Shabbat-B'Shabbato – Parshat Korach No 1579: 3 Tammuz 5775 (20 June 2015) AS SHABBAT APPROACHES Is it Good to Have a King or Not? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem In the Haftorah for this week, Shmuel tries to strengthen the status of the King. "And Shmuel said to the people, Let us go to Gilgal, where we will renew the kingdom." [Shmuel I 11:14]. It seems that Shmuel has resigned himself to accept the will of the nation to appoint a king as their head, in spite of his objections when the people first turned to him (ibid, 8:6). It is therefore surprising to see that Shmuel still rebukes the people at this point, even at an event where he seems to support Shaul and gives him the title, "anointed by G-d" [12:3]. The rebuke, which is accompanied by a sign of thunder and rain in the season of the harvest, leads the people to cry out, "we have added on to our sins, by asking for a king for ourselves" [12:19]. Evidently Shmuel's intention is to create the proper awareness with respect to the government institutions. Anybody who prays for the appearance of the Kingdom of G-d has doubts about any other government authority. The Rebbe of Satmar, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, expressed this doubt very well when he said that to establish any government, even a religious one, before the coming of the Mashiach, would be a revolt against the Kingdom of Heaven. While it is true that his words are not halachically valid with respect to the government of the State of Israel for the simple reason that we were commanded in the Torah to establish this government (see Ramban, commenting on the Sefer Hamitzvot, positive mitzva 4), such that in this case it is a mitzva and not a sin, there is a grain of truth in his approach – we must make sure that the government will not block the way to the Kingdom of Heaven but rather that it will be a reflection of this kingdom. The events as they took place clarify the essence of the role of the prophet who accompanies a king - and this is to pray. "And the entire nation said to Shmuel, Pray for your slaves to your G-d, so that we will not die" [12:19]. The people do not see prayer as a request or as an expression of religious fervor, but as the exclusive prerogative of the prophet. Since he is the one who is familiar with G-d, it is his obligation to turn to Him, and then the prayer will be answered. As opposed to classic religious training, where the teacher tries to encourage his pupils to join in the prayers, Shmuel understands that since he is the prophet it is his job to pray. This position feeds the link to G-d for a society whose political situation blocks any direct Divine contact. While the prophet does not fulfill the role of the King, it is his merit that allows the kingdom to exist. The presence of the prophets in the house of the King provides an element of criticism which keeps the path of the King in balance. Even at a time when there was no longer any prophecy in Yisrael, and even when the authoritative establishment was limited to the size of a community "vaad" – a local administrative committee – the halacha insists that it is necessary to have the agreement of an "important man" in order for the rules established by the community to have authority. Moral authority is what gives the political establishment a soul. Rabbi Cherki is the head of Brit Olam – Noahide World Center, Jerusalem *** A new book by Rabbi Cherki: "A Clear Viewpoint: The World and Man in the Teachings of Rav Kook" (in Hebrew). To order, phone: 050-5556775, or send mail to [email protected]. POINT OF VIEW One Boycott Deserves Another - by Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, Dean of the Zomet Institute "Every property that is banned will belong to you" [Bamidbar 18:14]. 1 The Boycott is on You, Yisrael! We have just experienced a threat of an economic boycott of Israel by the French company "Orange" (with its trademark of an "orange square"). As far as I can see this affair is over, it rose overnight and dissipated within a week, as a result of a threat of a counter-boycott based on international Jewish solidarity. Similarly, the threat of forcing Israel out of FIFA, the international soccer organization, has also been suppressed or at least delayed for the time being. The threat of academic boycotts is still floating around in universities and international conferences, but it seems that the publicity is much greater than the actual effect, and that they are not very important for the time being. There is also the matter of leading performers who refuse to appear in Israel (thank heaven...) in response to propaganda by anti-Israeli organizations, with support of the radical- traitorous left in Israel. These organizations have banded together in their anti-Israel activities under the BDS banner – boycott, divestment, sanctions. Not everybody is aware that Israel surrendered to the European Union and now marks all the produce that comes from the settlements, which no longer has the same benefits as agricultural produce from the "original" Israel. About six months ago we were given the "news" that the Ministry of Agriculture sent to Europe a list of producers of milk from the Golan Heights and from the Jordan Valley (what does the new Minister of Agriculture, Uri Ariel have to say about this?). I assume that this is also linked to some activity by leftists in Israel. And let us not forget the infamy of the newspaper Haaretz, which published in the past lists of companies in Yehuda, the Shomron, and the Golan, with a call to boycott them. Mending a Faulty Law In order to fight such traitorous Israelis, a Boycott Law (2011) was passed in Israel, which prohibits calling for or actions "leading to instituting an economic, cultural, or academic boycott on Israel, on an institution of Israel, or on an area under its control." This law was promoted by the rightist side of the political spectrum, but the Knesset and the Supreme Court have joined forces to greatly water it down (could it be otherwise?). In the Knesset, it was made into a law that entails civil damages only and which does not include criminal action. The Supreme Court gave the law its (almost) final blow by striking down the clause that allows compensation without a need for proof of the amount of damage caused (such a clause exists, for example, in the laws against libel). Every child can understand that such a ruling is not purely legal but shows a desire to negate the nationalistic atmosphere of the law, since as we all know the Supreme Court, which we are discussing, represents nothing so much as the United Nations... I can safely assume that nobody has ever been sued under the provisions of this law, and I predict that it will not happen – unless the law is amended to allow public institutions to accuse others based on the law and to bring class action suits, and unless the clause not requiring the damage to be specified is returned to the law. And here is a worthy challenge for the new and energetic Minister of Justice, Ayelet Shaked, who recently spoke out against such boycotts as "a new brand of anti-Semitism." Such an amended law, if it has teeth in it, can act as a response to Israelites, spiritual heirs of Datan and Aviram, the ideological informers of the time of Moshe, who showed the way for apostates and informers throughout the exiles, up to the collaborators of today who sell their souls to the enemy. Back to "The Elders of Zion" However, what can we do about the other nations of the world, who want to boycott and ban us? The reply in economic and commercial terms is what we saw in the "Orange" affair. Institute one boycott in return for another, with support from the forces of the Jewish nation in the Diaspora. Remember how the Nazi anti-Semites distributed a counterfeit document, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which claimed that the Jews plan to take over the world, using the power of their money and their solidarity contacts. I 2 suggest that we "freshen" these "protocols" and make use of the power of the Jews, both financially and politically, to mount a boycott in reaction. This is not the first time that I have called out to strike out against the enemy by turning his own weapons against him. As in other realms, here too what is needed is cooperation at a government level, either open or covert (or even denied), together with representatives of new Jewish organizations, both antagonistic and polite at the same time. We must draft the wealthy people of the Jews ("the elders of Zion") to fight boycotts with counter-boycotts, and we can hope for Divine support. And this is a worthy challenge for the new and energetic Deputy Foreign Minister, Miri Regev, who is a seasoned warrior against those who would boycott us. The same approach should be taken in the realm of legal action, without reference to economics: We must bring nuisance suits in the international court of justice in the Hague, in sports organizations, in academic halls, and in the realms of culture, art, and entertainment.