7

Say Jews happen to become the majority in some state outside Israel (enough of a majority to change the constitution) but there are also gentiles there.

Are the Jews obligated to turn it into a Jewish state in some way?

Should Jews be forced to follow halakha?

Edit: By forced, I mean forced by the state. Eg, if a Jew who ate pork would be fined, stoned, imprisoned or punished in some other way by the state.

  • a la Yiddish Policeman's Collective? – Charles Koppelman Jul 21 '14 at 21:12
  • Why only outside Israel? Wouldn't the same rule apply to a majority in Israel? – Ypnypn Jul 21 '14 at 22:13
  • 1
    I believe that the only "Jewish country" is within the borders of Israel as described in the Torah as well as if during the time of a "valid" king, Israel annexes additional land. Separate discussion on how this works, but I can't see it applies to being a majority in U.S. for example. I don't follow your 2nd question. ALL Jews are required to follow halacha at all times. Can you rephrase that question, so it's clearer? – DanF Jul 21 '14 at 23:15
  • They should continue following Halacha. (This seems too simple so perhaps I am misunderstanding your question; can you clarify?) – Double AA Jul 22 '14 at 1:37
  • @DoubleAA I think he wants to know if frum Jews had sovereignty in some theoretical country today, should the jews in command force Jews to follow mitzvos there, such as by setting up a beis din that would give punishments as halacha prescribes (malkos, misah, etc;). Right @user6770? – LiquidMetal Jul 22 '14 at 5:10
5

Partial answer: make sure we have currency.

Rav Herschel Schachter (Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society vol. I, footnote 28) quotes Chazon Ish (YD 72:2) as saying that due to certain halachos (pidyon maaser sheni, possibly all דיני ממונות [monetary law]), Jews should make certain that whatever country they reside in has regular currency.

  • See also here regarding the Communism question – Shokhet Jul 22 '14 at 20:43
3

According to Vayoel Moshe, a sefer by the Satmarer Rebbe Zt"L, even outside of the land of Israel, the Jews prior to the moshiach shouldn't establish a state, and that regardless as to whether its character were religious or secular, that it was equally forbidden. This is due to the shalosh shavuos (3 vows) in mesechta Kesubos, one of which is not to rebel against the nations, and less pertinent to this question, one of which was not to mass immigrate to Israel.

Of course, outside of the anti-Zionist community, this sefer is controversial - but even an arch-Zionist like Rabbi Meir Kahene HY"D in his own sefer admitted these shavuous existed, and thus implied that the interpretations of it by the rishonim outlined by the Satmar Rebbe were accurate, but suggested, at length, that these vows were no longer binding ones today as his answer to why the establishment of a Jewish state doesn't conflict with the 3 shavuos outlined in that sugya.

  • Many would be appalled by your characterization of an "arch-zionist" – Double AA Jul 22 '14 at 18:41
  • Rabbi Meir Kahane called himself a Zionist, and he most definitely was one, and his seforim which address this issue, as well as those of others, talk about the shalosh shovuos and usually take that approach. What's your point? – Ploni Almoni Aug 1 '14 at 20:01
  • If you have a better sefer to suggest on the subject of the shalosh shavuous and Zionism, I'm open to suggestions. I've seen the position of Rabbi Kahane taken by more "mainstream" Zionists too. When there's a sugya that's interpreted that way by the Maharal, Rambam, Chasam Sofer, among many others, any scholar has to address it. – Ploni Almoni Aug 1 '14 at 20:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .