Rabbi Avraham Shapira Teshuva about Gush Katif
Paragraph after lengthy paragraph on the way of the Torah in these important matter can be written, but at this time I will give you as an answer the brief, practical, halakhic verdict - so that the house of Israel will know the way of the Torah and go in the way of its commandments.
A) According to Torah law, it is completely forbidden to give land in Israel to a non-Jew, due to the prohibition of Lo Techanem ('Do not give them a foothold in the Land') and due to the nullification of the commandment to settle the Land of Israel that is incumbent upon every individual of Israel. This prohibition applies to every Jew, soldier and civilian alike. An order to take part in the evacuation of Jews from their homes in order to give over the land to non-Jews is an order that is against the religion of our holy Torah and forbidden to fulfill. Every order that is contrary to Jewish law and compels one to violate the words of the Torah holds no validity, is forbidden to fulfill and no person has the authority to deliver it. About such instances the Rambam (Maimonides) wrote, "It goes without saying that if an order of the king nullifies a commandment, then it is not listened to (Laws of Kings)." Anyone who violates this prohibition will not be exonerated, not in this world and not in the world to come.
B) In general the prohibition of handing land over to non-Jews includes helping those engaged in the transgression. Therefore, one must not participate in blocking the entrances to Gush Katif or assist, in any other manner, the expulsion of Jews from their homes. Similarly, it is upon every soldier called for reserve duty to refrain from showing up if his service is designated to enable other soldiers to take part in the transgression...
E) A soldier or policeman who damages the property of the residents of the region is committing robbery. There is no "Law of the Kingdom" [the concept in Jewish law which gives deference to the actions of a king even over certain ethical values]. In this case rather, the "violent theft of a kingdom," is contrary to Torah law. (Shach, Choshen Mishpat 73:39) It is the right of every person to defend his property from harm or damage that are done through acts that are contrary to Torah law.
F) It is incumbent upon every Jew to do all he can to stop transgression. Moreover, every single Jew is required to protest. Of course, it is not allowed to use violent means against soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, or the Israeli police.
G) Only great sages of the generation whose decisions are widely accepted in Israel are allowed to adjudicate difficult questions in all parts of the Torah, and are allowed to render such decisions that affect all of Israel. All those who have not reached this level should abstain from rendering decisions on these issues. If he does render decisions on this matter, the Rambam has already called him (Laws of Talmud Torah, chapter 5:4), "An evil person, a fool, and haughty," and it is furthermore said about him, "Many corpses she has made to fall, etc." and it says about him "and many are its dead." These are the small students which have not studied Torah sufficiently; and they wish to aggrandize themselves before the ignoramuses and the people of their city; and they leap and sit at the head to instruct Israel; and it is they who increase conflict; and they are the destroyers of the world who put out the light of Torah and who ruin the vineyard of the G-d of Legions. It is about them that Solomon has said in his wisdom, "Small foxes have taken hold of us, small foxes destroying the vineyards."
H) Those who follow the rulings of rabbis who have not reached the level of rendering decisions in these matters (as was addressed above), are not categorized as inadvertent transgressors, and they too will be judged. (See Pitchei Teshuva, Even haEzer 17:140 and Yoreah Deah 99:5, in the name of the Tzemach Tzedek haKadmon)
I) From the straits, in the 'days between the straits' [the three weeks of increasing mourning culminating with the 9th of Av], G-d will hear the voice of His nation, and will answer us bountifully, and out of suffering and tribulation He will find for us salvation and well-being and He will take away the shame of His nation from the whole earth, because G-d has spoken.
(signed),
Rabbi Avraham Kahane Shapira
Paragraph after lengthy paragraph on the way of the Torah in these important matter can be written, but at this time I will give you as an answer the brief, practical, halakhic verdict - so that the house of Israel will know the way of the Torah and go in the way of its commandments.
A) According to Torah law, it is completely forbidden to give land in Israel to a non-Jew, due to the prohibition of Lo Techanem ('Do not give them a foothold in the Land') and due to the nullification of the commandment to settle the Land of Israel that is incumbent upon every individual of Israel. This prohibition applies to every Jew, soldier and civilian alike. An order to take part in the evacuation of Jews from their homes in order to give over the land to non-Jews is an order that is against the religion of our holy Torah and forbidden to fulfill. Every order that is contrary to Jewish law and compels one to violate the words of the Torah holds no validity, is forbidden to fulfill and no person has the authority to deliver it. About such instances the Rambam (Maimonides) wrote, "It goes without saying that if an order of the king nullifies a commandment, then it is not listened to (Laws of Kings)." Anyone who violates this prohibition will not be exonerated, not in this world and not in the world to come.
B) In general the prohibition of handing land over to non-Jews includes helping those engaged in the transgression. Therefore, one must not participate in blocking the entrances to Gush Katif or assist, in any other manner, the expulsion of Jews from their homes. Similarly, it is upon every soldier called for reserve duty to refrain from showing up if his service is designated to enable other soldiers to take part in the transgression...
E) A soldier or policeman who damages the property of the residents of the region is committing robbery. There is no "Law of the Kingdom" [the concept in Jewish law which gives deference to the actions of a king even over certain ethical values]. In this case rather, the "violent theft of a kingdom," is contrary to Torah law. (Shach, Choshen Mishpat 73:39) It is the right of every person to defend his property from harm or damage that are done through acts that are contrary to Torah law.
F) It is incumbent upon every Jew to do all he can to stop transgression. Moreover, every single Jew is required to protest. Of course, it is not allowed to use violent means against soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, or the Israeli police.
G) Only great sages of the generation whose decisions are widely accepted in Israel are allowed to adjudicate difficult questions in all parts of the Torah, and are allowed to render such decisions that affect all of Israel. All those who have not reached this level should abstain from rendering decisions on these issues. If he does render decisions on this matter, the Rambam has already called him (Laws of Talmud Torah, chapter 5:4), "An evil person, a fool, and haughty," and it is furthermore said about him, "Many corpses she has made to fall, etc." and it says about him "and many are its dead." These are the small students which have not studied Torah sufficiently; and they wish to aggrandize themselves before the ignoramuses and the people of their city; and they leap and sit at the head to instruct Israel; and it is they who increase conflict; and they are the destroyers of the world who put out the light of Torah and who ruin the vineyard of the G-d of Legions. It is about them that Solomon has said in his wisdom, "Small foxes have taken hold of us, small foxes destroying the vineyards."
H) Those who follow the rulings of rabbis who have not reached the level of rendering decisions in these matters (as was addressed above), are not categorized as inadvertent transgressors, and they too will be judged. (See Pitchei Teshuva, Even haEzer 17:140 and Yoreah Deah 99:5, in the name of the Tzemach Tzedek haKadmon)
I) From the straits, in the 'days between the straits' [the three weeks of increasing mourning culminating with the 9th of Av], G-d will hear the voice of His nation, and will answer us bountifully, and out of suffering and tribulation He will find for us salvation and well-being and He will take away the shame of His nation from the whole earth, because G-d has spoken.
(signed),
Rabbi Avraham Kahane Shapira
Response of Rav Lichtenstein to Rav Shapira
11 Menahem-A
v, 5765 (August 16, 2005)
To the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav
Ha-Gaon Rav Avraham Shapira, shelita
A halakhic ruling issued a few days ago by your eminent Torah authority has been brought to my attention. Allow me to raise several questions of clarification, in order to understand your position more clearly.
I have some questions regarding a number of specific points, and I hope, towards the end of my remarks, to address several examples. My primary perplexity, however, relates to the general position that characterizes the aforementioned ruling. Many of the determinations in the ruling are clear and obvious to any student—that one is forbidden to steal, to demolish synagogues, to assist in the commission of transgression, and the like—and they are accepted by scholars opposed to soldiers refusing orders. As for the relevancy of these directives to our case, however, two arguments may be raised, which, to a certain degree, have a common denominator
.
With respect to values and principles that divide Israeli society, r egarding which there is no consensus defining a particular initiative as patently illegal and immoral, selective refusal of orders is impossible. Refusal on the right invites refusal on the left, and vice versa. The result is a divided and disjointed army, part of which dissents and abstains from an initiative in one direction, and the other rejects initiatives in the opposite direction. The damage to the unity and cohesion of the army and to the readiness for mutual dedication and sacrifice is clear. And as a result, the IDF’s ability to carry out its missions and its power of deterrence are eroded. One need not be a great general or statesman to understand the possible implications. In short, one argues, looking at the issue from a comprehensive, deep, and long range perspective– and let us not forget, they warn, Rav Hayyim [Brisker] permitted biblically forbidden labors on Shabbat in order to save a person from imprisonment that was liable to cause his death in another twenty years—we are dealing with a concern about the loss of human lives and the weakening of the state and its army.
At the same time, they argue, there are military and political professionals who maintain that there is a reasonable chance that the present government’s plan will save human lives– again, in the long run, and/or that it will preserve the Jewish demographic character of the state. There is no certainty about this, but in the opinion of many competent judges, there is also no certainty of the opposite either. It is difficult to anticipate the future, and only a few days ago we read of prophets whose visions were “vain and foolish” [Lam. 2:14] and who, unlike Jeremiah, fed the public, who thirsted for their words, “burdens of falsehood and deceit.” In any event, according to this argument, we should define the present decision as one involving the possible saving of lives (they obviously admit that there exists a danger to life in the opposite direction, that in the short term it is the disengagement that might be dangerous, but, according to them, the matter remains uncertain), and examine every halakhic ruling on the matter accordingly.
The published ruling totally ignores these arguments. Thus, I come to my first question: Do you simply deny absolutely, that these scenarios are possible, being convinced, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that rightness and logic are to be found exclusively among the professionals who advised him? And if so, one asks respectfully, what is the basis for this absolute certainty? Is it assessment of the situation, faith, and trust, or God’s secret revealed to those who fear Him? Or, alternatively, do you agree that the dangers exist, but do not suffice to tilt the balance when deciding the halakha—either because of the prohibitions involved are so severe that they cannot be overridden by possible risk of life, or because the importance of preserving the integrity of the Land of Israel outweighs considerations of life. In a similar context, a parallel question arises. You determine that whoever fails to obey his ruling “will not be cleared” (lo yinakke). This phrase is exceedingly harsh; it is what moved our Sages to include the prohibition of taking a false oath among the most severe transgressions, even though it is technically a simple negative commandment. What are the principles and sources, on the basis of which the evacuation of a settlement in the Land of Israel is included among the most severe transgressions, when both the Sages and Rambam mention only the prohibition of taking God’s name in vain as being exceptional in this regard?
Another point on the same topic, I assume that your ruling was given to someone who regards himself as subordinate to his authority. Do you think that the ruling is valid, and to the same degree of severity, for members of other communities, whose leaders have not expressed adopted your view, and may even rule in the opposite manner? For example, what would you recommend to a disciple of my revered teacher, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt”l, who resolutely and vigorously asserted that there is no prohibition to hand over portions of the Land of Israel to the nations of the world when there are considerations of saving life, and moreover held that the definition of these considerations must take into account the views of military and political leaders? And if someone thinks that, from a purely political perspective, the prospects of the evacuation are greater than the dangers, anticipating that it will contribute to saving lives, and wishes to participate relying on Rashba (Responsa, I, 413): “And even the most pious of the pious are not permitted to do their work by way of trust [in God], but only in the manner of the world”—do you believe that such a person may be permitted to do so?...
I conclude as I began. I have not come, God forbid, to provoke, but to clarify and seek elucidation. In the event that you consent to address my questions and have the time to respond, it will contribute to the understanding of a complicated issue that deeply touches our very souls. Would that the Master of the Universe grant us discussion of more joyful and heart-warming issues, in an atmosphere of calm and tranquility, both personal and communal.
With the blessing of Torah and mitsvot,
and with amity and esteem,
Aharon Lichtenstein
11 Menahem-A
v, 5765 (August 16, 2005)
To the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav
Ha-Gaon Rav Avraham Shapira, shelita
A halakhic ruling issued a few days ago by your eminent Torah authority has been brought to my attention. Allow me to raise several questions of clarification, in order to understand your position more clearly.
I have some questions regarding a number of specific points, and I hope, towards the end of my remarks, to address several examples. My primary perplexity, however, relates to the general position that characterizes the aforementioned ruling. Many of the determinations in the ruling are clear and obvious to any student—that one is forbidden to steal, to demolish synagogues, to assist in the commission of transgression, and the like—and they are accepted by scholars opposed to soldiers refusing orders. As for the relevancy of these directives to our case, however, two arguments may be raised, which, to a certain degree, have a common denominator
.
With respect to values and principles that divide Israeli society, r egarding which there is no consensus defining a particular initiative as patently illegal and immoral, selective refusal of orders is impossible. Refusal on the right invites refusal on the left, and vice versa. The result is a divided and disjointed army, part of which dissents and abstains from an initiative in one direction, and the other rejects initiatives in the opposite direction. The damage to the unity and cohesion of the army and to the readiness for mutual dedication and sacrifice is clear. And as a result, the IDF’s ability to carry out its missions and its power of deterrence are eroded. One need not be a great general or statesman to understand the possible implications. In short, one argues, looking at the issue from a comprehensive, deep, and long range perspective– and let us not forget, they warn, Rav Hayyim [Brisker] permitted biblically forbidden labors on Shabbat in order to save a person from imprisonment that was liable to cause his death in another twenty years—we are dealing with a concern about the loss of human lives and the weakening of the state and its army.
At the same time, they argue, there are military and political professionals who maintain that there is a reasonable chance that the present government’s plan will save human lives– again, in the long run, and/or that it will preserve the Jewish demographic character of the state. There is no certainty about this, but in the opinion of many competent judges, there is also no certainty of the opposite either. It is difficult to anticipate the future, and only a few days ago we read of prophets whose visions were “vain and foolish” [Lam. 2:14] and who, unlike Jeremiah, fed the public, who thirsted for their words, “burdens of falsehood and deceit.” In any event, according to this argument, we should define the present decision as one involving the possible saving of lives (they obviously admit that there exists a danger to life in the opposite direction, that in the short term it is the disengagement that might be dangerous, but, according to them, the matter remains uncertain), and examine every halakhic ruling on the matter accordingly.
The published ruling totally ignores these arguments. Thus, I come to my first question: Do you simply deny absolutely, that these scenarios are possible, being convinced, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that rightness and logic are to be found exclusively among the professionals who advised him? And if so, one asks respectfully, what is the basis for this absolute certainty? Is it assessment of the situation, faith, and trust, or God’s secret revealed to those who fear Him? Or, alternatively, do you agree that the dangers exist, but do not suffice to tilt the balance when deciding the halakha—either because of the prohibitions involved are so severe that they cannot be overridden by possible risk of life, or because the importance of preserving the integrity of the Land of Israel outweighs considerations of life. In a similar context, a parallel question arises. You determine that whoever fails to obey his ruling “will not be cleared” (lo yinakke). This phrase is exceedingly harsh; it is what moved our Sages to include the prohibition of taking a false oath among the most severe transgressions, even though it is technically a simple negative commandment. What are the principles and sources, on the basis of which the evacuation of a settlement in the Land of Israel is included among the most severe transgressions, when both the Sages and Rambam mention only the prohibition of taking God’s name in vain as being exceptional in this regard?
Another point on the same topic, I assume that your ruling was given to someone who regards himself as subordinate to his authority. Do you think that the ruling is valid, and to the same degree of severity, for members of other communities, whose leaders have not expressed adopted your view, and may even rule in the opposite manner? For example, what would you recommend to a disciple of my revered teacher, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt”l, who resolutely and vigorously asserted that there is no prohibition to hand over portions of the Land of Israel to the nations of the world when there are considerations of saving life, and moreover held that the definition of these considerations must take into account the views of military and political leaders? And if someone thinks that, from a purely political perspective, the prospects of the evacuation are greater than the dangers, anticipating that it will contribute to saving lives, and wishes to participate relying on Rashba (Responsa, I, 413): “And even the most pious of the pious are not permitted to do their work by way of trust [in God], but only in the manner of the world”—do you believe that such a person may be permitted to do so?...
I conclude as I began. I have not come, God forbid, to provoke, but to clarify and seek elucidation. In the event that you consent to address my questions and have the time to respond, it will contribute to the understanding of a complicated issue that deeply touches our very souls. Would that the Master of the Universe grant us discussion of more joyful and heart-warming issues, in an atmosphere of calm and tranquility, both personal and communal.
With the blessing of Torah and mitsvot,
and with amity and esteem,
Aharon Lichtenstein
Rav Shapira's response:
...I must point out another factor. Many professionals argue that it is precisely the participation of Jewish soldiers in the expulsion of Jews from their homes, with all that this entails, and their abnormal brushing against innocent citizens of the state, that will seriously impair the psychological strength of our soldiers, leaving them with psychological scars that will clearly impair their future functioning as soldiers. The strength of the IDF stands on solid moral foundations, which fills our soldiers with courage, causing them to “submit their hearts to their Father in heaven,” and allowing them, now as in days of old, to overcome and emerge victorious over our enemies. Fulfilling an expulsion order like this removes this vital foundation, leaving the IDF crushed and broken, without a moral spine. To our great disgrace, the people of Israel have already seen Israeli soldiers plundering some of the houses of the settlers of Gush Katif. All this, without even taking into account the deep psychological scars of those who have been expelled from their homes and those close to them, scars that will lead to a feeling of alienation from the IDF soldiers even among the adults, but especially among the youth. Such an attitude is clearly a recipe for disaster...
This letter is sealed with tears, while our brothers, the residents of Gush Katif have been expelled from their homes, cast out from place to place, without finding rest for their feet. There is a breach and a loud cry in our streets, but no one speaks out. The voice of Jacob that had been heard from synagogues and study halls has been silenced, and the voices of children that had risen from their classrooms have been quieted. Woe to us, for we have sinned, that such a thing has transpired in our day, that our land has been turned over to strangers, our homes to non-Jews. I close with prayer and hope for the dawn of a speedy salvation, when God will comfort Zion and its ruins. Our cities shall again overflow with prosperity; and the Lord shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem.
With blessings of Torah and great esteem,
Avraham Yisrael Sylvetsky
...I must point out another factor. Many professionals argue that it is precisely the participation of Jewish soldiers in the expulsion of Jews from their homes, with all that this entails, and their abnormal brushing against innocent citizens of the state, that will seriously impair the psychological strength of our soldiers, leaving them with psychological scars that will clearly impair their future functioning as soldiers. The strength of the IDF stands on solid moral foundations, which fills our soldiers with courage, causing them to “submit their hearts to their Father in heaven,” and allowing them, now as in days of old, to overcome and emerge victorious over our enemies. Fulfilling an expulsion order like this removes this vital foundation, leaving the IDF crushed and broken, without a moral spine. To our great disgrace, the people of Israel have already seen Israeli soldiers plundering some of the houses of the settlers of Gush Katif. All this, without even taking into account the deep psychological scars of those who have been expelled from their homes and those close to them, scars that will lead to a feeling of alienation from the IDF soldiers even among the adults, but especially among the youth. Such an attitude is clearly a recipe for disaster...
This letter is sealed with tears, while our brothers, the residents of Gush Katif have been expelled from their homes, cast out from place to place, without finding rest for their feet. There is a breach and a loud cry in our streets, but no one speaks out. The voice of Jacob that had been heard from synagogues and study halls has been silenced, and the voices of children that had risen from their classrooms have been quieted. Woe to us, for we have sinned, that such a thing has transpired in our day, that our land has been turned over to strangers, our homes to non-Jews. I close with prayer and hope for the dawn of a speedy salvation, when God will comfort Zion and its ruins. Our cities shall again overflow with prosperity; and the Lord shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem.
With blessings of Torah and great esteem,
Avraham Yisrael Sylvetsky