Lately the Chief Justice of the High Court of Israel, Mr.
Aharon Barak, has been acting quite out of the ordinary, not
the least like a judge is expected to act. Barak has been
making enormous efforts to influence those behind the levers
of power in the government and the Knesset to accept his
beliefs. Just as any politician he has been busy trying to
recruit the newspapers, television, and radio to sway public
opinion.
In the past Yated Ne'eman has reported about Aharon
Barak's open- mouthed public appearances in which he spoke
blatantly ("Let's kill the cockroach when it's still small")
and about his press conferences where he demanded that the
journalists report his stands anonymously. Such irregular
behavior, once unacceptable for any Israeli judge, and
surely improper for the head of the highest judicial court
in the country, shows that Aharon Barak has launched an
aggressive "to be or not to be" campaign. The Chief Justice
is unwavering in his desire to become the central influence
over the character and lifestyle of Israel's citizens.
To set this in motion Barak initiated a meeting with writers
and editors of the religious and chareidi newspapers. "There
were two reasons Barak decided to initiate the meeting,"
writes Ha'aretz, a popular morning newspaper. "One
was his desire to reduce the friction between the chareidim
and the High Court, to prove to the chareidim that he does
not overlook them, and the second was connected to the
general trend of the High Court's becoming more exposed to
media."
The Vaada Ruchanit of Yated Ne'eman directed its
editors not to take part in this meeting. The media reported
that those editors of other newspapers who participated
heard from the President of the High Court that he is
attentive to the feelings of the chareidim, that he judges
every question objectively, and that he intends to take into
account religious considerations and protect the rights of
the chareidi minority. Just wonderful! Could we ask for
more?
Those present at the meeting refuted what he said about his
sensitivity to chareidim, his supposed objectiveness, and
his protecting their rights. Although they criticized him
sharply, the Chief Justice definitely succeeded in his aim.
The meeting itself showed Barak's "tolerance," his ability
to listen to criticism and differing opinions, and even to
adopt them in the totality of his considerations. Of course,
he is the person who will eventually consider and
decide "objectively" what should be done.
Through that meeting Barak hopes to dull the intense
criticism against him from chareidi newspapers, and
especially from Yated Ne'eman, and also to mollify
his negative image among the religious and traditional.
Ever since the mass tefillah rally in Yerushalayim
about two years ago in which hundreds of thousands beseeched
our Father in Heaven to save us from the enemies of Judaism
dressed in court cloaks, Barak has been persistently trying
to change his public image. On the one hand, the Chief
Justice's zeal to generate an ideological and political
revolution is unabated and he relentlessly wages war against
principles of Judaism. But on the other hand, Barak tries to
prove how "conscientious" and "understanding" he is, and
asks reporters (not for attribution, of course) to tell
about his so-called "balanced approach," and his personal
religious acquaintances.
Through such a two-pronged assault Barak wants to gain
contradictory goals: to damage our sacred values and destroy
the character of the Jewish Nation; while on the other hand
to be pictured as an "objective element" who follows a
policy of "tolerance" and "exchange of views." Barak does
not want to be perceived as someone alien to religious
values, not an enemy, not a hostile adversary, not someone
who threatens to harm the entire religious community. All we
have here seems only to be "two sides of an academic
argument."
But we should make no mistakes. Both sides are not equal.
One side (guess which one) harbors "narrow interests." One
sectarian sector possessing bigoted views is arguing before
the "supreme judge" who has "with strict objectivity"
decided against them.
Heaven recently sent us a topic that although
it was a side issue in the general news; it can serve us as
an incisive parable. In an educational institution of a
kibbutz in northern Israel, traditional parents whose
children were being educated in the kibbutz-run institution
asked that the school put mezuzos on the doors. The
secular kibbutz members argued that this conflicts sharply
with their Weltanschauung, but at the end the
institution agreed and put up the mezuzos. This
episode was covered at length in a Friday supplement of
Ha'aretz, in which one of the institution's heads was
"accused" of giving in because of financial considerations.
That person, a member of the Sha'ar HaGolan kibbutz wrote a
letter to the editor defending his stand. That letter is an
edifying document that we should read well and also read
what is written between the lines.
The head of the institution points out that he, together
with the social coordinator and three of the alumni,
initiated the discussion about placing mezuzos in the
educational institution Bikat Kinarot. He declares that
financial considerations were definitely not the deciding
consideration. "Those active in promoting the placing of
mezuzos were a small group of some three to four
parents. They surely do not represent all the parents of
Tiveria. Even if they would remove their children that would
not cause any financial collapse."
Now he explains the real reason for his stand: "I am opposed
to mezuzos since they are not a part of my secular
world, but the main problem is not personal but social. With
the mezuzos on our doors we can reach a large group
of people so we can influence them. Without the
mezuzos our influence is limited. What I'm trying to
say is that this is a reasonable "price" to pay. Contrary to
some alumni, I believe that our educational way, educating
to acceptance of our outlook on the world, of our value
system, of our culture, is powerful and relevant and can win
over others. For the overwhelming majority of those being
educated in our institution, that is what is important and
influential, and not the mezuzos."
In these short lines that kibbutz member
revealed the tactics being used by those wanting to uproot
our religion, those of the more sophisticated sort who, ever
since the beginning of the Enlightenment and Zionist
movement, have plotted to uproot Torah from the Jewish
Nation. Of course, many of them had difficulties hiding the
hatred to religion that burned within them and therefore
innocent Jews knew that they should be wary of them. However
the more refined among them spoke elegantly about "Jewish
values," about "sympathy for tradition," about "mutual
understanding," and the like. In that way they won over the
masses and instilled within them the poison of heresy and
the idea of the "New Judaism."
"Without mezuzos our influence is limited," writes
the kibbutz member. He reveals the reasons why the kibbutz
institution "understood" those traditional parents. "This is
a reasonable price to pay" to educate "to acceptance of our
outlook on the world, of our value system, of our culture"
so that it can "project" itself to others. And he concludes:
"For the overwhelming majority of those being educated in
our institution that is what is important and influential,
and not the mezuzos."
This reminds one of the well-known explanation of the Kli
Yokor on parshas Shemini. He explains why, when
the Torah mentions the animals that are tomei, it
first mentions their signs of tohoroh ("The camel,
for it brings up its cud, but its hoof is not split" -
- Vayikra 11:4).
"The explanation for this is that their sign of
tohoroh adds tumah for them. Chazal write that
Eisov is compared to a pig that stretches out its hooves to
show that it is kosher but actually by doing so is deceiving
others. This is an indication of someone insincere, like the
hypocrites who want to outwardly appear to be proper people.
Doubtless they are worse than the complete rasha who
is at least sincere in his wickedness. The split hoof of the
pig is therefore a sign of [greater] tumah -- since
with this hoof it can mislead people and show them that it
is kosher."
Anyone who thinks about what has happened to us lately,
after reading the above, will understand that all of those
"mezuzos" that the anti- religious put on their doors
while appearing to understand us and even quoting from
religious sources is not a sign of tohoroh. On the
contrary, it is a sign of tumah that only adds to
their original tumah. "The split hoof of the pig is
therefore a sign of tumah since with this hoof it can
mislead people and show them it is kosher."
This analysis was always made by the
gedolei Torah when enemies of the Torah wanted to
mislead the masses through a "positive approach" and
"readiness for mutual understanding," and similar
expressions. Because of this Yated Ne'eman was not
tempted to accept the invitation to that meeting for "an
exchange and clarifying of views" that only Barak gained
from.
As the Kli Yokor later writes, this was the way the
enemies of the Torah throughout history acted: "They showed
themselves as being proper people, as if concerned in
bringing benefit for Klal Yisroel, but inside they
were evil since actually all of their intentions were
malevolent."
Our kadmonim therefore warned that we must even
condemn the apparent "positive acts" of a rasha. As
proof they cite what Shlomo Hamelech, the wisest of men,
wrote (Mishlei 26:25), "Though his voice is
ingratiating, do not trust him." On the contrary, because
the enemies of the Torah are making more attempts to flatter
us, because of their increased "preparedness to listen" and
willingness to conduct an "exchange of views," we should
even more so take heed and distance ourselves from them.
This is exactly what rabbenu the Meiri writes in his
commentary on Pirkei Ovos (1:6): "The mussar
Sages say: `Beware of the smooth tongue of the scoundrels
just like you beware of the bow. When the bow bends more, it
is more destructive (its arrows fly further).'"
