It's Not About Freedom of Torah Thought

By Moshe Feiglin

13 Tamuz, 5771
July 15, '11

Translated from the Makor Rishon newspaper

When the very positive spontaneous protests against the arrest of Rabbis Lior and Yosef gave way to official spin, the initiators of the provocation from the Attorney General's office likely breathed a sigh of relief. Once again, the "enemy" had painted himself into a patently irrelevant corner and the partisan justice system - growing public disgust with it notwithstanding - remained the only show in town.

Everybody understands the ideological foundations that brought about this provocation. The AG's office decides what and whom to investigate according to very clear criteria. One: From what political side of the fence the remark was made. Two: Anticipated public response. That is why leftist author Amos Oz and his call to blow up bridges are immune to investigation on one hand and Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef is immune on the other.

When a small, radical cabal has unlimited sovereign power and uses it for its own unbalanced and callous ideological agenda, the responsible citizen cannot cooperate with the abomination and lend it legitimacy. This is not an issue for rabbis only. Since the expulsion from Gush Katif, the Israeli justice system has designated itself as an unabashed side in Israel's political debate. Every responsible and honest person who understands this must conclude that it is no longer reasonable to cooperate with the system and lend it legitimacy. That is why I did not turn to the High Court when my election to the Likud roster for the Knesset was unceremoniously overturned.

"Refusal marks the borders of the coercive power of the majority. In this way, it serves as the essence of the soul of a sound democratic regime," wrote Professor David Henshekeh in the Akdamot magazine. Henshekeh wrote about unreasonable army orders. But I would humbly like to propose that the same is true of all types of government coercion that is deemed unreasonable by a large enough group willing to pay the price of its disobedience. This is not anarchy but rather the preservation of democracy in the face of the tyranny of the majority or in our case - the tyranny of the unelected minority that has taken control over the majority. The danger of anarchy - at least moral anarchy - lies at the doorstep of the regime. The responsible citizen who refuses to cooperate with the moral bankruptcy of the regime is actually protecting society from it.

But it doesn't end here. Official spokespersons for the protests turned the latest struggle from a civil issue to a religious struggle; they portrayed the protests as a defensive battle fought by Torah adherents against the State that is "attempting to control it." Not only is this claim unfounded, but it forces the average Israeli - his natural support for the settlers and disgust with the High Court regime notwithstanding - to stand behind Deputy AG Shai Nitzan.

Let us imagine what would happen if a young rabbi would write an article in which he would prove that according to Jewish law, we must slaughter homosexuals. Is there not even the slightest doubt that a confused youngster might take his words seriously, sharpen his knife and run to slaughter people in the street? Is the state supposed to ignore the danger only because it is wrapped in halachic garb? Let us imagine that the AG office is fair and also investigates the incitement from the Left. Let us further imagine that when rabbis are investigated, it is done with the honor they deserve. Isn't there still room for the claim that the state must protect its citizens? Does the religious system have enough will and ability to exchange the existing regime for its own system?

When the protestors' claim becomes religious, it is untenable at both ends. The state cannot conquer the Torah because it is the religious who have surrendered it. There is no national Torah to conquer. The only Sanhedrin that actually exists and makes its opinions heard in an authoritative manner is the "Sanhedrin" of the High Court.

On the other side of the divide, the Torah for which the protestors took to the streets is a contracted Torah; a Torah of exile that that does not deviate from the realm of the individual, his family and community. The state has no interest in controlling this Torah, and it is also incapable of doing so. It is no coincidence that Professor Hillel Weiss' attempts to institute a new Sanhedrin and to restore the Torah of national freedom to Israel were met by the religious establishment with a cold shoulder. It is no coincidence that this same establishment is fighting the process of return to the Temple Mount, to the Torah and to sovereignty. It is a fight for the preservation of the Torah of exile and the religious establishment.

The average Israeli instinctively feels that the religious have nothing to offer, that they themselves do not relate to their Torah as relevant on the national plane. How can we expect him - sympathetic to the cause as he may be - to jump off the High Court regime ship to the Torah ship that does not really exist (because of us)?

Many people feel that this conflict will be resolved with internal demographics and the ongoing positive integration of religious youth into the army and other state institutions. But this is not a question of majority vs. minority. The struggle is not against the secular, but rather, against the exile mentality of the religious; against their lack of willingness to take responsibility for national leadership in the name of the Jewish value of liberty. As long as this conflict is not resolved, we can be a large majority - and the High Court regime will still be able to sleep soundly.