The Rabbis' Obligation to Speak Up \ Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed
Actually
The Shiur was given in 4th Shvat, 5763
The Rabbis' Obligation to Speak Up
Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed
Written by the rabbi
Dedicated to the memory of
Tzvi Yoel Ben Moshe HaLevi
1. No Rabbis Allowed
2. "In all your ways..."
3. Torah Rulings, Torah Opinions
4. Just who is to blame?
5. Expert Mistakes and Wise Advice
No Rabbis Allowed
When Israel's previous defense minister decided to forcibly evacuate Jewish outpost
settlements - among them the Gilad Farm Outpost established in memory of Gilad Zar hy"d
who was killed on that sight, and the Asaf Outpost established in memory of Asaf and Aryeh
Hirshkowitz hy"d at the junction between Beit-El and Ofra - the Council of the Rabbis of
Yesha (Judeah, Samariah, and Gaza) assembled in order to decide upon an appropriate
response to the government's decision. Among other things, it was made clear that Torah
law prohibits uprooting such outpost settlements; therefore, every soldier should approach
his commanding officer and request to be excused from participating in any such activity. I
personally suggested that such a soldier make clear to his commanding officer the reason
for his request - that the Torah forbids such action - but conceded to the opinion of my
colleagues who felt that a more unassuming-styled request was preferable. The implications,
of course, remained the same.
The position taken by the rabbis, especially my suggestion, caused a public commotion. The
media denounced the decision, and there were even rabbis among the heads of Mechinot
(religious pre-military preparatory institutes) who came out against it. Yet, it is not rabbinic
discrepancy that I wish to address here, but an article written by Professor Yedidya Stern
that was circulated by the Israel Institute for Democracy. The essence of the article: that
rabbis should not get involved in political issues. Professor Stern claims that Halakha
(Jewish law) does not concern itself with political issues. The kings of Israel did not seek the
approval of Halakhic authorities before going out to war. In addition, the professor claims
that important Torah personalities have expressed the opinion that when it comes to politics
1
The Rabbis' Obligation to Speak Up \ Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed
Actually
the masses must be allowed to decide for themselves. Furthermore, he continues, the
absence of relevant Torah sources makes it exceedingly difficult for a rabbi to reach any sort
of true Halakhic stance concerning political issues.
"In all your ways..."
I wish to pause for a moment in order to respond to the above accusations. That the Torah
guides the Jew in his personal life alone, in matters between himself and his Creator or
between himself and his fellow man, is a misconception. This is simply not the case. There is
no arena in life, personal or public, that the Torah does not enter, guiding man and lighting
up his way. The Torah instructs us regarding the appointment of kings and concerning both
obligatory and voluntary wars; the Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, Maimonides)
included a chapter entitled "The Laws of Kings and their Wars" in his comprehensive code of
Jewish law, "Mishneh Torah." There are commandments incumbent upon the community as
a community: the Halakha demands that a king of Israel receive the permission of the
Sanhedrin (Supreme Court of religious scholars) before the people go to war, and the
prophet is also involved in this decision.
Torah teaches the Jew that each and every act he performs should be carried out for the
sake of Heaven; in the words of King Solomon: "In all your ways, acknowledge Him." In
every small step one takes in life - what more so in every large step - acknowledge God's
being and act on His behalf. Such an attitude calls for looking into the Torah in an attempt to
reveal God's will. Yet, because the Divine reasoning is of an altogether different nature than
ours, the Torah, rather than allowing us to discern God's will on our own, lays it out for us in
the form of 613 commandments, the majority of which are commandments which apply to
the community, the state, and the Sanctuary.
Our beloved mentor, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook zt"l, points to this as the
reason that the Torah commands a king of Israel to possesses two Torah scrolls rather than
just one like every other Jew. The additional scroll is needed for administering over the
kingdom. Rabbi Kook further explains that the laws which relate to the community as a
whole are of a different nature than the laws of the individual - as the Rambam himself
makes clear in his "Laws of Kings" - and that each one of these laws has a source in the
Torah. (Cf. Mishpat Cohen, responsa nos.124 and 142)
It is true that because of our two thousand year exile we are today unversed in such laws
and possess no coherent tradition of them. Yet, this unfortunate fact does not free us of the
obligation to draw upon our existing sources for Torah guidance in dealing with modern
Israel's constantly changing public issues. There are national issues regarding which the
2
The Rabbis' Obligation to Speak Up \ Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed
Actually
Torah provides clear instruction: the obligation to conquer the Land of Israel, to settle the
land, to acknowledge the land's sanctity, and to rule over all of it. Yet, there exists no
organized body of laws telling us what to do under more complex circumstances - what to do
when faced with difficulties in fulfilling such commandments, how adamant one must be, and
to just how much danger one must be willing to expose himself. However, the spirit of things
is clear, and, after receiving a sound assessment of the situation by political and military
experts, rabbis are clearly obligated to voice their own Halakhic opinion regarding how to act
in the spirit of the Torah.
Differences in Israeli public opinion as to how to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict do not result
solely from discordant assessments of the situation. They are undoubtedly influenced to a
large degree by personal worldview and conviction. Furthermore, assessments of the
situation are significantly shaped, if not completely decided, by a person's position regarding
the value of the Land of Israel and the content of Israel's national aspirations and destiny. Is
it even conceivable that Torah leaders be told not to voice their opinion on questions which
effect so significantly the future of the nation? It goes without saying that religious leaders
must approach such issues armed with the sort of broad perspective which takes into
consideration the opinions of military experts. Yet, after hearing these opinions, not only are
rabbis permitted to voice the opinion of the Torah, they are obligated.
Torah Rulings, Torah Opinions
Professor Stern continues, asserting that if a rabbi were merely to outline his fundamental
position in a conjectural article, democracy would be able to shoulder it as it does countless
other opinions driven by personal systems of belief. But when a rabbi lays down a Halakhic
ruling it becomes binding, and one who goes against it makes himself liable to harsh and
explicit legal repercussions. Such rulings are presented as objective truths which leave no
room for debate. They are viewed by the masses as expressions of the Divine will. This, in
Professor Stern's eyes, delegitimizes Halakhic decisions from a democratic perspective. The
professor then expresses astonishment at the fact that while rabbis object to the judicial
activism of the Israeli secular courts, they remain strangely silent when the Halakha pries
into places that even the secular courts refrain from entering.
I, though, am astonished by the words of Professor Stern. To begin with, I fail to see the
difference between a Torah "ruling" and a Torah "opinion." Each of us desires nothing more
than to fulfill the will of God as expressed in the Torah, and when we believe that something
is the desire of God we carry it out, regardless of whether it reaches us in the form of a
Halakhic ruling or a rabbi's personal opinion. Were we to possess a Sanhedrin, its decisions
3
The Rabbis' Obligation to Speak Up \ Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed
Actually
would be binding upon all of us, but at present no such body exists, and therefore no
Halakhic ruling is truly binding. There exist a variety of opinions and an assortment of
authorities, and each community chooses its own path. There is no "force" that makes
rabbinic decisions obligatory. Their strength stems from the agreement of the recipient and
not from some coercive power of rabbinic command.
Secondly, I fail to understand the professor's comparison between secular court decisions
and Halakhic positions. The courts impose their opinion in areas which they have received
no authority to do so, while the only thing which obligates a Jew to follow a rabbinic ruling his
own free will.
Just who is to blame?
Professor Stern opens his article by saying that any Halakhic ruling which forbids the
evacuation of outpost settlements is bound to have grave consequences. The students of
the rabbi are called upon to decide between breaking the law or violating the Torah. The
religious-Zionist community is forced to choose between the two essential ingredients of its
identity: "Am I religious or am I a Zionist?" The professor sees the rabbis as to blame for
bringing about this uncomfortable situation, while in fact the blame deserves to be placed
upon the one who gave orders to violate a Mitzvah (Torah commandment). The religious
community will be forced to face this dilemma every time an order is given which contradicts
the Halakha. But it has always been clear that in the IDF no order is given which contradicts
Jewish law, for the religious public can have it no other way. No Torah-observant Jew can
agree to fulfill a government law which forces him to transgress a Torah commandment. No
religious soldier can carry out order which calls upon him to violate the Sabbath, dietary
laws, or any other Torah commandment. The Mitzvah to settle the land of Israel is no less
important than any other Torah commandment; to the contrary, it is even more important,
for, in the words of the Sages, it is "equivalent in value to all of the rest of the
commandments combined." The Mitzvah to settle the Land of Israel includes any act which
strengthens our hold on the land, while any act which leads to a loosening of our grip on any
part of the land is forbidden. And because the unquestionable intention behind dismantling
outpost settlements is to make possible the handing over of land to Arabs, it is forbidden.
This holds true even though the sight in question is not going to be handed directly over to
Arabs, for the very act of uprooting a Jewish settlement in the land of Israel is part of a
forbidden chain of events - and even a small violation remains a violation. What's more, any
forbidden act connected to the Land of Israel is by nature not "small." Yet, even if we find
differences of opinion between rabbis as to the severity of such a violation, this does not
concern us at present, for we are discussing the principle that says that it is forbidden to
follow any order that violates the Torah, and this includes settling the Land of Israel.
4
The Rabbis' Obligation to Speak Up \ Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed
Actually
Incidentally, I am of the opinion that soldiers who refuse to carry out an order because of
their loyalty to the Land of Israel are not weakening the army but strengthening it, but this is
not the subject of our discussion either. One of the fundamental principles of democracy is
that no individual is forced to act in a manner that runs counter to his conscience unless his
conscience constitutes a danger to the state. But to force an individual to violate his
conscience simply for the purpose of keeping law and order - especially where the true
intention is to exploit him in carrying out a narrow political objective - is undemocratic. The
order to uproot outpost settlements clearly runs counter to the fundamental beliefs of
religious-Zionism, and it does not constitute a national security interest which demands
forcing people to behave in a manner that strikes at the very foundations of their beliefs.
Expert Mistakes and Wise Advice
Professor Stern claims that Halakhic rulings addressing the question of Israeli land
concessions have continued to appear in the same basic formula for a number of years now.
The position has been neither revised nor replaced in keeping with the changing times and
the changing political and military situation. The rabbis who oppose the Clinton accords
continue to base themselves upon the Halakhic rulings of Rabbi Goren who passed away
years ago. Professor Stern, though, should not have chosen to use an example that can be
so easily turn around. The fact that this ruling continues to be relevant merely proves how
right the rabbis have turned out to be and how mistaken the politicians were who supported
the tragic Oslo agreements. The rabbis were the true wise men who foresaw the grave
future. They cautioned against giving weapons to the Arabs claiming they will be used
against us. To our great distress, the rabbis were right: With the weapons which we gave
them, the Arabs murdered hundreds of innocent Jews; in the cities and towns that we
handed over to then, they built up weapon production factories; the money that we gave
them was used against us. Apparently, the rabbis possess greater common sense and
greater breadth of political understanding than the political experts themselves. Would that in
the future political experts consult with the rabbis.
Political experts were mistaken and continue to make mistakes regarding the reason for the
Arab-Israeli conflict. The experts approach the conflict from a secular-Western point of view
and therefore fail to understand that at its source lies a struggle between two faiths, a
religious-spiritual struggle, and it is impossible to solve such a struggle by material or
financial concessions - i.e., through land or money. The experts did not believe that there
would be so many suicide-bombers; they did not believe that Muslim religious faith runs so
deep and is no dear to the Arabs - more dear than life itself. Although the Arabs state their
5
The Rabbis' Obligation to Speak Up \ Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed
Actually
goals quite clearly: Throw the People of Israel out of the Land of Israel and destroy the State
of Israel - the political experts refuse to believe them. Every agreement the Arabs have
made with us they have signed with the intention of destroying us. They do not see peace as
a goal to strive for. They see it as a means for weakening us, a means for establishing
themselves on the territories that they receive from us, a means for arming themselves in
order to destroy us. The visions of our political experts which announce that when the Arabs
receive a fair portion of the Land of Israel they will be satisfied, are completely without
foundation. The only thing that can be done is to wipe out terrorism by sheer force, and to
create the sort of constant threat that will bring the Arabs to the realization that they do not
have the power to dislodge us from our land. When they finally get this into their head they
will become weary of their ambitions to destroy us and will give up. This, then, is what we
must do. And, at the same time, we must constantly act to advance our long-awaited
redemption.
E-mail : beitel@yeshiva.org.il
For more Shiurim from the site: www.yeshiva.org.il
6