Notes on the High Court, Litzman, and the Sabbath (Column 102)
With God's help
At the farewell ceremony for outgoing President of the Supreme Court Miriam Naor, the ruling was read aloud, in which the High Court of Justice, sitting in an expanded panel of seven justices, affirmed the judgment issued by a smaller panel, according to which the Tel Aviv municipality's decision to allow some supermarkets to open on the Sabbath is legitimate. In recent days, the issue of the Sabbath has returned to the headlines because of the coalition crisis surrounding work on the railway and Health Minister Litzman's resignation from the government.
I would like here to touch on several aspects of these issues that have been on my mind recently, although there is not necessarily any connection among them: the government's conduct, the conduct of the High Court, Haredi policy on these matters, and of course the character and conduct of the "public discourse" (which these days is crowning Lapid as the preferred prime minister for the next two hours and dropping Shas below the electoral threshold for the next hour and a quarter, to the delight of journalists and pollsters).
The framing
First, the presentation as though this is a matter of religious people versus secular people contains a great deal of distortion. As I understand it, most merchants in Tel Aviv oppose the municipality's decision to allow supermarkets to open. Secular people, too, would like one day of rest a week (though among the shoppers, I assume, the distribution is different). Conversely, published polls show that among those who are not merchants, there are quite a few religious people who support opening supermarkets on the Sabbath in Tel Aviv, at least in certain areas. If I understood the chain of events correctly, it was specifically the General Association of Merchants and the Self-Employed that petitioned against the Interior Minister, and it is certainly not a religious body; it wanted to reduce commerce on the Sabbath and even eliminate it. It asked the Interior Minister to make a decision and of course received no response.
One can add to this the issue of soccer on the Sabbath. Here too, the process was driven by 306 footballers who petitioned to change the timing of the matches. I assume that the overwhelming majority of them are not commandment-observant, certainly not punctilious about every commandment, major and minor alike. People want freedom and quality time with the family, and not necessarily for religious reasons. But it is convenient for the media and various interested parties to present this as a war of religious people against secular people.
What do the Haredim really want?
The Haredi Interior Minister (Deri) did nothing about the supermarkets. He made some unreasoned decision merely to discharge a formal obligation and dragged his feet for about three years without complying with the High Court's demand that he explain his decision. The majority justices (and in fact the minority justices agree with them on this point as well) say in their ruling that this decision amounted to disqualifying Tel Aviv's new municipal by-laws without any reasoning, and therefore it had to be voided. So why didn't Deri do something? After all, he knew very well that with his own hands he was nullifying his own decision. Only today it was reported that Deri and the other Haredim (including Litzman from outside the government) signed a new arrangement granting government permission for soccer matches, railway work, and the opening of certain businesses on the Sabbath (as we recall, these were the grounds for his resignation).
So why is the government really dragging its feet? Why didn't it sit down, deliberate seriously, and make a decision? Apparently because even the Haredim[1] understand that the supermarkets need to be open, and they too are uncomfortable being seen as coercing others. They too understand that in the situation prevailing in Tel Aviv it is hard to justify such a decision (just as they would not want Tel Aviv norms imposed on them in Bnei Brak). On the other hand, they cannot express this opinion openly because of considerations relating to their electorate (after all, they would be crucified in B'Hadrei Haredim and Kikar HaShabbat), and perhaps they themselves are not prepared to permit themselves to acknowledge the legitimacy of such a discourse (The heart does not reveal itself to the mouth — the mouth does not reveal what is in the heart). Therefore they adopted the policy that passive omission is preferable.
In effect, the High Court justices did the work for Deri, Litzman, and Gafni, and pulled the chestnuts out of the fire for them. What happened is that the supermarkets will open, exactly as Deri really wants, only he does not dare say so; and now he and his fellow Litzmans, Gafnis, and Yogevs can calmly attack the High Court for being anti-religious and dissociate themselves from this "terrible" decision. It is possible that this was their plan from the outset.
This is a recurring pattern. In previous cases as well, the Israeli government and the Knesset thought that the High Court would do for them what they themselves did not dare and/or could not do. Afterwards, of course, they accuse the High Court of harming governability. They do not govern and leave the High Court to govern, and then attack it for doing so. How convenient! A real win-win situation.
"Not a secular or religious ruling": A look at the High Court
Now let us address the High Court's supermarket decision specifically from the opposite angle. For all that the religious and Haredi politicians do not really want to close supermarkets in Tel Aviv, it turns out that the religious justices actually do want that (they do not need to be elected or answer journalists' questions, and they are not Haredi either). Above the article on the Haaretz website reporting the ruling, the following subheading appears:
President Naor read out the ruling at her retirement ceremony, thereby bringing to an end proceedings that lasted a decade: "This is not a secular or religious ruling". The decision was rendered by an expanded panel of Supreme Court justices, by a majority of five.
The claim that this is not a secular or religious ruling takes on especially interesting meaning when one reads later in the article the following sentences:
In addition to Naor, the incoming President Esther Hayut and Justices Yoram Danziger, Yitzhak Amit, and Daphne Barak-Erez supported the ruling. The religious justices, Noam Sohlberg and Neal Hendel, dissented in the minority.
And for dessert, here are the closing lines of the article in TheMarker (which deals with an earlier decision to transfer the matter to an expanded panel):
The decision to hold a further hearing on the matter was in fact viewed positively by some of the food chains operating on the Sabbath. According to them, the High Court's earlier decision was based on technical grounds and did not address the Sabbath issue substantively, and it was reasonable that Justice Rubinstein, who is a religious man, would make decisions aimed at closing businesses on the Sabbath. Now, when the issue will be heard before a broader panel, there is a high likelihood that the High Court will decide not to upset the status quo, and will not determine that it is forbidden to operate businesses in the city on the Sabbath; on the contrary – it may even allow the general opening of businesses and not only the limited opening permitted by the municipal by-law.
The conclusion is that, in Miriam Naor's view, this may indeed not be a "secular or religious ruling," but for some reason, surprisingly and unexpectedly, when the matter came before Elyakim Rubinstein he displayed an inclination in favor of closing the businesses, and in the final decision by the expanded panel, five secular justices supported opening the supermarkets while the two religious ones opposed it. For some reason the whole world, apart from Miriam Naor, understands this. Well, perhaps she is not the sharpest pencil in the box, or perhaps there is some disingenuousness here?!
You will surely forgive me if I nevertheless raise the question whether perhaps this is, after all, a secular ruling. Or perhaps Naor means to say that the majority justices ruled professionally, neither religiously nor secularly, while only the minority justices ruled on religious grounds. This is roughly like what one can see in the letter from Esther Hayut, the new President, to the presidents of the courts, published today, in which she explains that the coalition between the Bar Association (Efi Nave), the Minister of Justice, and the political representatives on the Judicial Selection Committee, which was presented a few days ago on the program "Uvda", worries her because it is a political coalition. It turns out that the coalitions that had always existed there between the justices themselves, and between them and the Bar Association (in the past), did not worry her. Those were all substantive and pure coalitions, of course.
If these are the results of the legal discussion in the High Court regarding the supermarkets in Tel Aviv, what right has she to complain about the desire of political actors to advance their ideology in the Court? If decisions there are indeed made according to worldview, the obvious conclusion is that politicians will try to advance candidates who think like them. That is what they are there for, is it not? Was anyone chosen to sit on the Judicial Selection Committee because they are legal experts? Were they chosen by the public in order to appoint judges solely on the basis of their professional level? Then why not place members of Knesset as examiners for matriculation exams, bar exams, or university exams? Is high professional competence not required there as well?! This vile pretense on the part of the presidents and former presidents of the Supreme Court is an insult to the intelligence.
I must say that after I saw the aforementioned episode of "Uvda", I was not shocked at all. The flattery and the chasing after committee members are nothing new. The scheming and intrigues have also been there forever. That is human nature. Things have always been conducted this way, except that in the past it was done inside the clique, and then everything was excellent. Matters were quietly closed in the chambers of the Supreme Court justices. In my opinion, it is actually very good that this was exposed to public view (which is probably what really angers our exalted ones). Moreover, it is very good that there are now additional forces on the field and not only the clique of Supreme Court justices. If in any case this is about politics, flattery, and intrigues, then it is good that there be transparency and that this be on the table, and it is good that additional forces be part of this political game in order to balance the hegemony of the Rehavia gang (Gazza shtrasse) in the Court. At least now it will be harder for them to sell themselves to us as elevated figures detached from considerations of ideology and interests. Even until now it was clear to any sensible person that this was a crude and brazen false presentation; it is good that now it is already out in the open.
Haredi conduct
The one who ostensibly came out well from the whole Sabbath game is Litzman. At least one righteous man in Sodom is willing to give up (or his Rebbe gives up for him) his seat for the sake of his ideology. Even if I personally do not agree with his ideology on this matter or on others, it is still certainly a step worthy of appreciation.
But yesterday the solution agreed upon in the government and coalition for these issues was published, and that casts a certain shadow over this decision. The coalition agreed that Litzman would return to being a deputy minister with ministerial status (there will be legislation that prevents High Court intervention in the matter, as happened in the past), and the Sabbath permits, which as noted were the grounds for his resignation, will remain in force. Agudat Yisrael has in effect agreed to give official government permission for Sabbath desecration, so long as its own representatives are not members of the government.
A bit of history
The law in Israel imposes responsibility on all members of the government for each of its decisions. The idea is that the division of portfolios among them (who is Minister of Transport and who is Minister of Defense or Interior) is merely a matter of internal division of labor. Every decision of any minister is considered a government decision, and therefore the entire government is responsible for it. For this reason, the policy practiced in Agudat Yisrael was that its members of Knesset did not serve as ministers, because they did not want to bear responsibility for all government decisions, including Sabbath desecration and other decisions contrary to Jewish law. Again, a policy that, at least ostensibly, is certainly worthy of appreciation.
At some stage, Haredi members of Knesset began serving as deputy ministers with ministerial status. This is an excellent ideological solution, since it allows them to receive ministers' powers and positions without bearing the collective responsibility that follows from them. A problematic situation by any standard, but very convenient both ideologically and practically. You get only the rights without the duties. Seems a bit less worthy of appreciation, doesn't it?
The third stage in this saga occurred in the last term, when the High Court decided that such a situation was legally impossible. The Court required the government and the Haredim to make a decision: either Litzman would serve as a minister, or a minister would be appointed over him. Agudat Yisrael made a revolutionary decision allowing Litzman to serve as a minister despite the legal responsibility entailed by that.
The fourth stage has now arrived. The bill has come due at Agudat Yisrael's doorstep, because the government now has to make a decision about Sabbath desecration (and not merely turn a blind eye), and Minister Litzman bears responsibility for that together with the rest of his fellow ministers. As noted, Litzman chose to resign. Ostensibly this is a respectable realization of the idea of the ministers' collective responsibility and of the Haredi ideology concerning the honor of the Sabbath. But the matter is not quite so simple.
The meaning of this policy
When I thought about this again in light of recent events, my respect for this policy and these decisions diminished somewhat. First, the responsibility imposed by the law has legal significance. Morally, halakhically, and religiously, responsibility rests with whoever actually participates in the decisions and whoever could prevent them and did not. What is gained by serving as a deputy minister who does not bear the collective responsibility imposed by law, while by the very fact of his service he participates in and enables all those decisions (since without him there would have been no coalition and no government to make them)? Moreover, now that Litzman has resigned, does that change anything? By the very act of resigning he saved the coalition, since he will return to being deputy minister. Moreover, he himself initiated and was party to the decision to grant official government permission for work on the Sabbath. So true, in formal legal terms he is not a minister and therefore does not bear responsibility for it. But why should that matter from a Torah-ideological standpoint? It is like signing the permit with the left hand. If he granted the permit "in an altered manner," is he exempt?! Substantively, this is not even an altered manner, but only a legal workaround. Is there any legal responsibility upon a government that grants permission for Sabbath desecration? This is a perfectly lawful decision, and the law has no problem with it whatsoever. So what is the meaning of responsibility for such a decision? Does the Holy One, blessed be He, operate according to Basic Law: The Government?! The question of responsibility for such decisions is a religious one. Therefore the law's failure to impose responsibility on coalition members who are not ministers does not really matter in this regard. The halakhic habits of legal artifices and circumventions are being applied here in a different field, and in my opinion they are not relevant there.
And beyond all this, in the current situation things are ideal from the Haredi standpoint. They enjoy all the rights of membership in the government without the duties and without the responsibility. Not only does this impair the functioning of the ministry, for not for nothing did the legislature impose responsibility on the holder of authority, but there is no sacrifice here that deserves appreciation. On the contrary, this is like someone who "forgoes," in the bank's favor, the overdraft in his account and expects honor and appreciation for it. True, perhaps Litzman's car and salary will be a bit less lavish, but for that there is the Rebbe who will force him to do it.
One should not, of course, ignore the certain declarative value of such a policy. Agudat Yisrael shows the public that it is not willing to share responsibility for such decisions, and even if this has no real significance, there is ostensibly an important educational statement here. But the public may indeed be stupid, but not that stupid. Precisely these games arouse distrust regarding the purity of their intentions. Everyone sees this as a game of evading responsibility without giving up the advantages of membership in the government and the "coalitzman". If Agudat Yisrael cares so much that there should be no Sabbath desecration, then why does it participate in the decision to allow it? What, then, was the point of Litzman's resignation?
The meaning of the "alteration": Sabbath desecration and responsibility for Sabbath desecration
Sabbath desecration in an unusual manner has never been a particularly fine means of sanctifying God's name. Usually it actually arouses ridicule and a sense of unseriousness and lack of commitment. I do not share that ridicule, because it stems from a lack of understanding of the nature of the Sabbath prohibitions (which are not prohibitions of result but prohibitions of labor). But in the present case we are not dealing with a Sabbath prohibition but with responsibility for Sabbath desecration. Responsibility is not a formal halakhic prohibition, and therefore it is foolish to address it with formal halakhic tools. Here what matters is the result. So what have we gained if we brought about the negative result with our own hands, only we did so with the left hand? Does anything diminish Litzman's Torah and halakhic responsibility because he signed the permit to desecrate the Sabbath as a deputy minister?
Ideology and practice
One further comment that occurred to me in light of (or: to the darkness of) recent events. It seems to me that although at first glance there appears to be a praiseworthy adherence to ideology here, these processes actually demonstrate Haredi pragmatism. In the end, ideology is not really binding except as a general framework. Decisions are made mainly on pragmatic grounds. I suppose that if Agudat Yisrael were led by Har HaMor and its rabbis, no one there would serve as deputy minister for pragmatic reasons. Moreover, even if the High Court had barred the possibility of serving as deputy minister, they would have fought with utter determination and under no circumstances entered office as ministers. This is a very ideological group, and every step it takes is examined through its fit with ideology. Pragmatism, at least in situations where it is not anchored in a clear ideological line, is invalid in their eyes.
As difficult as it is for me to express sympathy or agreement with either side here (Har HaMor or the Haredim), on this point I specifically want to say a few words in praise of pragmatism. Ostensibly, adherence to ideology is the proper mode of conduct, and pragmatism is contemptible compromise. And even when one can advocate pragmatic conduct, that is only because pragmatism itself reflects values. It is proper and right to bend value X before value Y, but not before interests or surrender to difficulties. But in recent years I have matured somewhat, and begun to understand that there is something ideal, from the outset, about pragmatism. Ideologies are a dangerous and childish thing. The belief that ideology is precise and correct in every situation and every application is childish. Sometimes the ideology is a wonderful theory, highly persuasive and very charming, but like any theory it is not really true to practical life. Pragmatism gives feedback to theory and ideology formed in study halls and ivory towers, and corrects them. Excessive adherence to ideology produces tyranny, hatred, fanaticism, and an unwillingness to listen and think critically (not for nothing did I define the phenomenon of sectarianism this way in Column 19). In Column 62 I pointed out that the Sages determined that an enactment or decree that was not accepted by the public at large is not valid, and there too I argued that this is not merely compromise with reality but feedback from common sense to study-hall theories. Therefore there is something ideal about pragmatism.
So, then, Litzman is actually right. Perhaps. But of course pragmatism too has its limit, and beyond that it is cynicism. And the heart knows whether this is flexibility or crookedness…
[1] For our purposes, the Haredim are Agudat Yisrael, Shas, and the Jewish Home (which is a Haredi party in every respect).
Discussion
Two quotations –
The first is by Naor, from the ruling:
"The position of the Minister of the Interior is sweeping in nature, according to which the opening of every supermarket whatsoever must be prohibited – and in fact the opening of every business, save for an essential need – regardless of the city’s circumstances or the wishes of its residents. One may well wonder at this: if the solution is so simple, why was it necessary to spend more than two full years arriving at it? I will venture to say that once again the High Court of Justice has been called upon to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. After the High Court pulls the chestnuts out, it will be possible to say: ‘It’s not me (the minister) – it’s the High Court.’"
The second is by Rubinstein, from the decision approving a further hearing:
"The Sabbath is worthy – concerning whose status in the world of Judaism there is no need to elaborate – that its matter be discussed and clarified with the full range of positions before the Court, certainly in view of its broad ramifications, as a cornerstone and precedent for others."
– –
The very fact that a retiring judge reads out a ruling, especially when it concerns an issue rooted in the world of values, deserves condemnation. This reading is obviously meant to let the judge retire while leaving behind some kind of legacy beyond what emerges from his judicial decisions. The rulings are certainly not chosen according to the degree of casuistry or sharpness of legal reasoning. This is really sheer, brazen effrontery.
And a question unrelated to the post, but interesting – what is it about the Jewish Home party that makes it Haredi in your opinion?
Another thought about the decision to resign: I saw Rav Sherlo wonder why the Health Minister had until now been willing to take responsibility for the health system that performs organ transplants, while according to the rulings of his rabbis that is murder. That too shows that the decision is pragmatism.
Indeed true.
Its voting on matters of religion and state is almost identical to that of the Haredi parties. I explained here in the past that Bennett and Shaked of course are not Haredi. But because they are ignoramuses, they take for granted that the positions expressed by the Haredi (national-religious) group that has the gall to call itself, for no fault of its own, “the rabbis of Religious Zionism” are the binding religious positions, and therefore feel committed to them by virtue of being the leaders of the Religious Zionist party.
See my lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NjsvXiVtCM&feature=youtu.be
I noticed that the rabbi says about the Jewish Home that they are a Haredi party in every respect. I think that is a far-reaching assumption. Certainly Bennett and Shaked, who head the faction, are far from the Haredi factions in their views and decisions, and most party members are not close to the Haredim either.
I just answered that here. It’s not far-reaching but an accurate description. A party’s identity is determined by its votes, not by the identity of its members. A collection of monkeys or fascists or communists that always votes like Litzman is, as far as I’m concerned, a Haredi party.
Reducing identity to voting is very superficial. Voting is a very specific situation into which all kinds of considerations enter. There is also the question of what gets brought to a vote, and the question of what lobbying pressure is applied for. In addition, even if on laws of religious coercion the Jewish Home’s principled position is similar to that of the Haredi parties, there are other differences too, for example on the question whether they also want to care about the way religious services are provided to the public and the like (and “the like” of course also includes the question whether for Chief Rabbi they appoint someone who, even if you don’t like him, will try to do something positive, or whether they appoint a donkey or a pig in a hat who will help when necessary or because he is someone’s relative). I think it would be worthwhile to grow up on this issue too.
Note:
The Agudah policy of not joining the government is not new.
I find a great deal of sense in it. It has considerable significance, admittedly mostly symbolic, but still important.
For all the supposedly moral problematic nature of it, it is hard to find a better policy that would express this movement’s delicate attitude toward the state.
On the one hand, they cannot actually participate in governing because that contradicts some of the values most important to them; on the other hand, they are not interested in complete separatism and want to influence the public character of the state, which they accept after the fact and only half-heartedly.
Is it immoral to exert influence without taking responsibility? Maybe there is something to that. On the other hand, it is also immoral to exempt yourself from the duty to influence just because you are forbidden to take responsibility. I do not think the moral question is clearly decided here.
In light of your argument in previous articles that the question of Zionism has ceased to be relevant, I can understand why you find no sense in their behavior. In my humble opinion the question is still relevant, and therefore the policy can be understood.
And one more point: I do not think the Haredi representatives are preoccupied with how much esteem/contempt this behavior will arouse in the public. This policy is intended mainly for internal purposes.
"For our purposes, the Haredim are Agudat Yisrael, Shas, and the Jewish Home (which is a Haredi party in every respect)."
The beginning is difficult in light of the end.
Note:
The Agudah policy of not joining the government is not new.
I find a great deal of sense in it. It has considerable significance, admittedly mostly symbolic, but still important.
For all the supposedly moral problematic nature of it, it is hard to find a better policy that would express this movement’s delicate attitude toward the state.
On the one hand, they cannot actually participate in governing because that contradicts some of the values most important to them; on the other hand, they are not interested in complete separatism and want to influence the public character of the state, which they accept after the fact and only half-heartedly.
Is it immoral to exert influence without taking responsibility? Maybe there is something to that. On the other hand, it is also immoral to exempt yourself from the duty to influence just because you are forbidden to take responsibility. I do not think the moral question is clearly decided here.
In light of your argument in previous articles that the question of Zionism has ceased to be relevant, I can understand why you find no sense in their behavior. In my humble opinion the question is still relevant, and therefore the policy can be understood.
And one more point: I do not think the Haredi representatives are preoccupied with how much esteem/contempt this behavior will arouse in the public. This policy is intended mainly for internal purposes.
If ‘the Haredim are: Agudat Yisrael, Shas, and the Jewish Home,’ it follows that ‘Degel HaTorah’ is not Haredi 🙂
May it be a blessing, Shimshon Hershele Litvak
Thank you, our rabbi, for the fascinating article. I think it is Gordianly tied to the previous article.
When we are required to establish the state as a Jewish state that observes Shabbat, two paths lie before us:
1. To establish the public sphere, the symbols of the state, the atmosphere – as Sabbath-observant. According to this method, government work on a railway in Tel Aviv is forbidden, while government work in a remote camp in Dimona is permitted. Likewise – Sabbath desecration by a state symbol is ranked according to its role. If a prime minister travels to a diplomatic meeting on Shabbat, he may destabilize the coalition; but if it is only the Minister of Infrastructure and Socks – one can look the other way.
This conception, although it characterizes the religious public, is not a halakhic conception. It turns Shabbat in the state into a ‘symbol,’ a ‘religious character.’
2. A second way is to set halakhic priorities, what is permitted and what is forbidden halakhically to do on Shabbat. And since it is impossible to run a state without desecrating Shabbat, for example one cannot shut down the army and police on Shabbat, there is a need to make hard decisions: what is permitted and what is forbidden, what is more severe and what less so.
In the early days of the state, the issue was placed on the table, but the religious public evaded making painful decisions. It chose the easy path – to demand Shabbat only as a symbol, which was more suited to the Reform movement than to the Gur Hasidim.
I quote from Yeshayahu Leibowitz’s famous article on the subject:
"The problem of the Sabbath is the paradigm case for all manifestations of the real religious crisis confronting religious Judaism in the State of Israel… The main danger threatening the Sabbath is the helplessness and impotence of official religious Judaism and its public representation to fight a real battle on its behalf, because of complete lack of clarity as to the content and aim of such a battle. Religious Judaism has no clear conception at all of the actual, concrete, and realistic content and meaning of the Sabbath laws for a sovereign state and society of the Jewish people…
…Religious Judaism must give an accounting to itself and state clearly to the entire people of Israel what the image of the Sabbath is that it seeks to realize in the State of Israel once it has the power to implement it…
The failure in the struggle for the Sabbath and the internal contradictions in which religious Judaism becomes entangled over the problem of the Sabbath already came to first expression with the establishment of the state, in the affair of the unofficial public committee appointed on behalf of the Chief Rabbinate to prepare a draft Sabbath constitution to be submitted to the Constituent Assembly… But the Chief Rabbinate decided to shelve all this material and not use it at all, and likewise to suppress all the problems that had arisen…"
I recommend reading his full illuminating remarks: http://www.leibowitz.co.il/leibarticles.asp?id=3
And I would be glad if the rabbi would give his opinion on the article. The article reflects the religious public’s lack of desire and ability to decide difficult issues that modernity places before it.
Bottom line:
If the religious public had chosen the second path, which seeks as much as possible to establish a halakhic Shabbat in the state, then indeed one could mock Litzman for resigning from the ministerial post while continuing to support a government that desecrates Shabbat.
But since the religious public chose the first path, and turned Shabbat into a symbol, then the discourse is in the style of the ‘Committee for Symbols and Ceremonies.’ The government behaves in a way that symbolizes harming Shabbat; Litzman in response behaves in a way that symbolizes dissociating himself from that.
Symbol versus symbol.
Aharon
I spoke about the symbolism and explained why, in my opinion, there is hardly even symbolic value here.
For my general view see here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A3-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%99%D7%93-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%93-%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99/
More than Israel has kept the Sabbath – the Sabbath keeps the Government of Israel and the coalition, and it’s all a game, because as long as they’re getting money from the lord – all is foul in Zion
About the Haredim it is said: “Greater is one who benefits from the labor of his own hands than one who fears Heaven.” If the Haredim worked and served in the army, their position would have real backing. Now that they live at others’ expense, they are incapable of standing up for religion.
And the national-religious, who benefit from the labor of their own hands and serve in the army with distinction – do they have backing? On the contrary, they are accused of ‘religionization’ 🙂
As long as the discussion is between the religious and the Haredim on the one hand and the secular left that controls the media, academia, and the judicial system on the other – there is a problem.
Only when the traditional Jews in the middle awaken and understand that the Jewish character of the state primarily concerns them (for a religious Jew will keep Shabbat in any case), the Jewish public sphere is what will determine the atmosphere in which their children grow up, and it is what will determine whether a traditional Jew can find work without desecrating Shabbat – then they will understand that preserving Shabbat in the economy matters to them.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
To S.Z.L.:
I do not know the traditional public well enough, but I am not sure it stands with the Haredi parties in this argument.
Railway work on Shabbat and public transportation on Shabbat are not supposed to bring about a situation in which a religious Jew cannot find work without desecrating Shabbat. As long as Shabbat is the weekly day of rest, a person who does not work on it will certainly be able to find work. This is just scaremongering.
Abroad, for example, the seventh day of rest is Sunday, and yet there are railway repairs and public transportation on that day. Does someone who does not want to work on Sunday not find work?
A traditional person lives in reality. He may observe Shabbat, but among his close family there are people who do not. He probably understands that they deserve public transportation, and not being imprisoned at home on a day that is not ‘holy’ to them.
A traditional person has sons in the army. He probably wants them to get home for weekend leave in a reasonable way, and not to waste half their leave being jerked around on buses because of railway repairs on Fridays and Sundays (as Litzman suggested, moving the work to Fridays and Sundays).
With God’s help, 11 Kislev 5778
To Aharon – greetings,
The train issue is merely an excuse intended to drive another nail into the Sabbath as the weekly day of rest. What, after all, did they do until now when infrastructure work and road repairs were needed? Either they close the road for a few days or they work at night, when traffic is very light.
Eliminating the Sabbath as a day of rest is a clear interest of the big business owners. It is very convenient for the owner of a factory, supermarket, or large chain of stores that the profit-making business operate 24/7 and make money, money, and more money. The fact that this harms shop owners who want to rest on Shabbat does not interest him; let them collapse.
Obviously, the owner of the big factory or chain of stores and supermarkets will not hire a worker who sets conditions and throughout the year produces “with God’s help, here and with God’s help, there.” Every branch of the economy opened to activity on Shabbat means: whoever does not open on Shabbat will have trouble competing; and whoever is not willing to work on Shabbat will be rejected out of hand in the job interview. At one point I went onto MK Shelly Yachimovich’s website, and she speaks there about tens of thousands of people forced to work on the only day of the week when they can be with their families, because otherwise they will be fired or not hired.
Every economic sector opened to work on Shabbat, besides harming Sabbath-observant people in that sector, creates a precedent for other sectors that will also demand the right to make money, money, and money. If supermarkets, malls, and infrastructure repairs are allowed, then why not law offices, engineers, insurance and investment advisers, dentists, and the rest of the lot? They are all important and vital to the national economy 🙂 And how can we shut them all down because of the ‘religious coercion’ of old-fashioned clericals?
The religious and the Haredim will find themselves alternative livelihoods (or not), but whatever happens – they will not desecrate Shabbat. Those who will pay the price for greed joining forces with the desire to erase the Jewish identity of the people dwelling in Zion will be those traditional Jews, many of whom are not among the high earners, people whose voices are not heard in the ‘high places.’
Therefore it is important that the struggle over the character of Shabbat also enlist public figures who are not among the ‘religious,’ but for whom the Jewish character of the state and the rest of the worker, who should not be exploited like a slave on the altar of relentless greed, are important.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
There is nothing at all right about Litzman’s pragmatism. The Haredim (unlike the rabbi…), believe (or at least declare that they do) that there is reward and punishment even today. If, in their view, cooperating with the secular regime is forbidden because of responsibility for collective sins, that means it has a real-life consequence for them – they will be punished for it from Heaven (according to their thinking). To be part of the coalition with a “deputy minister with the status of minister” or not with the status of minister, and all sorts of nonsense of this kind, is to have your cake and eat it too, but from Heaven they will punish them in any case according to their own view. And if they do remain in the coalition, then that shows either that they have no fear of Heaven or that they don’t think it is a sin, in which case they can also appoint ministers of their own. In any event they come out as frauds. It is so typical of the Haredim to deal with how things look outwardly and not with essences.
In any case there is no reason to praise Litzman. Let us praise him when they leave the coalition (or at least when he leaves it, even if alone), or alternatively if he remains as minister.
The remarks of MK Shelly Yachimovich (which I mentioned in the third paragraph) about many workers being forced to work on Shabbat for fear of being fired are in her article ‘A Slave of Shabbat’ on the Globes website.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
The more jobs there are that require work on Shabbat, the smaller the supply of jobs for a religious person necessarily becomes. That is simple mathematics. The same is true of a non-religious person who wants the weekly day of rest on the same day his wife and children have it. So most of those people may find jobs, but on average they will be worse jobs.
And that is, in my view, one of the things that *really* must not happen in a Jewish state. But apparently it is more important that there not be women with prayer shawls at the Western Wall.
To S.Z.L. and Avi.
If you notice, I was not talking about opening shops on Shabbat, but about railway maintenance and operating public transportation.
Opening shops is a separate question, since there are known people who argue proven financial loss, namely grocery store owners who claim the competition forces them to open on Shabbat.
The argument and tension between the importance of a weekly day of rest and capitalist forces in the free market exists in many countries, see: http://izs.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%95%D7%94-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%97%D7%94-%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5-%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99.pdf
But the claim that railway maintenance and public transportation might cause a ‘slippery slope’ until all the liberal professions open on Shabbat is unconvincing. Operating public transportation on Shabbat is not supposed to lead to law and insurance offices opening on Shabbat, just as that does not happen abroad. The difference between the sectors is clear, and legislation can also entrench it.
With God’s help, November 29, 18
To Aharon – greetings,
In the eyes of a secular person who starts from a viewpoint that seriously weighs respect for Jewish tradition and the welfare of the worker and small business owner, it may be that there is room for distinctions and differentiations. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the tycoons and in the eyes of those who have inscribed on their banner the struggle against the Jewish character of the people and the state – there is no distinction at all: every permit to work on Shabbat will increase the appetite for additional permits.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
As an example of the first kind, which distinguishes between what is essential from the perspective of the secular public and what is unnecessary, I will quote MK Shelly Yachimovich, who wrote on her Facebook page in 2016):
"Hi, Shelly here. I will not vote in favor of Zehava Galon and Nitzan Horowitz’s public transportation on Shabbat bill. It is an extreme bill, harmful to workers, and it turns Shabbat – a day of rest, a day of rest with enormous social value – into a weekday, with all that implies.
The bill will not pass anyway, but the principled statement is important to me. Already today rest is being taken away from 600,000 poor workers who are employed against their will. A Shabbat with full public transportation is a noisy, polluting Shabbat, exploits drivers who will be contract workers, and will also lead to the opening of additional workplaces, and it will involve deep social harm.
I support the Gavison-Medan covenant, and partial and moderate transportation on Shabbat – shuttles to the sea, to national parks, to hospitals, and other sensible arrangements of this kind" (and there a link to the Gavison-Medan covenant is provided).
With God’s help, 12 Kislev 5778
From the discussion about repair and infrastructure work on Shabbat, it emerges that it is obvious and agreed upon that the train does not operate on Shabbat. From the memoirs of Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau (Do Not Raise Your Hand Against the Boy, pp. 124-126), it turns out that in the early days of the state this was not obvious at all.
The Ministry of Transportation decided to renew rail service that had been shut down during the War of Independence, and the first line slated to operate was the Haifa-Nahariya line. Since in those areas there is public transportation, it was obvious to the decision-makers that the train would operate on Shabbat, and a schedule was set that included trips on Shabbat as well.
The uncle of Rabbi Lau, may he live long, Rabbi Mordechai Fogelman, rabbi of Kiryat Motzkin, who received the schedule, was horrified by the expected desecration of Shabbat. After a night of sleeplessness, he rose early in the morning and, without arranging a meeting in advance, traveled to the office of Transportation Minister David Remez at the Kirya in Tel Aviv and poured out before him his pain and inner turmoil: "I am the rabbi of Kiryat Motzkin, and it appears here in the railway timetable. Mr. Minister, this is Israel Railways, but is this what we prayed for concerning this child? If the name ‘Israel’ is emblazoned on the carriage, and that carriage with its wheels tramples the sanctity of the Shabbat for which we gave our lives over generations – is this what we came to grace the dust of our holy land for? Is this our heart’s desire?"
The minister listened, riveted, and immediately picked up the phone to his director-general and instructed him: "I request changing the timetable of the passenger trains. We will not now speak of the freight trains; but the passenger trains on the Haifa-Nahariya line shall not travel on Shabbat or on the festivals of Israel. And on future passenger train lines as well, the Shabbat shall not be desecrated…"
The rabbi cried from excitement. He had expected a laconic answer of the type “I have heard, I will consider, I will consult”; immediate compliance with his request he had not expected, and he thanked the minister from the bottom of his heart. The minister, who accompanied him into the corridor, said to the rabbi: Your honor, a day will come when the people of Israel will yet long for heretics like me. A generation of heretics like the one to which I belong will never exist again." And the precedent set by the first Transportation Minister, David Remez – remained in force even after seventy years!
I am not sure whether such a thing could happen in our own day as well, but sometimes things that come from the heart can pierce the veil of cynicism, unbelief, and political self-interest and penetrate to the depths of the Jewish heart.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
This is an exemplary instance of corrupt decision-making. Mr. So-and-so calls Minister So-and-so and moves him to tears. The minister then makes, on the spot and offhandedly, a decision affecting the entire public in Israel, and that’s that. Just because he was moved. What about the majority of the public that objects? Who cares about them?! And with that we have been left until today. I really was not moved by this story.
A slippery slope refers to something legitimate that may lead to something illegitimate. That is not the case here. The railway work on Shabbat is itself illegitimate, even if it leads to nothing else. Railway technicians too deserve the possibility of resting on Shabbat, not only liberal professionals.
This pragmatism is simply bankruptcy in setting priorities.
Avi –
I agree with every word,
I also think that work on railway tracks and roads at night is illegitimate.
I came back late yesterday from a wedding and saw poor workers painting crosswalks in the wee hours of the night.
What cheek and gall!
Why don’t they deserve to work like every normal person, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.?
Rabbanit Shelly Yachimovich must urgently be brought in.
Actually, on the contrary: maybe days of rest should be abolished altogether. Man is born to toil. Seven days a week, all day (with minimal breaks for sleep and food) seems reasonable to me.
Avi, sorry, but your reply is really beside the point.
Well, I assume these things were written ironically. Because if not – then these are really nonsense. During the day there is heavy traffic, so they do work at night. Workers who work at night are paid accordingly, and rest during the day. Someone who chooses such a job knows what he is taking on.
By the way, the same applies to Shabbat. The workers are not unfortunate, because they receive additional pay and compensatory rest hours. A day of rest can also be on Tuesday or Thursday. So at the base there is no social question here. As for supermarkets it is a bit different, because there the grocery owner is an individual and they force him to work 7 days. He cannot work on Shabbat and rest on another day.
My remarks were written ironically; Avi’s, apparently, were not. My claim against him and against S.Z.L. is about the confusion they create in everything related to Shabbat.
One question is railway work, a second question is public transportation on Shabbat, and a third question is opening supermarkets.
They use ‘social’ or ‘slippery slope’ arguments, which mainly belong to the supermarket question, in order to solve the other questions as well. So, as stated, railway work does not harm socialist values and is not supposed to lead to a slippery slope.
There is a very clear distinction between railway work and opening all businesses on Shabbat. Just as everyone understands that police activity, and even public broadcasting activity, are not an opening for all businesses to open on Shabbat.
‘Slippery slope’ concerns exist in many areas, and one must deal with them properly. One cannot shut everything down out of sheer dread and fear.
A point by way of illustration: the religious public often goes away for Shabbat to hotels, where chefs, waiters, and chambermaids work on Shabbat. Does anyone in that public ask himself socialist questions? Or fear the slippery slope?
The same applies, in my opinion, to public transportation on Shabbat. There are no concerns here of socialism, nor of a slippery slope. There is an essential need here of a large public that needs it. A public of lower socioeconomic status, without a private car, that does not believe in the sanctity of Shabbat and does not understand why it is being imprisoned at home.
In polls conducted recently, there is a majority in favor of operating public transportation on Shabbat, and there is also a certain degree of agreement even in the Haredi public regarding public transportation on Shabbat.
The question of public transportation on Shabbat is not a purely halakhic question. It may be that from a halakhic standpoint it is preferable that there be public transportation on Shabbat, because in that way Shabbat will be desecrated less, with fewer drivers per passenger.
On questions of religion and state, much of what is called ‘hashkafa’ – for example, whether a religious citizen may support a government that supports Shabbat desecration. These questions too should have been discussed with halakhic tools, as I linked to Prof. Leibowitz’s article. But nowadays they are answered from the gut, according to religious feeling, and therefore they do not interest me.
Working at night is a heritage bequeathed to us by our father Jacob, who pastured Laban’s flocks by day and by night. Not so desecrating Shabbat where no saving of life is involved. Even Pharaoh understood that it is desirable to give his slaves a weekly day of rest.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
The comment below in the attached link – is it yours, or forged?
If the response is directed (also) at me, you are attributing far too much complexity to my opinion on the matter. It is very simple: railway renovation does not justify work on Shabbat. Employment on Shabbat, certainly by the state and certainly in a Jewish state, is in my eyes an anti-social and anti-religious act. I expected, naively perhaps, that the religious and social parties (like Kahlon’s) would try to prevent this.
I did not argue anywhere for a slippery slope, because that is indeed not the main argument here.
To Avi, let us begin with the claim of ‘anti-social’:
Can you explain why employing workers for road work, on a permanent basis – night after night, is not an anti-social act, whereas employing them 6 days a week, including Shabbat, constitutes anti-social employment?
What is the difference? Explain!
The same applies to employing doctors and nurses, guards and gas-station attendants, drivers, and others who do night shifts – is it all ‘anti-social’?
The answer to this was clarified by Rabbi Michi in the response above.
And to S.Z.L. – is what is written in the comments in the link above correct? Do you really suppose you are named after Hershele of Ostropol?
Aharon
To Ḥaz"b – greetings,
Indeed, I raised there the hypothesis regarding the origin of my grandfather R. Shimshon Tzvi Rata’s family, from the village of Katina in Transylvania, from the holy community of Ostropol, and that for this reason my grandfather was called ‘Shimshon Tzvi’ after the two great figures who came from that city: the kabbalist Rabbi Shimshon and the wit R. Hershele. I do not know whether the hypothesis comes from the side of R. Shimshon or of R. Hershele :).
What is not clear to me is what connection that discussion has to the discussion here regarding permits for work on Shabbat. After strenuous thought I understood that perhaps from there salvation will come to the problem of work on Shabbat, since my cousin Prof. Shimshon Tzvi Roth (Zvi S. Roth) is a renowned expert in robotics, and no doubt he can be of assistance in developing robots that will carry out railway repair work on Shabbat, and a redeemer has come to Zion!
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
To Shimshon Tzvi Ostropoler:
The connection is as follows:
At a time when serious questions on matters of religion and state are being discussed, you bring supporting proofs from Jacob’s work and Pharaoh’s understanding ("Working at night is a heritage bequeathed to us by our father Jacob, who pastured Laban’s flocks by day and by night. Not so desecrating Shabbat where no saving of life is involved. Even Pharaoh understood that it is desirable to give his slaves a weekly day of rest" – end quote).
I did not understand where you got this from.
Until I found the above link, and judged you favorably that ‘perhaps the name is causative’ (Yoma 83).
By the way, according to the Ramban’s view that the Patriarchs did not keep the Torah outside the Land, then Jacob worked on Shabbat too, did he not?
I do not see anything anti-social about night work. As for some of the things you mentioned, certainly they are anti-social, and indeed there are values that override socially proper employment, except that I think renovating a railway track is not one of them.
To sharpen the point: in any case, as above, one must compare the harm to the value against the interest. In some cases the interest justifies the harm to the value (for example guards), and in some not. In my view the value of ceasing work on Shabbat is enormous, religiously and socially, and to impair it would require an extremely serious interest. I find very few such cases.
Avi, leave aside the religious value.
Suppose you are the Minister of Transportation, or the CEO of Israel Railways, and you need to shut down the track or the road for maintenance work for 12 hours.
You can do it in three ways.
Either during a regular workday in midweek, but that is very problematic.
Or during a night in midweek.
Or during the day on Shabbat.
Your workers are not Shabbat-observant (they may even be Arabs), and they prefer a Shabbat shift to a night shift.
Why, from a social standpoint, is it preferable to choose the second option over the third?
Because the existence of a fixed weekly day of rest should not be on the negotiating table when hiring a worker. It is not relevant at all whether the workers keep Shabbat or not, but rather that the fact that they want to rest (in their way) on Shabbat should not be an obstacle to employing them.
You are not answering the question at all (you are not making the effort to compare the options).
The fact that they want to sleep at night does not constitute an obstacle to employing them?
Why should the possibility of night work be on the negotiating table at all?
With God’s help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, “And Jacob lodged there because the sun had set”
To Ch.Z. Berger – greetings,
Regarding your great astonishment at what the heritage of our father Jacob has to do with a ‘serious discussion of questions of religion and state,’ two answers must be given, both from the side of religion and from the side of the state.
From the side of religion, certainly there is value in learning from Jacob’s heritage a lesson for our way of life, for ‘the deeds of the fathers are a sign for the children’; but also from the side of the state, there is a tradition among the people dwelling in Zion that they are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and by virtue of this ‘historical right’ the people claims a right specifically to this land and does not desire Uganda. It follows that even from the side of the ‘state’ one should see in the heritage of the father of the nation a source of inspiration!
However, I see another difficulty that you could have raised against me:
Before I came to learn from Jacob’s conduct in exile, where he worked day and night, I should have learned from Jacob’s conduct before leaving the land for many years – he lies down to sleep ‘in that place’ immediately at sunset, teaching us that in the Land of Israel life ought to be normal: the day for work and the night for sleep!
And Moses likewise bequeaths as a heritage to the congregation of Jacob in his farewell blessing: ‘So Israel dwells in safety, alone, the fountain of Jacob’; and the Netziv instructed his students that a ‘diligent student’ is one who eats on time, sleeps on time, and prays on time.
He who knows how to put a brake on his desire to work ‘from sunrise until the soul departs,’ who closes the urgent and pressing project and goes home in order to give ‘quality time’ to himself and his family – he will rise refreshed in the morning for an efficient day’s work.
And likewise, he who knows how to stop the race of activity in order to dedicate the Sabbath day to himself, his family, and his God – he is the one who will come refreshed and renewed to six blessed and successful working days.
Both night rest and Sabbath rest are vital for a person and for the family, and perhaps we are to blame for not waking up in time when they began to break through the framework and open businesses such as supermarkets and high-tech factories ‘around the clock’; ‘day and night they do not cease’ – those chasing money saw that ‘restlessness’ was good, and began to give up Sabbath rest as well.
Indeed one must return to the normal reality that limits work hours, not permit work ‘from sunrise until the soul departs,’ insist on closing factories and businesses at late night hours, and insist on the weekly day of rest, unless emergency services and life-saving are involved.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
As for repairing transportation routes – that is a matter of urgency but not of saving life, and therefore there is no escaping carrying it out at times when traffic is sparse, during the night hours; but there is no place or need to permit for it that which Judaism engraved on its banner in the Ten Commandments: the Sabbath, a day of rest and spiritual elevation.
Even from the standpoint of benefit to the family, it is better to work a night shift and then rest seven or eight hours, and be with the family in the afternoon and evening. Between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the children are asleep, and from 8:00 a.m. until afternoon they are in school or an afterschool program and the like, so that in the afternoon and evening hours, when the father’s presence is important – he can be at home even if he works a ‘night shift.’
Do you think the concept of labor-protection laws is right, or should the labor market be run purely according to market forces? If the answer is that protecting the worker is legitimate, when?
In short:
The whole affair of railway work on Shabbat is not only a problem of religion and tradition, but a symptom indicating a mental and cultural failure of modern man, who thinks that man is nothing but a tool for producing material wealth, and that whoever pursues money more is more praiseworthy, ‘day and night they do not cease,’ ‘from sunrise until the soul departs.’
Perhaps R. Yaakov Litzman acted well, for by virtue of his office as Health Minister it is incumbent upon him to warn against addiction to the endless pursuit of wealth, for which a person is ready to sacrifice himself and his family. Insistence on rest hours is among the foundations of the health of the individual, the family, and society, and the Health Minister did well to ‘bang on the table’ by crying out: ‘Enough.’
Regards, Tzvi ben Manoach
I have now seen an article by Kalman Libeskind that says similar things with further examples of the court’s “objectivity”:
http://www.maariv.co.il/journalists/Article-612121
With God’s help, on the eve of Sunday of the portion ‘How you have broken forth’
To S.Z.L. Ostropoler
What have you done to us… and brought guilt upon us…
You noted “on the eve of the holy Sabbath, ‘And Jacob lodged there because the sun had set,’” and caused innocent Jews to read the weekly Torah portion twice with the translation in Parashat Vayetze, and shame and disgrace covered their faces in Keriat Arba on Shabbat.
If you wanted to indicate the date according to the weekly portion, and also mix into it the matter of sleeping at night, you should have written “on the eve of Sabbath of the portion ‘And he arose that night,’” which appears in Parashat Vayishlach, where it is explained that when there is an urgent need, there is room to drive away sleep and slumber from the eyes.
With God’s help, Monday the 12th of the portion ‘She is more righteous than I’ 5778
To Ch.Z.B. – greetings,
You rightly caught me in the quality of ‘anachronism,’ that I am stuck in Parashat Vayetze while the world has already moved on to Parashat Vayishlach. Still, from where you came it is also proved that there is value to night sleep, even in severe situations of pressure.
Consider it: Jacob is in terrible anxiety. He hears that Esau is coming to meet him with four hundred men, and he understands that his face is set for war; and he prepares himself even for the dreadful scenario of ‘If Esau comes to the one camp and strikes it…,’ and pours out his fear in his supplication to his God: ‘Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him, lest he come and strike me, mother and children.’
As you mentioned, Jacob is forced to use the darkness of night to change the location of his camp, which he assumes is known to Esau, and so he has to move the entire camp, the tender children and the nursing flock, to another safer place.
I would have expected that in such a state of pressure and anxiety, Jacob would not be able to close an eye, and that right at the beginning of the night he would hurry to move his camp to a safer place. And yet that is not the case. Jacob does not forgo the night’s rest.
Before he sends the gift, Scripture is careful to note ‘And he lodged there that night’; and even after he commanded his messengers, the bearers of the gift, Jacob remains at rest: ‘So the gift passed on ahead of him, while he himself lodged that night in the camp.’
Only after good, calming hours of sleep do Jacob and his camp rise in the small hours of the night, in full alertness and freshness, and thus the crossing is carried out swiftly and the camp is ready for the morning, when the fateful meeting with Esau will take place, whether for peace or for war.
This is the quality of a leader imbued with faith, who despite all the worry and anxiety in his heart projects confidence and calm to his camp, goes with everyone to sleep while it is still possible, and wakes everyone up early, refreshed, for the fateful encounter.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger.
.
And Jacob’s deeds – a sign for David:
Just as Jacob, even at a time of danger and fear of Esau, finds time to sleep, so too David when fleeing from his son Absalom (Psalms 3), even though he knows that ‘Many are my foes; many rise against me; many are saying of my soul: there is no salvation for him in God, selah,’ he trusts in God that He will hear his prayer: ‘With my voice I cry unto the Lord, and He answers me from His holy mountain, selah’; and out of his trust in his God, he can even in this dangerous situation fulfill: ‘I lay down and slept; I awoke, for the Lord sustains me.’ And likewise in Psalm 4: ‘In peace I will both lie down and sleep, for You alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.’
Thus, rest is not only a means of gathering strength, but a religious act expressing a person’s trust in his God: ‘Into Your hand I entrust my spirit when I sleep and when I wake, and with my spirit my body; the Lord is with me and I shall not fear.’
With the blessing of a good night, S.Z. Levinger
With God’s help, 16 Kislev 5778
To R.M.D.A. – greetings,
I would not see anything wrong even in the implication of Rabbi Fogelman’s account, that it was Minister Remez’s emotional stirring from the rabbi’s words that brought him to his decision to cancel passenger trains on Shabbat. He was a leader in a democratic state, and that is as it should be, ‘a reflection of the landscape of his voters’; and in the present case, most Mapai voters too had a warm feeling toward matters of Judaism.
Even the ‘heretics,’ the people of Remez’s generation, who rebelled against religion as something they saw as delaying redemptive action, grew up on the Pentateuch from which they received their longing for the land of the fathers, and in their hearts there dwelt together an affection suffused with criticism toward the tradition of their fathers’ house; and the better among them aspired that this heritage not be alien to the younger generation.
All the more so, they took into account that even in the ‘secular’ parties, both on the right and on the left, there was a large proportion of Jews observant of the commandments and of tradition, both from Eastern Europe and from the great immigration from the lands of the East and North Africa, for whom the Sabbath was dear; and all the more so the voters of the religious parties, who numbered about 15% of the electorate.
David Remez, according to the description of his colleague Moshe Sharett, was a person in whom ‘what was whole and solid found expression in his striving toward the general average and the unifying… in the settlement and in the Zionist movement his place was with those who brought hearts together, with those disposed to cooperation, with the speakers of peace. Though he was a man of sharp debate, and whenever he spoke on matters touching the soul of the movement and the Yishuv enterprise a fighting temperament would be revealed in him – all his tendency was to straighten out tangles of relations, to reach common ground, to broaden the framework of shared responsibility. He was a devotee of positive agreement, constructive compromise; so he conducted himself in all his public roles…’ (‘Lights Have Gone Out – David Remez,’ on the ‘Moshe Sharett and His Heritage’ website)
Also on the subject of Shabbat, Remez acted as Sharett described him (ibid.): ‘His understanding was calm and his judgment measured and balanced.’ In the twenty minutes in which he supposedly ‘listened riveted’ to the rabbi’s words, Remez analyzed the question in all its aspects, ‘returned and weighed anew… the matter brought before him until he came to fix a position… in light of common sense and practical wisdom.’
And without the person standing before him noticing, ‘he gave a handbreadth and took two’ – he conceded a small concession regarding passenger trains on Shabbat, to which he had no great problem agreeing, as he explained to his director-general that the train would be treated like the bus lines in most parts of the country, which the status quo had determined would be shut down on Shabbat; and in the same breath he set a precedent that freight trains would indeed operate on Shabbat.
Remez gave up passenger trains, which were more emotionally difficult for the religious and traditional public, and left freight trains in place to continue traveling on Shabbat, where ‘far from the public eye’ they would not encounter public feelings, but would serve the economic interest, which was very important to him.
It is hard to assume that Rabbi Fogelman would have agreed, had he been asked, to such an outline that would allow the state railway company to desecrate Shabbat for an economic purpose; but the rabbi was not asked. He was so moved by the minister’s unexpected acquiescence and was satisfied with what was given that it did not occur to him to protest against what was not given…
In later years, in the discussions of Prof. Ruth Gavison with Rabbi Yaakov Medan, a completely opposite compromise outline would arise, one that would restrict economic and commercial activity but permit Shabbat desecration for leisure and culture.
Further on, God willing, I will point to several sources on the question whether religious public representatives may agree to compromises regarding Shabbat observance in order to reduce the prohibition, or whether we are forbidden to lend a hand to agreement on Shabbat desecration, even if such an agreement appears to prevent a greater desecration.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
At the time there was a proposal to institutionalize the ‘status quo’ by a Knesset law that would prohibit the operation of public transportation throughout the country and also prevent the activity of most factories on Shabbat, but would exempt public transportation on Shabbat as permissible. The issue was brought to the table of halakhic decisors, who weighed on the one hand the halakhic and practical benefit of reducing Shabbat desecration, against the concern over desecration of God’s name inherent in a state law that would permit, with the support of religious parties, Shabbat desecration in certain cases. See, for example, Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli’s discussion in Amud HaYemini, part 1, siman 11, ‘On the Laws of Coalition,’ pp. 78-80.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
Similar to this issue is the discussion between Rabbi D. Eliezerov, rabbi of the detainees’ camp in Latrun, concerning kosher certification for the camp kitchen that would prevent the supply of carrion and treif meat, but could not prevent problems of gentile cooking and meat cooked with milk and the like. Rabbi Eliezerov brought his proposal to the Chief Rabbi of the Land of Israel, Rabbi Yitzhak Herzog, who ruled that the rabbinate should not be involved in a ‘halakhic compromise.’ Their discussion appears at the beginning of Rabbi Eliezerov’s responsa Sha'alei Tzion.
S.Z.L., I already wrote that I disagree and explained why.
As for compromises, these are old matters. Their basis is in the words of R. Elai in Moed Katan 16 and parallels. See what I wrote here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwJAdMjYRm7IY0xlc1dmYTMweVE
(in the article for Parashat Chayei Sarah)
Koalitzman LIKE