Q&A: Yaron Yadan
Yaron Yadan
Question
Michi, I didn’t understand your outlook regarding how the state is supposed to be run. You argued that the state must not impose a religious way of life and that you support a secular state.
Okay, fine, if your reason were tactical—that forced religiosity is equivalent to secularism—but you rejected that and argued that your view is from a moral standpoint.
I’m genuinely trying to understand your position, even though it surprises me so much. First, after all, you yourself have said several times that morality has no validity without the Creator. So that same Creator who gives validity to the morality that guides you thinks otherwise—that a Jewish society, as a rule, should conduct itself according to a Torah way of life. On the practical level, coercion may be harmful and one should consider explanation, encouragement, connection, and so on—but to say that the secular way of life is the moral one has no moral validity, because the One who gives morality its validity disagrees with that.
2. Think about it yourself, my brother: even you admit (I assume, and if not then there is no second question) that it is moral to force a person to wear a seatbelt, and to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, and to force a person not to drive a truck at high speed in a pedestrian mall in Tel Aviv—so what will you say, that it isn’t comparable because here it causes harm and there it doesn’t? But the same applies here: a Jew who desecrates the Sabbath is like a pit in the public domain; this clearly causes harm to the Jewish people—so what made you distinguish between them?
Answer
First, my brother’s name is Dani, not Alon. I’m not aware of any other brother.
1. The Holy One, blessed be He, expects us to behave morally, and that is independent of the command of Jewish law. These are two independent categories, and He expects us to fulfill both. Beyond that, there is no value in a secular person’s observance of commandments under coercion.
2. When what is required is that you not cause harm, and the problem is consequential, there is room for coercion. When the problem is the act itself rather than its result, there is no point, value, or justification for coercion. Beyond that, helmets or speed limits are norms accepted by both those imposing them and those on whom they are imposed, which is not the case with Jewish law.
Discussion on Answer
I had difficulty with your answer to Yaron when he asked what you would do if the government were to ban ritual slaughter, which is a head-on clash with religion. Your answer was that it isn’t head-on because one can simply not eat meat.
First— in my opinion your answer is evasive, because in this case you happen not to eat meat, but one could equally ask: what if the government decided that circumcision is not moral?
Second, the very question shows that Yaron wants a state governed by Jewish law and has no problem with religious coercion. What bothers him is that he wants to impose, not to have things imposed on him.
Your answer sounds apologetic to my ears, but I’d be happy if you would enlighten me.
(For the avoidance of doubt—I’m a libertarian and don’t want a halakhic state of any kind.)
What does that have to do with the fact that I don’t eat meat? My claim is that there is no obligation or necessity to eat meat. In fact it is even forbidden (because of causing suffering to animals and assisting in wrongdoing). If only the government would prohibit it.
If they were to decide that circumcision is immoral, I would disagree with them. What’s the question?
I didn’t understand the second question. Yaron wants a halakhic state? He has no problem with religious coercion? I no longer remember the dialogue, and if you’re referring to something specific, quote it.
Michi, I’m your brother too. I share in your sorrow, but that’s how it is among the Jewish people 😉
Sorry, but I don’t see a resolution to my questions. True, you distinguished between harm in the act itself and harm in the result—but that’s a distinction without a difference, because if the moral justification for coercion is “preventing harm,” I don’t see any room to distinguish between immediate tangible harm in the act and the harm that follows from a Jew desecrating the Sabbath in Tel Aviv.
As for the moral issue, of course the Holy One, blessed be He, expects moral behavior from us—but what are we to do when human morality clashes with God’s morality? A shallow, superficial secular person will try to squirm out of it, but why should there be any doubt for us at all? The Holy One, blessed be He, is the One who gives morality its validity, so He is by definition right in how He defines it. Therefore there certainly is—absolutely is—room for halakhic coercion to prevent harm among the Jewish people [as stated, tactically one should presumably leave coercion as a last resort, and first use encouragement, explanation, connection, and the like].
Besides, what about Maimonides’ ruling that “we coerce him until he says, ‘I am willing’”? And it doesn’t seem right to distinguish by saying that there there is an actual agunah suffering right now…
I don’t know, Michi my brother, but the outlook you presented seems very strange to me—a secular and liberal state, Heaven have mercy… In my eyes that is the lowest and most immoral point: to create a society that has engraved on its banner, “The Creator of the universe does not interest us.”