Shalom Berger raises the assumptions Yair Sheleg makes in his article in Makor Rishon on the danger of the exposed Tanakh. Sheleg is really talking about the supposed Dati-Leumi study of the Tanakh unmediated by ancient and medieval rabbinic commentary. In truth, Sheleg's assumptions are nonsensical. If Orthodox students of the Tanakh in Israel focus on issues of vengeance and killing Arabs, it is only because they have rabbinic teachers who encourage them to interpret the Tanakh that way. One cannot ignore the affect that such attitudes as expressed in the morally abhorrent Torat Hamelekh has on these extremists, which provides supposedly halakhic justification for killing non-Jews.
This is a prime example of confirmation bias: you already believe something so you look for support - in this case, textual support - for your prejudice. In other words, it is not approaching the Tanakh directly that is a problem, any more than approaching the Talmud directly; it's the immorality of the particular teachers and their students that is at fault. Even the devil can quote Scripture... and does.
Respectfully,
Jeremiah Unterman
