Police Release Chabad Rabbi Arrested For Incitement To Kill Arab Babies

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, head of the Od Yosef Hai Yeshiva, released from police custody hours after being arrested for encouraging the killing of non-Jews.

Police release rabbi arrested for inciting to kill non-Jews
Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, head of the Od Yosef Hai Yeshiva, released from police custody hours after being arrested for encouraging the killing of non-Jews.
By Chaim Levinson • Ha'aretz

Police released the head rabbi of a prominent yeshiva yesterday hours after arresting him for encouraging to kill non-Jews.

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, head of the Od Yosef Hai Yeshiva and author of "The King's Torah," was arrested early yesterday morning at his home in the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar. His book describes how it is possible to kill non-Jews according to halakha (Jewish religious law ).

Detectives first carried out a search at the yeshiva, where they confiscated 30 copies of the book. The investigation and arrest were carried out on the orders of Deputy State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan.

The preface of the book, which was published in November, states that it is forbidden to kill non-Jews - but the book then apparently describes the context in which it is permitted to do so.

According to Shapira, it is permissible to kill a non-Jew who threatens Israel even if the person is classified as a Righteous Gentile. His book says that any gentile who supports war against Israel can also be killed.

Killing the children of a leader in order to pressure him, the rabbi continues, is also permissible. In general, according to the book, it is okay to kill children if they "stand in the way - children are often doing this." "They stand in the way of rescue in their presence and they are doing this without wanting to," he writes. "Nonetheless, killing them is allowed because their presence supports murder. There is justification in harming infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us. Under such circumstances the blow can be directed at them and not only by targeting adults."

The daily Maariv's report on the book was immediately followed by calls for Shapira's arrest and a petition was filed with the High Court of Justice for a ban on the book's distribution. The petition was rejected as premature.

The rabbi's arrest has stirred angry responses on both the left and right. "The police did well to initiate an investigation," attorney Lila Margalit of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel said. "Incitement for racist violence seriously undermines human rights and it should not be ignored. However, it is not entirely clear whether the arrest was justified in this case."

She added that the tendency in Israel is to "overuse" arrests, and in cases where there is no justification for it.

A spokesman for Yitzhar said: "Once more we are seeing rabbis being gagged and serious damage inflicted to their honor, along with the razing of homes in the settlements."

Yesterday's Post On Shapira's Arrest.

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

Yesterday's Post On Shapira's Arrest.

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

Comments

[Yisroel Pensack]

"Common law held an infant, also called a minor or child, to be a person less than 21 years old. Currently, most state statutes define the age of majority to be 18."

Read more: Infants - Legal Rights Of Children, Child Protection, Constitutional Rights Of Children In The Educational Setting, Age Of Legal Medical Consent http://law.jrank.org/pages/7632/Infants.html#ixzz0usZlEzYb
http://law.jrank.org/pages/7632/Infants.html

[Shmarya]

"Common law held an infant, also called a minor or child, to be a person less than 21 years old. Currently, most state statutes define the age of majority to be 18."

And?

Are you playing some sick semantic game here?

Shapira uses the Hebrew word for infant, which is different from the Hebrew words for child or young adult.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Posted by: Shmarya | July 27, 2010 at 06:03 AM

In English, the word "infant" is also different from the words "child" or "young adult," but the legal meaning is the same.

Are you runing some sick, self-hating website here?

[Shmarya]

In English, the word "infant" is also different from the words "child" or "young adult," but the legal meaning is the same.

Please.

Racist semantics. And, I should add, a poor grasp of Hebrew.

[Yisroel Pensack]

...Racist semantics. And, I should add, a poor grasp of Hebrew.

Posted by: Shmarya | July 27, 2010 at 06:31 AM

In law, an "infant" is a minor. Period.

Halacha is a legal system.

You probably also believe, along with all the anti-Semites of the world, that "Zionism is racism," which, by the way, is merely code for "Judaism is racism."

In your view, apparently, protecting Jewish lives comes after the worship of secular liberal values, including (at or near the top of the list), not being called, G-d forbid, a "racist."

I'm in favor of protecting Jewish lives. Are you?

[Shmarya]

In law, an "infant" is a minor. Period.

True. But a minor is not necessarily an infant.

You probably also believe, along with all the anti-Semites of the world, that "Zionism is racism," which, by the way, is merely code for "Judaism is racism."

No.

But I believe what you spout is racism.

I'm in favor of protecting Jewish lives. Are you?

None of Israel's military leaders agree with you.

Are they "in favor" of "protecting Jewish lives"? Or are they "anti-Semites"?

[Yochanan Lavie]

Killing minor children, with the possible exception of teenage combatants, does not protect Jewish lives. On the contrary,it delegitimizes and weakens Israel and gives grist to her enemies' mill. From what I understand, Shapira endorsed killing Arab babies; an immoral and tactically stupid idea.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

Reading this makes me even more ashamed to be a Jew than I already am.

I was taught (but it was never shown in action) that we were always supposed to take the moral high ground.

[Yisroel Pensack]

...a minor is not necessarily an infant...I believe what you spout is racism...None of Israel's military leaders agree with you. Are they "in favor" of "protecting Jewish lives"? Or are they "anti-Semites"?

Posted by: Shmarya | July 27, 2010 at 07:02 AM

You're playing a semantic game regarding the legal meaning of "infant." In law, all minors are called "infants." Get it yet?

Calling my views "racism" might help you get a job at H'aretz.

Unlike you, I haven't surveyed all of Israel's military leaders, but my guess is that some of them probably privately agree with giving priority to protecting Jewish lives rather than being stupidly deferential to Arab "human shields" even if that's not viewed by self-hating Arab-lovers like you as "politically correct."

[Yochanan Lavie]

There's a difference between accidentally killing civilians who are deliberately put in harm's way by the enemy, and specifically targeting civilians for genocide. If Shapira meant that we must defend ourselves despite collateral damage, that's one thing. To intentionally target Arab babies is another matter. Shapira seems to mean the latter.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | July 27, 2010 at 07:29 AM

This is what the article says:
In general, according to the book, it is okay to kill children if they "stand in the way - children are often doing this." "They stand in the way of rescue in their presence and they are doing this without wanting to," he writes. "Nonetheless, killing them is allowed because their presence supports murder. There is justification in harming infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us. Under such circumstances the blow can be directed at them and not only by targeting adults."

[Yochanan Lavie]

Yisroel: This is disturbing: "There is justification in harming infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us." That sounds like preemptive murder to me. Shapira did not make clear that only unintentional collateral damage is permitted.

[chaim.]

pensack-

"There is justification in harming infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us. Under such circumstances the blow can be directed at them and not only by targeting adults."

so do you agree with this? that, more than being harmed when adults are targeted, children themselves should be targeted if they may "become a threat"? how would this be determined on the battle field? will each child be evaluated by a professional psychologist before being killed? if not, then the ruling presumes that simply being arab is proof enough that one will become a mortal threat in adulthood. a threat enough to justify pre-emptive execution. This is an utterly anti-biblical ethic. Rashi points out that ishmael was not allowed to die despite the fact that his descendents would one day kill jews on their way to babylon because he himself was not guilty and must be judged WHERE HE IS.

[David]

I find all this deeply disturbing. I am no Arab lover and think that rather pussy footing when dealing with Arab combatants Israel should act much more decisively. Israel should make it clear to the world that if Arab non-combatants are accidentally killed then it is because Arabs deliberately put them in harms way - which is the way of the Arabs. Put to deliberately go and kill Arab infants, regardless that they may one day possibly try kill us is utterly insane and not a Jewish attitude. They only forfeit their right to live when their intention to kill you becomes obvious through direct actions.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | July 27, 2010 at 07:54 AM
and
Posted by: chaim. | July 27, 2010 at 07:56 AM

I cited the full context, from which you both extracted the part which out of context seems extreme. But it's clear from the immediate context that he's speaking of children used by adults as "human shields" in military conflict against Israel. Shmarya also chooses to overlook that.

It's also safe to asume that Ha'aretz and Israeli leftists will portray this rabbi's views in as unfavorable a light as possible. Painting an Orthodox rabbi expounding established halacha as the Jewish version of Hitler is no problem for them.

[effie]

The definition of infant is a child under one year. You made yourself look like an idiot, Pensack.

This is an utterly anti-biblical ethic.

Worse, it is the same rationale many members of the Eisengruppen used to justify murdering innocent Jewish children.

[Yisroel Pensack]

...it is the same rationale many members of the Eisengruppen used to justify murdering innocent Jewish children.

Posted by: effie | July 27, 2010 at 08:16 AM

As I said at 08:11 AM, "Painting an Orthodox rabbi expounding established halacha as the Jewish version of Hitler is no problem for them."

Or for you, apparently.

[Shmarya]

Pensack, you are deranged.

1. Infant in non-legal secular usage means a child who is still too young to speak. In fact, the origin of the word is a Latin word that means just that.

2. The common law you (incorrectly) cite is US common law and has no bearing on Israel anyway.

3. The book was written in HEBREW, a language that is closely associated with a system of religious law you trumpet.

4. Both Hebrew and halakha have very specific definitions for words dealing with age. A tinok is not a na'ar and a na'ar is not a tinok, for example.

5. Past the extremely obvious, you wouldn't be able to paskin yourself out of a paper bag. Your knowledge of halakha is infantile (get it? like an infant) at best.

6. As for your hurling the antisemitism and self-hating canards at anyone better educated (and less racist) than you, again, process: Israel's top military leaders reject your contention as do many National Religious rabbis – all of whom are veterans of Israel's wars. Are they all "self-hating" "liberals" and "antisemites"?

[Yisroel Pensack]

Btw, effie, the correct term is Einsatzgruppen, not "Eisengruppen."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Einsatzgruppen

To quote you regarding definitions, I think "You made yourself look like an idiot."

[Mr. Apikoros]

Pensuck, you're as vile as Shapira. And as the Nazis who espoused Shapira's endorsement of preemptive murder.

[A E ANDERSON]

So how does the rabbi advocate baby killing? Do we use the blood for matzohs? Do we machine gun them whilst in their mothers' arms (a two-fer), have 'em strip naked, dig their own graves and rat-a-tat? Zyklon-B, anybody? Use them as fodder for live dead baby jokes? Shish-kabab 'em on bayonets? Or just call in Lt. Calley and Capt. Media out of retirement?

Inquiring minds want to know! This is halakha la-maiseh, they say, so let's hear the protim!

[Yos]

If it's "moral" to kill an infant, then of what value is morality? I'm always shocked when the so-called religious elevate the worst of human behavior to an act of piety.

[seymour]

"Painting an Orthodox rabbi expounding established halacha as the Jewish version of Hitler is no problem for them."

as they say if the shoe fits.

That excuse was used by Nazis as to why they where killing infants.

BTY in the old wars or the Torah times that is what happened including the Jews one made a cherem, or churbam killing evry living thing from you enemy,

the world had become less barbaric. some like the Nazis wanted to go back to that time period and now we have some Jews who want to do the same.

Nazis I follow orders, some Jews I follow halacha

one and the same, no thinking is involved

[Yisroel Pensack]

Shmarya: You are a typical, run-of-the-mill, secular leftist liberal Jew -- anti-Torah, pro-Arab, pro-"gay," pro-"feminist," etc., etc. Apart from the story about your disillusionment with the Rebbe over saving the Ethiopians, did you ever wonder why it took you so many years in Lubavitch to figure out who you really are?

Mr. Apikoros: You have absolutely no refinement whatsoever. The image of G-d seems to be lacking in you. You need a shrink to help you resolve your bitterness and hatred.

[Yisroel Pensack]

...Nazis I follow orders, some Jews I follow halacha

one and the same, no thinking is involved

Posted by: seymour | July 27, 2010 at 09:12 AM

Are you Jewish?

[seymour]

depends, I think I am

but according to the Israeli rabbinate, I am not since my parents cannot produce documents that they are Jewish, since the nazis destroyed all the evidence and they did not convert when they came to the USA after suffering under the Nazis. I am a goy

[Shmarya]

Shmarya: You are a typical, run-of-the-mill, secular leftist liberal Jew -- anti-Torah, pro-Arab, pro-"gay," pro-"feminist," etc., etc. Apart from the story about your disillusionment with the Rebbe over saving the Ethiopians, did you ever wonder why it took you so many years in Lubavitch to figure out who you really are?

I guess this is your way of saying you can't answer the question I've asked you several times already:As for your hurling the antisemitism and self-hating canards at anyone better educated (and less racist) than you, again, process: Israel's top military leaders reject your contention as do many National Religious rabbis – all of whom are veterans of Israel's wars. Are they all "self-hating" "liberals" and "antisemites"?

[Dr. Dave]

Rabbi Shapira is now at home working on a sequel:

Dead Palestinian Baby Jokes

[effie]

Idiot posted: "Btw, effie, the correct term is Einsatzgruppen, not "Eisengruppen."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Einsatzgruppen To quote you regarding definitions, I think "You made yourself look like an idiot.""

++++++++++++++

I did not mis-define a word -- I mis-spelled it. Only an idiot like you would not know the difference.

Furthermore, mis-spelling a word is not the same as advocating for the murder of babies. Therefore, it still sucks to be you, Pensack.

[Mr. Apikoros]

I guess you're "refined" because you agree with some vile evil turd who advocates killing babies.

If the image of GOD (and there's an "o" in the word) is present in subhuman vermin such as yourself who advocate killing babies, but absent in me, I sure as hell am not missing anything.

[harold]

after being arrested for encouraging the killing of non-Jews

Big difference between "encouraging the killing of non-Jews" and "describes the context in which it is permitted to do so."

So my question is, was he organizing a militia with the expressed purpose of killing non-Jews? Or was he sliding down the slippery slope of rules of engagement and self defense.

He is halachically paranoid and has crossed the border by creating his own laws and interpretations based on his own paranoia.

His writings are not torah and he should be placed under psychiatric observation.

[Teddy]

Effie, let them rot, I noticed it too, but why should we bother to spell the names of the Nahzi-units correctly, no reason for that, on the other hand, Eisengruppen indicate in chemistry's German groups of metals, and I guess that the idea that a couple of elements, in the style of DC's Metal Men would have been involved in murder is a bit absurd. It would be a good idea for a comic book though, Hitler's killer robots active again...

[Yisroel Pensack]

...I guess this is your way of saying you can't answer the question I've asked you several times already:

As for your hurling the antisemitism and self-hating canards at anyone better educated (and less racist) than you, again, process: Israel's top military leaders reject your contention as do many National Religious rabbis – all of whom are veterans of Israel's wars. Are they all "self-hating" "liberals" and "antisemites"?

Posted by: Shmarya | July 27, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Which "contention" of mine are you referring to, exactly? I stand by my prior statement at 07:21 AM that:
"Unlike you, I haven't surveyed all of Israel's military leaders, but my guess is that some of them probably privately agree with giving priority to protecting Jewish lives rather than being stupidly deferential to Arab "human shields" even if that's not viewed by self-hating Arab-lovers like you as "politically correct."

The Israeli Defense Minister (and former PM) Barak is a secular, liberal, self-hating Jew -- just like you. I don't know who Israel's other military leaders are, specifically. I didn't say any of them are anti-Semites, did I?

Since you've raised the subject, what's your educational background?
Do you have Orthodox rabbinical ordination (smicha)? How many years did you spend in yeshiva? Do you have a college or university degree? If so, is it a bachelor's, master's or Ph.D.? What university did you attend? What did you study? Did you perhaps major in the rigorous field of "black studies"?

[Mr. Apikoros]

Would Dwight D. Eisenhower lead the Eisengruppen? Or would he lead the fight against them?

If the word is Einsatzgruppen (and it is), spell it correctly.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Shmarya: Also, now that you've dodged my 09:17 AM question in your 10:00 AM response, I ask you again, "Apart from the story about your disillusionment with the Rebbe over saving the Ethiopians, did you ever wonder why it took you so many years in Lubavitch to figure out who you really are?"

Or was it more like decades that you spent in Lubavitch before you "saw the light"? -- Just like you local namesake, "Saint" Paul. Ach tzaddikim!

[rabbidw]

He wrote a book of halachah, not a political treatise. What may be halachically permissable may not be politically viable and vice versa.

The State of Israel has no business censoring halachic articles. It has no business censoring anything at all.

But let's take the worst case scenario. Imagine a law school professor writing a law review article on when American Soldiers may kill children during a war. You may not like his conclusions. You may not vote for him if he was nominated to the bench. But why would you censor him? Isn't the right of free speech meant to protect opinions that differ from ours, or is it only to protect opinions that we agree with?
Shmarya, be very careful. There are many people that would like to censor this blog, and have you arrested. Free Speech protects us all.

[Yisroel Pensack]

...He is halachically paranoid and has crossed the border by creating his own laws and interpretations based on his own paranoia.

His writings are not torah and he should be placed under psychiatric observation.

Posted by: harold | July 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM

harold: Get a grip:

Beit El Rabbi Shlomo Aviner told Ynet on Monday that the book "Torat Hamelech" is a "halachic-academic work, a pedagogical work," and, therefore, there is no justification to send its author to prison.

According to Aviner, the "'religious laws governing the killing of a non-Jew' outlined in the book are a legitimate stance and must be addressed via clarification of halachic sources and nothing else."

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2010/07/dozens-of-national-religious-rabbis-condemn-arrest-of-chabad-rabbi-whose-book-calls-for-the-murder-o-234.html and
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3925216,00.html

[harold]

But let's take the worst case scenario. Imagine a law school professor writing a law review article on when American Soldiers may kill children during a war.

There is a huge difference here. The article that you describe would to most people appear timely and one that needs to be explored beyond its scholarship value but one of necessity. However, in the current political climate in the Middle East the topic “when may Jews kill Arab babies” does not have a ring of scholarship but is incendiary in nature. This is a topic that indeed does need to be addressed but NOT in the public forum, but in the back room at some top secret military base to be used in choosing enemy targets.

As they – now is not the time.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Yochanan Lavie - your posts here are spot on!!

[ah-pee-chorus]

+++ Painting an Orthodox rabbi expounding established halacha as the Jewish version of Hitler is no problem for them.+++

Posted by: Yisroel Pensack | July 27, 2010 at 08:11 AM

YP- when established halacha is completely immoral, as it frequently is, then those that would rely on it as a justification for murder are in fact worthy of the comparison. it matters not whether those following orders are nazis or religious fundamentalists.

[Yisroel Pensack]

...Shmarya, be very careful. There are many people that would like to censor this blog, and have you arrested. Free Speech protects us all.

Posted by: rabbidw | July 27, 2010 at 12:31 PM

What should Shmarya "be very careful" of?

"...many people...would like to...have you arrested." Have him arrested for what?

Exactly who are those people, rabbidw? Are they Jewish fascists, or just ordinary Jewish criminals, pedophiles and their supporters?

[Yochanan Lavie]

Thanks, APC.

[Shmarya]

He wrote a book of halachah, not a political treatise. What may be halachically permissable may not be politically viable and vice versa.

A rabbi cannot paskin in a vacuum. Any pesak din needs to factor in real world conditions.

The complaints against Shapira from other rabbis is primarily that he fails to do this.

The State of Israel has no business censoring halachic articles. It has no business censoring anything at all.

But let's take the worst case scenario. Imagine a law school professor writing a law review article on when American Soldiers may kill children during a war. You may not like his conclusions. You may not vote for him if he was nominated to the bench. But why would you censor him? Isn't the right of free speech meant to protect opinions that differ from ours, or is it only to protect opinions that we agree with?

It isn't opinions that are noxious that are the problem, it is incitement.

In other words, one can believe it is legal to yell fire in a crowded theater. One can even write that in a paper or a book.

But if one does it in a way followers will understand to mean "go to your nearest theater and yell fire," in Israel and in most democracies you've committed incitement.

The US is an exception to this, although there are cases of leaders who have done the equivalent of this being tried and convicted of murder, arson, and the like.

Shmarya, be very careful. There are many people that would like to censor this blog, and have you arrested. Free Speech protects us all.

I agree. But shouting fire in a crowded theater is not free speech.

In the US, we define that more narrowly than in Israel.

[Yisroel Pensack]

It isn't opinions that are noxious that are the problem, it is incitement...shouting fire in a crowded theater...

Posted by: Shmarya | July 27, 2010 at 01:40 PM

I realize you probably didn't go to law school, but that's not a valid analogy in this case. Furthermore, expressing a halachic position on Jewish conduct in war or combat is not "incitement" -- except to peaceniks and dovish leftists like you.

[rabbidw]

Did he shout fire, or did he publish an halachic treatise? Like books banned in Boston used to be bestsellers elsewhere, had the State not chosen to overeact, no more than 150 people would have heard of his treatise and none of them would have felt it was "halachah l'maaseh" (practical law) as opposed to a philosophical exploration of theoretical halachic underpinnings.

By the governments overeaction, they brought the oversimplified theoretical to the public as a concrete proposal. It was their foolishness that has created the issue.

[Shmarya]

had the State not chosen to overeact, no more than 150 people would have heard of his treatise and none of them would have felt it was "halachah l'maaseh" (practical law) as opposed to a philosophical exploration of theoretical halachic underpinnings.

By the governments overeaction, they brought the oversimplified theoretical to the public as a concrete proposal. It was their foolishness that has created the issue.

Even if your projected sales figures are correct – and they are not – it isn't the number of people the incitement reaches that counts, it is the likelihood of those people acting on the incitement that matters.

Shapira's students and followers are exceedingly violent.

That is what matters.

[Friar Yid]

In your view, apparently, protecting Jewish lives comes after the worship of secular liberal values, including (at or near the top of the list), not being called, G-d forbid, a "racist."

I'm in favor of protecting Jewish lives. Are you?

God help us if our only choices are saving Jewish lives or murdering infants.

[A. Nuran]

This isn't a matter of "collateral damage". We understand that in war sometimes you hit things for which you're not aiming. One of the reasons for civilian control of the military is to limit this damage and make war a means to some political end, not a self-perpetuating end in itself.

But this grinning monster, this black hatted Nazi goes further. He says that it is permissible to kill infants because they might grow up to do something bad. That's straight genocidal Nazi ideology. It has no place in any civilized country, least of all Israel.

What did we learn from the Shoah? Race hatred is bad? Genocide is bad? The flames of madness and resentment can even consume a modern civilized people, so we must always be on guard against them?

Most of us did. That's why Jews have been on the forefront of anti-genocide and anti-racist struggles. We know how terrible it is.

What lesson did this sub-human creature and his cultists learn? The only bad thing is that it was goyishe hands holding the whip. If it were only Jews slaughtering goyim it would be a Kiddush Hashem, and we could all sing for joy as the stench of their bodies in the oven wafts up to Heaven.

If there is a Gehennom he deserves it for his own evil and for the damage he does to his own people's collective soul. May he go into his unmarked grave forgotten and unremembered except as a curse.

[Nobody]

Wtf?

This book came out months ago. This is bogus and Shmarya is on the front lines for the Shabak propaganda effort. They make any excuse to arrest the Jews who dare to tell the truth.

[Yisroel Pensack]

God help us if our only choices are saving Jewish lives or murdering infants.

Posted by: Friar Yid | July 27, 2010 at 02:41 PM

Generally there are other alternatives, FY, but if Israel's enemies choose to use their own children as "human shields" in battle and military combat situations, then shooting the "shields" is justified if it helps to save or protect the lives of Jewish soldiers, in which case it's not "murder."

All you people salivate at the false allegation that the rabbi was advocating "murdering infants."

Shmarya and his fans here should start the U.S. branch of the Israel "Surrender Now" party.

[Shmarya]

All you people salivate at the false allegation that the rabbi was advocating "murdering infants."

Shapira is not simply advocating killing human shields.

He is advocating killing small infants because they will one day grow up to be adults who might hate us.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Posted by: A. Nuran | July 27, 2010 at 03:26 PM
and Posted by: Shmarya | July 27, 2010 at 05:55 PM

Here's what the article says:

In general, according to the book, it is okay to kill children if they "stand in the way - children are often doing this." "They stand in the way of rescue in their presence and they are doing this without wanting to," he writes. "Nonetheless, killing them is allowed because their presence supports murder. There is justification in harming infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us. Under such circumstances the blow can be directed at them and not only by targeting adults."

Shmarya says, "He is advocating killing small infants because they will one day grow up to be adults who might hate us."

But the article doesn't say that about the book; the article says the book says, "There is justification in harming infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us." In Shmarya's version, the words "justification in harming infants" miraculously become "advocating killing small infants" -- not, as the article reports, "if it is clear they will grow up to harm us" but rather, in Shmarya's version, "because they will one day grow up to be adults who might hate us."

In Shmarya's fictional world, "clear they will...harm us" becomes "...who might hate us."

In this week's Torah portion, we are told that in conquering and settling the Land of Israel, "And you shall consume all the peoples that the Lord thy God shall deliver unto you; your eye shall not pity them."

The Jewish commentator Ramban (1194-c.1270) remarks on this: "The false pity of fools destroys all justice."

[Menachem Mendel lll]

Nice beard.

I also like his sence of style.

POS.

[rabbidw]

Even if your projected sales figures are correct – and they are not – it isn't the number of people the incitement reaches that counts, it is the likelihood of those people acting on the incitement that matters.

Shapira's students and followers are exceedingly violent.

That is what matters.

Posted by: Shmar
Shmarya, your arguments are getting weaker. The book came out months, maybe years ago. No one is acting on it, because no one was meant to act on it. By your logic, half the Arab contingent in the knesset would be arrested, and so would most of the Imam's, especiallt in Jerusalem. And I used a figure based on the probable readership, not sales figures. Of course, now, both will go up.
The main question is does Israel allow free speech or just the speech that Shmarya agrees with. To which I reply, there afre people out there who are not happy with how you use your free speech, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you want to have the right to your controversial blog you must defend the right of free speech for oyhers.

[Shmarya]

Shmarya says, "He is advocating killing small infants because they will one day grow up to be adults who might hate us."

But the article doesn't say that about the book; the article says the book says, "There is justification in harming infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us." In Shmarya's version, the words "justification in harming infants" miraculously become "advocating killing small infants" -- not, as the article reports, "if it is clear they will grow up to harm us" but rather, in Shmarya's version, "because they will one day grow up to be adults who might hate us."

In Shmarya's fictional world, "clear they will...harm us" becomes "...who might hate us."

Please.

Here is the quote from the article: "There is justification in harming infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us."

How is it "clear" that a 6 month old baby will grow up to harm us?

It is not "clear" and it cannot be "clear" by any human means – which is why the only genocidal wars in Tanakh are ordered by God and do not apply to other wars fought by the Israelites.

In this week's Torah portion, we are told that in conquering and settling the Land of Israel, "And you shall consume all the peoples that the Lord thy God shall deliver unto you; your eye shall not pity them."

The Jewish commentator Ramban (1194-c.1270) remarks on this: "The false pity of fools destroys all justice."

What you do not understand (probably because you really are wholly ignorant of halakha) is the following:

1. Palestinians are not one of the biblical "peoples of the land."

2. A drash is not halakha.

3. We do not paskin from the Rambam.

4. My point above about genocidal wars.

You do not understand halakha or the halakhic process. You do not even understand the Humash you quote.

I suggest you take some time and try to learn what you've missed previously.

[Shmarya]

Shmarya, your arguments are getting weaker. The book came out months, maybe years ago. No one is acting on it, because no one was meant to act on it.

You presume much.

I suggest you closely follow the price tag violence, and see how settlers – many of them Shapira's followers – do things that risk innocent Arab lives, even the lives of Arab babies.

Then ask yourself why someone religious would do that.

[Abracadabra]

The book came out months, maybe years ago. No one is acting on it, because no one was meant to act on it.

Rabbidw -

Shapira's followers DO act on it. They haven't murdered babies yet in cold blood, but they have violently attacked Arabs, unprovoked, on multiple occassions, because their "rabbi" says it's a mitzvah. This is dangerous. And if the State of Israel deems his book an "incitement" rather than a harmless, theoretical halachah sefer, then we have to respect their rule of law. "Free Speech" is defined differently by different countries. Israel, for military purposes, does censor more than the USA.

[A E ANDERSON]

Of all the subjects in the vast sea of the halakha that Shapira could write about, he picks the one seemingly calculated to incite extremists and provoke Israel's enemies and critics. In essence, he's torn a leaf from Yirzchak Ginsburgh's playbook, and he's using halakha as scholarly shield to evade prosecution.

I think the key to understanding the criminality of his behaviour is not what he wrote as much as the context in which he promotes it. In other words, if his book stays on the dusty shelf to be consulted by scholars when they are studying the halaka of war, it can be presumed that his intention was scholarship. By contrast, if he actively promoting his teachings, in presentations, interviews, farbrengens, etc., then our analysis of his behaviour leans away from scholarship toward criminal incitement (an offence in Israeli law).

[Mr. Apikoros]

How, you stinking piece of Jewish shit and perversion of the name "Yisroel," do you know that some baby is going to grow up to be a terrorist? Can you foretell the future? If you can, why aren't you a zillionaire, using your special talents to predict the outcome of financial markets, rather than wasting your time posting your racist drivel on this blog?

You are a disgrace to humanity.

[rabbidw]

Shapira's followers DO act on it. They haven't murdered babies yet in cold blood, but they have violently attacked Arabs, unprovoked, on multiple occassions, because their "rabbi" says it's a mitzvah.

I think you will have to back up every part of that charge. Unprovoked, are you sure, perhaps they were provoked, perhaps they were acting in self defense. Meir Kahanes son and family were killed in an unprovoked attack. so was the little baby in Hebron.
Were these "followers" arrested, charged brought to trial? Did Rabbi Shapiro testify at their trial that they were halachically justified?
In any event, you have moved far away from the books argument, which, to the best of my understanding, deals with actions by the Isreali army. To the best of my knowledge, it does not deal with the rights of settlers to defend themselves, which is an entirely different issue.

[A E ANDERSON]

So is the United States adding guys like Yitzchak Shapira to its terror watch lists?

[Yosef ben Matitya]

So is the United States adding guys like Yitzchak Shapira to its terror watch lists?

no doubt they should. they should also put his students and teachers in the same watch list!
הוא נבזה,נקלה,רשע,נבל,גאה,טמא
as are his teachers, colleagues and students.

[Tonda]

A little late here, but by his argument that killing non-Jewish infants/children because they may grow up and be a threat to Jews, why is the opposite not also appropriate.

Are non-Jews justified in killing Jewish infants/children because they are being taught that killing THEIR children is allowable, and possibly even NECESSARY?

And just as Charles Manson did not actually kill anyone, it was his teachings and influence that led others to kill in his name. How is this man any different, or his teachings any less insane.

Anyone that continues to refer to this creature as a teacher and a "holy man" needs to rethink their definition of holy, and take a long hard look at who is leading future generations.

What if his next book declares that it is necessary for Jewish children to kill their parents if they oppose his teachings by using obscure passages from the Torah wrapped in his convoluted reasoning.

The problem with religious writing is that the more that is written, the further from the "truth" one gets. Ten lines on a tablet should be pleanty.

[Yoel B]

Nonetheless, killing them is allowed because their presence supports murder. There is justification in harming infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us. Under such circumstances the blow can be directed at them and not only by targeting adults.

It seems to me that this is referring to children behind whom terrorists are sheltering, either out of strategy or as an ad hoc tactic; the children are thereby "support[ing] murder."
Therefore, Shapiro states that one may target the children if need be to kill the active murderers behind whom they are sheltering.

Rabbi Shapiro appears to be taking a much more moderate position that that held by the FBI at Ruby Ridge, in which an unarmed woman holding a baby was killed by an FBI sniper; while the US Government settled the resulting lawsuit out of court for millions of dollars, the sniper himself retired after a successful career with the FBI.