Kotzk Blog

by Rabbi Dr Gavin Michal

I have always been drawn to the teachings of the Rebbe of Kotzk. His approach was predicated upon uncompromising truth and intellectual independence. This allowed him to be fearless and never to succumb to societal pressures. He knew that Judaism was so much deeper and more profound than the way it was perceived by the masses and bent by religious populism. These essays, although not necessarily Kotzker in essence, are certainly Kotzk inspired.

Sunday, 24 May 2026

554) Rabbinic perspectives on honour killings

The Bat Rabim collection of manuscripts in the Russian State Library.

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Dr Moti Benmelech—examines rabbinic perspectives on honour killings. It traces the fraught process by which some rabbis tried to reconcile local honour codes with Jewish law and practice, while others resisted and pushed back to deliberately limit its reach to uphold Jewish legal and moral standards.

Honour Killings

An honour killing, or shame killing, typically refers to the murder of a female family member by a male relative, who believes she has behaved immorally, committed adultery, or otherwise brought shame upon the family. Such killings are intended to preserve or restore the family’s perceived honour and reputation. The phenomenon persists to this day, and according to the UN, five thousand girls and women are killed each year in honour‑related violence.

“These killings, which occur with shocking regularity in certain parts of the Middle East and South Asia, target women whose actions—actual or suspected—violate the honor of their families, an honor that is thought to depend on the sexual purity of its female members. Anything from speaking with an unrelated man, to rumored pre-marital loss of virginity, to an extra-marital affair can be cause for an attack, often carried out by a father or brother. In some especially tragic instances, even women and girls who have been raped are slain to remove the stain from the family honor. As with other forms of intimate violence against women, perpetrators are seldom punished” (Muslim Sexual Ethics, Brandeis University).[1]

We shall examine a sixteenth century case of honour killing within Italian Jewish society, by turning to documentary evidence collected by Avraham Yagel (1553-1622) in a collection of manuscripts he titles Bat Rabim or Daughter of the Multitudes (Song of Songs 7:5).[2] Clearly, Yagel intended these texts to be known and preserved “for the benefit of the many…[and for] exemplary men...for within it, I found great treasure” (MS Moscow Guenzburg 129, fol. 1a).

Honour in Mediterranean societies

The perceived honour of a man and his family name was a central characteristic of general Mediterranean society. This has been well studied by anthropologists, historians and social psychologists. Honour was part of the natural social praxis of these societies. Honour, once lost, is difficult, if not impossible, to regain. Honour determined one’s position within society. An honourable man was someone who was regarded as trustworthy, reliable, courageous and generous. An honourable man would match any affront to him or his family with aggression equal to, or greater than, the original attack or insult. Under this honour code, it was better to die with honour than live with shame.

Honour also applied to females, but in a different manner. She exhibited honour by restraint, modesty, avoiding contact with men outside her family and, of course, sexual purity, especially of unmarried daughters.

These perceptions had economic consequences. A man deemed dishonourable risked losing business, and a daughter perceived as shamed lost value in the marriage market (Benmelech 2026:4-5).

According to Roni Weinstein, there would have been very little difference in the way an Italian Jewish family would react to an infringement on its honour as compared to the prevailing societal norms, because “concern for family honor and the household head’s honor transcended religious boundaries” (Weinstein 2007:152).

Legal opinions within civil society

Across Europe, lenient laws and lax enforcement often kept honour killings out of public record. According to the Italian jurist Giulio Clarus—whose work on criminal law served as a foundation for European jurisprudence in this field until the nineteenth century—honour killings were permitted under certain conditions: The young woman had either to have been married or engaged, physically present in her father’s home, and under such circumstances, the man was also to be killed.[3]

French law at the time reflected similar attitudes, allowing a man who killed his wife, daughter, or her lover—in defence of family honour—to escape punishment.

Legal opinions within Judaism

R. Meir of Rothenburg (1215-1293)

Besides the Ferrara case—which we will examine shortly—there is no other known formal documentation attesting to honour killings within Jewish society during the medieval (500-1500) or early modern period (1500-1800) (Benmelech 2026:3). There is, however, a responsum by R. Meir of Rothenburg that refers to a proposed honour killing. In 1272, a father sought his permission to kill his married daughter after discovering that she was pregnant from an extramarital relationship with a Christian man. The reason the father gives is that he fears his daughter will convert to Christianity: “When I rebuke her, she threatens to go among the Gentiles” (Responsa, R. Meir of Rothenburg, no. 310).

R. Meir responds decisively in the negative. He cites the Talmud (Sanhedrin 73a) that while one may kill a rodef (someone pursuing another to kill them), one may not kill someone who is pursuing idolatry (although see Kotzk Blog: 253) R. YAAKOV EMDEN’S SURPRISING VIEWS ON CHRISTIANITY:). This case, which R. Meir adjudicated, however, did not result in an actual honour killing.

Don Yitzchak Abravenell (1437-1508)

Don Yitzchak Abravenell was born in Portugal but passed away in Venice, which indicates he would have been familiar with the general Mediterranean honour system. Abravanell discusses the biblical account of the assault by Shechem, son of Chamor, on Dinah, the daughter of Jacob. Abravanell argues that Dinah’s brothers, who killed both Shechem and Chamor in a revenge attack, would have killed Dinah as well to preserve family honour—had they not observed that she had been violated, signalled by “her tears upon her cheek,” and therefore was not a willing participant:

“This story teaches us how great the distress caused by a daughter is… It also teaches how deeply men of rank and honor feel any disgrace or humiliation inflicted upon them, to the point that they risk their lives—and the lives of their wives, children, and all that they possess—to avenge themselves upon their enemies. And it further teaches that it is proper for honorable women to be cautious not to leave the doors of their homes” (Abravanel, Torah commentary on Genesis 34).

Abarvanel’s (as well as Maimonides’) perception of women is extremely negative and characteristic of Aristotelian philosophy. Aristotle’s writings (notably Politics, Generation of Animals, and Nicomachean Ethics) present a systematic hierarchy in which men occupy the active, ruling role, and women the passive, subordinate one. He compares this to nature, where men supply the formative principle (seed/form), while women supply material (matter), a biological analogy that becomes a moral and political justification for male rule. Aristotle’s views on the inferiority of women extend across a threefold axis that includes their biological passivity, limited rational authority, and political exclusion.

Abravanell reflects these negative Aristotelian views in his biblical commentary on the creation story:

“For man alone was created in the image of God, since he was the primary intention and ultimate purpose of creation… for he was the one who would behold the mysteries of wisdom, not the female, whose wisdom lies only in the spindle” (Abravanel, Torah commentary on Genesis 1:27).

Abravanell, born into one of the oldest and most distinguished Portuguese Jewish families, would have personally experienced the shame of a rupture to the family honour. His family migrated to Portugal after suffering the humiliation of the family’s patriarch, Shmuel Abravanel, who converted to Christianity in Spain around 1388.

The dynamic between shame and honour was also acutely felt by the descendants of former conversos (Jews who were forced to convert to Christianity during the time of the Spanish Inquisition). Not all Iberian Jews were forced to convert. Some did so willingly, whether for social mobility, economic opportunity, or genuine attraction to Christianity. But later, when their descendants sought to reintegrate into Jewish communities in places like Amsterdam, there was a strong incentive to project an image of forced conversion rather than voluntary choice. The honour code and fear of shame compelled the community’s cultural framework to strongly favour a narrative of coercion and martyrdom.

This became such a concern that the leaders of Amsterdam’s Sefaradic community decreed that, during the Yizkor memorial service, only the names of Jews who had actually been executed for their faith would be read aloud.

The three documents

Three documents, preserved in the State Library in Moscow,[4] deal with a tragic event that occurred in Ferrara, Italy, in 1577. Yishmael Yichya Finzi, the son of a respected rabbi and successful banker, Azariah Finzi, killed his own sister (whose name we do not know), for willingly engaging in a romantic liaison with a non-Jewish neighbour or lodger, according to the document, “while yet in her father’s house.” The father, Azariah Finzi, is referred to in the correspondence as “Our Teacher and Rabbi.” Azariah’s brother is a respected Rosh Yeshiva in Mantua.

Azariah’s son’s name, Yishmael Yichya, is a popular name serving as a segulah (charm) for long life, based on a biblical verse, וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹקים ל֥וּ יִשְׁמָעֵ֖אל יִחְיֶ֥ה לְפָנֶֽיךָ׃, “…May Yishmael live by Your favour” (Genesis 17:18).

The first document is written by Azariah Finzi, who is the father of both the murderer and the victim. He sends a request to his colleague, R. Yishmael Chanina of Valmontone, to validate under Jewish law his son’s killing of his sister, Azariah’s daughter.

The second document is R. Yishmael Chanina of Valmontone’s response, dated 2 May 1577.

The third document is a response to the same question, but by another rabbi, Hillel Modena of Viadana. These documents form part of a common genre of rabbinic question-and-answer literature known as Responsa, or Sheailot uTeshuvot (abbreviated as Shut).

The fact that these documents exist and were preserved is significant because:

“[The d]ocumentation of the murder of an unmarried girl on account of a forbidden sexual relationship is…extremely rare in general society, and even more so within Jewish society” (Benmelech 2026:2).

R. Azariah Finzi’s correspondence with R. Yishmael Chanina of Valmontone

R. Azariah Finzi’s daughter was murdered by his son, her brother, to preserve the honour of their respected family. Now, R. Azariah Finzi needed to justify the act of his son, before R. Yishmael Chanina, based on what he argued were fundamental Torah principles.

R. Yishmael Chanina was an important Italian rabbi and Halachist, serving in communal leadership positions and instrumental in forming the first Rabbinical Court in Italy, where he acted as a Dayan (Judge).

R. Azariah Finzi presents his arguments in a letter to R. Yishmael Chanina, expecting confirmation and praise for his son’s actions. Perhaps borrowing precedent from Abravanell, he begins by comparing his son’s actions to those of Jacob’s sons Levi and Shimon, who took revenge on the inhabitants of Shechem. Azariah’s argument is technical and well-constructed. In the biblical account, there are numerous indications of ‘irregularities’ relating to the violent actions of Jacob’s sons:

1) It is profoundly unjust that the entire male population of Shechem was slaughtered in retribution for the crime of a single man.

2) This episode occurred before the giving of the Torah, at a time when the law prescribing death for a non-Jew who rapes a Jew had not yet been established.

3) The men of Shechem were killed after circumcising themselves, which meant they were now either Jews—or in the process of becoming Jews because they had not taken upon themselves the commitment to observe the commandments—and thus no longer retained the absolute status of non-Jews, making their killing unjustified.

Azariah Finzi maintains that, despite these mitigating circumstances, Jacob did not reproach his sons on ethical or moral grounds but rather censured them for endangering the family through the risk of a counterattack—and the brothers responded, “הַכְזוֹנָ֕ה יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה אֶת־אֲחוֹתֵֽנוּ, Shall our sister be treated like a woman of ill-repute?” (Genesis 34:31). This too alludes to the social shame-honour dichotomy, already evident in biblical narratives, revealing how the defence of family dignity outweighed concerns for communal safety.

R. Azariah Finzi concludes his letter with another reference to the honour code:

“[I]t is not fitting for a man who is called by the name of Israel—how much more so for those of distinguished lineage among them—to bear upon his face a veil of shame, so that all who see him might mock him and suspect some blemish or taint in his family. For the Divine Presence rests only upon families of established pedigree[!]. And if it should happen, through some external cause as the wheel of fortune turns, that any defect should affect one of their members, he must hasten and quickly remove his disgrace from himself… as it is written everywhere: "וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥ הָרָ֖ע מִקִּרְבֶּֽךָ, You shall put the evil away from among you” (Deuteronomy 19:19).

This last biblical verse appears just two verses before the Torah states that “you shall have no pity,” and demands “an eye for an eye” (Deuteronomy 19:21).

“By transforming the act from a murder committed ‘for the sake of family honor’ into one that sought to defend the family’s lineage, Azariah converts a cultural expression borrowed from the surrounding society into one that can be connected to the internal world of Jewish society” (Benmelech 2026:14).

R. Yishmael Chanina of Valmontone’s response

R. Yishmael Chanina of Valmontone responds with sympathy for R. Azariah’s loss but firmly criticises his attempt to justify his son’s actions:

“It should not be hidden from you that your son, may he live long, has committed a grave sin, and the attempt to excuse it is even more serious” (R. Yishmael Chanina, Bat Rabim, fol. 59a).

He technically disputes R. Azariah Finzi’s arguments, and he points out that, in any case, close family members cannot convene a court, act as judge and jury as it were, and condemn anyone to death. He regards it as a transgression for R. Azaria Finzi to even try to frame the event within any form of Halachic (Jewish legal) legitimacy. Furthermore, he writes that although the young, unmarried girl entered the relationship voluntarily:

“The poor girl was not liable to death” (R. Yishmael Chanina, Bat Rabim, fol. 59b).

The verdict

R. Yishmael Chanina of Valmontone condemns R. Azariah Finzi’s son in the strongest of terms and prescribes a set of ascetic and punitive practices, which he draws from the Tosafist and mystic R. Eleazar of Worms (1160-1238), the last major leader of Chassidei Ashkenaz [see: Kotzk Blog: 380) Appropriating penitence?]. Interestingly, R. Eleazar’s book, Sefer haRokeach, is the only rabbinic work to prescribe penance and various punishments for sins, even murder!

“If a murderer strikes and kills his fellow, whether man or woman, or kills a minor, he shall go into exile for three years. In every town he shall receive lashes and proclaim: ‘I am a murderer.’ He shall eat no meat and drink no wine, and he shall neither shave the hair of his beard or head, nor wash his garments, nor bathe his body; his beard he may wash once a month. He shall bind the hand with which he murdered with a chain around his neck, and he shall walk barefoot, weeping over his act of murder, and he shall fast every day until the completion of the [three year] term. After that he shall fast for another year on Mondays and Thursdays, even though during the three years he fasted every day [eating only at night]. He shall do no harm to anyone, and he shall remain silent before all people; if they call him ‘murderer,’ he shall not quarrel but remain as one who is silent. During those three years he shall not go to places of amusement. When people leave the synagogue, he shall lie down each day before the synagogue so that they may pass over him without stepping on him. He shall honor his wife and all people and confess each day” (R. Eleazar of Worms, Sefer haRokeach, 23, 31).

In the context of this discussion, it is significant that Sefer haRokeach was very popular in Italy, where it was printed twice during the sixteenth century. Other similar works, like Sefer Yoreh Chataim and Yesod haTeshuvah were also popular. They, too, contained this regimen for those guilty of murder.

R. Hillel Modena of Viadana

The second rabbi that R. Azariah Finzi consulted, as mentioned, was R. Hillel Modena. He, too, criticises R. Azariah and holds him partially guilty. R. Azariah Finzi had to repent and demonstrate that:

“…had it been in his power to restrain his son at that moment, he would have done so” (R. Hillel Modena, Bat Rabim, fol. 61a).

Fascinatingly, R. Hillel Modena completely refutes his colleague, R. Yishmael Chanina, for even suggesting using the formula of penance for murder as prescribed by R. Eleazar in his Sefer haRokeach. He considers this practice to be totally at variance with basic Judaism:

“For our understanding is not like that of those who are not of Israel, who hold that a certain man on earth may prescribe an order of repentance for the sinner, thereby atoning for him and granting him forgiveness. Not so is our understanding” (R. Hillel Modena,Bat Rabim, 60b–61a).

Conclusion

Benmelech’s research offers a rare insight into an educated and prosperous Ashkenazi rabbinic family in Italy during the sixteenth century. It shows how Jewish society had acculturated the Mediterranean honour culture and interpreted it within Halachic frameworks. It is the only academic study to date on honour killings within Jewish society.

One wonders whether the extent and weightiness of this now exposed culture of honour had any bearing on the preoccupation with status and esteem which shaped the later Jewish emphasis on Chashivut. Azariah Finzi took it for granted that “the Divine Presence rests only upon families of established pedigree.” The same thing can be said about other similar perceptions, like the hierarchical construct of the Choshuve Rov, which we are all familiar with to this day. If this is correct, then Benmelech’s study not only illuminates a historical moment but also points toward themes that continue to animate Jewish communal life today.

Bibliography

Benmelch, M., 2026, ‘A Murder in Ferrara’, Women in Judaism, 1-32.

Weinstein, R., 2007, Marriage Rituals Italian Style, Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem [Hebrew].

[1] Online source: https://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/muslim/honor.html. Retrieved 19 May 2026.

[2] שַׁ֙עַר֙ בַּת־רַבִּ֔ים refers to a gate called Bat Rabim in Cheshbon: “The name Bath-rabbim occurs only once in the Bible, namely in the Song of Solomon 7:4, where the Groom compares the eyes of the Bride to the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath-rabbim. Heshbon was a noted city but this gate is not mentioned anywhere else, and it's ultimately not known why it warrants comparison with the Bride's eyes.” Online source: https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Bath-rabbim.html?utm_source=copilot.com. Retreived 19 May 2026.