Barbara Ginsberg’s Desktop
Israel: Revolution or Referendum?
Parshat Achrei Mot
WHEN THE STATE REFUSES TO PROTECT ITS PEOPLE
Among
the most basic of all concepts in Torah Judaism is that of life. The Torah (Leviticus
18:5) decrees, "Ye shall keep My statues and My ordinances; if a man does
them, he shall live by them; I am the L-rd." And the Rabbis (Yoma 85b)
declare:
"From
where do we know that the saving of a life transcends the observance of the
Sabbath? Because the Biblical words 'if a man does them, he shall live by them'
[imply that he should live by the commandments] and not die by them."
In
Judaism there is a basic right to live, for the magnificent reason that there
is a basic OBLIGATION to live in order to carry out G-d's will. And certainly,
it is the most basic obligations in Judaism for a Jewish king or government to
defend Jewish lives and property. If need be, he must even go to war to fulfill
this obligation. As Maimonides writes (Hilchot Melachim 5:1): "And what is
considered an obligatory war? The war against the seven nations, the war
against Amalek, and aiding Jews against an enemy that rises against them."
If
a king or government fails to protect the people from the "enemy that
rises against them," in Judaism's eyes it has failed to live up to its
obligation. And certainly, if it refuses to allow the people to defend
themselves and, indeed, jails those who do, it loses the right to demand of the
people obedience to orders that go against the Torah command of
self-preservation, of "he shall live by them" and not die by them.
For
the authority of the king - of government - rests on the assumption that the
king will obey G-d. When he disobeys Him, his own authority is no longer valid.
This is explicitly taught in Sanhedrin 49a:
"
'Any man that shall disobey you and not hearken unto your words...shall die'
(Joshua 1:18). Can this also apply to the words of the Torah [i.e., if the
authority orders a person to disobey the words of the Torah]? No, for the verse
says, 'Only be strong and courageous [to keep the Torah].' "
The
explanation of Rashi is categorical: "if the king desires to negate the
words of the Torah, we do not listen to him."
Maimonides
codifies this law in Hilchot Melachim 3:9: "If a person disregards a
king's order because he is engrossed in mitzvot, even a minor mitzvah, he is
free from sin because when faced with the words of the master [G-d] and the
words of the servant [the king], the words of the master take precedence. And
there is no need to say that if the king ordered him to negate a mitzvah that
he does not listen to him."
The
Jewish concept of government is clear: The government exists to SERVE THE
STATE. The state exists to SERVE THE PEOPLE. The people exist to SERVE G-D. The
moment that the people FAIL in their obligation, law and order breaks down and
divine punishment must follow. The moment that government OPPOSES the law, it
creates anarchy and LOSES all moral and legal right to demand obedience from
the citizen who desires to be law-abiding.
Thus,
when a government demands that a Jew DISOBEY a law, HE MUST DISREGARD THE
ILLEGAL ORDER. When a government REFUSES to allow a Jew to obey a legal
obligation, HE MUST DEFY THE ILLEGAL ATTEMPT.
Despite
the basic difference between Judaism and the secular concept of government,
both agree upon one basic axiom: Government is obligated to protect the lives
and property of citizens who are threatened, and failure to do so is a basic
breach of that obligation. Both Judaism and liberal, democratic Western thought
agree that the individual, in order to protect himself, may disregard a
government that refuses to protect him and - worse - prevents him from saving
himself.
Anyone reading this Rabbi Meir Kahane or Rabbi Binyamin Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles and would like to be, please contact me at:
To view
articles written by Rabbi Meir Kahane and Rabbi Binyamin Kahane go to blog:
Facebook:
Barbara Sandra
Ginsberg
Otzma
Yehudit for Anglos