http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4163399,00.html
Luckily, the matter did not erupt into violence...but it does reflect a serious issue that is emerging in Israel. Even the charedim have to start recognizing that they are not the only group in the country. I found it interesting that the Jerusalem Post quotes Chief Rabbi Metzger, in presenting this idea,as using the word 'we':
"We [the ultra-Orthodox] don't have the authority to force our ideas on others," he continued. "This state does not belong to the haredi community.I wonder, though, does he really speak for the charedim, especially those who would act in this manner.
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=249899
Perhaps, though, there is a more fundamental question that we should be asking, a question that may be quite apropos for this time of year.
What is the Torah view on Freedom of Religion?
(In the Commentary section of our website, www.nishma.org, I have some thoughts on this question if you are interested in taking a look.)
Rabbi Ben Hecht
2 comments:
I have two thoughts on the topic:
1- When the Sanhedrin saw that they were enforcing corporeal punishment (or perhaps only capital punishment, although their move removed the obligatory nature of lashes as well) on a population that had no interest in rite mitzvos, they exiled themselves rather than doing so.
2- Tochakhah (rebuke or talking out possible misunderstandings when feeling wrong) is only obligatory if you have a chance of being heard. You do not try to enforce halakhah when the action will cause more rebellion than enhancement to compliance.
I basically agree with your example from the Sanhedrin (although the application to murder makes this more than a response to rite mitzvot -- but that is for a further discussion). You do not truly educate through imposition and force.
There was something, though, about this case that makes it somewhat different than the case of the Sanhedrin. From what I read, the charedi individual was mostly motivated by a personal desire to keep the halacha as he understood it, not to educate the woman about her behaviour. It was not "I am offended by a woman acting this way" but rather "I cannot sit behind you so move so I can sit". It was not an imposition of values upon another per se but rather a personal desire to follow certain values which directly have an effect upon another.
This is not to say that such a realization would yield a different result. It does however further complicate the issues. In certain cases the charedim are not saying: You should abide by my religion. They are rather saying that in order for me to observe my religion, it would be necessary for you to adopt a certain behaviour. That is a more complicated issue.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment