The Religious View of the Secular State of Israel - The Irreligiousness of the State

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.