Q&A: Bummed out..
Bummed out..
Question
Hello, honorable Rabbi,
A few days ago I happened to come across you because I was interested in whether there are more satisfying answers to the question of whether there is free choice. I was also exposed to your wisdom, and until now I’m still excited to see a rabbi who deals with all kinds of wisdom and with questions I hadn’t been exposed to before (I’m 17, so there are probably still many things I haven’t been exposed to).
I read a bit from articles on the Rabbi’s site, and in one of the articles I saw that you wrote that you support the Zehut party, whose goal is to separate religion and state, allow public transportation on the Sabbath, allow marriages that are not subject to religious law, cancel the Hametz Law, and other laws whose existence goes against the will of the Creator. So my question is this: if you support this party, then aren’t you, so to speak, supporting laws that are against the Torah?
Answer
Hello Shaked. As a 17-year-old, there are also quite a few people you haven’t yet encountered. But I’m glad you found something beneficial in what I write.
In my view, coercion regarding commandments is worthless and even harmful. Usually such commandments have no religious value (because they are done under coercion), and the coercion provokes a backlash (antagonism).
But beyond that, even if there were room for such coercion, in my opinion it is not right for a secular state to do it.
And beyond that, democratic values are also values in my eyes, and therefore if the state coerces—even if one sees that as a religious value—it still contradicts democratic values. So there is a conflict here between the values of religion and the values of democracy. In value conflicts there is no clear way to decide; a person has to weigh what stands on each side of the scale. Therefore, even if there is religious value in coercion (and in my opinion there isn’t), that still does not necessarily mean one should support these laws. The fact is that today most of the public, and its representatives and leaders, have already reached the conclusion that it is not right to impose religious values on the public. This is a change from what used to be in the past.
Discussion on Answer
Shaked, why are you bummed out?
After all: Son of man, why do you sleep? Rise and learn the wisdom of the Master of masters, before the days turn and you sink into the depths of the rigidly fixed-minded. Quickly, run for help to the right people and ask questions of learned rabbis. Don’t forget to read supplications. The Merciful One will have mercy on us like a father has mercy on his children.
Rabbi, does his holy honor the Rebbe know of other “rabbis who deal with all kinds of wisdom and questions” whom one can consult, like on this lovely site? It seems to me that would have fit as an addition to the answer.
I’ll start, and the public is also invited to add more suitable people and places:
A new site that opened not long ago from the Yedaya Institute. As far as I know, if you contact them through the “Contact Us” page, they will provide additional answers beyond what is written on the site.
https://www.knowingfaith.co.il/
Values on the Frontline— a site founded by the Arachim organization, but what’s interesting is that they upload lots of articles and content from across the religious spectrum—from Haredim, Chabadniks, Machon Meir, and hesder yeshivot, all the way to content written by Christian thinkers.
https://rationalbelief.org.il/
Rabbi Cherki, Shalom Rosenberg, Nadav Shnerb, Rabbi Sherlo, and others.
I appreciate your answer, honorable Rabbi, but the point of religious laws is not that people should keep commandments against their will, but out of respect and in order not to offend those who observe the commandments. For example, if someone took a picture of your parents and burned it in front of your house, God forbid, and in front of many other people, you would be angry about it, and you would force that wicked person not to do it publicly, and certainly not in front of you. But if he did it privately in his own home, I’m sure you wouldn’t care. So it’s the same with the Hametz Law: in your own home I won’t force you what not to eat, but outside, show respect. And there are many people for whom it would be hard to avoid hametz if there weren’t a Hametz Law. And by the way, don’t you think that religious values come before “values” that human beings invented? After all, the values and morality of the Creator are the truest values and morality, and everything else is values that change with time and place.
And an unrelated question: I’d be happy to know whether the Rabbi believes in the holy Zohar, just so I can get to know the Rabbi a bit better.
(Sorry if there are missing words here and there; I’m typing on my cellphone and it’s a bit inconvenient.)
I gave examples above that are obviously not of that kind.
Beyond that, the comparison to burning the picture is incorrect. Burning a picture is an act that is entirely an act of harm. But eating hametz is just done because that person wants to eat. The fact that you’re offended is your problem. Tomorrow morning the secular person will say that your Sabbath observance or wearing a kippah or just your walking in the street offends him, and he’ll demand that you stop it.
Hello Rabbi Michael,
When the Rabbi refers people to Rabbi Cherki, Rabbi Sherlo, etc., does the Rabbi think that what they say is correct? Are there critical/basic points on which the Rabbi disagrees with them?
It isn’t possible to answer such a general question. These are people in whose words one can find good sense. That’s all.
By the way, a significant portion of the laws mentioned in this context are not against religion and Jewish law. For example, surrogacy or adoption for same-sex couples is no more religiously problematic than surrogacy and adoption for couples who publicly desecrate the Sabbath. On the contrary, a child raised by Sabbath desecrators will probably be a Sabbath desecrator too. But a child raised by parents of the same sex will not necessarily be homosexual himself. And beyond that, the wickedness of Sabbath desecrators is immeasurably greater than the wickedness of homosexuals who are facing a very difficult trial. Personally, I think neither these nor those are wicked, but if anything, I would prevent adoption and surrogacy from Sabbath desecrators rather than from homosexuals.