Q&A: Are Progressive Leftists Regarded as Apostate Jews
Are Progressive Leftists Regarded as Apostate Jews
Question
As is well known, Rabbi Ovadia ruled that nowadays even someone who publicly desecrates the Sabbath (if he is embarrassed to do so in the presence of rabbis or something like that) may be called up to the Torah (and perhaps also counted for a minyan; I don’t remember), because in the past someone who publicly desecrated the Sabbath was considered an apostate in every respect, since public Sabbath desecration was essentially like leaving the Jewish people. He was presumably speaking about a traditional Jew from the public he lived among, who implicitly believes in God and the Torah but somehow lives comfortably with not observing commandments and mitzvot.
As for other Jews, their status is like that of a child taken captive among the gentiles, toward whom we are still obligated in the commandments relating to “your fellow,” “your associate,” “your people,” and so on. But what should be said today about progressive globalists who truly are not loyal to the Jewish people, who see their Jewish identity as some garment they wear and not something important, and who see their fellow left-wing globalists in other countries as their true “people”? Do they not have the status of an apostate, such that one is not obligated toward them in the commandments of “your fellow”?
It should be noted that this question has enormous practical implications, because in my estimation a very significant proportion of the Jews living here in the Land are like this in their hearts—that is how it appears from their actions. And of course abroad as well. Even when there is antisemitism and they suddenly remember their Jewishness, in my estimation that is only temporary, and afterward they always go back to their old ways, which shows that in their hearts they were always like that.
Answer
This is a complex question. Such people really do not identify with the Jewish people, but that does not necessarily make them bad people; that is what they believe in. In my view, even toward gentiles we have all the interpersonal obligations, and all the more so toward progressive Jews.
Joining a minyan does not depend on any of this. Someone who does not believe in God and in the commandments does not join a minyan. Someone who does, does.
By the way, in my opinion there are not many such people. They have a public influence that is disproportionate.
Discussion on Answer
There is some distinction by Rabbi Kook between three types within Israel: the religious, the national, and the universal. I don’t remember the details or the terminology.
I don’t think Rabbi Kook was referring to universalists whose loyalty is to similar-minded gentiles more than to the Jewish people (which by definition is impossible; as stated, that is racism). He presumably assumed that everyone is first and foremost loyal to the Jewish people. He certainly didn’t include the communists among them.
What kind of fantasy world is the rabbi living in if he says that the commandment “love your fellow as yourself,” the prohibition of hatred, charity, rebuke, gossip, and so on also apply toward gentiles? Is this some kind of joke? Is it forbidden to lend money to a gentile with interest? There are those who think one is even required to lend to a gentile with interest, if one lends to him at all. Did he miss the exposition that all these commandments apply only to “your associate”—someone who is with you in Torah and commandments? Are gentiles, the overwhelming majority of whom are either savages or unbearable hypocrites, “with us in Torah and commandments”? They are not even with themselves in the seven Noahide commandments.
And beyond the fact that there is no source for this, it is also absurd on the level of logic. Anyone who has ever learned even a little Talmud understands that these commandments apply only toward someone who is himself bound by these commandments toward us. That was the meaning of the covenant made at Horeb. Beyond the covenant of protection with the Holy One, blessed be He, there was also a covenant of mutual responsibility, and from that also came the responsibility of the collective for the act of one of its members in matters of punishment, as with Achan. Maimonides in the Book of Commandments writes this regarding all these commandments. And gentiles are not obligated in these commandments, and in general are even forbidden to observe them as commandments.
Interpersonal commandments are not morality; they are religious commandments. It is even accepted, and so too written in Maimonides, that even all the prohibitions of “do not murder,” “do not steal,” and so on were said only regarding Jews. That is certainly Maimonides’ view in the Book of Commandments: that some of us should not murder some of us, and similarly with theft, humiliation, and so on. And the prohibition on murdering and stealing from gentiles—especially in light of the discussion in tractate Sanhedrin—comes from the seven Noahide commandments, and is presumably learned from the principle that it cannot be that something forbidden to a Noahide would be permitted to a Jew, because when the Jewish people received the Torah they rose from a lower holiness level to a more stringent holiness level.
There is morality, yes, but it is not Torah, and certainly one is not obligated in the Torah’s interpersonal commandments toward gentiles.
Beyond that, it is not logical at all that we should be obligated in these commandments toward them with no reciprocal demand from the gentiles—though, as stated, in their inner essence they are religious rather than moral commandments. The Torah does not derive from our logic, but presumably it is also not supposed to flatly contradict it. And they are altogether forbidden to observe these commandments, just as they are forbidden to observe any commandment of the Torah as a commandment. A gentile who keeps the Sabbath is liable to death, etc., and Maimonides likewise writes that this is true regarding all commandments.
As for progressives—that they believe in this is even worse. So they are like Hitler, who truly believed that we are disease-spreading rats. Maybe they are not wicked, but they are fools, and a fool is worse than a wicked person, because the wicked person can still repent, since he distinguishes between good and evil. A fool is like a harmful animal that may be killed without trial. Progressives are enemies of humanity, not necessarily only of the Jewish people.
With God’s help, 27 Shevat 5784
To David—many greetings,
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook guided Rabbi Dov Milstein to patiently draw close his sons, who had entered into Polish national-socialist activity, completely “universalist.” See Rabbi Ari Shvat’s article, “Clarifying Rabbi Kook’s View Regarding the Boundaries of Love of Israel and Tolerance—the background behind the letters to Rabbi Dov Milstein’s rebellious sons,” on the Asif website.
His son Naftali, who was a senior economist in the Polish government, restored a respectful attitude toward his family and his people and fought antisemitism. When he emigrated from Poland to France, he even married a Rothschild daughter and was involved in ICA activity. His “universality” apparently remained intact, but his attitude toward Judaism was respectful and later grew closer.
Rabbi Kook lays out the principles in the “Letter of Ordinance” sent to the Ridbaz (on the Da’at website), especially from the words beginning “However.” He speaks there of souls damaged on the side of choice, but in whom the light of innate treasure still shines—in love for the Jewish collective, in love of the Land, and in good character traits. Such people can be drawn close by great Torah scholars and thinkers who know how to distinguish between the damage in the realm of choice and the light of the innate treasure that still shines, and this is not entrusted to everyone. See there at length.
In any case, even toward those regarding whom the rabbi adopted “the right hand that draws near,” Rabbi Kook did not spare “the left hand that pushes away,” and he knew how to respond sharply to them as well when necessary.
With blessings, Fish"l
See here:
https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=f18e4f052adde49eb&q=https://mikyab.net/%25D7%259B%25D7%25AA%25D7%2591%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%259E%25D7%2590%25D7%259E%25D7%2598%25D7%25A8%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%2594%25D7%2590%25D7%259D-%25D7%2599%25D7%25A9-%25D7%25A2%25D7%2591%25D7%2595%25D7%2593%25D7%2594-%25D7%2596%25D7%25A8%25D7%2594-%25D7%2590%25D7%2595%25D7%25A8%25D7%2594-%25D7%25A2%25D7%259C-%25D7%2594%25D7%2599%25D7%2597%25D7%25A1-%25D7%259C%25D7%2592%25D7%2595%25D7%2599%25D7%2599%25D7%259D-%25D7%2595/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiSzOSl55aEAxU8TKQEHRawBJIQFnoECAEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw101GPBDjtJOXIjlrSmuVC0
To Fish"l
I know that letter. Even so, it has nothing to do with the issue of whether they are defined as apostate Jews or not. You can treat them respectfully and even love them out of ordinary decency or as a tactic for bringing the distant near, but this is a purely halakhic question: am I obligated to love him, etc.? About every apostate from time immemorial you could say that there is some inner light shining in him, etc., and then you have eliminated the whole law of apostasy. Besides, communism was founded on a very strong point of truth—each gives according to his ability and receives according to his needs, and several other Marxist principles, such as the inseparability of the producer from the product. Rabbi Kook built his answer on the fact that they act for the sake of repairing the world. But progressivism is built on falsehood in its purest form—on emptiness and vacuum—and in practice too you can see that these people are wicked or crazy, bordering on wickedness. I have never seen a progressive about whom I could say that he is a good person. In practice, at one stage or another of their lives, progressives act against the Jewish people—especially the Jews among them. Don’t forget that nationalism, and especially Jewish nationalism, directly contradicts progressivism. That was not so with communism, which in practice constantly preached to its people to give to “Mother Russia,” even though in theory it denied any collectivity not built on communist identity. But that is true of every ideology that is fanatically loyal to itself. I don’t think that in the case of progressives, whose ideology itself is non-ideology in the name of equality, he would speak that way. They are not working to repair the world but to destroy it.
To the Rabbi,
I did not understand the connection between that article—which I read a few years ago—and what I asked, and also what Yitzhak described very well. The entire discussion in the article concerns various rabbinic laws about seclusion with gentiles or things connected to idolatry. But what does that have to do with certain “your fellow” commandments that relate to the Jewish people as a group with mutual responsibility? Do you think it is forbidden by the Torah to lend with interest to a gentile? That sounds completely ridiculous. Am I required by the Torah to return a gentile’s lost object on the basis of “your brother’s lost property”? Did he suddenly become my brother? Reason cannot tolerate that.
You should read it again. You don’t remember it.
*** deleted ***
Even my patience has limits. You keep not reading and talking nonsense again and again with the same nonsense. So I deleted your words.
I’m sorry, but if you think it is obvious, then it is still not clear from your article: is it forbidden to lend to a gentile with interest? Is there a prohibition of harboring hatred in one’s heart toward a gentile, learned from the verse “Do not hate your brother in your heart”?
With God’s help, 28 Shevat 5784
To David—many greetings,
Regarding fanatical ideologies that sharply oppose Judaism, in my humble opinion there is room to distinguish between the extreme agitators and the ordinary people who are dragged after them out of unfamiliarity with Judaism and lack of understanding of it. The extremists are very hard to move, but those who are swept along can perhaps be persuaded, with the understanding that the true “progress” that genuinely cares for the weak is found דווקא in Judaism. And concern for the weak is precisely what requires firmness against cruel tyrants. Toward the ordinary people who are swept along, there is room to draw them close with patience and proper explanation, and of course not everyone is capable of engaging in this.
Even the pioneers in Rabbi Kook’s time were under the strong influence of anti-religiosity. Over time, when many of them saw that one could be scrupulous both in Torah and commandments and in settling and defending the Land, the opposition of many weakened and the closeness to tradition increased. Today the Jewish people are much more religious and traditional, and the sharp opposition today already comes from the fear that the secular will become a minority. And so perhaps many of the progressives too will draw closer when they see that Torah-observant people excel in helping the weak and honoring them.
With blessings, Fish"l
Let me clarify this once and that’s it. There is a human attitude owed to every person, and that obligates us toward gentiles just as toward Jews. There are commandments that go beyond basic human norms, and those may apply only toward Jews. Gentiles may not be harmed, but they are not members of our people, and therefore preferential treatment intended for members of our people is given only to Jews and does not obligate us toward gentiles, though it is certainly desirable as far as possible. Lending with interest is not a moral wrong, and therefore there is no prohibition against lending with interest to gentiles. But there is an obligation to return lost property, prohibitions against causing damage and injury, and against denying repayment of his loan, and so on. This parallels the distinction between civil rights that a state gives only to its citizens—education, health care, security—and human rights, such as not stealing and not murdering, which obligate us also toward foreign citizens. Every human being as such.
In the article I pointed to equality between the treatment of Jews and gentiles on the plane of human rights, not of civil rights. On that plane everything is equal, both Torah-level and rabbinic, as is explained there very clearly for anyone who bothers to read.
All the sources whose names you were hysterically shouting have nothing to do with the discussion, either because they do not deal with human rights but with civic rights, or because they speak only about the ancient gentiles, as Meiri writes.
Regarding one’s personal attitude toward someone with a fanatical anti-Jewish opinion, one should in my humble opinion also take into account the degree of error in that opinion. Someone who undergoes almost a “brainwashing,” hearing the praises of “progress” from all the media and from all the sages of academia, while at the same time knowing nothing of Judaism from books and scholars, is at a very high level of error. And there is a fair chance that with proper explanation his eyes may begin to open. The main thing is not to despair.
With blessings, Fish"l
But that is exactly what I asked: do progressives have civil rights? It is commonly accepted that apostates who rebel provocatively, or apostates regarding the whole Torah even for appetite’s sake, do not have civil rights. And it is still not clear from your answer what the status of progressives is in that respect.
To Fish"l
No. This is no longer connected to the issue of a child taken captive or error. Even among secular people one can be liberal, conservative, or traditional. A progressive, in my view, is stupid and foolish even on a human level, and it is not clear to me whether that still removes him from the Jewish people with respect to the commandments of “your associate,” etc., like an actual apostate.
To Fish"l
That is, we are not talking about error because he did not study Judaism, etc., but negligence—in other words, culpability. Or at the very least coercion whose beginning was in negligence, if you want to count academic and media brainwashing as coercion. In progressives there is an aspect of something worse than wickedness: denial of the reality of objective truth, which does not even allow them to repent. It is a kind of mental illness. And it is not clear to me whether, in the case of the Jews among them, this removes them from the Jewish people altogether, or whether they are simply ordinary Jewish mentally ill people.
There is a Jew with political and value-based views A,
and one with B, and one with C.
The intensity of connection to the national component differs for each person.
And likewise the intensity of connection to the religious component differs for each person.
And likewise the intensity of connection to the universal component differs for each person.
How is that relevant to the halakhic fact that someone is Jewish?
If he is Jewish, then one is obligated to treat him as a Jew.
On the halakhic side there might have been room to say that someone whom the halakhic criterion defines as excluded, then from the halakhic side there is no mutual responsibility toward him and with him.
But thank God Jewish law corrected itself on this point.
So what is there to discuss?