Thoughts on Duties to a Higher Authority

Originally posted on November 21, 2025

According to Jewish law and, indeed, in most legal systems, a person is

responsible for his or her own actions. Even if directed by a higher authority, a

supervisor, a superior officer, a governmental official, to perform some action which is in violation of the law, contradicts the teachings of the Torah and halakha, or goes against the Constitution, that individual may not perform that illicit act and then claim that they were merely following orders. If they have committed a crime or violated a law on behalf of that higher authority, they themselves must bear the responsibility for their own actions. As the rabbis put it succinctly, “Ein shaliach l’dvar averah, there is no agency for a transgression.” They ask rhetorically, “Divrei harav v’divrei hatalmid, divrei m shom’im? The words of the master and the words of the student – whose words should we listen to?” When it comes to Jewish law, the “words of the master” refers to the word of God and “the words of the student” refers to directions given by the earthly authorities Instructing you to violate that law. Whose words should prevail?

Of course, God’s word is not always self-evident. Certain principles are laid down as to what Jewish law requires, i.e. what is to be seen as “God’s word” on a matter. In cases where authorities differed, we are supposed to follow the majority. When there is a system of rabbinic courts with a Sanhedrin, the high court, issuing rulings, that becomes the law and overrules the minority views of various rabbis. A famous case cited in rabbinic texts was when Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel the head of the Sanhedrin, the Nasi, differed over the Jewish calendar and came up with different dates for Yom Kippur one year. The Nasi asserted the power of the Sanhedrin as the majority rule that decides on the calendar and Rabbi Yehoshua was then forced to show up on the day he thought should be observed as Yom Kippur, accepting the ruling of the Sanhedrin and the Nasi. When he appeared as ordered, he was embraced by Rabban Gamliel for submitting to the law as determined by the court and thereby setting a positive example to others.

At the Nuremberg Trials following World War II, a number of former Nazi officers and officials were prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Many claimed in defense of their actions that they were simply following orders. The tribunal rejected this defense, establishing the precedent that following unlawful orders does not absolve these defendants from personal responsibility. These officers were found culpable for carrying out criminal acts even if they had been commanded to do so by a higher authority. International law did not allow these criminal acts regardless of the illegal orders issued by the higher authorities in the Nazi regime.

Under the Israel Defense Forces Code of Ethics there is a concept of a

“manifestly illegal order” (pekudah bilti chukit ba-alil). Soldiers are obligated to disobey such orders, even from superior officers. For example, in the 1956 Kafr Qasim

massacre, Israeli border police who followed illegal orders to shoot civilians and killed 49 Palestinians including six women and twenty-three children, were convicted by the court which emphasized their duty to refuse, and sentenced a number of the soldiers to prison terms for this action.

In this country, governmental officials and members of the armed forces, when

they take office, are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and can be

prosecuted if they perform some act prohibited by law even if they were following the orders of some superior. The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires obedience to lawful orders only. It states that disobedience of unlawful orders is not punishable. U.S. service members are taught that they must refuse orders that are clearly illegal such as targeting civilians. The law of the United States, like our Talmudic principle, affirms that moral responsibility cannot be delegated. As our rabbis taught, ein shaliach l’dvar averah, there is no agency for transgression.

Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli and former Chief Rabbi of the IDF, Rabbi Shlomo Goren

wrote extensively on this principle. They emphasized that soldiers must evaluate the

morality of orders, especially in cases involving civilian harm or disproportionate force. Responsibility is personal, even in hierarchical structures. Even if a superior, for example, a president, general, or agency head, issues a directive, the individual is not exempt from judgment if the action is unethical or illegal. They are called upon to observe the higher legal authority and disregard illegal orders. On the other hand, the sender, the authority figure, can’t get off the hook either by claiming that his officers should have realized that the order was illegal and not carried it out. By issuing such an order, he or she can be found guilty for incitement or enabling

the violation of the law. In halacha this is considered a violation of the principle of not placing a stumbling block before the blind.

Earlier this week, six members of Congress, all of whom are veterans who have

served in the United States armed forces or intelligence service put out a video

reminding our military personnel, in light of some highly questionable and perhaps

illegal orders from the President or the Secretary of Defense that have recently been in the news, that they bear responsibility for their own actions. In the ad the lawmakers stated, “We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now, Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens like us. You all swore an oath to protect and defend this constitution,” the lawmakers said in the video. “Right now, the threats to our Constitution

aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear,” they added. “You can refuse illegal orders…you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.”

Though the specific orders that the congress members have called illegal were not enumerated, one might assume that this was in response to the orders to national guardsmen to attack civilians in American cities or to the recent destruction of boats and murder of their passengers that were supposedly transporting drugs to the United States. We’ve seen other cases where people have been denied due process of law and often innocent individuals have been deported without proof to prisons in other countries where they have been subject to torture and general mistreatment.

Unfortunately, one can find numerous recent actions where agents of the federal government have been instructed to engage in questionable, if not illegal, acts to carry out the policies of this administration. Unsurprisingly, instead of acknowledging that basic principle of our law, the President attacked these lawmakers, calling their actions “seditious behavior, punishable by death.” He said these members of Congress should be executed, they should be hanged. Hopefully this is just overblown rhetoric, that we have become accustomed to, but it should be troubling to all decent people who expect our soldiers and government agents to adhere to the principles of law and to uphold the U.S. Constitution to which they have sworn allegiance.

Reflecting on this principle of law enshrined in the halacha, I was thinking of this week’s Torah portion and Rebecca’s instructions to her favored son Jacob, calling on him to deceive his father by impersonating his brother Esau in order to receive Isaac’s blessing of the firstborn. While some rabbinic teachers find justification for these actions of Rebecca and Jacob, others do not let them off the hook so easily and note that God too remembers these transgressions and metes out appropriate punishment in due time. When Jacob later is deceived on his wedding night by the substitution of Leah for her sister Rachel, their father Laban simply reminds Jacob that “it’s not the practice in our place to marry off the younger daughter before the elder.” Laban, none too subtly reminds Jacob of his own past actions. The deceiver of his father, is now himself deceived.

As for Rebecca, she sends her favored son off to her brother’s house telling

him that she would send for him once Esau gets over his rage. However, Rebecca

never sees Jacob again. She dies before his return.

Our tradition holds us all responsible for our own actions regardless of our claims to be simply obeylng the orders of those in superior positions. As the rabbis teach, “divrei ha-rav v’divrei hatalmid, divrei mi shomim?” When it is a choice between the word of the Master on high or those of some earthly authority figure, whose words should prevail?