the world as a whole.therefore immoral.
since you didn't follow the logic the first time i'll spell out the application for goldstein as well. if everone decided they had the right to exact retribution on civilians for wrongs committed by others, whether real or just perceived, and killed them, then once again, nobody would be safe anywhere since we are all part of one group or another. jews,americans,former slaveowners, etc.. so we would all be dead or living in constant fear, therefore this action must be immoral. how you could have twisted what i wrote into justification on moral high ground i can't imagine.

religion doesn't have a monopoly on immoraity and irrationality, but today the majority of honor killings are committed by muslims. additionally, tribal beliefs are religious in every way,just not one of the defined religions we normally speak of. their mythology and practices are filled with belief in the unobservable, unprovable and irrational. flying people, penis power snatchers, shaman who speak to the dead and can place or remove curses, as that is the source of illness. pure religion.
that rav kook may have latched on to a part of evolutionary understanding is not that impressive. without going into too much depth, it is easy to see why over time, groups that shared similar rules or ideals, and worked for the benefit of the group,even at risk to themselves, would have increased survivability for their relatives and genes over less cohesive people. this merely explains why evolution would have permitted,through natural selection, this religious gene to be in existence. there is also the false positive explanation which is well supported. but either way, your attempt to classify my philosophy as religiously determined is comical.

if you are going to represent believers or philosopers you need to better your reading comprehension, and your logic. mischaracterization and strawmanning should be beneath you.

[ah-pee-chorus]

maven: do you believe in evolution?

[ah-pee-chorus]

and another observation. i never resort to initiating personal attacks on anyone when discussing religion, but , maven , you ,like many others on your side have. hardly supportive of an argument from moral superiority. as you well know, the need to stray from the issues is usually employed by those who fear their position is becoming hard to defend.

[maven]

APC:

Sorry to see you are getting upset, I did put smiley marks next to my statement.

However, all being equal, nothing you say indicates that you got my original post. Kant made this argument back in the 1770s, there is much literature about it, go back and read about it, its well known as the "categorical imperative". It requires the universalization of any ethical statement as grounds for its validity.

I didn't think this discussion needed a full analysis of the history of ethics, readily available at your local college, so I referred to the well known refutation of the argument in shorthand. I disagree with the argument from "genetics" or the "majority". Call me names all day, I won't buy it, I've published on it. Genes also make us carnivores, murderers, and sexual animals. So? We still legislate those things. And again, the "majority" argument is exactly what Mills and the Constitution is meant to protect against. I should think that a so-called freethinker like yourself would be in favor of liberal democracy. Read more before you respond.

I find it humorous that you have assigned me to a "side". Which "side" am I "on", exactly?

[Yochanan Lavie]

This sounds like a classic misunderstanding. Group cyberhug, guys (no homo, LOL).

[ah-pee-chorus]

maven:

remarkably you still haven't understood or addressed my position. you seem to like arguing against kant. he's not here.
my position is far closer to utilitarianism than categorical imperative, but you seem to like arguing against it better.
you seem to be saying that my position is based on what the majority wants. it is not. can i make that clearer?
in fact, it is nearly the polar opposite as it requires all actions to be looked at from the view of the minority. todays majority might be tomorrows minority. to ascertain the morality of an action one must ask what would be the result if ALL people did the same thing, including todays minority.
the constitution is based on exactly this type of thinking rather as you say, to protect against it. you implied that my position would be that if the majority christians would like to ban other religions, then it is moral. on the contrary, if you would have applied my moral test as i wrote it, you would see that if all people were permitted to take the same action and ban any religion not to their liking, then there would be none at all, which most people would agree is not a net positive for a society that wishes to protect freedoms such as these.
next you went on to imply that i am against legislation if genes are involved. genes can lead to behavior which benefit the species most of the time, such as sexual desire, but can also lead to rape, which must be legislated against as it affects directly anothers desire to their freedom from being raped, and is immoral under my test.
you might try to read what i wrote before "kantifying" me for the benefit of your response. if you can cite some examples where my moral test fails i'd be happy to entertain them, but please read this time so understand what it is. that will be a little more difficult than throwing around concepts you like to dismiss.
in any event, the moral test i provided is surely not going to be perfect, but is eons ahead of the torah or any other such book, as morality evolves and cant possibly exist in a constant state, certainly not one from the bronze age.
simple question.. though you dont seem to like to ever answer because then your position can be analyzed. the question:
is buying and owning human beings (even with all of the wonderful protections given by the torah) moral? lets hear your answer.

[ANONY]

This is such bull shit.

Listen up buckos.

What he said was, Goldstein was a tzadik in his life.

His caring for patients - including Arabs - went beyond the norm.

But the Rabbi had no words for his final day.

In other words, Rav Aviner considered him a Tzadik UNTIL the day of the shooting.

Not after.

It's for bull shit posts like this that I have not given this year as I have (generously) in the past.

You want to call BG a murderer. Fine.

But stop taking the comments totally out of context.

He did NOT say the killings were the work of a tzaddik.

Get real.

[Phil]

Goldstein was a supporter of Kach with well-known political views. He was a card-carrying fascist. That fascist ideology led him to murder people.

Maybe he fulfilled his hypocratic oath as a doctor to treat all people but it doesn't make him a tzaddik either after of BEFORE he murdered people.

Is it really so difficult for the Aviners of this world to condemn without ifs and buts disguising what they really believe?

Phil

So to call him a tzaddik before he murdered people than he was

[anon]

Goldstein was a supporter of Kach with well-known political views. He was a card-carrying fascist. That fascist ideology led him to murder people.

If you say his was a fascist.

Takes one to know one Phil.

[maven]

The story went that he was this conscientious doctor from Flatbush, who although living around Hevron also took care of Arabs, etc, until one day he was called and the patient was a terror victim who was a friend of his and then he lost it. So you know, "society's to blame", etc, it was "really their fault", v'chen halla. One thing religious people across the board are good at is generating excuses, after all, alot of excuses are needed to explain why there is suffering, why righteous die, etc.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Maven: But can they excuse why the Mets choke every year? That would take real theodicy. (Disclosure: I'm a fan).

[maven]

YL:

mipnei chatoeynu golinu mets-aynu

[Yochanan Lavie]

Thanks for 'splaining it, Maven.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Zeh mets-suyan.

[ah-pee-chorus]

no archie sighting in a while.

[itchiemayer]

Yochanan HaLevi - Thanks for bringing back those joyful memories of Yadier Molina of my beloved Cardinals knocking one out of the park at Shea in game 7, 2006. Sweet.
zeh mitzuyon, aval lo mets-suyan!

[Bel]

Hey. In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
I am from Suriname and learning to write in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Delta airlines and priceline delta airlines, entered the airline business in dedicated to providing the."

8) Thanks in advance. Bel.