Justice Minister Yaakov Ne'eman made a suggestion in the Knesset that Torah Law be applied in Israel. The suggestion was met with strong criticism by secularists -- as would be expected. Minister Neeman responded that he was misunderstood; he was talking about applying Jewish Law in in regard to civil/monetary disputes. After all, don't we the Jewish People not already have our own sophisticated system of adjudication? This sequence of events in outlined in the following two articles.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260447411555&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3817093,00.html
The question that bothers me, though, is: whether the secularists could have really believed, at first, that the Minister was talking about Halacha in general and not, the area of his Ministry, i.e. the application of justice? It would have been simply ridiculous for Neeman to propose a broad and universal application of Torah Law given the nature of the public of Israel. It would seem to me obvious that he was referring to the further application of Jewish Law in the civil court system (as it is already applied to some extent).
It would thus seem that the secularists knew exactly what they were critiquing -- i.e. even the further application of Halacha in monetary matters. Was that because they just think that it is archaic and practically inapplicable? Was that because they really don't know about this side of Halacha? Or could it be because of their general feeling towards Orthodoxy and, as such, Orthodox Law? And could this perception be negative because they see such uncivil behaviour by followers of this system? Why would someone want the application of a system whose adherents are seen as generally acting, let us say, incorrectly? It is something to think about.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
4 comments:
Note also where Minister Neeman was speaking. The context of the comments was a congress honoring R' Dr Ratzon Arussi, a member of the Darda'i (Dor Dei'ah, founded by R' Yichyeh el-Qafeh, and most recently led by R' "Kapach" zt"l) Yemenite community as is the justice minister. R' Dr Aruzzi set up a court system for settling
financial disputes where matters can be settled according to halakhah.
In Israeli law, this is permitted and binding as seeking third-party
arbitration, if both sides agree. US law views halachic batei din
similarly.
Given that forum, why would anyone think he meant anything but fiscal law? Obviously a simple explanation -- malice.
BTW, it appears to be a common attack strategy to read your own spin into someone else's words, and when corrected, accuse them of backtracking. This is easy, since many "clarifications" really are backtracking. But in this case, context makes his intent obvious.
-micha
Very interesting articles, questions and comments. Thank you for posting them on the NISHMA blog.
I wonder though, and I pose this question to Micha and Rabbi Hecht, is it malice or fear?
I'm not completely sure why, but it seems important to me to make an honest distinction as to where the secularists are coming from.
While I have come into contact with malicious comments from secular Jews, and I have often thought them due to a generally negative feeling about Orthodoxy, your article makes me think that maybe their negativity stems from fear due to misinformation and therefore fear.
I know the situation is different in Israel then it is between secular and religious Jews here, still I believe we can draw upon the situation there to better the situation here.
There was an Israeli movie I once saw -- I am sorry but I forgot the name -- about a chassidic couple who had to get a divorce because, after 10 years of marriage, they had no children. The movie was very critical of how women were treated in the Orthodox/chassidic world -- at least as it was portrayed. My reaction to the movie was extremely critical. I was, to be blunt, furious that they so incorrectly presented Orthodoxy. It was simply incorrect and wrong.
My first response was that it was malice. They wanted to attack Orthodoxy by incorrectly portraying it in this manner. Then I began to wonder if this was actually what they saw. What if this was how they saw Orthodoxy, spurred on by incorrect charactures of Orthodoxy as presented in the press and as, unfortunately, demonstrated by some minor elements within Orthodoxy? In this light, what would I now say was their motivation? To right a wrong? Perhaps they feared Orthodoxy making inroads in Israeli society because of this understanding of it? Maybe they just wanted to help the oppressed women of Orthodoxy?
And maybe there was some combination of the two. Knowingly incorrectly portraying Orthodoxy because they feared what they did see and, in attempting to protect themselves, acting maliciously towards those they perceived to be attacking them. There may be a thin line between malice and fear. Our challenge is to figure out what we are doing wrong that evokes such responses (while, of course, also recognizing that sometimes just following a moral path will bring negative responses from those who wish to reject this morality).
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Rabbi Hecht,
Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response.
I agree full heartedly with you about our challenge "to figure out what we are doing wrong that evokes such responses".
As a religious Jew from a secular family, I sadly regularly see negative facial expressions around the topic of religious Jews, or even negative comments.
I think your articulation of the challenge is very important in a world that contains large rifts in the Jewish (and non-Jewish) world.
I will continue to think about this subject and the parameters of malice and fear.
Thank you.
All the best,
Sarita
Post a Comment