The Passion: Responses from Orthodox Judaism     "I attended a showing of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". In it, Gibson displays the Jews as bloodthirsty mob demanding the pain and torture of Jesus. Having discussed "The Passion" with an orthodox community leader this week, he had the following to say. I am paraphrasing his words:   "No where in his Torah does G-d condone pain or torture, or desire anyone to experience it. No where in the Torah is brutality accepted, or valued. In true Judaism, animosity and public humiliation of another Jew would never be tolerated, certainly not by our priests.   Integral to Judaism is the avoidance of pain - not only towards man, but towards animals: Kosher is achieved only by painless slaughter. We are commanded to send away a mother bird, lest she see when we take her eggs, and she experience the same sorrow for her lost offspring as felt by humans. (Maimonides) Even when the prophet Samuel killed the wicked Agag, he did so quickly, sparing Agag any pain. If we captured a Hitler today, his sentence would be quick, with no torture. Torture is a violation of G-d's Judaism. The mere handing over one of our own to others, violates Torah law. Certainly, crucifixion is barbaric, and not a Jewish idea. We certainly would not crucify anyone, and we would not approach other peoples to do so for us."   I do not see proof for the Gospels, and find in them contradictions, as has already been stated by others. However, if a false prophet would arise, observant Jewish leaders would never violate Torah law, committing acts of torture or handing over one of our own. The false prophet would not paraded around in chains, nor would other Jews be encouraged to jeer or abuse the false prophet. Barbarism is not G-d's way.   A truly observant Jew is never a traitor to justice, and meticulously adheres to G-d's Torah system. Jewish Priests above all others, are responsible for educating Jews and Gentiles, and on the whole do not violate their positions, although no man is insulated from sin. The observant Jew is merciful, and is commanded to offer his only pillow to his slave, as kindness is at the core of our law: "And you shall love your neighbor as yourself." "And you shall love the convert." "And you shall watch them and keep them as they (the commands) are your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations, who will hear all these statutes and declare 'what a wise and understanding people is this great nation. Because what great nation has God close to them like God, whenever (they) call to Him? And what great nation has statutes and laws as righteous as this entire Torah'..." (Deuteronomy 4:6-8)     The Rabbis stated in line with this quote, that we are chosen for no other reason than to imbue the world with God's wisdom. His "righteous" laws aim towards peace and harmony among all people, securing both physical and psychological ease.   As G-d's Torah passages teach, the Torah system is one which when upheld, generates in Gentiles a respect and admiration for the righteousness contained, not revulsion for it's sadism, which opposes Torah.   The observant Jew is not bent on anger, hostility or sadism, but on mercy, forgiveness, justice and charity. Maimonides teaches that of all man's traits, two must be completely avoided: haughtiness and anger. The High Priest Aaron, Moses' brother, was famous for his chasing after peace between others. He represents the Torah's ideal. The truly observant Jew does not live in a subjective world, seeking vengeance fro those who wrong him. He is attached to G-d's objective laws, and follows them, not petty emotions.   In contrast, Gibson's "Passion" includes many of his own fabrications - not found in the Gospels - which in no manner do I validate. As such, the vile depictions of Jews and their attitudes deserves ridicule which falls exclusively on Gibson."   Moshe Ben-Chaim       "The passion has evoked both strong negative and positive responses from those who have viewed the movie and film critics. I do not have intense feelings about the film. But the movie and the reactions it has evoked have caused me to make a few observations. First, I think much of the discussion regarding whether the movie is in fact anti-Semitic is a dispute over semantics. Speaking with many people that have seen the movie and having read numerous reviews, I have not heard any evidence that the movie is overtly anti-Semitic. Nonetheless, it does portray the death of Jesus and the role played by the Jewish people in a manner that has historically inflamed anti-Semitic responses. So, I would not be surprised if the movie provoked anti-Semitic sentiments and incidents. Second, I think that in general an artist has the right in this country to express personal sentiments and views. The public has the opportunity to decide whether it will view the artist's work and support it. However, we do recognize that there are clear exceptions to this rule. For example, we do not allow the right to free expression to be used to libel or defame someone. So, the decision of a newspaper to publish an article that knowingly falsely defames an individual cannot be defended as an act of artistic expression or freedom of expression. The newspaper would be held responsible for any damage caused by its willfully irresponsible actions. It is interesting that issues of religion are not held to the same standard. So, although Gibson's portrayal of Jesus' death is almost universally regarded as historically inaccurate, and as a reasonable person he should recognize the volatility of the emotions evoked by his portrayal, no one suggest that he should be held to the standards of responsibility applied in other circumstances. In other words, no one has suggested that he should be held responsible for any harm caused by his film. This special treatment of religious expression implies that issues of religion are completely determined by faith and exist in a subjective realm. Because Gibson's views and actions are expressions of his personal faith, they are regarded as legitimate religious expression. As religious expression, they are exempt from the common standards of responsibility. In short, we would all agree that if a publisher intentionally printed a report that he should have known was both false and damaging to a community or individual, he would be responsible for his actions. But if he printed a report with the same characteristics but it was an expression of religious faith, he would be above criticism. Frankly, I do not understand why religious expression should receive this special treatment. It seems to me that parameters of truth and falsehood should apply to religion just as they apply to other issues. I fail to grasp the reason for exempting a movie that expresses religious convictions from the general liability for defamation and libel."   Rabbi Bernie Fox Northwest Yeshiva High School rfox@nyhs.com