Jewish Sources

Torture, or inhumane treatment, is not a subject that Jewish ethics treats as distant, rare, or hypothetical.

Jewish teaching insists
- that each of us is responsible for our fellows’ well-being and dignity
- that each of us is responsible for intervening to halt harm we have the power to stop.
Centuries of Jewish teaching caution against allowing others to be humiliated, equating shaming someone to taking a life and banning specific punishments for shame-related reasons.
Millenia of daily prayers have been calling on the divine as
- source of human dignity,
- the One who frees captives, and
- the One who unbends the downtrodden.
United States rabbinic leadership has been calling for an end to “the use of torture in any and every setting under US jurisdiction” for at least twenty years.

— These teachings have many sources, spanning centuries, e.g., B. Talmud Shevuot 39a, B. Baba Metzia 58b; birkat ha-shachar[morning blessings]; Honor the Image of God: Stop TortureNow, RHR-NA, 2005

A Few Texts to Consider

All who can protest against (or prevent [limchot,לִמְחוֹת])* wrong-doing of their family and does not, is accountable together with their family.

All who can protest against something that a citizen of their city is doing and does not protest is accountable together with all citizens of the city.

All who can protest against something that is being done in the whole world is accountable together with all citizens of the world.— B. Talmud Shabbat 54b

* limchot, לִמְחוֹת — to protest against, interfere, try to prevent, forewarn (Jastrow dictionary); Talmud translations: protest against (Steinsaltz), forbid (Soncino), influence (Sefaria Community)

Consider some of the dictionary meanings for “limchot” and the various expressions English translators use: How do the different readings affect our understanding of responsibility?

Being in a position to “forbid,” as Soncino has it, seems to place the individual in some authority: In what spheres, if any, do we wield that kind of authority?

Being able to “influence,” as the Sefaria Community translation has it, seems a more widespread position. Still, our influence is stronger in some situations than in others: So, how do we decide where we can do the most good, where to step back, and where silence is simply not an option?

What about “protest against,” as Steinsaltz translates? Where are the limits here? As with the question of “influence,” are we obligated to protest every wrong?

Can/should we bring strategic thinking into this? What about the teachings that warn us not to speak unless we’ll be heard and not to rebuke unless there is a chance of being effective (citations coming).

What about interference, prevention, and forewarning — from the dictionary definitions?

There are Jewish teachings that assume a redemptive aspect to suffering. Rabbinic tradition is very careful, however, to limit many aspects of punishment, physical and psychological. (More on this coming.) Meanwhile, though, we can uplift the thread of Jewish teaching that seeks to rebuild relationships and communities, rather than breaking down individuals.

Teshuva [repentance/return]: We believe in human resilience and transformation, in our ability to make amends after experiencing and/or perpetrating harm. We … strive to create a world that uplifts restorative accountability processes rather than punishment.

SOURCE TEXT: “If you believe that you can damage, believe that you can repair.” from Likutei Moharan [collected teachings] Part 2:112, Nachman of Bratslav (18th Century)

— “Guiding Jewish Concepts,” Matir Asurim: Jewish Care Network for Incarcerated People

Jewish Sources

A Few Texts to Consider

Share this: