Tzipiyah.com

This article has been written by Rav Ari Shvat (Chwat), Rosh Midreshet Tal Orot in Michlelet Orot, Elkana. He has graciously offered to share his wisdom with the readers of Tzipiyah.com, and given me a few, very powerful and all very relevant, articles to share with you. This is the fifth part of the second article. Enjoy!

6. Sovereignty in the Land of Israel is a Mitzva

Up to this point, we have seen that the State of Israel, even if secular, is important as a means to guarantee both our physical and spiritual existence. On a completely different plane, we learn that there is an obligation from the Torah that the Land of Israel be under Jewish rule. In other words, the State of Israel is an ideal in of itself, not just a necessary median to alleviate the difficulties of anti-Semitism and assimilation. As the Ramban says:

“We are commanded to inherit the Land that Hashem gave to our forefathers, to Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya’acov, and not to abandon it in the hands of the other nations or to desolation. And He said to them: ‘and you should inherit the Land and settle in it, because I have given you the Land to inherit.’[1]… This is what our rabbis call milchemet… chova (an obligatory war) as the war of Yehoshua to conquer (Israel)… understand, that this mitzvah is to conquer …this is a positive mitzva for every generation”.[2] (more…)

This article has been written by Rav Ari Shvat (Chwat), Rosh Midreshet Tal Orot in Michlelet Orot, Elkana. He has graciously offered to share his wisdom with the readers of Tzipiyah.com, and given me a few, very powerful and all very relevant, articles to share with you. This is the fourth part of the second article. Enjoy!

3. The State – An Answer to Anti-Semitism

Upon examination, we find that the Rambam, in that very source, already explains the reasoning behind the cardinal importance of having a Jewish State.[1] He points out that the battle for the establishment of the state of the Hasmoneans, was to alleviate several problems:

“… the kings of Greece issued decrees against them… confiscated their money and their daughters… And the Jews suffered greatly, and they were intensely pressured”.

Under foreign rule, the danger to our physical existence as a nation was very real. We have learned from our history in exile, that a Jewish state, with a Jewish army are inevitably the only answer to anti-Semitism. On both a national and individual level, only self-reliance and self-defense enable the fulfillment of “… and you shall live by them”;[2] “do not stand by the blood of your friend”;[3] “saving Jews from an enemy who comes against them”;[4] “to save the pursued”;[5] “your eyes should not have pity”.[6] If we had had a Jewish state, the fate of European Jewry at the time of the Holocaust could have been completely different. (more…)

Chanuka - A Model for Celebrating Israeli Independence

We can find the answers to the aforementioned oppositions to the State of Israel- the existence of a state not based on the laws of the Torah and leadership of someone who is not from the house of David- in the words of the Rambam summarizing the reason of celebration on Chanuka:

“In the period of the second Temple, the kings of Greece issued decrees against the Jews, invalidated their religion, and did not allow them to observe Torah and miztvot. They confiscated their money and their daughters, and they broke into the sanctuary and defiled the pure. And the Jews suffered greatly, and they were very intensely pressured. Until the G-d of their fathers’ had mercy on them and rescued them from their hands and saved them, and the sons of Chashmonai the high priests, rose up and killed them (the Greeks) and saved the Jews from their hands, and they appointed a king from the priests, and Jewish sovereignty returned for more than 200 years until the destruction of the second Temple”. [1]

The Rambam specifies that the Hasmoneans were priests - what difference does it make if they were from the tribe of Reuven or Shimon, or if they were Kohanim, Leviim or Israelites? And, in case we did not notice the first time, the Rambam repeats the fact once again: “and they appointed a king from the priests”. The Rambam is undoubtedly relating to the halachic problem posed by the appointing of a king who is not from the tribe of Yehuda, who is not the mashiach (”the anointed” one”). The Ramban also refers to this problem in his commentary on the blessing of Ya’acov to Yehuda “the scepter will not leave Yehuda, nor the ruler from between his legs”:[2]

“And in my opinion, the kings who reigned over Israel (the Kingdom of Israel, as distinct from the Kingdom of Judah) from the other tribes after David, disobeyed their father (Ya’acov) … and when the people of Israel continued to crown kings from the other tribes, king after king, and did not return to the kingship of Yehuda, they transgressed (his) will and were consequently punished… this was also the cause of the Hasmonean’s punishment, because they were extremely righteous people…and nevertheless, they received a significant punishment… because they reigned even though they were not descendants of Yehuda and the house of David, and they completely “removed the scepter”. And it is also possible that they sinned in their kingship because they were also priests… they should not have ruled, just done Hashem’s (Temple) service”.

As for the Rambam, his opinion is even more severe than that of the Ramban, inferring that it is even asur m’d'oraita:

“We are warned not to appoint a king who is not from the people of Israel… it is already known from the books of the prophets that David and his descendants merited the kingdom forever. For all those who believe in the Torah of Moshe, the greatest of all the prophets, the king can only be from the descendants of Shlomo. And anyone who is not from this honorable descent, regarding kingship is considered “a foreigner”, just as anyone who is not a descendant of Aharon is called “a stranger” regarding the service in the Temple. This is clear and there is no doubt whatsoever.” [3]

Clearly, when the Rambam emphasizes twice (!) that the Maccabees were priests, and they established a kingdom from the priests, he is saying, “I am not naïve. I realize that this is problematic”. Yet, despite the fact that it was forbidden, nevertheless, we celebrate the fact that “Jewish sovereignty returned”. National independence is so important, that it is better to a have a non-ideal Jewish government, than not to have a Jewish government at all. If this is the Rambam’s opinion regarding the Hasmonean dynasty, there is no reason that his approach to the present State of Israel would be any different, in that regard.

And should the critic of the State of Israel base his claim on the Ramban who says that the Hasmoneans sinned in the very essence of their kingship, he will find his answer at the end of that very paragraph:

“From here they learned that a king from the priests is not anointed… for this is the honor of Yehuda… and therefore, even if the Jews appoint a king from the other tribes, as a necessity of the period, he is not anointed so that he won’t have the glory of “kingship”, rather they should be like judges and officers”.

We see that, in the Ramban’s opinion, the punishment of the kings of Israel and of the Hasmoneans was because they were anointed with oil and claimed “the glory of kingship”. Even more problematic, the Maccabees were priests, who are only meant to be anointed for a different purpose, the service of Hashem. However, someone who is needed to rule for a certain period, neither he nor the nation are transgressing the prohibition. Just as it is allowed to appoint judges (like Yehoshua, Gidon, etc.) and officers who are not from the family of David, so too, having a prime minister is allowed, for they are far from being “kings”.

In addition, it should be noted that the Ramban himself is the one who particularly emphasizes, that the mitzva of conquering the Land of Israel, which applies in all generations, is “not to abandon her to the hands of any other nation”.[4] In other words, we are obligated to have Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. If necessity dictates to have a leader from a different tribe (e.g. if we do not know who is from the family of David, or if that descendent is not competent nor popularly accepted), not only are we allowed, but we must appoint a leader from another tribe. Even then, we should not crown him as king. In today’s reality, the democratic process solves the halachic problem of the forbidden monarchy, in a very elegant way, and obviously poses less of a problem, than that of the Maccabean dynasty.

Moreover, the opinion of the Rambam and Rabman, that the Maccabees sinned, is not accepted by all of the rishonim. In the opinion of the Ran, “the scepter will not leave Yehuda” is not a commandment, and not even a warning, and accordingly, there was no transgression at all. [5]

The Rambam also refers to the question of the non-religiousness of the state in his words about the kingdom of the Hasmoneans. He inserts the historical fact, that the kingship of the Hasmonean’s continued for more than 200 years, into his halachic work. What connection does this historical fact have to halacha?

It seems that the Rambam comes to emphasize that we must thank Hashem for every single year of Jewish sovereignty, even if it was temporary and eventually ended, and if its spiritual level is lacking, like the Hasmonean dynasty. The majority of the kings of this dynasty were Sadducees, Hellenists, and some were even idolators![6] Not to mention the bloodshed and moral corruption between man and his fellow man. The g’mara states that the figure of 200 years of Hasmonean rule includes 103 years that the kings were from the dynasty of the wicked Herod and his family![7]

According to the Rambam, there is an obligation (and even a precedent), to celebrate all 200 years of Jewish independence, even if that government is far from ideal! Consequently, how much more do we have to give thanks for a state that is simply irreligious, not idolatrous, and democratic, thus avoiding the problem of crowning a “non-Judean” king.

The question is, why does the Rambam consider Jewish sovereignty to be so important, even justifying the religiously problematic?

———————————————————————–
[1] Rambam, Hil. Chanukah 3,1.

[2] Breishit 49, 10. It should be noted that Ramban apparently was not familiar with the Book of Maccabees I, where it explicitly states that the Maccabees themselves, the sons of Matityahu, did not call themselves “king”, but rather “נשיא”, president, or “ראש”, head. Only from their descendent Aristobulus and on, did the rulers refer to themselves as kings. This is an important לימוד זכות and justification for the Maccabean heroes.

[3] Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot, Lo Ta’aseh 362.

[4] Ramban, Additions to Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Aseh 4.

[5] Drashot HaRan, Drasha 7.

[6] See the ref. “Chashmonaim” and “Hordus” in the Encyclopedia Otzar Yisrael.

[7] Avodah Zara 9a.

This article has been written by Rav Ari Shvat (Chwat), Rosh Midreshet Tal Orot in Michlelet Orot, Elkana. He has graciously offered to share his wisdom with the readers of Tzipiyah.com, and given me a few, very powerful and all very relevant, articles to share with you. This is the second part of the second article. Enjoy!

1. The Arguments Against

a) The Irreligiousness of the State
Most of the opponents of Zionism and the State of Israel come with the painful claim that the state is not “religious enough”. For example, in one of the few halachic responsa which touch upon the rabbinic evaluation of modern g’dolim regarding the State, Rav Moshe Feinstein replies to a question regarding a shul where they wished to place an Israeli flag (together with an American flag), next to the Ark as follows:

“And even though those who made this flag and symbol of the State of Israel were bad people (רשעים), in any case they did not consider it (the flag, A.C.) to be a holy item, which if they had done so, would have led to suspect that it is like idolatry… (but) it is like every secular object… and if it was possible to dismiss the entire matter of the flag without causing an argument, so there will not be any memory of the actions of the bad people, this would be the correct thing to do, but Heaven forbid causing an argument about this”.[1] Rav Moshe infers that the Israeli flag should not be flown, even outside the shul!

Similarly, Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook often mentioned that at the beginning of the Zionist movement, there were only two great rabbanim, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk and Rav David Freidman of Karlin, who opposed it.[2] When asked to explain their opposition, he replied “What? Are we lacking reasons to oppose it?!”[3]
b) The Prohibition on Establishing a State before Mashiach
The second argument comes from a minority of rabbanim, headed by R. Yoel Moshe Teitelbaum of Satmar, who claim “our argument and war against the Zionist Sate is not because it is not religious enough, rather we disagree with the very essence of its establishment, even if it was ultra-religious”.[4] So writes the Satmar Rebbe:

“And even if all the members of the government were beloved, all of them pure, even like the mishnaic and talmudic sages - in any case they have taken the rule and the freedom into their own hands before the time has arrived, this is considered “forcing the end” (דחיקת הקץ) which is a denial of the truth of our holy Torah and of our faith”.[5]

This is mainly based upon the g’mara on the pasuk, “I made you swear, daughters of Jerusalem, that you shall not awaken My desire before its time”,[6] according to which, when Hashem exiled the Jewish people, He made them promise “that they will not “force the end” and that they will not rise up against the wall” (Rashi: together, by force).[7]

This midrash is not ruled as halacha by the Rif, the Rambam or the Rosh, nor is it mentioned at all in the Tur or the Shulchan Aruch. Any inclination to accept it as halacha has already been dismissed by just about all of the poskim of recent generations for many reasons:

1. It is an agadah and not halacha.[8]

2. A gradual aliya is not considered “together by force”.[9]

3. Since the nations gave us permission in the Balfour Declaration and as ratified by the San Remo Conference, to build a Jewish Homeland in Israel, any aliya is no longer “by force”. [10]

4. It is explicit that the oath only applies only “until the day when I will remember you”, and this day has already arrived: the permission of the nations is G-d’s “remembering”;[11] the “revealed sign of the end” through the flourishing of the land of Israel, proves that this is the time of the “remembering”;[12] the horrors of exile which forced hundreds of thousands of Jews to flee to Israel is the “remembering”;[13] the mass awakening (even of the irreligious[14]) to return and build the Holy Land is definitely from Hashem. [15]

5. The gentiles did not observe their promise there (“that they will not subject/oppress the Jewish people too much”) which exempts Israel from her oaths, as well. As the Shulchan Aruch rules, “two people who simultaneously swear to do something, and one of them breaks his promise, the second is automatically exempt and there is no need to annul his vow”.[16]

6. The Vilna Gaon explains “not to go up against the wall”, refers specifically to theחומות ירושלים - the “walls of Jerusalem”, not to rebuild the Temple, before its time.

7. The actions of Rabbi Akiva, and most other sages of his generation, in the Bar Kochba rebellion, prove that there is no need to wait for miracles and wonders, and that there is certainly no prohibition to rebel against the non-Jews, and take the Land by force. This is ruled as halacha in the Rambam.[17]

A lengthy discussion of this agadah will only mislead the reader to think that there is a legitimate basis to the fear of “the three oaths” and therefore we will suffice with this brief synopsis. The reader who wants to learn more is referred to the booklet by Rav Shlomo Aviner, “Shelo Ya’alu Be’Choma”, where, in the name of different great rabbis, he dismisses the “fear of the three oaths” (in the words of the author of the Or Sameach[18]), in thirteen different ways. In addition, we will see below that we are informed that not only is it not prohibited, but in fact, before the establishment of the kingdom of Mashiach, a previous state will, in fact, be established.

However, there are those who claim that such a state must be ruled only by one who is a descendant of the tribe of Yehuda and of King David, as it has been promised that “the scepter shall not leave Yehuda”.[19]

—————————————————————————-

[1]Resp. Igrot Moshe, O.Ch. vol. I, 46. This letter was written in the year 1957/5717, and it is possible that with the changes in the State – a general improvement in Israeli society regarding its view of Torah and mitzvot (compared with the days of Ben-Gurion and his quest to forcibly create a “new Jew”), the ba’al t’shuva movement, the entrance of even the charedi parties into all of the recent governments - Rav Feinstein may have changed his view on the State of Israel accordingly. So it seems from his response to his grandson who enlisted in the Israeli army, which is published in T’chumin 5, pp.11, and so it seems also from his response in Or. Ch. 4, 70, 11, which was written in the year 1979/5739.

[2] It should be noted that R. David of Karlin, Shivat Tzion (ed. R. A. Slutzky), 1891/5651, vol. I, p. 18, originally supported the Chovevei Zion, yet had second thoughts upon seeing the predominately secular participants in the Zionist movement. On the other hand, the Netziv of Volozhin, R. Meir Leibush Malbim, R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (known for his authorship of the Or Same’ach and Meshech Chochma), R. Yitzchak Elchanan Spector of Kovno, and many other g’dolim of that generation, continued their support, despite that problem, as seen in their letters of approbation in the aforementioned Shivat Zion.

[3] Iturei Kohanim 80, Cheshvan, 5752, p.20.

[4] From the pamphlet “Be’ur al Ha’Atzmaut”, edited by “Yirei Hashem”, Yerushalayim, 1970/5730.

[5] R. Y.M. Teitelbaum, VaYoel Moshe, p. 93.

[6] Shir HaShirim 2, 7.

[7] K’tuvot 111a. Our printed Shas Vilna reads: “שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה”, while others,שלא יעלו כחומה”", “as a wall”.

[8] Resp. Avnei Nezer, Y. D. 454; Pnei Y’hoshua, K’tuvot 112a. See also R. M.M. Kasher, Ha’Tekufa Ha’Gedolah, p.167.

[9] Resp. Rashbash 2, as is clear from Yoma 9b.

[10] Resp. Avnei Nezer, Y. D. 453; Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk cited in Ha’Tekufa Ha’Gedolah p.174; R. Y. Teichtel, Em Ha’Banim S’meicha, p. 290. Earlier rabbanim have already proved that the redemption will come through the permission of the other nations, as in the time of King Koresh (Cyrus) - see Radak, T’hillim 143) the commentary attributed to the Ramban, Shir Ha’Shirim 8,13; Rav Sa’adyah Gaon, Emunot V’Dayot ch. 8. See R. S. Aviner, “Shelo Ya’alu ba’Choma”, p.7.

[11] ibid.

[12] Sanhedrin 98a from Y’chezkel 36,8 and Shelo Ya’alu, see above footnote 11, pp.11 and 13.

[13] Shelo Ya’alu, see above footnote 11, p. 18. The Rashba’s students, Shitta M’kubetzet, K’tuvot 111a, point out that this is the basis for the oath of the gentiles there (“that they will not subject the Jewish people too much”) in the pasuk (”that you shall not awaken My desire (for Israel) before its time”). For if they oppress us too much, it basically “forces” or awakens Hashem to redeem His children, even if it be before the predetermined time.

[14] Resp. Yeshu’ot Malko, Y.D. 66.

[15] Kuzari 5, 27; Or Ha’Chayim, Vayikra 25, 25; the Netziv in his letter in Shivat Zion, see footnote 4, vol. I, p. 17; Shelo Ya’alu, see above footnote 11, p. 9.

[16] Shulchan Aruch, Y.D. 231,1.

[17] Rambam, Hil. Milachim 11,3.

[18] Cited in Shelo Ya’alu, see above footnote 11, p. 6.

[19] Breishit 49, 10, and the Ramban there.

This article has been written by Rav Ari Shvat (Chwat), Rosh Midreshet Tal Orot in Michlelet Orot, Elkana. He has graciously offered to share his wisdom with the readers of Tzipiyah.com, and given me a few, very powerful and all very relevant, articles to share with you. This is the first part of the second article. Enjoy!

Whether due to modern technology or our national renaissance, our generation has merited (through G-dly necessity! ) to clarify an abundance of contemporary halachic issues which are either uniquely modern or have been “out of commission” for centuries. Entire volumes have been written dealing with various topics regarding the observance of shabbat and kashrut in the modern home or in the Israeli army. Nevertheless, the issue of how to relate to the very existence of the secular State of Israel and the justification for our support, maybe the most basic point of contention between the different streams of religious Jewry, remains, surprisingly and unfortunately, almost untouched territory.

In addition to this unfortunate void, the aftermath of the tragic uprooting of Gush Katif, and the subsequent reassessment of many religious–Zionists regarding their relationship to the government or State of Israel, only strengthens the need to clarify this most basic of questions.

In this article, we will summarize the arguments of those who are opposed to the modern secular State of Israel, we will base our support for the State of Israel upon the biblical and rabbinical sources, through which we will attempt to evaluate her importance in the eyes of the Torah.