Addenda to The law of the Land part 6

One of the disciples of the Vilna Gaon (Elijah of Vilna 1720-1797, generally known as "GRA"), wrote a book called "Kol HaTor" in which he outlines the events leading to redemption. In this book, it is stated that "Mashiach son of Joseph" will be a secular leader (or leaders), who will gather in the Exiles, followed by Mashiach ben David who will bring in the spirituality. Rav Kook, in his eulogy for Theodore Herzl, intimated that he saw Herzl as at least part of this process. Rav Kook can, apparently, be seen as following in the footsteps of the Vilna Gaon. On the other hand, the violently anti-Zionist Neturei Karta, also claim to be following in the footsteps of the Vilna Gaon. Shortly before I left Israel, a neighbor, a staunch follower of the Vilna Gaon, told me that a letter had been discovered in which the Vilna Gaon stated that earlier, he had seen immigration of Jews to the Land of Israel as being the Beginning of Redemption, and he personally had very real plans to go. However, he now realizes that the Redemption was, in fact, dependent on study of Torah. He repudiated his earlier stance. Rav Kook would have had no way of knowing this. I have not personally seen the letter. (There are those who insist that Kol HaTor is a forgery. I highly doubt this, in view of other letters with similar ideas written by GRA). Can it be that religious Zionism was never more than an erroneous, fleeting ideological fancy of one man (GRA), picked up by another (Rav Kook), and popularized?

The Law of the Land part 6

When I was twelve, I read Marx's "Communist Manifesto". I loved the idea of a classless society, with each contributing according to his abilities, and receiving according to his needs. But I had no knowledge of how many tens of millions had been killed because of those ideas, or the full import of "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". In my opinion, a similar situation exists with the teachings of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935). A beloved figure (by most people), who declared the Zionist movement, its institutions and leaders, as the beginning of the promised redemption. He established the Chief Rabbinate, and was the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of pre-State Israel. This was despite the declared anti-Torah policies of the Zionist leadership. He is famous for his idea of "Ahavat Chinam" (Baseless love). The Temple was destroyed because of baseless hate, and could only be rebuilt by baseless love. He saw the founders of the State as the workmen G-d had put in place with the spiritual redemption to come later, built on the backs of the early pioneers. What is generally not known, is that he was opposed by virtually every other rabbinic figure. Rabbi Sonnenfeld, the head of Jerusalem's ultra-Orthodox community, said "Rav Kook's great love for Zion, has taken him out of his mind, and away from the Mind of his Creator". He took a very lenient view towards halachah...in most issues. While he believed in the mission of Israel to be a light unto the nations, he was very strict about conversions. This was not for the reasons usually heard today, but because he came up with the unprecedented (to my knowledge) idea, that if a convert sins, the guilt is on the heads of the rabbis who converted him. When I was the rabbi of Kfar Tappuah (in the Shomron), I was offered, and gladly accepted, a position on the Beit Din for conversions in Kedumim, as most of the other rabbis in the area were followers of Rav Kook, and were afraid to serve. But the most troubling of his teachings were his views on the meaning of the Zionist movement. He called the institutions of the Jewish Agency (the pre-State governing body of the Jewish community in Eretz Yisrael) "The pillars of G-d's Throne of Glory" He also said that halachic observance was no longer essential for Redemption, as  how could we imagine that this glorious process could possibly be impeded by something so puny as our sins? He taught that when the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were destroyed, the Divine power of Kingship went back to the People. The People have now bestowed that Divine attribute upon the leaders of Zionism. Each one is to be seen as King David himself. One student of a student of Rav Kook says even today that even the Palestinian members of the Knesset must be seen as King David. Even the "Palestinian Authority" exists as a result of an agreement with Israel. It must, therefore, be honored as a factor in the ultimate redemption.These ideas essentially make of the entire menagerie of politicos an expression of  G-d, which must be treated with reverence. He posited that the Jewish People is perfect (with no blemish), and takes the place of the Hasidic idea of the Tzaddik. We must emulate the ordinary people, rather than a charismatic figure. Follow the People. (His writings underwent a great censorship in the 1950s, where his idea that an eventual revolt against the State must occur, if the State doesn't turn to G-d in a short time. This was carefully expunged. I have seen the pre-censorship edition). In a sense, the state represents G-d. Although most non Hareidi Orthodox are influenced by Rav Kook's teachings, there exists a hardcore that has built these ideas into what I call a sort of religious Fascism. The concept of Dina D'Malchuta, morphed in these circles into a full Torah obligation. Violations of law actually impede the Redemption. The State of Israel is actually the Kingdom of Israel, or even the Kingdom of G-d. I lived in such a community for fourteen of my seventeen years in Israel. How this plays out, will be the topic of my next post.

The Law of the Land part 5

Through the ages, there have been theoretical discussions if the concept of Dina D'Malchuta would apply to a Jewish government in the Land of Israel. Many opined that it woulod not, as such a government would clearly need to be founded upon Torah law. Others felt that a community could make its own civil laws, which would come under the category of Dina D'Malchuta. This question became a reality with the founding of the State of Israel. Israel was not founded as a religious State, but rather as a "socialist paradise", along the lines of Sweden or Norway. What can be said is that it was founded by idealists. David Ben Gurion said "You do not yet have a Jewish State. You will have it when there is a Jewish prostitute and a Jewish pickpocket". In other words, when Jews are "normalized". Up until the early 1970s, Israelis danced in the streets on Independence Day. Such displays are exceedingly rare today. Patriotism is looked upon with cynicism. Several high-profile scandals have removed three presidents from office, and two have gone to prison. One former Prime Minister spent time in prison, and the previous first lady has been the subject of a police investigation. The previous Prime Minister is now under indictment for serious crimes, and may well go to prison. The goal of most Israelis is to simply live and prosper. For the vast majority of Israelis, idealism is dead. Studies of volunteers for special forces in the army, have shown that whereas their primary goal was, in the past, to serve Israel, in recent decades that has changed to "personal challenge". Israelis are the highest taxed people in the world. Many feel that their tax sheqels are being squandered. When I first got to Israel, then finance minister, Eliezer Modai, was on an interview program on television. He was asked "what percentage of Israelis cheat on their taxes?" He answered, "One hundred percent. Otherwise they couldn't live". He further explained "the tax laws are designed with the goal of collecting 50% of what is charged. We ask for double, in order to collect half". The moderator asked "then why do you prosecute tax cheats?". He answered "if we didn't prosecute some, we wouldn't collect even 50%." I have been told by many business owners in Israel that they only begin to make a profit when they hide 50% of their income. I saw this in action many times. I have also seen arbitrary application of civil laws in general. Therefore, the view of many, if not most, Israeli rabbis is that Dina D'Malchuta does not apply, as we are faced with a "Chamsanuta D'Malka" (Royal Robbery) situation. Of course, each rabbi I spoke with begged me not to quote him. There is, however, one segment of Israeli society that scrupulously, indeed religiously, observes all laws, and freely reports neighbors who do not. Are these people saints or sinners? Why the idealism about non-Torah law? That will be my next topic.

The Law of the Land part 4

Part of the reason for the non-acceptance of the "Dina D''Malchuta" principle as halachah in many circles is the fact that it would put every town council on a greater footing than the Sanhedrin. When a Sanhedrin makes an enactment, it doesn't become fully operative for a year, during which time it must be seen if the people accept it. Otherwise, it becomes a dead letter. This was the fate of enactments against the consumption of non-Jewish olive oil and beer. The people's non-acceptance became a veto. Are we saying that if a town or city enacted a rule that one could not purchase or consume alcohol on Sunday (which was actually the law in many places when I was a child), that to drink a beer would be a sin? That we would not make our consumption public, so as not to offend our neighbors, is a given. But is it logical to say that the halachic power of a few politicians is so far-reaching? Therefore, the view that "Dina D'Malchuta" is a guideline for Jews, is much more widely accepted than that it is Jewish law. Another approach, already mentioned above, is that Dina D'Malchuta does NOT refer to every new piece of legislation, but only to principles of law and conduct that are "ancient" in that society. Anyone who becomes a member of that society does so on the understanding that he will abide by those rules of conduct (providing that they do not contradict the Torah). But the power of a legislature to enact new codes of behavior, while it must be taken into account and respected in our daily lives, has no religious significance for Jews. Many rabbis will say this privately, while maintaining a different public stance, so as not to appear rebellious. Yet another issue is those laws that are "on the books", but are no longer enforced. For instance, as late as the 1980s, some municipalities had laws on the books concerning the private lives of husbands and wives. There were laws about how far apart they needed to sleep, when they may kiss, as well as all sorts of restrictions on various types of lovemaking. By then, however, these laws were seen as funny, and were certainly not enforced. Is it possible to imagine that Shmuel's principle would apply here? According to halachah, a Jew may not, under ordinary circumstances, sue another Jew in a non-Jewish court. (There are certain exceptions). The halachah is clear that even if the secular law is identical to the Jewish law in a given instance, one must still go for a Din Torah; a Torah Court. (This is one reason that I am so uncomfortable with legislation banning Sharia. Is halachah next?) There is a minority opinion, which I have grown to respect of late, that since truly qualified rabbis are few and far between in America, and rabbinical courts tend to rule based on gut feelings rather than Torah sources, one can, and should, go to the civil courts. I was convinced of this view only recently, when a close friend had a dispute with his former employers, ultimately going to a Din Torah. The decision was draconian, and violated both Torah and Civil law. I doubt very much if the "rabbi" had studied either. Almost always, the secular authorities recognize the decision of a rabbinic court as binding arbitration. Many prominent authorities consider the taking of money from another Jew through non-halachic legal means as nothing short of stealing. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef considered the practice of law by Jews as being a violation of Torah.  Moses Tendler, a prominent Modern Orthodox rabbi, disagreed; saying that Dina D'Malchuta overrides halachah; especially in America, where there is no antisemitism in the legal system. (Anyone want to buy a bridge?). When I have been called for jury duty, and they ask me if there is any reason why I cannot serve, I answer "I feel duty-bound to rule in accordance with Torah and Talmudic law". There is always a Jewish lawyer present, who asks "What about Dina D'Malchuta"? I tell him to check sources. There are, of course, rabbis who feel that a thorough commitment to the law of the land, even seeing it as religious law, is necessary for Jews to be welcomed as equal citizens. Others will argue that the Freedom of Religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution allows for a different approach. As complicated as this is in the Diaspora, it is far more complicated in Israel. Does Dina D'Malchuta apply, or is that an accommodation only for life in exile? Can there be secular law in a Jewish State in the Holy Land, or is the Torah the only valid rule of conduct? Next time.