Events in the last twenty-four hours have caused my inherent uncertainties about life in Israel to resurface. This afternoon I attended the mass demonstration [peaceful and orderly, thank God] in support of the parents from Emanuel who were sentenced to jail terms for contempt of court in refusing to re-enroll their daughters in the local Beis Yaakov as per the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court. My conflicts began as I made my way toward Rechov Yirmiyahu where the rally was to take place. I passed a young man wearing a knitted kippah, holding a placard that read “sinat chinam” (needless hatred). I asked him to whom he was referring and he answered, “the demonstrators.” The early afternoon sun was brutally hot, so it was critical that I try hard not to loose my cool. I calmly asked him, “Do you really feel qualified to make that kind of accusation against Rav Elyashiv and Rav Aron Leib Shteinman?” Noticing his perplexed demeanor, I walked away, wondering why he did not understand what I wanted from him.So according to Rabbi Landesman, if you thought, or your Rabbi thought that this Immanuel issue highlighted the issue of discrimination, which Rabbi Landesman admits is rampant throughout the Charaidi world, you are going against Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shteinman and how is that possible?!?! Apparently, Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shteinman do not just know Torah better than anyone else, but they understands discrimination better than anyone else.
However, that is not what makes this comment so absurd in my mind. Yes, people can argue that Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shteinman are the final authority on anything that come out of their mouths. This is, in fact, why the whole Rabbi Slifkin controversy took place. However, ignoring that and even admitting that the Gedolim are infallible, Rabbi Landesman has a problem. He asks this "young man" are you qualified to say the opinion of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shteinman is Sinaat Chinam. However, Rav Landesman says in the very next paragraph,
"Permit me to share my feelings and fears with you. As a caveat, I am convinced by evidence that I have personally witnessed through the years that there is a great deal of prejudice within the Ashkenazi Torah world against Sefaradim."This itself goes against Rav Elyashiv, as conveyed by his Gabbai:
"After that Rav Elyashiv's gabbai spoke, followed by Rav David Batzri, a sephardi mekubel. In his speech he said that there has never been any discrimination against Sephardim amongst Torah Observant Jews. All Torah Observant Jews learn the Rambam together with Tosfos, the Beis Yosef with the Rema, the Arizal with Baal HaTanya, and the Mishnah Brurah together with the Ben Ish Chai. He said that discrimination against Sephardim was introduced by the Secular Zionists when they took the yaldei teheran and cut off their peyot and forced upon them the gods of secularism." (Found here)
However, maybe there is an excuse for Rabbi Landesman, he just didn't know Rav Elyashiv held this way and would be willing to change his mind and admit Sephardim have never been discriminated against had he only known this was the opinion of Rav Elyashiv. That is a possibility.
Getting back to the deeper point, the belief that a Rav understands matters that have nothing to do with Gemorah knowledge better than anyone else. I was not raised to think that a Rav's word is similar to the word of G-D. I have been raised to follow the traditions of Judaism. Regular Jews should not be making up halacha, but following the traditions that have withstood the ages. I am a big believer in this idea that, although everyone should be involved with asking questions, learning Torah and coming up with ideas, before coming to any conclusions a Rav should be consulted. For example, a regular Jew that decides to research the Aniskakis worm controversy should do so. This person should come up with their own insights and ideas. However, the psak halacha should always be consulted with that person's Rabbi. Does he need to just ask and receive an answer? No. However, he should enter into a conversation with the Rabbi and express his views and ask the Rabbi if they are valid or not and the Rabbi should be able to answer the questions. Ultimately, the Rabbi decides the halacha within the parameters of the tradition.
However, in matters of science, where the Rabbi knows much less than some others, why would anyone consult the Rabbi? For example, I want to understand how gravity works, should I consult my Rabbi? Doesn't that idea sound ridiculous? So, the Rabbi is the last word on halacha, but what about other things? Should a person having psychological issues go to his or her Rabbi for help or should they go to a psychologist who is trained to help people with these disorders? Here, in the case of Emanuel, who is equipped to understand the situation best? Is it Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shteinman? It could be that a Charaidi person better understands the situation best merely for the fact that there are more Charaidim living in Emanuel than anyone else. Maybe this young man came from Eilat and just heard the Charaidim are protesting and he decided to counter protest. However, it is possible that this young man research the case and its intricacies much more than anyone else and came to the conclusion that this is based on the discrimination that Rabbi Landesman ADMITS TO EXISTING in the Charaidi world. Therefore, by Rabbi Landesman's own admission, this young man "is qualified" to disagree with Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shteinman.
Also, I would not say that Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shteinman are showing Sinaat Chinam (baseless hatred) here. I believe that Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shteinamn were not basing their views on the discrimination. I in no way think Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shteinman are pro the discrimination that exists throughout Israel against Sephardim. However, I think they were told the situation by someone who wanted them to be pro the rally. In order to do that it was probably presented as religious Jews being persecuted by the non-religious state. Therefore, I think the question of Rabbi Landesman, that the young man was calling Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shteinman haters, does not make sense.
However, let's just say Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shteinman, ch'v, were pro the discrimination against Sephardim. Is there any precedence for Rabbi's to err and make the wrong choices? Does anyone recall the burning of the Rambam's books? There were several great Rabbonim that took place in this horrific act. They were great scholars, but erred in how to deal with that situation. This is not my opinion, but many great Rabbis of that generation and subsequent generations admit to this mistake.
Nevertheless, I think that, as a religious Jew, it is an unfortunate thing that Israel is not governed by religious law. Do I think if the government was run by the Charaidim it would be better? No. I wish we had a righteous king that did not have any bias against fellow Jews and could govern, using the Torah, justly and fairly. Hopefully, the Moshiach will come soon and put an end to all this bickering.
16 comments:
I agree with everything except that last thing
"it is unfortunate thing that Israel is not governed by religious law"
Unless we got an actual infallible perfect Messiah type of thing it would be a disaster. Forgetting capital punishment for fishing your matzo ball out of your soup on Shabbat but what about freedom of speech? And what about the chilonim and people who didn't want to be religious? W
Even if you think Judaism is perfect the history of theocracies shows us that they never end up well (maybe Jews will be different but I doubt it) A religion that preached pacifism and love (i.e. Christianity) turned into a monster when it became a government.
I hope you're only imagining such a scenario in a purely utopian/miraculous fashion and not as a practical course of action.
I thought I clarified myself with the next few sentences
"Do I think if the government was run by the Charaidim it would be better? No. I wish we had a righteous king that did not have any bias against fellow Jews and could govern, using the Torah, justly and fairly. Hopefully, the Moshiach will come soon and put an end to all this bickering. "
But let's clarify it a little. Israel being governed by religious law with Moshiach means everyone realizes there is a G-D because He re-reveals Himself. So everyone follows Judaism the "right" way, whatever that will be in the times of the Moshiach.
However, I want to respond to what you said, because I think it is a common misconception.
"Forgetting capital punishment for fishing your matzo ball out of your soup on Shabbat but what about freedom of speech?"
First of all, when there is no Temple there is no capital punishment. That is just irrelevant because the third temple will be built only when the Moshiach comes and at that point supposedly everyone will be religious.
Secondly, what about freedom of speech? Where does the Torah deny freedom of speech? Everyone is supposed to ask questions on things they don't understand. If someone does not believe in Judaism that is their right, but the law of the land would be the law of the land. However, the Torah does not grant the authority to anyone to give the death penalty when the temple is not around. The religion would not be forced upon anyone. If you want to go through every little detail on how this state would work and how it would not force anyone to do anything we can go through it.
The main reason I think this would not work nowadays is because there is too much corruption and politics like we can see from the kashrus organizations. It is just ridiculous.
However, in a perfect world I was thinking about the law of the land being something like the Bais Din in Yavneh after the destruction of the second temple. It mainly dealt with civil laws and religious issues like when to wear tzitzit.
>That is just irrelevant because the third temple will be built only when the Moshiach comes and at that point supposedly everyone will be religious.
I think your Messianic view is not like the Rambam or any other "naturalistic" Messianic scenarios. The Rambam does not believe (AFAIK) in a miraculous scenario where the BHMK will drop outta the sky so not everyone will automatically be religious acc. to him.
>Secondly, what about freedom of speech?
Are you allowed to go say "I don't believe in God!" in the Jewish utopia? Are you allowed to study Biblce criticism?
Part of the "law of the land" would be the censorship of any "questionable" material under the Biblical injunction not to be led astray by your heart and your eyes.
Is that freedom of speech?
>The religion would not be forced upon anyone.
Wouldn't it? If the Gemara is any guide that's exactly what we're supposed to do "force people until they say 'I want to do it'"
If you make the "law of the land" religion than aren't you forcing people to follow your religion?
Shilton,
There is a reason I said this
"However, in a perfect world I was thinking about the law of the land being something like the Bais Din in Yavneh after the destruction of the second temple. It mainly dealt with civil laws and religious issues like when to wear tzitzit."
Because in those times they were given autonomy, but they did not force religion on anyone.
Shilton said "I think your Messianic view is not like the Rambam or any other "naturalistic" Messianic scenarios. The Rambam does not believe (AFAIK) in a miraculous scenario where the BHMK will drop outta the sky so not everyone will automatically be religious acc. to him."
Partially right, the bais hamikdash does not fall out of the sky, but the Moshiach, according to the Rambam, is a man who is a prophet and when he comes everyone will be religious. Go back and look at the Rambam when he talks about the coming of the Moshiach, it is in the end of the last sefer of the mishna torah. He also talks about, in other places, how other religions are there to prepare the rest of the world to accept the G-D of the Jews.
Also
>Secondly, what about freedom of speech?
Are you allowed to go say "I don't believe in God!" in the Jewish utopia? Are you allowed to study Biblce criticism?
Part of the "law of the land" would be the censorship of any "questionable" material under the Biblical injunction not to be led astray by your heart and your eyes.
This is not something that is enforced. Please tell me what the punishment is if you read biblical criticism other than a waste of your own time?
You said
If you make the "law of the land" religion than aren't you forcing people to follow your religion?
I never said religion is the law of the land, but that the law of the land should be governed by religion. Meaning, the civil laws and everything should be in the spirit of the Torah and that there should not be any contradictions in the law towards religion.
Here is the link for the Rambam. http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?sefer=14&hilchos=83&perek=12&hilite=
If you need help translating it let me know.
>Meaning, the civil laws and everything should be in the spirit of the Torah
I don't think anyone can quite agree what the spirit of the Torah is.
Anyway fine I don't object to your utopian/Messianic theocracy
And I don't mind your temporal non-enforcing government "guided by the Torah" AS LONG AS it actually keeps to YOUR version of not resorting to coercion (All I mind is an attempt to implement it in real life due to the the danger of corruption)
As to the Rambam he does NOT say no one will sin. All he says is everyone will return to the "true religion" (he is referring specifically to non-Jews becoming Jewish) The Rambam does not tell us why all the non-Jews will do this. You assume that it's because God will be apparent to everyone. Fine maybe that's the case but that does NOT necessarily mean everyone will be sinless. Even people with emuna shlema can perform punishable sins.
nothing is said about everyone being righteous and sinless so capital punishment WOULD theoretically take place.
The Rambam stresses that nature will not change. I assume he is precluding the possibility of miracles. How then will God become apparent to everyone?
Shilton, where did I say no one will sin? All I said was that everyone will be religious, aka try and following the Torah and their guidelines. So there is no coercion going on since everyone will be religious Jews.
Also, G-D will be apparent through the Moshiach and his undeniable prophecies. The Rambam lists out how we know people are prophets and not false prophets in shemonah perakim. Also, read the Rambam on that whole perek to understand how it will happen and what things we have no idea about because they are not knowable until they happen.
There are other ways we will know also, like the war of Gog with his armies of Magog and other prophecies. Maybe we will find undeniable archeological proof to the Jewish religion being true like the Ark and Moshe's grave and so on. There are a lot of possibilities of how everything can happen in a natural way. Also, who says there are no miracles in store for us that were built into the fabric of creation. See Rambam on Pirkei avos where it talks about the ten things created bein hashmashos.
Anyway, for more clarification go back to the site I linked to and read the whole perek.
>where did I say no one will sin?
"That is just irrelevant because the third temple will be built only when the Moshiach comes and at that point supposedly everyone will be religious."
That only makes sense if you mean no one will sin because even "religious" people sin.
did you mean "irrelevant" because everyone will want capital punishment or irrelevant because no one will do anything worthy of capital punishment
The first, irrelevant because everyone will want capital punishment for these things. Mainly because everyone will believe in G-D. Therefore, if G-D says the punishment is capital punishment no one will be crying foul.
While there are many different views as to how the times of Moshiach will come about, there is broad agreement on what those times will ultimately be like.
There will be universal belief in the existence of God because He will have reappeared in history, especially during the war with Gog and Magag.
In Israel under Jewish law, certain things, like denying His existence, will be capital crimes.
However, back to the actual point of your point (which poor l'il Shilton seems to have missed):
You have to remember that what a person thinks is based on what he knows about a situation.
You and I, we can search the internet and find (too much) information on anything we want and then form opinions on it.
On the other hand, the big Chareidi leaders are cut off from all of that. Their entire knowledge of the outside world comes from their handlers who literally control all flow of information on events to them.
You and I know a lot more about what's going in in Emmanuel than they do. All they know is "those evil seculars are trying to force us to abandon our Torah-true standards" which explains their opinion on the subject. What else would they say?
I think they simply believe that the secular courts should have no say in how the Yeshivas and seminaries function. I am sure they are aware of the sociological problems that face the torah community. They just feel that the secular courts should stay out of it.
The only way to get the secular courts out of it is to have a private school that is not state funded. Otherwise, how can you tell the person that funds your institution, stay out of it, this doesn't concern you?
"In Israel under Jewish law, certain things, like denying His existence, will be capital crimes."
I was under the impression that there will be no room to doubt it, like no one doubts Obama's existence. Not that it would be a capital crime to doubt G-D.
Good point!
"In his speech he said that there has never been any discrimination against Sephardim amongst Torah Observant Jews."
More than anything, the past tense used here is shocking. Not claiming that there isn't any, but claiming that there never has been shows an attitude completely ignorant of historical interaction.
Post a Comment