very interesting post. very much agree with the previous comment about conflating the coercion of jews (observance) and non-jews (conversion). but the bigger picture is that while coercion is clearly a part of Torah as written, it's a minor aspect of Torah as lived. as one source noted, "most religious leaders guide their communities through teaching and influence rather than force." that's not just today, that's for all time -- no community can last when behavior is constantly and brutally dictated. coercion generally comes into play only in extreme cases, and serves as a guide rather than a practice, e.g., the ben sorer umoreh or ayin tachas ayin.
"no community can last when behavior is constantly and brutally dictated"
What about the Spanish inquisition? Or religious life in many Muslim countries or Europe in the middle ages? I would view the current world as an anomaly and current behavior of rabbinic authority as simply reflecting the realities they live in vs the ideals they wish existed. In Israel today it seems as if the religious right seeks to impose religious coercion to the extent possible and to expand coercion as it becomes possible.
Regarding ben sorer umoreh or ayin tachas ayin, there are opinions in the Talmud that your reading of each is incorrect (ben sorer umorer was common and that ayin tachas ayin should be read literally). Likely, the current reading is only after the political realities had already changed.
May 17, 2023·edited May 17, 2023Liked by Ezra Brand
I appreciate your points, but don't agree at all. The Spanish Inquisition and life in many Muslim countries are great examples of "brutally coercive" societies, but spain under torqemada didn't last, and given the history of (brutal) dicatatorships in muslim countries (e.g., iran under the shah), these won't either. so it's a matter of timeframe. a few hundred years in history is pretty short. the jewish nation has existed, in one form or another, for thousands of years. if it were truly coercive, it could not have. that's my point.
as to ben sorer umoreh and ayin tachas ayin, there may be opinoins that they are to be taken literally, but those opinoins are not normative. even if they were taken literally at one time, it didn't last, so that just buttresses my point. a brutally coercive society cannot last. coercion in judaism is the exception not the rule.
Perhaps what is meant is that when living in a non-Jewish country that prohibits the Jewish community from physically enforcing Jewish law, Jews do not engage in religious coercion.
This is very interesting especially when viewing Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, because social control is a key component of group cooperation.
(a) I think there is a sufficiently large body of evidence to positively state that authorities as late as the nineteenth century (in some regions) used coercion in order to enforce observance. Lashes fell out of fashion a long time ago, but fines and imprisonment became an option. And the strongest weapon in the hand of any leader was the herem, which they wielded as they saw fit.
(b) The mantra of Judaism not believing in religious coercion is likely a (misapplied) extension of the idea that Judaism is not a proselytizing religion, i.e. people conflating the fact that "Jews don't believe in coercing non-Jews into converting" with the notion that "Jews don't believe in coercing people into observing their religion".
B) I hear that, good point re conflating those two ideas. Interestingly, the rambam there in hil. Melachim contrasts the "not coercing non-jews to convert" with "coercing non-Jews to keep Laws of Noah" . In any case, I would posit a different theory (not necessarily mutually exclusive to yours): the misconception is connected to the 19th century idea that the essence of Judaism is "tikkun olam", defined to mean social justice. An idea promulgated both by Reform Judaism, as well as RSR Hirsch
In present day western society there is far, far more coercion to conform to ideas one might not agree with, than there is in the religious context. All commentary on the issue of coercion is riddled through and through with hypocrisy and inconsistency, it is simply a question of whose ox is being gored. Everyone is both for and against coercion, depending on one's view on the subject being (in reality or in imagination) coerced.
My remarks are directly on point. Coercion in halacha cannot be divorced from general coercion in society. If we accept one, then we accept the other.
Re "physical coercion" - the difference between this and any other form of coercion is questionable. Tosfos saw no distinction, they say in a few placed כפייה ע"י דיבור is considered coercion. Certainly threatening to fire someone if, eg, they refused to give someone a גט , would be considered an invalid גט מעשוה. I dont say there are no distinctions at all, only that the area is murky. Merely because something is physical as opposed to mental or economical does not render it more or less impactful.
very interesting post. very much agree with the previous comment about conflating the coercion of jews (observance) and non-jews (conversion). but the bigger picture is that while coercion is clearly a part of Torah as written, it's a minor aspect of Torah as lived. as one source noted, "most religious leaders guide their communities through teaching and influence rather than force." that's not just today, that's for all time -- no community can last when behavior is constantly and brutally dictated. coercion generally comes into play only in extreme cases, and serves as a guide rather than a practice, e.g., the ben sorer umoreh or ayin tachas ayin.
"no community can last when behavior is constantly and brutally dictated"
What about the Spanish inquisition? Or religious life in many Muslim countries or Europe in the middle ages? I would view the current world as an anomaly and current behavior of rabbinic authority as simply reflecting the realities they live in vs the ideals they wish existed. In Israel today it seems as if the religious right seeks to impose religious coercion to the extent possible and to expand coercion as it becomes possible.
Regarding ben sorer umoreh or ayin tachas ayin, there are opinions in the Talmud that your reading of each is incorrect (ben sorer umorer was common and that ayin tachas ayin should be read literally). Likely, the current reading is only after the political realities had already changed.
I appreciate your points, but don't agree at all. The Spanish Inquisition and life in many Muslim countries are great examples of "brutally coercive" societies, but spain under torqemada didn't last, and given the history of (brutal) dicatatorships in muslim countries (e.g., iran under the shah), these won't either. so it's a matter of timeframe. a few hundred years in history is pretty short. the jewish nation has existed, in one form or another, for thousands of years. if it were truly coercive, it could not have. that's my point.
as to ben sorer umoreh and ayin tachas ayin, there may be opinoins that they are to be taken literally, but those opinoins are not normative. even if they were taken literally at one time, it didn't last, so that just buttresses my point. a brutally coercive society cannot last. coercion in judaism is the exception not the rule.
All good points
Perhaps what is meant is that when living in a non-Jewish country that prohibits the Jewish community from physically enforcing Jewish law, Jews do not engage in religious coercion.
That's a charitable interpretation. Could be
This is very interesting especially when viewing Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, because social control is a key component of group cooperation.
Well said
(a) I think there is a sufficiently large body of evidence to positively state that authorities as late as the nineteenth century (in some regions) used coercion in order to enforce observance. Lashes fell out of fashion a long time ago, but fines and imprisonment became an option. And the strongest weapon in the hand of any leader was the herem, which they wielded as they saw fit.
(b) The mantra of Judaism not believing in religious coercion is likely a (misapplied) extension of the idea that Judaism is not a proselytizing religion, i.e. people conflating the fact that "Jews don't believe in coercing non-Jews into converting" with the notion that "Jews don't believe in coercing people into observing their religion".
A) agreed, all good points.
B) I hear that, good point re conflating those two ideas. Interestingly, the rambam there in hil. Melachim contrasts the "not coercing non-jews to convert" with "coercing non-Jews to keep Laws of Noah" . In any case, I would posit a different theory (not necessarily mutually exclusive to yours): the misconception is connected to the 19th century idea that the essence of Judaism is "tikkun olam", defined to mean social justice. An idea promulgated both by Reform Judaism, as well as RSR Hirsch
In present day western society there is far, far more coercion to conform to ideas one might not agree with, than there is in the religious context. All commentary on the issue of coercion is riddled through and through with hypocrisy and inconsistency, it is simply a question of whose ox is being gored. Everyone is both for and against coercion, depending on one's view on the subject being (in reality or in imagination) coerced.
The points you raise are not relevant to what the post is discussing. The post is about physical coercion in halacha
My remarks are directly on point. Coercion in halacha cannot be divorced from general coercion in society. If we accept one, then we accept the other.
Re "physical coercion" - the difference between this and any other form of coercion is questionable. Tosfos saw no distinction, they say in a few placed כפייה ע"י דיבור is considered coercion. Certainly threatening to fire someone if, eg, they refused to give someone a גט , would be considered an invalid גט מעשוה. I dont say there are no distinctions at all, only that the area is murky. Merely because something is physical as opposed to mental or economical does not render it more or less impactful.
"Tosfos saw no distinction, they say in a few placed כפייה ע"י דיבור is considered coercion"
Can you provide a citation?
" Certainly threatening to fire someone if, eg, they refused to give someone a גט , would be considered an invalid גט מעשוה."
Can you provide a citation?
Regardless, physical coercion is clearly very different from social pressure. It's highly unreasonable to conflate the two