Author Archives: Rabbi

“Be careful what you wish for,” said Aesop long ago.

Too many Israelis – politicians, journalists, and civilians – are concerned that Prime Minister Netanyahu has yet to be invited to the White House. It is widely, and accurately, perceived as a snub, and is being used to promote the notion that the Netanyahu government is reeling, cannot succeed, has lost international support, has alienated the US, and must be replaced. But that is just another cudgel being used by Netanyahu’s permanent, relentless enemies, and has little merit.

Like a Rorschach test, each commentator sees the snub in line with his or her own personal preferences or aversions. Netanyahu has failed to embrace the two state delusion with sufficient ardor. Netanyahu is not supportive enough of Ukraine and has reached out to China. Netanyahu is building too many “settlements,” even in Yerushalayim. Netanyahu is advancing judicial reforms that have irritated President Joe Biden and undermined democracy. And even more risibly, and recently, Netanyahu presides over the “most extreme government” in fifty years.

Let’s get real. Biden sees the government of Israel today as “extreme.” Then again, he characterizes his adversaries in Washington and elsewhere as “extreme MAGA Republicans.” He has denounced the US Supreme Court for its “extreme” decisions and composition. His administration has labeled parents who want to exercise greater control over their children’s public education and thus petition local school boards as “domestic extremists” (a Biden associate even called them “terrorists.) “Extreme” is the Biden insult of choice for each and every one of his adversaries. 

Granted, Joe Biden has never been known for his extensive vocabulary and and great intellectual heft even when he was compos mentis. In his declining state, he falls back on pet phrases and cliches without giving much thought to what he is saying and their implications. For example, his criticisms of the proposed judicial reforms here are typically shallow (“a threat to democracy,” as is everything the left opposes in the US and in Israel) even though Israel is seeking a judicial system more akin to the one in the United States, including the method of judicial appointments and limitations on jurisdiction. Even worse, it is Biden who has taken to undermining the independence and legitimacy of the US Supreme Court, recently saying (in his terse and muddled way) “this is not a normal court.” That means that a US Supreme Court that applies the law rather than Biden’s own policy predilections (on affirmative action, student loan forgiveness, freedom of speech, etc.) is “not normal” and needs to be changed. His party has indeed proffered some, well, “extreme” proposals for reining in the Court’s powers, which if passed will inevitably shatter the delicate checks and balances that exist in the American political system. And yet he finds fault with Israel’s governance and legislation. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Who isn’t “extreme” in the Biden lexicon? Jew hater Ilhan Omar is not extreme, she is “beautiful.” Cory Bush, Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff and others – they are not extreme. They are good Democrats, allies of Joe Biden. No Biden ally can ever be extreme, no Biden adversary can ever be anything but extreme. If Smotrich and Ben Gvir are “extremists” in the Biden world view, it is only because they stand up for Israel’s interests fearlessly and definitively – a strong hand against our enemies, the right of Jewish residence throughout the land of Israel, determined opposition to the two state delusion, and a yearning to foster the Jewishness of the Jewish state. This is all anathema to Biden, and music to the ears of the faithful Jew and proud Israeli. We should all merit being called “extreme” by Joe Biden, a clear indication that we are on the right path with values that are rooted in the Torah and that are non-negotiable.

My own sense is that there is no Biden-vitation because this is still payback for Netanyahu’s anti-Iran speech before Congress in 2015 that embarrassed Barack Obama and his Vice-President, Joe Biden. Sure, that was eight years ago, but Biden has a great memory for that, even if not for many other things. When will there be a Biden-vitation? When it suits Biden’s political purposes during the election year – and/or when he wants something from Israel. And there’s the catch.

Having lived in America most of my life until 2020, I recognize something that veteran Israelis don’t. Most White House visits of foreign leaders are not news stories in America, and most are not even covered. Visits take place almost weekly. They may be newsworthy in the visitor’s home country but they are not in America. They make the news when the leader is an adversary – summits with the leaders of Russia or China are good examples – or when some conflict between the leaders is expected. Most leaders come to the White House because they want to look good in the eyes of their countrymen for political reasons or because they want something from the United States. 

Does Israel want something from the United States? Certainly, but the objectives are achievable without the pomp and pressure of a White House visit. Israel looks to America for diplomatic support in a hostile United Nations environment, which it received unequivocally in the Trump years, less so under Biden but still extant. The military assistance Israel receives from the US is fixed in a long term agreement and the funding is anyway spent entirely in America and not in Israel, so no changes there. Most importantly, Israel has turned to the US for leadership and an effective challenge to the Iranian nuclear program and there the US has fallen woefully short under Democratic administrations. With Biden poised to repeat the Obama appeasement – billions of dollars to Iran and sanctions relief in exchange for unverifiable promises from a rogue government – little is to be gained from a personal meeting. Public criticism of the Biden plan will be perceived as a “political” attack, while public support will undermine Israel’s anti-Iran position and distress Arab allies across the region. Merely restating each side’s positions and hearing Biden mumble vacuities like “all options are on the table” are not worth the transportation costs to get to Washington.

And there is a price to be paid for such a meeting. Israeli leaders are expected to arrive with “gifts” – concessions to the Palestinians in terms of prisoner releases, money in the PA coffers, or worst of all, the expectation that Israel coordinate its IDF counter-terror efforts and even its anti-Iran measures with America. These days, that is foolhardy in the extreme. There are repeated reports about how Obama sabotaged some of Israel’s preparations for an Iran conflict – and the same people who did that and served Obama now serve in the Biden administration. If sharing information in private is one goal of a White House visit, it is sensible to stay away.

The nonvitation is also a consequence of the declining support for Israel in the Democratic Party, which traces to Jimmy Carter and even Bill Clinton (who made Netanyahu’s life miserable in the Prime Minister’s first term) but primarily to the sentiments expressed by Barack Obama in 2008. Meeting with Jewish Democrats during his campaign, Obama said “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.” That is fair enough, but imagine the ferocious storm that would erupt if Israel’s Prime Minister ever said that “to be close friends and allies with the United States does not mean that Israel has to embrace the platform or policies of the Democratic Party.” Biden today is simply echoing Obama’s distaste for the people of Israel and their voting patterns, distancing the US from Likud while presuming to befriend an Israel that has been governed by Likud for the better part of four decades. The nonvitation is personal and should be seen, and ignored, as such. 

While the aging Democrats in Congress still support Israel, that support is muted whenever it conflicts with administration goals. Biden’s harsh rhetoric towards Israel’s elected government, his disparagement of Israeli democracy (while he tramples on the norms of American democracy!), and his shameless interference in Israel’s domestic affairs and internal governance are a continuation of that Obama distaste. That contempt is mirrored in the gamesmanship over the Bidenvitation as well as the stumbling blocks Biden is placing on the road to normalization with Saudi Arabia. 

There is a valuable life lesson is this as well. Sometimes the best way to get something is by not showing you really want it. Pronouncements from Israel along the lines of “there really is no need for a personal visit,” “we have constant open lines of communications,” “we are busy developing  our relations with China, Russia, Africa and Europe” all signal to the Americans that a White House visit by PM Netanyahu is unnecessary and even superfluous at this time. When you show you don’t care about something you don’t have, its deprivation loses its force. You can’t hold something over someone’s head if their head is elsewhere. If and when the invitation comes during the American election year, Israel should be coy about accepting it immediately, not wanting to become embroiled in America’s political maelstrom. If an important issue arises, a phone call works just as well, and requires no strings and preparation.

Of course the Israeli media will not stop talking about the nonvitation, a convenient tool with which to disparage the prime minister. All the more reason for this government to assert that it is not seeking a Bidenvitation at all as the alliance is strong and is based on shared interests and values far more than on breaking bread, drinking coffee, posing for pictures in the Oval Office or enduring a state dinner. And the demands on Israel to have such a meeting will be extreme. It is not worth it, certainly not when Joe Biden is undermining American democracy with his incessant attacks on the US Supreme Court. Let President Herzog enjoy his visit and photo ops. He can’t concede anything, anyway. 

Those who keep wishing for a Bidenvitation should be extremely careful what they wish for. And that is no fable.

     Did you hear about the fellow who kidnapped a hostage and then threatened to kill himself if his demands were not met? That is essentially what the BIG chain of shopping stores is doing by threatening to close all its stores on Tuesday if any part of the judicial reform package is passed in the Knesset. “I have a gun to my head! Don’t make me do it!”

      And if they close? Well, I personally would go to the mall across the street to do my shopping, and probably continue for the indefinite future. No one can force BIG to remain open, just like no one can force any consumer to shop there anytime. Fortunately, Israel has no shortage of malls and shopping centers that accommodate the needs of every consumer and does not wish to irritate more than half the population. Isn’t BIG aware of the backlash in the United States against major corporations because of their unwelcome and short-sighted intrusion into polarizing politics? Hasn’t BIG heard of the boycott of Bud Light, once one of the most popular beers in America, which has now fallen well out of the top ten because of its embrace of woke idiocies? Ditto with the chain of Target department stores that has lost billions of dollars of valuation and seen its stock plunge. And Disney has provoked its own boycott because of its opposition to certain legislation in Florida that protected parental rights in education.

     A BIG strike on Tuesday could leave BIG very SMALL on Wednesday, and for days and weeks afterward. And for what?

      The judicial reforms have been so watered down that they amount to tweaks rather than real reforms. The legislation proposed this week will modify the “reasonableness clause” that Israel’s Supreme Court has used for decades to nix legislation, policies, and appointments. The proposal will only deprive the Court of the right to invalidate government appointments. This legislation is far less a threat to democracy than is a Supreme Court that is unelected, unresponsive, and unaccountable to the people, and deigns to rule from on high (indeed, it occasionally sits as the High Court of Justice) imposing its personal preferences on the people and the politicians the people elected to govern.

     Should the Court be able to disqualify a nominee because it is “unreasonable” that such a person serve? The predicate is the attempt to appoint Aryeh Deri, a convicted felon, to a ministry. Is it “reasonable” that a convicted felon serve in any government capacity? Notwithstanding that Jews believe in repentance, the appropriate procedure in a refined democracy would be to pass legislation barring a convicted felon from serving in such capacity. There is no such law (which I would support); this government will not pass such a law, but the preceding left-wing government also did not pass such a law. A nation that relies on an unelected, unaccountable, and homogenous (i.e., left-wing) Court to substitute its own rulings for Knesset legislation is not a real democracy. Knesset, pass a law if that is the will of the people, but the Court should not have jurisdiction over government appointments.

     Nor should the Court have jurisdiction over government policies, over the identity of award recipients, over freely entered business contracts between two parties. This is what makes the partial amendment of the “reasonableness clause” a contrived controversy that is generating artificial protests engendered by the two main drivers of this domestic strife: hatred for Netanyahu and hatred for the Haredim. The opposition to judicial reform is irrational; few can even articulate plausible grounds to oppose this diluted legislation and so resort to empty slogans such as “an end to democracy,” “down with dictatorship,” and sometimes just “1933.” If the protesters had even a minimal awareness of what they are opposing, why, and how, they – who are trying to overthrow the results of the recent election, shut down the society, and trample on democratic norms – should be questioning on which side of the 1933 divide they are actually on. Sadly, it is the side of the anti-democratic anarchists, not the side of the democratic, voting public.

      It is ironic that such a BIG deal is being made this week over this minimalistic adjustment. It is merely fine-tuning a legal principle that was never passed in legislation but just unilaterally assumed by the Court. This is democracy in action, not the masses of rioters, anarchists, criminals, and lawbreakers who are trying to “save democracy” while, in fact, weakening and even destroying it. They are mocking the rule of law. The Attorney General who refuses to enforce the law equally against all protesters should be summarily fired. The police who are refusing to follow the orders of their superiors – whether commanders or responsible minister – are sowing the seeds of such societal discord in the future that it should be patently clear that the protests are destroying democracy rather than function as the presumed trigger for the protests. One hopes that the Prime Minister, whose commitment to judicial reform is somewhat tenuous, will not again surrender to these threats.

     The bottom line is that the proposed changes to the “reasonableness clause” will not affect the life of a single Israeli. The substantive changes that are necessary are twofold: first, limitations on the Court’s jurisdiction to allow it to rule only on “cases or controversies” as in the American system (real people who are affected by real legislation and government policies) rather than the unlimited jurisdiction it now has to hear the grievances of every nudnik. This will preclude the Court from intruding on matters that are political and not justiciable. It will also, at long last, serve as a check on the Court’s powers, for which there are now none. And second, change the composition of the selection committee to reduce the Court’s influence to choose its successors. Make such nominations the province of politicians.

      The government should just do it already and stop pussyfooting, stop delaying, and stop allowing itself to be intimidated by the mobs. Once the legislation is passed, the protests will die down within a week or two. (Of course, they will never completely end as long as Binyamin Netanyahu is Prime Minister.) It is time to govern, in accordance with the norms of every democracy.

     As the BIG chain holds a gun to its own head, it would be prudent for them to consider whether they want to be merchants or political activists. I do not know the franchise arrangements and whether individual stores have the right to decline to join this ridiculous strike. I hope the stores can defy the corporate order. Merchants should appeal to the broadest base they can, not hack away large segments of their consumer base because of ill-advised forays into frenzied politics. The Haredi boycott of Angels Bakery worked; does BIG want to go down that road?

     Like the protesters who consistently threaten to destroy their own country, come what may, BIG wants to make a statement by destroying itself. They should think again, BIG time.

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

“So we see there are two ways in which someone can err. One is to speak so much “truth” with so little love that he is not actually speaking truth…They are not at all worried about pushing others away with what they are saying. Perhaps they even delight in the idea…”

“The opposite of this is an equal problem: to show so much “love” that you are misrepresenting the real love of God, and are forsaking God’s truth in the process. You are so afraid of saying something that might push away the one to whom you are speaking that you cease to say anything at all controversial or potentially disagreeable.”

So writes the American religious and cultural commentator Eric Metaxas in his recent book “Letter to the American Church,” of which 95% could be co-opted (dare I say, converted) and applied to the American Orthodox Rabbinate. Metaxas’ starting point was the anti-Nazi German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer who tried to arouse the German church in the 1930’s to oppose the Nazi persecution of the Jews. After spending several years in America, he returned to Germany in 1939, was imprisoned by the Nazis in 1943, and executed in April 1945, just one month before the war’s end.

Bonhoeffer failed to convince his clerical colleagues to challenge the Nazis for reasons some of which should sound familiar to us. They were afraid of antagonizing the Nazis, they were not that sympathetic to Jews in the first instance, they saw the big picture and wished to focus on teaching religion, or they just did not want to get involved in politics, controversies, or cultural issues. Bonhoeffer was horrified by this spiritual neglect and condemned them for their failures and the emptiness of the Christianity they preached.

While the Nazi horrors are sui generis, Metaxas sees a similar dynamic at play today in his denomination’s reluctance to tackle the cultural and moral issues currently roiling American society. He mentions a number of such issues. One, certainly not as weighty as the Holocaust, stands before us as we endure yet another “pride” month. For how long will we remain silent? The easy road is to say nothing, ignore it, move on, focus on other matters, and wait it out, even as the society built on certain moral (and biological) assumptions collapses around us. But it is because of that collapse and the effect that it is having on our children that silence is not an option, a simple protest needs to be registered, and a new path forward recommended.

There are no illusions, at this point, that we can have any influence on secular Jews, Israelis, or Americans on this issue. The “pride” agenda is one of the few things in which they actually believe as dogma, absolute and unquestionable. Dialogue, although not impossible, is difficult, for they have fabricated their own system of sin and virtue unmoored from traditional morality.

But it is the infiltration of this agenda into the Orthodox world that demands we raise our voices and state the obvious: the Torah world will never accept same sex marriages or the cult of transgenderism. Period. We should stop pretending that accommodation is possible. It is not.

For almost two decades now, any open discussion of these matters has been stifled by the well-funded activists, with the now familiar litany of accusations: any dissenting voice endangers their lives, encourages bullying and suicide, is cruel and unkind, insensitive and a waste of our time and energy. Those who oppose the agenda are, by their definition, haters, bigots, suffer from a phobia, and are all “obsessed.”

Some of these contentions are risible, others dubious, some debatable, but together serve the purpose of suppressing any free and frank discussion of what this movement has engendered in broader society. This is the linguistic playbook they use. A complicit media serves their purposes and advances their agenda.

And too many rabbis have responded with such banalities as “there are more important issues to discuss,” “this requires nuance” (a word that apparently means “saying and doing nothing”), “now is not the time” (the appropriate time never comes), or pandering to the mob out of an excess of sensitivity and compassion – while fearing for their jobs, a loss of respect, cancel culture, media attacks, and the like.

And so, we refuse to face the issue head on. Which means what?

It should be stated openly. The LGBT movement, especially in its Orthodox incarnation, is the modern rebellion against Torah, no different than any other rebellious movement against Torah in our history beginning with that of Korach. It makes no difference whether the rebellion is conscious or unconscious; rebellion it is.

The Conservative Jewish movement first strayed by abolishing the mechitzah in shuls, as part of its general conception of an evolving Mesorah. That revolution pales before the LGBT insurrection, which seeks to literally excise a prohibition from the Torah, mocks the very definition of marriage, denies the reality that God created human beings “male and female,” and not three or six or sixty-four genders, as some would have it. It is the very essence of a heretical movement.

Rather than be challenged and distanced, if necessary, as the non-Orthodox movements were, they are coddled, especially when they threaten to “leave Orthodoxy.” We then distort the Torah, and in the process cheat our children who think the Torah is cruel, incomprehensible, malleable, or man-made, and they soon lose respect for the Mesorah and create their own. Our youth are being raised to think that what is abnormal is quite normal, that what is unnatural is quite natural, that what is a sign of mental illness is just self-actualization that should be encouraged, patronized, and subsidized. No wonder there is such mass confusion, dysfunction, and unhappiness.

Increasingly, Orthodox Jews are being compelled (in truth, many go quite willingly) to participate in charade weddings, complete with “clergy,” rings, blessings, a chuppah, and, of course, the broken glass. All this in the guise of “maintaining the friendship, rallying around the family, trying to keep the child in the fold” that he or she has already left – and in the process, they betray what is most dear to them and trample on the integrity of the Torah.

It is all one big game of pretend, in which no one is allowed to state the quiet part aloud: the emperor has no clothes! It is not that he is wearing alternative garb.

Do we ponder the ramifications of celebrating a sham wedding that defiles the very concept of marriage and family?

Do we even take a moment to consider that a four-year-old girl who thinks she is a boy needs her parents to take her to a competent mental health professional – not a surgeon?

It is hard to imagine a greater act of child abuse to which children – teens and younger – are being subjected, and all in the name of the golden calf of compassion.

Can’t we just admit that the pronoun game (individuals thinking they are plural) or the therian game (people thinking they are really animals) – is silly, and disturbing? Can’t we state publicly that an obvious-looking man or woman who claims to be non-binary is nonsensical? We help no one by mainstreaming mental illness or by egging on people who need therapy. And those who do not protest are accomplices to a rebellion against Torah.

Metaxas writes that many clergy fear being seen as “religious legalists rather than as loving and compassionate…” But he avers powerfully, “at what point does our silence encourage someone along in their sin and in their path away from God?” Indeed, one of the few prohibitions that remain is the contemporary one that abjures judgmentalism and declares that it is wrong to assert that sins are sins, banned by the Torah.

For too long we have been playing semantic games, such as “it is no sin to be a homosexual, but only to commit homosexual acts.” That is a distinction without a difference, and a vacuous one at that. Just reflect on how inane it sounds in other contexts. For example, it is not against the Torah to be a thief, only to steal. It is not against the Torah to be a murderer, only to murder. But what makes one a thief or a murderer? Only by stealing something or murdering someone. But we would not say that a thief is always stealing, or a murderer is always murdering someone, nor would we term someone with larcenous tendencies a thief or homicidal tendencies a murderer.

Deeds matter more than do thoughts or fantasies. But why then do we dance around the issue that a homosexual is one who has committed homosexual acts and not one who just has tendencies. No one’s tendencies are proscribed, only actions, as we all have sinful tendencies. But it is because the “pride” lobby – the only sin which has such a lobby – is purposely trying to dilute the gravity of the sin and excuse the sinner.

Certainly, we must love all sinners, including the homosexual. But is it really an act of love to ignore, rationalize, or celebrate his sin? Isn’t that really the opposite of love – to condemn someone to a life of sin without trying to help them overcome their urges and re-channel their energies? Do we really love the alcoholic when we ply him with liquor? Do we really love the slanderer when we feed her gossip so that she will then share it with others? Do we really love the adulterer when we procure for him new paramours because that is what he desires? Do we really love the thief when we suggest a ripe target?

There is an impasse in any reasoned discussion of these matters, given the threats, litigation, and cultural dominance, and because we have split into two camps. One camp fully embraces the new immorality as sacred and inviolable and demands legitimacy and acceptance from the Torah world – or else. They wish to control public discourse and impose their will on our schools, shuls, institutions, culture, and children. They have intimidated into silence most rabbis and opinion shapers in Jewish life.

The second camp – call them the traditionalists – pretend these groups do not exist, wish they would disappear, and, officially, hardly acknowledge their presence. This stagnation has caused many in the modern Orthodox camp to just surrender, accept the inevitability of their ultimate acceptance in Jewish life, and with it the loss of credibility of modern Orthodoxy as a Torah movement or ideology.

Is there a way out of this morass? Yes, but it requires an honest conversation heretofore lacking.

The approach is straightforward. To the groups and activists, nothing. They need to be told in every forum, clearly and unequivocally, that the Torah is not changing, and recognition is not forthcoming. Orthodox institutions that celebrate same sex weddings are as Orthodox (and faithful to Torah) as are Orthodox institutions that would celebrate interfaith weddings that take place on Yom Kippur and serve pork.

In the public discussion of these issues, we must revive the language of sin, right and wrong, objective truth, morality, and G-d’s will as embodied in the Torah, as well as the Torah’s immutability.

To the groups and activists, nothing. It is sufficient to restate our objections and try to remove the matter from the public domain. (It would be prudent just to ignore the parades. It should be noted, however, that polls show that anywhere from 70-87% of Jerusalemites oppose having a pride parade in the holy city. Funny how the media trumpet polls showing the Likud’s or the judicial reforms’ unpopularity – and then ignore these polls which reflect the people’s desire to safeguard the sanctity of Yerushalayim.)

We owe nothing to a group. But the individual is different. As rabbis have always done, to the individual struggling privately with same sex attraction, to their families who rightly love them and want to help them, we must offer safe counsel, sound guidance, and compassion without indulging or celebrating sinful behavior. There must be assistance provided to those who desire to overcome these passions or are otherwise plagued by gender confusion or some other dysfunction, if and where possible.

We should reiterate that no person has the right to blackmail family, friends, or communities into violating the Halakha or their consciences. No child has the right to say to a parent, “prove your love for me by eating this ham sandwich with me.” Privately we should encourage the parents to love and guide their wayward children, as we would privately encourage those children to observe as many mitzvot as they can – but never, ever, compromise a Torah value, eradicate, or celebrate a prohibition or make a mockery of all that is holy by sham ceremonies.

To the secular activists, wrapped in the euphoria of their current embrace by society’s elites, there is little that can be said, except perhaps, that they too should show tolerance to those who disagree with them. Yes, we retain the right to openly disagree with them, to respect and cherish the Torah’s morality, and even to publicly encourage its observance. The bullying of the activists has already unleashed a backlash, as we have recently seen in America with the boycotts of Bud Light, Target, the anti-Catholic mockery of LA Dodgers, etc. This will continue.

Cancel culture is a travesty – but it is also a two-way street. We should respond, without fear or rancor, by eschewing platitudes (compassion is a value but it is not the only or even primary value in Jewish life; misplaced mercy has always been a bane of Jewish existence) and by reinforcing the Torah’s morality at every opportunity in a pleasant and winsome way without compromising one whit. That would be courageous in today’s environment – and that would also be what once defined leadership.

Why even write about this subject when every word here has been stated and restated? So that we do not normalize and incentivize such behavior by indifference, by failure to protest. It is clear that the social media contagion has greatly contributed to the expansion of these movements, the confused identities of young people, and the concomitant assault on Torah and the Jewish family. Let it not be said that no voice was ever raised in protest.

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

     The headline alone must send shivers down some people’s spines.

      It has become fashionable in Israel to repudiate any notion of a medinat halacha, a state that is run according to Jewish law. Religious politicians who utter the phrase are forced to retract, and still its mere utterance clings to their biography as an obvious indication of their venality. Prime Minister Netanyahu has taken to beginning almost every speech about the judicial reforms with a disclaimer that “we are not creating a halachic state.” It is true that the judicial reforms do not envision a Torah state. Unspoken is that such a declaration by the PM and others repudiating a halachic state should be a point of pride; it is actually a point of shame.

     The greatest fear of a medinat halacha pertains to enforcement and punishment. The specter of Iran, the Ayatollahs, the Revolutionary Guards and the morality police always lurk in the background, as if for us – what would be misnamed a theocracy – is actually a bludgeon that would be used to beat people, suppress them, and make their lives miserable. Such an approach is the product of much ignorance and not a little tendentiousness.

      Even when the Sanhedrin functioned, enforcement of halacha in personal matters was rare and punishment – especially capital punishment – was almost non-existent. The Talmud (Makkot 7a) states that a Sanhedrin which executed an offender once every seven years – perhaps even once every seventy years – was considered a bloody, violent Sanhedrin. What detractors of the halachic state seem not to realize is that coercion of religious practice, including but even without punishment of offenders, is a failure of religion, not its success. To compel someone to engage in a religious ritual or requirement is almost by definition not construed as service of God – but rather service of man, and service of man that is prompted by fear of man and not reverence for or love of God. That is the degradation of faith and the opposite of what the Torah desires for us. Somehow, as implicit in the story of King Shlomo and the two mothers (I Melachim 3:16), harlots plied their trade while the First Temple stood. From other sources it is clear that that the same occurred during the Second Temple era within shouting distance of the holiest site on earth. It is certainly not that it was encouraged, God-forbid, but there are limits to human enforcement.

     If so, once we get beyond the fears that there will be mass executions for driving on Shabbat and floggings for pork eaters (personally, I would not object to public lashing of abusive spouses or child abusers, but that’s me), what else exercises the detractors? To be sure, there are many who perceive halacha only through the prism of those groups that choose the most stringent opinions and make them normative and are otherwise less than fully engaged in building, defending or developing the nation. That is also the product of ignorance of halacha, as if Jewish law demands that every person must wear black and white (never a color) and women should never be seen in public. That was never the norm in Jewish life – especially when we were governed according to Jewish law. People whose only frame of reference for a Torah state is the fear of enforcement sadly miss the point; indeed, some fear punishment for their own sins while some fear the missed opportunity to punish others for their sins. Both are misguided.

     Every sophisticated pulpit rabbi knows how to make the halacha “user friendly,” to be colloquial, which is not to say that everything every person wants to do must be accommodated by Jewish law. Sometimes the answer is “no,” and that “no” is conveyed in a way that reinforces to the questioner the beauty of the halachic system and how such conduct is unworthy of a servant of God. And sometimes the answer is “yes,” depending on the halachic reality, person, the question, and other factors.

     Much of Jewish law already pervades Israeli society – Shabbat, the holidays, tzedakah, the primacy of Torah study – although we could certainly improve our fulfillment of the mitzvot between people in the way we talk to each other, drive on the roads, and care for the underprivileged.  And Jewish civil law is used in legal adjudications in the Israeli court system although not as often as it could or should be (based on the Foundations of Law Act, 1980). Of course, it is not as if a halachic state will change little or nothing, for that would mean it is superfluous in a modern society.

     The primary fear engendered by the imaginary bogeyman known as the medinat halacha seems to be the perceived loss of freedom for the non-observant to do what they want to do when they want to do it. These fears are stoked by people who delight in exposing extreme halachic opinions that are either distorted or not normative. But law by its very nature – secular or Torah – places limits on what we may or may not do, whom we may marry and how many at one time, how we conduct ourselves in public, and what obligations and rights individuals possess in society. The question really is what is the provenance of the value system that underlies the law? Is Western law, with its disconnect from all that is godly and the human degradation, corruption, unhappiness, and decadence it has often produced, morally superior to Jewish law? Actually, I think it is morally inferior, and the moral confusion it has sowed among youth, the god of materialism that it exalts, and the declining population in Western countries, is living proof of that.

     The transition to a halachic state will require some adjustments to modernity, but which are already found within the system. Leading sages have pointed out that the classic rules of evidence (e.g., crimes must be witnessed by two qualified and unrelated witnesses who forewarn the criminal) are hard to sustain in a society where crime is rampant but already in biblical times the king – in our case, a duly elected government – was able to act extra-judicially in order to promote the general welfare of society. But the burden of proof generally required to prosecute illicit conduct should itself comfort the detractors who feel that a medinat halacha would encroach on their private, personal conduct. It never did, it is easy to see why it did not, and impossible to see how it ever could.

     Additionally, litigation usually involves the resolution of clashing rights of two individuals or groups. I would prefer that the values underpinning those rights be grounded in the eternal Torah than in some transient human concoction. After all, that is what should be expected of a Jewish state – not the pale mimicry of foreign laws and values but the expression of the greatness of Judaism and our Torah.

      Beyond that, what are the advantages of a medinat halacha? There would be nothing wrong with gently and lovingly encouraging the observance of Jewish law. Living a halachic life – besides heeding God’s will – provides a sense of discipline, self-control, and meaning. It is abundantly clear that being observant is not a contradiction to having a full and consequential life. That is why we find Orthodox Jews who are lawyers and doctors, generals and engineers, tycoons and scientists, and even rabbis. The observant life does not require that we run away from society but that we engage it and sanctify it.

       Recent studies have shown that observant Jews tend to be happier people. (Not everyone, of course. I know some gloomy people but often that entails their personal struggle to rein in instinctual tendencies that are prohibited and thus they live with internal dissonance. And as a general rule, the more unhappy the person, the more he or she feels the need to poke around in the private lives of others.) But having a purposeful life with built-in times for reflection on deeper issues, like Shabbat, is almost a guarantee of greater happiness and productivity in life. These are not merely mercenary considerations but rooted in the very gift of Torah and the land of Israel to the Jewish people.

     As such, failure to evolve into a medinat halacha is actually counterproductive. Such a state would enhance people’s lives, have greater respect for human dignity, and better marshal society’s resources to help the needy in all spheres. It would ensure that the law is applied equally and fairly to all and not, unfortunately, as we perceive the prevailing legal system today. Worse, it is self-defeating! Our very claim to the land of Israel is based on the Torah. Ignoring the Torah undermines that claim, as there is no cogent or incontrovertible secular claim to this land. And as history has taught us, Jewish possession of the land of Israel is dependent on its level of observance, a point reiterated constantly in the Torah and the prophets.

     Obviously, this has to be a gradual process as so many modern Jews are estranged from Torah observance, many through no fault of their own.  As such, perhaps it would be wise to begin with the Torah’s commandments, leaving aside rabbinic enactments and customs until observance takes root in a majority of the population.  Ironically, a Jewish nation that honors and observes the Torah could ease some of the perceived burdens the secular population often complains about. For example, many authorities (including Rav Shimon Shkop) assumed that when the Jewish state would be established public transport could operate on Shabbat in a way that was acceptable according to Jewish law. In a secular state, such would lead to the disappearance of Shabbat and make a mockery of what is termed a “Jewish” state; in a Torah state, such could enhance the observance of Shabbat for all.

     Perhaps we are not yet ready for a medinat halacha, and of that we should be ashamed, not proud. A proud Jew yearns for the implementation of the Torah system as he or she does for the Messianic era. Those who dread it do so either because they do not believe in the Torah, do not properly understand it, or wrongly compare it to the governance of communities in the exile. 

     We are heading in that direction in any event; as the Midrash (Mechilta Yitro) states, “God would not save a nation that is forever disloyal.” The false allure of Western progressivism still lingers in a segment of society and has to fade away. The fears of a medinat halacha also have to be assuaged, and one way to do that is for good people to stop demonizing it, disparaging it, apologizing for it, or running away from it. That requires education, patient and loving, accompanied by the realization on the part of today’s detractors that the halachic life is rich and fulfilling, speaks to everyone, challenges but also gratifies us, and is fully applicable to a modern state. Surely there will be bumps in the road and much discussion about the details but nothing we can’t handle as a nation. A good beginning might be a proclamation, similar in spirit to Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which enunciates our basic principles and aspirations to be a holy nation.

     What could also diminish the fear and even increase the enthusiasm for a halachic state would be fostering the notion that such a state would be open, embracing, and joyous rather than angry and repressive. It would certainly help that cause if religious, observant Jews always reflected the Torah’s openness, depth and joy. When we model the Torah personality, or at least strive to do so, it increases respect and love for Torah.

     On the 75^th anniversary of Israel’s independence, it is appropriate to acknowledge God’s gift of the restoration of Jewish sovereignty to the land of Israel. But we should acknowledge as well that God’s gifts were not limited to the land of Israel alone but also encompassed the Torah that was to be the governing constitution of that land. May we soon be worthy!