Q&A: Religious Coercion When We Hold Power
Religious Coercion When We Hold Power
Question
I tried searching through the articles and responsa and didn’t find a direct discussion of this.
As I understand it, Nadav Shnerb thinks that from the standpoint of Jewish law there is no escaping the use of all the sanctions stated in the Shulchan Arukh against secular Jews who do not observe the commandments, including “they are lowered and not raised.”
He also predicts that this is what will happen, because apologetics will not stand up against the solid foundations of those laws.
A. I know that in the past you wrote about the lack of meaning in commandment-observance that comes only through coercion. If we set that aside, or imagine a case where the dilemma is such that coercion would help that person observe out of commitment, is there any halakhic way to avoid applying those sanctions? Do you need a Sanhedrin for this?
B. Separate from section A, what do you think would happen if there were a solid religious majority that took power? Would they apply the sanctions or not?
Answer
I’m not familiar with his position, but I strongly disagree with it. You do not punish a person who is acting under compulsion. This has nothing to do with apologetics; it is a clear and accepted halakhic rule. The punishments of a religious court require ordained judges and a Sanhedrin.
B. The question is not well defined. What kind of religious majority? What would the religious people in that place look like? Who would lead them? My estimate is that even among conservatives, almost no one would support actually implementing these sanctions, and they would find 150 reasons to explain it away.
Discussion on Answer
Rabbi Michi — you wrote that there is a clear and accepted halakhic rule against (physical) punishment. But what about prevention? Closing roads and communication services on the Sabbath, forbidding the sale of non-kosher food, enforcing the laws of modesty and seclusion in the public and private domain, and the like. Within Jewish law, is there any way to avoid such a policy?
The quote you brought speaks about the chance of persuading, not about what should actually be done. But in any case, I’ve written my opinion.
There are ways to avoid lots of things, but one would need to know better the reality being discussed. A democratic state is not supposed to impose religious norms, even if the majority is religious. And I also don’t think that will happen in practice. Maybe something moderate.
Kelach, what’s the difference? That is not the role of a state (a democratic one). But as I said, it depends on the situation that would prevail then, and you can’t discuss this in general terms. I touched on this at the beginning and end of Moves Among the Standing.
Thank you.
His position is expressed in an article in Tzohar from 2006, mainly in chapter 5:
Click to access zhr-25-11.pdf
And his prediction is in this post and in the comments there, for example in reply to Haim Navon: “I really disagree, the rabbis you cite are an utterly tiny minority, and since their words do not accord with straightforward laws in Maimonides and in the Shulchan Arukh, they have no chance of persuading people.”