Here you see the renowned photo taken by David Rubinger showing three soldiers from the IDF’s 55th Paratroopers Brigade at a moment of reverence in front of the Western Wall became an iconic image of Israel’s dramatic victory in June 1967.
The picture shows paratroopers Haim Oshri, Itzik Yifat, and a third soldier on the left, long claimed to be Zion Karasenti, after capturing the Jewish holy site from the Jordanians during the battle for Jerusalem. But nothing is ever simple. A dispute over the identity of the leftmost paratrooper in the famous picture erupted three years ago when the family of the now-deceased Abraham Borstein, who served in the 55th Paratroopers Brigade and fought in the battle to liberate the Old City of Jerusalem, claimed that their father was the soldier in question, contradicting Karasenti who also served in the 55th Brigade during the battle to liberate the holy city and for many years claimed that he was the third soldier in the image.
What started as a dispute in 2021 over a Wikipedia page then blew up into an article in Yedioth Ahronot recounting the claims of Borstein’s family. This resulted in legal threats against Karasenti demanding he state publicly that he was not the soldier in the picture, a subsequent defamation suit by Karasenti against the Borstein family, and then a countersuit for defamation against Karasenti.
Borstein’s family hired forensic investigators to prove that it was their father who was the paratrooper in question, but Karasenti rejected their findings, while a Channel 12 investigation found that it was highly likely Karasenti was the third paratrooper.
Last winter Judge Sagi brought about a dignified compromise to the somewhat unseemly affair. “Both sides have agreed that it is not possible to determine the question of who is in the picture taken by David Rubinger on June 7, 1967, certainly when there is no dispute that the two relevant people [were] brave warriors who participated in a series of battles, including the battle for the liberation of Jerusalem, and worked for the State of Israel and the security of Israel during one of the most difficult times the country ever knew and in the most courageous and worthy way imaginable,” wrote Sagi in his decision.
Having described the military service performed by both Karasenti and Borstein in the battle for the liberation of Jerusalem, the judge wrote that both sides would now respect the other’s claims. Attorneys for the Borstein family, Oron Schwartz and Yogev Narkis, stated in response to the ruling that they “applaud the poetic justice that leaves both options valid, existent and possible,” adding, “Sometimes this is the way to rule on historic decisions.” How could it have been both of them in that picture? What is true importance of this historic decision?
I was thinking about these questions this year in preparation for Tisha B’av. On Tisha B’Av we remember the destruction of the Temples in Jerusalem. It is a time of mourning for our exile from our political, spiritual, and ancestral homeland. On Tisha B’Av we spend a day collectively reflecting on the plight of our ancestors—now refugees who were forced to migrate. Why were the Temples destroyed? The Rabbis provide us with a number of different rationales, the most famous of reasons for our destruction and exile was Sinat Chinam, hatred without cause or literally “free hatred”. In the Talmud we learn:
But why was the Second Temple destroyed, seeing that in its time they were occupying themselves with Torah, observing the laws, and giving tzedakah? Because therein prevailed Sinat Chinam,hatred without cause. That teaches you that senseless hatred is considered as of even gravity with the three sins of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed together (Yoma 9b)
This is making a big claim as to the severity of Sinat Chinam, but what is hatred without cause? It seems to be groundless animosity brought on without provocation. I would not say that hatred as a response to something with a rationale is good, but at least in that situation there is a pathway to reconciliation. The challenge of Sinat Chinam is that it origin seems to be without cause and so it the recovery.
In many ways the paradigm of Sinat Chinam is found in the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. There in the Talmud we learn:
Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. This is as there was a certain man whose friend was named Kamtza and whose enemy was named bar Kamtza. He once made a large feast and said to his servant: Go bring me my friend Kamtza. The servant went and mistakenly brought him his enemy bar Kamtza. The man who was hosting the feast came and found bar Kamtza sitting at the feast. The host said to bar Kamtza. That man is the enemy [ba’al devava] of that man, that is, you are my enemy. What then do you want here? Arise and leave. Bar Kamtza said to him: Since I have already come, let me stay and I will give you money for whatever I eat and drink. Just do not embarrass me by sending me out.The host said to him: No, you must leave. Bar Kamtza said to him: I will give you money for half of the feast; just do not send me away. The host said to him: No, you must leave. Bar Kamtza then said to him: I will give you money for the entire feast; just let me stay. The host said to him: No, you must leave. Finally, the host took bar Kamtza by his hand, stood him up, and took him out.After having been cast out from the feast, bar Kamtza said to himself: Since the Sages were sitting there and did not protest the actions of the host, although they saw how he humiliated me, learn from it that they were content with what he did. I will therefore go and inform [eikhul kurtza] against them to the king. He went and said to the emperor: The Jews have rebelled against you. The emperor said to him: Who says that this is the case? Bar Kamtza said to him: Go and test them; send them an offering to be brought in honor of the government, and see whether they will sacrifice it. (Gittin 55b- 56a)
The Temple was destroyed because of the senseless hatred of the unnamed host toward Bar Kamtza. Why did he hate Bar Kamtza so much to embarrass him in public? Why did they rabbis stand idly by? Why was Bar Kamtza’s response so severe? These are all great questions. But while we think a lot about Bar Kamtza, we like the host and the Rabbis ignore Kamtza. He was never invited to the party due to a small and understandable miscommunication. What would it have looked like to just make room at the party for Bar Kamtza AND Kamtza? This would have been an act of love without cause.
It took 50 years but the court found a way all be it rather fanciful of resolving the dispute between the Karasenti and Borstein families. The notion that it could just be both of them is a wonderful act of love without cause. It turns out the Sinat Chinam, is not free, it comes at a great cost. But at the same time Ahavat Chinam, senseless love, is truly free and freeing. This court case is the perfect response to Sinat Chinam and exactly the Ahavat Chinam we need this Tisha B’Av.
For more resources for Tish B’Av see here:
Said to Myself 
Leave a comment