State of Israel

Two comments were made about the State of Israel, which superficially seem reasonable, but whose veracity is called into question upon further analysis from a Torah perspective.

1. "If the State of Israel had existed at the time of the Holocaust, all/many/most of those Jews would have been saved." 
First of all, besides the immense halachic implications of such a statement, on its face, this comment is absurd. Perhaps by next year, a few Iranian nuclear missiles could murder six million Jews in a matter of minutes, which took Hitler years to accomplish. So clearly, having a State of Israel doesn't necessarily protect against anything. Further, during World War II, the Germans nearly invaded Palestine (until stopped by the British at El-Alamein). The Nazis very nearly were successful in precipitating a Holocaust in Eretz Yisrael, and they would have come just as close (or even possibly succeeded) even if there had been a State of Israel instead of a British occupation.

The bottom line is, and this also relates to the halachic issue, that if God wants something to happen, it will happen regardless. For reasons entirely unknown to us, the divine plan was for the Holocaust to occur. There is no political or military action that anyone could have taken that would have prevented that.

Furthermore, it might be apikorsus to say otherwise. There's a story in the gemara (I heard it quoted in a shiur by Rav Tendler, but I can't find the source right now) where someone advises someone else to avoid going to be menachem avel in a certain house. Why? Because they're talking heresy in that beis avel. What's the heresy? They're saying that if the deceased had gone to a different doctor, he'd still be alive. That's heresy because the divine plan was for the individual to pass on, and it's heretical to think that human intervention could have aborted the plan. The same is true for pretending that if we had established Israel before World War II, all/many/most of the victims would have been saved.

2. The State of Israel upholds Torah through its military's philosophy of "tohar haneshek."

Tohar haneshek refers to the IDF's emphasis on avoiding collateral damage to enemy civilian populations in times of war, sometimes at the expense of their own soldiers' lives:

Purity of Arms - The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat. IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.

The question is whether that is really a Torah value, to put Jewish lives at risk in order to protect enemy civilians. Certainly, in the Torah's view of war, this is decidedly not the case. See Rambam, Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 8. Basically, in a milchemet mitzvah (e.g. to defend Israel from its enemies) you come to a city, besiege it, and demand whatever surrender terms you want. If they say "no", you have to let them escape, and kill the rest. (In a milchemet reshut, an optional war to expand the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, you can only kill the men.) Clearly, saving our enemies at the expense of Jewish lives is not a Torah concept. A PR concept, maybe, but not a Torah concept.

3. "It's bad to say shetehei reishit tzmichat geulateinu instead of reishit tzmichat geulateinu."

In the Prayer for the State of Israel, it asks God to bless the State of Israel, "the first flowering of our redemption (ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו)" How do we know that the State of Israel is the first flowering of our redemption? Not to be depressing, but how do we know that (God forbid) this State won't be destroyed, and later on another State will take its place, and that one will be reishit tzmichat geulateinu? So many people add "שתהא", "that it will be", meaning that we're asking God to make this State the first flowering of our redemption, and not presuming to tell God that we know for a fact that it is the first flowering of our redemption. How could we be so presumptuous as to tell God what the future holds? We can only pray to Him that the future will be good, not dictate such to Him.

Chumrology

The statement was made decrying the tendency of some people to "look for chumras", meaning that they try to find stringencies to observe. He even quoted a conservative "rabbi" who was such a genius that he was able to coin the term "chumrology" to describe a phenomenon that everyone knows about anyway. The real problem is, that since actual halacha is never discussed from the pulpit, and much of the congregation knows relatively little about actual halacha, how could anyone be expected to know what's basic halacha and what's chumra?

For example, many people don't know that tying many types of knots is prohibited on shabbat. Double knots, single knots in one string or similar entity like the end of a garbage bag, or any knot whose duration is expected to be greater than 24 hours are prohibited. Now, if someone doesn't know this, he'll think that anyone who doesn't tie these types of knots on shabbat is a "chumrologist," whereas, in fact, that person is merely following basic halacha. So, in essence, the congregation is, for lack of a better term, being manipulated into mistrusting and blowing off anyone who follows halacha. As we've discussed many times in the past, this is part of a desire to cultivate as unobservant and Torah-ignorant a membership as possible. The preceived benefit is that no one will question far-left positions or someone's rabbinic credentials, and that no one will trust any source of Torah other than that which comes from one particular speaker.

Another let-down

As we've written before, many times, on these pages, the speeches from the pulpit do their best to diminish the importance of mitzvot bein adam lamakom. Time and time again, we are told how extremely important it is to be honest (which is correct), but the importance of shabbat, kashrut, etc are played down as much as possible. This, obviously, in keeping with the general philosophy of maintaining as irreligious and ignorant a membership as possible, so that one man's authority can't be questioned.

Yesterday, I thought that maybe, just maybe, something had changed a little bit. But I was wrong.

The speech started out with the usual "some people place so much emphasis on all the details of religious observance but are dishonest and wind up in the papers" kind of thing. Which is true, but hardly relevant--the vast majority of our congregation is honest, but, unfortunately, many are not observant of shabbat, etc. And then he said, "but on the other hand, there are people who say that they're honest, good people, and that's all they think they need to do..." And I was so happy that finally he would come out and tell people of the importance of following the rest of the Torah! And then he said, "but they neglect the spiritual side." And that was it. No shabbat, kashrut, taharat hamishpacha. Just, "the spiritual side." So, according to him, all the Torah wants us to do is be honest....and spiritual. Right.