Q&A: Haredim and the State
Haredim and the State
Question
I heard a Haredi claim saying that nothing may be imposed on the Haredim at all—military service, taxes, or any participation in the state—because they were not interested in the establishment of the state in the first place, and they were here before the state, and the state was established against their will. Therefore, the secular people and the Religious Zionists should deal by themselves with the burden of security and the economy that they created. Is there any logic to this? After all, when you really think about it, if they truly were not interested in the state and it was established against their will, and they were here קודם (assuming that is historically correct), how can one demand that they be partners in the state?
Answer
Another stupid claim that can only be explained by the distress they feel. They were not here first. There was a tiny minority in Jerusalem, and that was all. And even if it were true, they could at most waive the rights and the obligations; but to make use of the rights and evade the obligations—there is absolutely no justification for that. Beyond that, there is dina de-malkhuta dina, and the king does not need anyone’s permission for there to be an obligation to obey him.
I’m amazed that it is even necessary to explain why this claim is stupid.
Discussion on Answer
The law of the kingdom is not connected to ownership of the Land of Israel, since Maimonides rules in Laws of Robbery and Lost Property, chapter 5, that the law of the king stems from acceptance of the king’s coinage, and Maimonides’ source is in tractate Megillah, in the words Abigail says to David: “Your stamp has not yet gone forth in the world.” And that was in the Land of Israel. Meaning, the very acceptance of the king’s coinage (the legal tender) expresses acceptance of sovereignty even in the Land of Israel, which binds the residents and grants him powers of government. To the best of my knowledge, the Haredim also use the state’s shekel (and for this very reason, the Lubavitcher Rebbe could not have been the Messiah king, because he did not have the status of a king, since nobody used his coinage. What was called “the Rebbe’s dollar” had the status of merchandise, not currency, and there is a practical implication for the laws of interest).
The Ran’s argument only says that in exile the Jewish people are guests, and therefore it is permitted to expel them and they have no independent rights of their own (the king represents the host nation). In the Land of Israel, the king is not the owner of the land, so he cannot expropriate their basic rights, but that does not mean he lacks the status of a government that sets laws and regulations, since that stems from the very acceptance of the government’s coinage.
I commented on this a few days ago. How did the kings of Judah and Israel rule if dina de-malkhuta dina does not apply here?
See Rabbi Ariel’s article: https://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/782
This is another piece of nonsense from the Haredim, who keep quoting this Ran over and over without noticing that it simply cannot be.
According to this Ran, it comes out that dina de-malkhuta dina does not apply in the Land of Israel because the land belongs to the entire people, so the ones who need to decide are the entire people, no? This argument only strengthens the legitimacy of the state.
That argument is incorrect, so it doesn’t matter what it strengthens or why.
Although according to the opinion that the source of the king’s authority is his ownership of the land of the country, the halakhic decisors wrote that the Land of Israel is not owned by the king but by all the Jewish people, and therefore the law of dina de-malkhuta dina does not apply in the Land of Israel.