The Law of the Land part 3

Another factor in all of this is the concept of "Hillul HaShem" (Desecrating the Name of G-d). If a Jew does something wrong, or is even perceived as doing something wrong, it reflects badly upon the Jews in general, and ultimately upon the Torah. In reality, there is a gap between the approach of more left wing Orthodox and more right wing on the Dina D'Malchuta issue. The left-wing community, generally is scrupulous about civil law; considering it to be a real halachic issue.. Indeed, many classical authorities consider civil law as overriding halachah when it comes to economic issues. (Others consider this view to be heretical). Most right wing authorities see Shmuel's rule as a general guideline, not as.law. After all, he was a friend of the King, and wanted the Jews to be seen as loyal subjects.It would not do if Jews would be perceived as a threat to the stability of general society. To cross the street against the red light when there was no traffic would not brand a man as immoral. But acting like a hooligan, or vandalizing public property, certainly would. Jews cringe when a Jew is arrested for these sorts of things. It is not just against the law, but is a reflection on us, as well as on our religion. When a Jew returns a sum of money that was lost, we all take pride, and the name of G-d is sanctified. However, even in the Modern Orthodox community, there are issues. Although they maintain a firm stand against lawbreakers, there is the inevitable less-than-honest businessman. White-collar crime is not unknown in this community. A controversial editorial in a Jewish newspaper a few years ago pointed out that this phenomenon is bad enough, but convicted felons often have their names on Jewish schools and other institutions to which they have donated money. The editorial asked "what message does this send to our children, as well as to the non-Jewish community?" I certainly cringed when "60 Minutes" did an expose about a shady Jewish businessman, who was convicted of massive white-collar crimes, who nevertheless has a famous Orthodox women's college named for him. On the other hand, there is a story on the other extreme that I find most troubling. A book came out in the early '80s, in praise of a wealthy Orthodox Jewish businessman. He came on a visit to Eretz Yisrael while it was under British rule. He had with him a Torah scroll. When he arrived, he asked the customs official how much he needed to pay in import taxes. The official said "It's alright, no charge". The man said "Is that legal?" The official said "Not strictly speaking, but don't worry about it." The Jew said "I want to pay". Now let's analyze this. The British mandatory regime was imposed on the society from the outside (the League of Nations). Essentially, it was an occupying power. I can see no basis for calling it "Legal" in halachic terms. Even if it were legal, customs officials, and even police, do have discretionary powers. The official told him that he wasn't charging him for the Torah scroll. At that point, he had no obligation to pay; either from a halachic or civil perspective. But he paid anyway. At that time, there were many Jews living in Eretz Yisrael who were near starvation,.The money he put out for a dubious tariff could have fed several families for months, Perhaps his action was wicked, rather than righteous? On the other hand, the British official was telling this story even years later. Perhaps the Jew had sanctified G-d's Name? We have choices to make, every day. These choices leave us conflicted. Often, two values clash. From a Torah perspective, making the right choice is one major way in which we serve G-d. To be continued.

The Law of the Land part 2

We must ask a question as to where the authority of the secular authorities comes from in the first place. If you and I perform a business transaction, how does the government become a party to that, levying taxes on our transaction? Many of the medieval authorities suggest that it is an outgrowth of the principle of "Hefker Beit Din Hefker" (the Court may legally declare any property as ownerless). Although this is referring to a standing (as opposed to ad hoc ) Beit Din of rabbis, many medieval scholars saw it as referring to any recognized authority. Another approach was suggested by RASHBA (1235-1310) who formulated the principle of "Social Contract" some four hundred years before Rousseau, who is usually credited with the idea. He states that when men formed societies, they voluntarily ceded some rights to kings, for the benefit of all citizens. (We must contrast this with the view that individuals exist for the betterment of the State. That is Fascism, but is nevertheless a feature of the ideology of certain groups in Israel and other countries). This would exclude a government that is imposed from the outside. Indeed, there are many quotes in Talmud that Roman tax collectors can, and should, be ignored. (I consider attempts by some commentators to "explain away" those statements as being a feeble maneuver aimed at not arousing governmental anger). Another issue is if a law is discriminatory. A tax, levied on one segment of society, but not on another, is invalid. The Talmud already makes clear "the law of the Kingdom is the law, but not royal robbery". Another suggestion is that in every monarchy, the King, at least theoretically, owns all of the real and movable property in his Kingdom. All property is his. Any misappropriation of property or money is robbing the King. This begs two questions, which rabbis tend to avoid, at least publicly. First, does the principle of "Dina D'Malchuta" apply in a society without a King? The U.S. government makes no claim to private property. It cannot take my money away without due process. Is a tax imposed by a local, state, or federal legislature considered due process? Indeed, there are opinions that Dina D'Malchuta only applies to ancient, well-established laws of that society. Second, does the principle apply only to financial matters? If the government makes a law against underage drinking, for example, should a synagogue not serve wine to children at a Shabbat service? The general view I have seen among poskim is that we must obey the laws of a democratic society as well (some differ; to be discussed next time), but we need not follow legislated morality; but, at the same time, not blatantly flaunt it, so as not to appear rebellious. These, and related issues, will be discussed more next time.

The Law of the Land part 1

This is a most sensitive topic, which raises great anger in both Jewish and non Jewish circles. Opinions vary greatly.We have our G-d given laws of both the written and Oral Torahs. To what degree are we bound by the laws of the  place in which we live? To what degree would doing so be an affront to the Torah?  We find the first mention of the  idea of respecting the law of the land in Jeremiah, who urges the people who were taken captive to Babylon to "Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the L-RD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." (Jeremiah 29:7). Even if taken away by force from our land, we are not to behave in a rebellious manner; but rather obey the ways of society. On the other hand, when Nebuchadnezzar orders the Jews to practice idolatry, they flat out refuse to disobey G-d. According to the Talmud, they told Nebuchadnezzar "You are our King for taxes, but when it comes to our religion, you and a dog are equal". The foundation was thus established, that the secular authorities have no control over us in matters of religion. If they legislate against Torah, we are still bound to practice it. In the Talmudic era, Shmuel of Nehardea (165-257 CE), was a close friend of King Shapur I of Persia. When twelve thousand Jews were killed in an uprising against the Throne, Samuel refused to show any signs of mourning. When asked about it, he simply said "Dina d'Malchuta Dina" (The law of the Kingdom is a law). In other words, by violating the law of the land, they brought their deaths upon themselves. Shmuel's principle is quoted often in both Talmud and later rabbinic sources. Several questions arise. Does civil law become Jewish law, or just law for Jews, that we do not claim extraterritoriality? If I jaywalk, have I committed a sin? What are the parameters? What if the law is patently unjust? Does the principle "the law of the Kingdom" imply that this applies only to where there is a King? Would it apply in a democracy? Would it apply in a Jewish State, where, at least theoretically, the Torah should be the law? Does this principle refer to every whim of a King or government, or only to well established rules of that country? By what right can a government limit my freedom of action? All of these questions sparked great debates within Judaism I will be dealing with these questions in this series.

"Unorthodox Answer"

There has been a meme circulating on Facebook for some time, with a quote from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, responding to a letter sent by a person who proclaimed herself "not Orthodox", saying that there is no such thing as Orthodox, Conservative and Reform.Rather, we are all Jews. I believe that the majority of people who have read this, interpreted it incorrectly. They understood the Rebbe to be saying that levels of observance make no difference, and all "denominations" are of equal value. It is as if we are judged in Heaven on the basis of "You were Orthodox, so that time you ate that ham sandwich was a grave sin", but if the person had been a member of a Reform Temple "well, Reform doesn't recognize the kosher laws, so it was OK". This is not what the Rebbe was implying. Rather, he was emphasizing that all Jews are equally bound by HaShem's Torah. Kashrut, Shabbat..everything is equally incumbent on every Jew. He was here castigating those elitists who say "only we are the Jews"(as one rabbi, a little over a century ago went to court in Germany, in order to have Orthodoxy and Reform declared different religions) , but at the same time castigating those who proclaim themselves not bound by Torah law, because they have joined one or another "denomination", that allows ignoring much of the Torah. The Rebbe, in this instance, was emphasizing the essential Jewishness of all Jews, while clarifying that differences of ideology and practice are man made, and mostly artificial. You can read more in my series "Orthodox and non Orthodox Judaism.