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.

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.