How does Satmar, Neturei Karta, and other similar groups view Religious Zionists and Haredim that interact with the Israeli government, from a halachic standpoint (i.e. are they acceptable as witnesses, etc.)?

  • Basically they look at the Chareidim as sell out for money, and religious zionists as dangerous and should be ignored completely as their politics dictate their Judaism rather than their Judaism dictate their politics Commented May 29, 2015 at 4:56
  • 3
    I think that it is extremely offensive to Satmerer Chassidim to be in the same "group" as Neturei Karta. Commented May 29, 2015 at 14:24
  • What does halacha have to do with it? And which halacha?
    – Ephraim
    Commented Jun 28, 2015 at 18:12

1 Answer 1


Rav Yoel Teitelbaum held that interaction with the government itself may be a yehareig v'al ya'avor, but the Neturei Karta (N"K) seems to hold that for ALL people in Israel. R'Yoel also wrote that it was assur to visit the mekomos kedusha because it brings hana'ah to the government.

I'm primarily going to address the opinion of Satmar:

But failing to allow oneself to be killed for a YvA"Y isn't itself a severe sin punishable by death (when it's not one of the big three). So halachically, you aren't optimally keeping the Torah, but it's not on the level of, say, being mechallel shabbos.

This implies that they are still treated as Jews for all other relevant halachos by those groups. Any objections to someone on these grounds is purely "moral" and wouldn't seem to be upheld by even their own halachic teachings.

For N"K, there are those who may believe that an oleh, by violating the shalosh shevuos, may be considered a Rodef (because by his actions they endanger other Jews). If this is the case, then the question arises as to whether this person is consider a "nidun binafsho" halachic non-entity: "since they're chayav misa, they are not considered to be alive" - though it's questionable whether you can apply this standard to someone outside of a ruling from Beis Din.

An additional consideration for N"K is whether they consider such a person inherently a rasha (and therefore invalid), a tinok shenishbah, or simply a misguided person acting out of teivah. The latter two categories wouldn't be invalid for other purposes (ne'emanus, eidus, etc.), while the first would.

  • is this all conjecture? It seems a bit of a stretch to apply Rodef literally while they feel like that conceptually. Can you bring a source that a rodef is posul b'eidus? That's if he survives of course
    – warz3
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 19:17
  • @warz3 no, it's not all conjecture. I have personally met those who have expressed that opinion (unfortunately). I'm not saying that is the definitive halachic view of the entire sect, but that if one does view things in that manner, the following are the implications... Commented May 29, 2015 at 19:18
  • they actually said they're posul for testimony? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
    – warz3
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 19:20
  • @warz3 not explicitly that, but I believe I have heard some place "voilators" on par with a mechallel shabbos, which means they have no ne'emanos in general. Commented May 29, 2015 at 19:22
  • you heard this from which sort of people? if you feel its appropriate to disclose
    – warz3
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 19:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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