Yitzhak Rabin's killer Yigal Amir
צילום: גיל יוחנן
'Religious murderer' an oxymoron?
By killing Rabin, has Yigal Amir become non-religious?
Yigal Amir is a religious murderer. This statement, which will probably infuriate some readers, is one of the routine terms used to identify individuals or groups.
This oxymoron raises the question of how can two Jews - the religious one and the murderer - live under the same roof? The definition of "murderer" points to the severe transgression that has been committed according to Jewish law, while the of definition "religious" points to an affiliation to the Jewish faith and its religious traditions as perceived by Jewish society.
As per the accepted norms prevalent throughout Israeli society, particularly throughout the orthodox communities, Amir is deemed a religious person, because based on his behavioral patterns he observes a limited number of Mitzvot that have become prerequisites in the definition of an observant Jew.
Just as a religious Jew can be an adulterer, a fraudster, a rapist or a thief, as long as certain defined laws are observed – we are also able to accept the concept of a religious murderer.
A religious man can break these laws and still regard himself as a religious person, which is also accepted by the secular community, but what is particularly severe is that he is still deemed religious by members of the religious community.
What type of imaginary scenario would unanimously determine that a murderer ceases to be a religious person? Perhaps if music is heard playing from the murderer's cell on the Sabbath, or when the close circuit cameras catch him drinking coffee with milk and then eating meat. Perhaps then Yigal Amir would be deemed as no longer being a Jew.
Contrary to the religious community's ability to accept serious criminal offenses, it cannot accept a religious person who desecrates the Sabbath or a religious person who doesn't observe the laws of kashrut.
Ostensibly, one would assume that there would be a clear correlation between identity and identification - between observing Mitzvot and abstaining from committing severe offenses and between the definition of a religious person and the definition of a religious group.
Outrageous gaps
What is the accepted definition - maintaining that a person who has committed murder or incest is still deemed religious - based on? The gaps between the elements of Jewish identity, reflected through the observance of Jewish laws and the prerequisites required for belonging to a religious society, are inconceivable.These gaps are outrageous, particularly in wake of the insistence of those loyal to Jewish tradition to emphasize and rightfully so, the depth and breadth of Jewish tradition at every opportunity.
Rabbis and religious teachers in the various religious educational systems put great effort into instilling Jewish law practices among their students, and the majority do so by adopting strict approaches. However, the majority of these rabbis and teachers do not deem those who have committed severe criminal offenses as non-Jewish - as long as the offenses do not pertain to the identity debate defining religious affiliation.
Are there any rabbis or teachers preaching that Yigal Amir is no longer deemed a religious man since Rabin's murder? I wish this was the case. It appears as though everyone is condemning the murder, emphasizing the serious offense, the distorted perceptions that guided Amir's criminal act and the blow inflicted on the sanctity of the State. However, only a few, if at all, are telling their students simply: Yigal Amir is not a religious man.
This is further testimony to the shrinking of religious identity that has such great potential, making it irrelevant for major parts of Jewish society and Israel's national Jewish existence
Dr. Asher Cohen is a political science lecturer at Bar Ilan University
