The coronavirus plague has brought the issue of civil disobedience to the forefront in many countries around the world. Authoritarian and even totalitarian governments have faced uprisings from desperate citizens. One cannot help but hope that this will lead to greater freedom and liberty for oppressed people around the world.
More democratic countries have employed draconian measures to limit the spread of the virus, in many respects resembling authoritarian regimes. Leaders have had to straddle the line between public safety, economic collapse, preventing citizens from panicking, and unjustified power grabs. Citizens in these countries have had to straddle the line between social responsibility, financial ruin, obeying authority, and fear of punishment. In these cases there is a great debate over whether harsh measures from governments will ultimately cause more harm than they will prevent.
As always, the Torah provides a model for how we should respond to every situation. Our divine treasure waits quietly to be sought, allowing those who think they can devise a better way to fumble and stumble. Perhaps social fabrics across the world must fray, perhaps Man must experience epic failure before he surrenders and turns to God’s instruction manual.
The Torah provides a unique model for the relationship between citizens and authority figures. Most people – even, sadly, religious Jews – view the Torah’s system of a monarchy and religious tribunals as primitive and unenlightened. Let us take a closer look and then compare with the best of what our modern, enlightened world has to offer.
*
We tend to view monarchs as ruthless dictators commanding unflinching obedience and lopping off heads right and left for their own amusement. This is for good reason; the archetypical monarch throughout history has been such a character, and there is no shortage of world leaders today who follow that tradition sans the crown and title.
Ancient Israel contributed many members to this dubious club, yet the vast majority of “bad” monarchs belonged specifically to societies that rejected the rule of the Torah. This includes the Davidic kings who embraced idol worship, the kings who broke away from the Davidic dynasty, and the kings during the second Bais Hamikdash. All of the non-Davidic kings except for Shaul and Yerovam derived their power strictly from force and rejected the Torah. This is not a coincidence – the two go hand in hand.
The Torah’s description of a king’s powers is unique among all man-made systems. Man-made systems invariably describe a leadership position by outlining the powers of the one who occupies it. The Torah, on the other hand, describes a king specifically by restricting his powers! He must not have too many wives, lest they sway his heart. He must not have too many horses, just enough for the needs of his army. He must not even have too much silver and gold, just enough to cover his expenses and bring appropriate respect to the kingdom. He must carry a Torah with him at all times to remind him that he is merely an ambassador of the King of Kings. He must learn from the Torah all his days so that he will fear God and not exalt himself over his fellow Jews. The Torah utters not a single word about the glory and power a king – only limits him and humbles him.
Indeed, the “good” Davidic kings, beginning with David himself, were extremely humble and responsive to the common people, despite wielding enormous power. We find throughout the books of Navi that they derived their power from the consent of the people, and were ever-mindful of that. The same David who inflicted unparalleled terror on Israel’s enemies responded meekly when Jews rebelled against him. This is the prototypical Jewish king.
Compare and contrast to our modern, “enlightened” leaders, who tend to take a reverse approach.
At the same time the Torah humbles the Jewish king, it commands the people to accept his authority. The king is not a mere figurehead, but a powerful ruler who represents the entire nation, and one who rebels against the king even slightly can be put to death.
Yet just as the king must balance his broad power with humility and prudence, the Torah balances the people’s subservience with the right to disobey a command that violates the Torah. In fact, they are obligated to do so. For example, Avner, the powerful general of Shaul, refused an order to murder the people of Nov. Avner is praised for this and suffered no repercussions for disobeying this order. On the contrary, the Gemara says he was later killed by divine punishment for failing to dissuade Shaul from pursuing David. The message is very clear: obeying a corrupt order from a king is ultimately far more hazardous than disobeying the king.
The Torah strikes the perfect balance for us, and if things are less than perfect, it is only because we have failed to adhere to this balance.
*
We find something similar with rabbinic leadership, which also gets a bad rap by secularists who consider themselves too sophisticated for religion. The Torah grants enormous power to the religious courts as well. Obeying their rulings is one of the 613 commandments. The Jewish courts have the power to levy fines, appropriate property, and even administer corporal punishment beyond the letter of the law if they deem it necessary to repair moral breaches in society.
Yet here too we find that they derive their powers entirely from the people. Judges and officers are appointed by the people, and once again the Torah goes to great lengths to warn judges against any form of corruption or negligence.
The Talmudic sages viewed themselves as divinely mandated to serve the people by virtue of their knowledge, against their personal best interests. Their calling was a wearying burden, and they lived in terror of the repercussions for ruling incorrectly (Sanhedrin 7A and many other places). A judge who ruled incorrectly would in many cases have to make restitution out of his own pocket! Again, compare and contrast to any religious or secular court in the world today.
Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yishmael were on their way to be martyred by the Roman government. Rabbi Shimon said to his teacher that he could not fathom the divine cause of his execution. Rabbi Yishmael asked him if he had ever kept litigants waiting momentarily for him to finish his drink, put on his shoes, or wrap himself in his tallis before adjudicating them. Rabbi Shimon was consoled by these words, accepting his death as a heavenly punishment for inconveniencing ordinary people who came before him to be judged! (Mechilta, Mishpatim Chapter 18)
As if that’s not enough, the Jewish courts were literally powerless to impose laws on society without the people’s cooperation. When they passed a gezeira, they would keep the reason behind it a secret for a full year even from their students. Furthermore, the courts were prohibited from passing a law that society could not tolerate. If the public voted with their feet not to accept the law, it was repealed, not forcibly imposed. (See Avoda Zara 29B, 35A, 36A)
We find here a truly divine balance between respect for authority and the power of the people. The court could not pass a single law without the trust of the people. This trust was earned by their track record of faithfully serving the people, to the extent that they would follow a new edict even if it was difficult and the reason for it incomprehensible. If the people accepted the law, nothing less than unswerving obedience was required. On the other hand, if the people felt the law was too constraining, they would simply disregard it, and the power of the courts would automatically be checked.
The rabbis know best, but the people know best, too. They serve each other, and the power flows between them to create a healthy, stable society.
*
Today in many parts of the world there is great tension between the rulers and the common people. Do the leaders have wisdom and integrity? Are they going too far with their authority? Can the people be trusted to behave responsibly? Do they have the right to disobey? Should the orders of governors and judges be obeyed even if they are misguided and immoral, simply to preserve the rule of law? These are questions millions of people are grappling with as their society teeters on the edge of both authoritarianism and anarchy.
The Torah provides a system that is far superior to anything Man has ever created, a perfect distribution of power between political leaders, religious leaders, and regular citizens. One doesn’t have to be religious to appreciate this system.
It’s high time we seriously discussed it.
Reprinted with permission.
מאגר זה פועל באופן אוטומטי, על ידי שליחת מייל, אתה מקבל את הספר תוך דקות ספורות חזרה לתיבת המייל שלך.
בחר את הספר הרצוי, ושלח מייל וכתוב בשורת הנושא את הכיתוב המופיע בצידו. שים לב לדייק, כל אות מיותרת, מעכבת.
הכתובת לשליחה וקבלה – COM.GMAIL@A548483320
מצווה לפרסם
חשוב להביא מידע זה לציבור הרחב, אפשר לבטל כל דו”ח קורונה כל עוד וזו פעם ראשונה. פשוט עושים במנוע חיפוש ‘גוגל’ “משטרת ישראל דוחות קורונה” ממלאים פרטים ותוך כמה ימים הם מעדכנים אם הדו”ח בוטל. מנסיון אישי, כתבתי שזו עבירה ראשונה שלי וביטלו לי את הדו”ח. אחרי הבקשה אפשר לבבר אם בטל בוואטסאפ של משטרת ישראל במספר 0506110110.
שי (ירושלים)
נשלח אלינו ע”י אחד הקוראים.
An influential friend of the site tried to involve a certain high-up “Gadol” on behalf of Hyehudi’s NetFree ban. This person, after hearing something of the site’s views, requested to hear about Hyehudi’s stance on ascending Har Habayis. I responded, loud and clear. And… that was the end of that, of course. NetFree blocks Rabbi Yitzchak Brand’s site for this very reason.
It’s one thing to oppose restoring the Temple, which begins by conquering it with our footsteps, but quite another to censor any and all contrary views. In Charedi society, one cannot send one’s children to the best schools unless one first signs a paper proclaiming the parents don’t own “uncensored” internet (even if the children have zero access). The basic standard acceptable to the Thought Police is either NetFree or Nativ (the latter is easily hacked, by the way).
I empathize with Hashem: “Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I think I’m going to…” How is He Whose Name Dwells In This Building ever to get His home back without nullifying our free will?!
This Rosh Yeshiva (almost my own) is a “comrade of Yeravam ben Nevat”!
Taanis 28a:
תנו רבנן מה הן בני סלמאי הנתופתי אמרו פעם אחת גזרה המלכות גזירה על ישראל שלא יביאו עצים למערכה והושיבו פרוזדאות על הדרכים כדרך שהושיב ירבעם בן נבט על הדרכים שלא יעלו ישראל לרגל מה עשו יראי חטא שבאותו הדור הביאו גזיריהן ועשו סולמות והניחו על כתפיהם והלכו להם כיון שהגיעו אצלן אמרו להם להיכן אתם הולכים אמרו להם להביא גוזלות משובך שלפנינו ובסולמות שעל כתפינו כיון שעברו מהן פירקום והביאום והעלום לירושלים ועליהם ועל כיוצא בהם הוא אומר זכר צדיק לברכה ועל ירבעם בן נבט וחבריו נאמר ושם רשעים ירקב.
Yalkut Shmuel 1:8, 106:
ויאמר ד’ אל שמואל שמע בקול העם. תני ר’ שמעון בן יוחאי אומר לא אותך מאסו כי אותי מאסו וכו’ בשלשה דברים עתידים למאוס, במלכות שמים, ובמלכות בית דוד, ובבנין בית המקדש, אימתי מאסו שלשתם בימי ירבעם, הדא הוא דכתיב ויען איש ישראל ויאמרו אין לנו חלק בדוד זו מלכות שמים, ולא נחלה בבן ישי זו מלכות בית דוד, איש לאהליו ישראל ולא לבית המקדש אל תקרי לאהליו אלא לאלהיו.
א”ר סימון בר מנסיא אין ישראל רואין סימן גאולה לעולם עד שיחזרו ויבקשו שלשתם, הדא הוא דכתיב אחר ישובו בני ישראל ובקשו את ה’ אלהיהים זו מלכות שמים, ואת דוד מלכם זו מלכות בית דוד, ופחדו אל ה’ ואל טובו זה בית המקדש.
By the way, there many such topics I am too affected to write about. I wait until somebody else approximates my message, and let them say it for me (though this makes me seem less fervent on the matter).
Thursday, July 2, 2020, 12:27
The owners of the “Tzivei HaKeshet” printing house appealed to the Be’er Sheva District Court regarding the ruling by Be’er Sheva Magistrates Court Judge Orit Lipschitz which obligates them to compensate the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), specifically Israel’s LGBT Task Force associated with it, known as “The Aguda”, for discrimination. The owners of the printing house were required to pay The Aguda the sum stipulated in the suit and also the maximum compensation set by law. In the appeal the printing house owners claim that they acted in accordance with the freedoms of religion, conscience and trade, and point out the flaws in the court ruling.
The appeal was filed by Honenu Attorney Menashe Yado, who wrote that the fundamental question in the case is, “Is it appropriate and is it possible to compel a religious business owner to produce a product contrary to his beliefs, his values, his sensitivities, and the commandments of his religion?” Also the court ruling faced the appellants with the dilemma of either earning an income or following the Torah.
Yado stated that the court ruling “creates secular coercion according to the LGBT narrative and imposes it on religious people, and that is a severe and precedential violation of the freedom of religion and trade in the private sector.” He explained that the Be’er Sheva Magistrates Court erred in its interpretation of the anti-discrimination law being as in the case of the printing house there was no discrimination: the place in question is not a public place, the service requested was not a public service, the matter did not involve a product or the supply of a product, but rather the matter pertained to providing a service.
The appeal claimed that the right of the appellants not to perform a service contrary to their beliefs – such as when an issue involves tension between social groups based on the rights of an individual – is the right of the religious public as a whole. Additionally, the Be’er Sheva Magistrates Court erred when it did not consider the freedom of trade of the appellants and their freedom of religion and also did not consider the halachic opinion which they submitted.
Concerning the principle of tolerance, the appeal claimed, “It is obvious that butcher shop owners would not order design work from a vegetarian designer, members of the ‘No’am’ political party would not request printing of ‘Man + Woman = Family’ fliers from a printing house owned by LGBT owners, right-wingers would not print fliers in memory of Rahavam Ze’evi, z”l, at a Muslim Arab printing house and a bereaved parent would not be required to provide stage services for an evening in joint memory of Israeli and Palestinian victims.”
In the appeal Yado mentioned a similar ruling handed down in the USA concerning a Christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake with male figurines for a homosexual couple. There the court ruled that with all due respect to desire of the couple to receive recognition, it was not possible to force someone to give them the recognition at the expense of his sensitivities and his conscience. “There must be tolerance for the values, the beliefs and the sensitivities of others, in this instance those of a religious person.”
The summary of the appeal states that the Be’er Sheva Magistrates Court compelled the appellants to violate religious prohibitions and that the court erred in its decision to convict the appellants of discrimination against the respondent, because there had not been discrimination but rather ideological opposition.
Honenu Attorney Menashe Yado, who is representing the appellants, the printing house owners: “The appeal is supported by strong and sound claims and we hope and believe that the [Be’er Sheva] District Court will accept our claims and overturn the ruling handed down by the [Be’er Sheva] Magistrates Court.”
“We reiterate that approximately two months ago a court ruling was handed down concerning the refusal of a printing house in Be’er Sheva to produce material for the LGBT association on the Ben Gurion University campus. The association emailed a request for a price estimate for printing material. In response, the printing house emailed a warning not to send them abhorrent material: ‘We do not handle abhorrent material; we are Jews,’ and refused to print the requested material. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel sued the printing house owners and the Be’er Sheva Magistrates Court convicted them of discrimination. The owners have filed an appeal on the decision, and we hope that our claims will be accepted.”
Honenu: Support the printing house!
Immediately after the Be’er Sheva Magistrates Court ruling Honenu distributed fliers – see image above – calling on the public to support the printing house: “Today, in the Jewish State, a printing house that refused to print fliers which violated Jewish law and their faith, was fined over 50,000 NIS [50,00 NIS to the plaintiffs in addition to legal expenses] by the court!! This is the price of keeping mitzvot in the State of Israel.
“Following the publication of the scandalous ruling we have received many requests for information from citizens interested in assisting the business owner who was fined. Whoever needs quality printing services is invited to place an order.”
Shmuel (Zangi) Meidad, the director of Honenu: “Today, unfortunately a court in Israel crossed a line. What is left for us is the People of Israel, solidarity, and mutual assistance. ‘They helped every one his neighbor; and every one said to his brother: “Be strong”.’ (Isiah 41:6) The Torah and faith in G-d were here long before the court and they will be here forever.”