Tzfat Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu Shlita explains that if one finds oneself in a situation that negates the Torah, one must always select the Torah over anything else, and speaking in principle, this includes laws of the State of Israel. The rav as an example cites how Eliyahu HaNavi did not adhere to Achav despite being Melech Yisrael, adding “to our good fortune, we do not live under Achav or Stalin”.
“We are living in the State of Israel where there is not a single law that requires transgressing the Torah…and therefore we should thank HKBH every minute”.
Rav Eliyahu added that while all laws pertaining to loans may not be applicable, all traffic and tax laws are applicable, for if not, anarchy would be the rule as is the case with neighboring Arab countries.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
4 Responses
There is no hidush in what he is saying (even though for a civil servant it may be unwise to “bite the hand that feeds”). It shouldn’t be noted that in some countries people who argued that G-d was more important than the King often last their heads, but in Israel all that will happen is he might lose his job.
During my nearly 3 years living in Bangkok, Thailand, as a member of the ARMY CID (Criminal Investigation Division), during the Viet Nam War, I was often asked questions about my religious beliefs since I always wore my Yarmika.
An Army Major once came up to me and in a polite way asked me if I considered myself a “Jewish American” or an “American Jew”? Being a 19 year old soldier, that was not an easy question and I didn’t want to say anything that would cause a chillul Hashem.
Since we were standing at the entrance to the Camp’s Headquarters, I looked above the Major’s head and read the sign which stated “G-d and Country”. I then told him that I was a Jewish American being Jewish first just as G-d was listed first in that sign above our heads.
He appreciated my answer.
America is more laid back about religion than most countries. Its part of American exceptionalism. Part of it is based on the reliance on natural/religious law in arguing that the rebellion against the lawful government was legal (since under British law it clearly wasn’t). Part of it was due to the country (really George Washington) needing to forge an army that included diverse religious groups which had been fighting each other within living memory.
The classic response for preferring divine law to government law in England involved behading if you were lucky, and being drawn and quartered if you weren’t. Israel is much more based on British law than American exceptionalism.
The Modern Orthodox/Religious Zionists are walking on “thin ice” in arguing that Torah is more important than Zionism, while also expecting to derive their paranassah from being part of zionist society.
There are many who confuse concepts such as “dina d’malchusa” incorrectly as posing conflicts between being shomer torah umitzvos versus compliance with secular law. There are very few cases even in the U.S. where material conflicts arise, and even in those cases, some accommodation is generally possible. Problems arise where some individuals insist on being inflexible or imposing chumrah upon chumrah to make accommodation impossible.