The Price of Words: Forced to Speak, True to Faith
הרב שי טחןכז חשוון, תשפה28/11/2024although we are not allowed to accept a different religion or declare a statement that contradicts our faith, one is permitted to say "Palestine will be free."
תגיות:מסירות נפשפיקוח נפשיהדות
In the horrific riots in Amsterdam, there were incidents where terrorists forced Israeli boys to shout "Free Palestine." Two contrasting responses were recorded: one boy complied, while another refused. Today, we examine the Torah's perspective on how one should act in such situations.
The halacha (y.d. 157, 2) rules that one may not declare that they worship idols, even to save their life. The reason is that by making such a statement, one gives verbal admission to something fundamentally prohibited, which constitutes a denial of Hashem and violates the essence of Jewish faith.
The Radbaz (4, 123) addressed the following question: if a person is coerced by Muslims to verbally accept their faith, must they comply? Islam, being monotheistic and devoid of idol worship, complicates the discussion. On one hand, the principle of ya'avor v’al yeihareg (transgress and do not be killed) allows one to violate most Torah prohibitions under duress, except for the three cardinal sins—idolatry, murder, and illicit relationships—where one must choose death over transgression. Based on this, one might argue that compliance is permissible since Islam does not constitute idolatry.
On the other hand, one could argue that making such a declaration, even under coercion, might carry implications of denying Jewish faith or endorsing another belief system, which could render it akin to a severe transgression. The question remains whether this situation demands self-sacrifice or permits compliance to avoid harm.
The Radbaz concludes, after a lengthy discussion, that while one may transgress most mitzvot (except the three cardinal sins) to save their life, one may not verbally declare an abandonment of Hashem's religion for another. By stating a belief in Islam under coercion, one violates the very essence of faith in Hashem’s religion. This, the Radbaz explains, is a transgression so fundamental that it requires self-sacrifice, as it undermines the core of Jewish belief and loyalty to Hashem.
In addition, although we follow the opinion of the Rambam and Rashba, who maintain that Islam is not considered avoda zara (idol worship), there are a few rishonim who disagreed, arguing that it is. This includes the Ritva, the Eshkol, and the Ran. The Meiri also noted that many Sephardic sages held this view as well. According to those opinions, one should not admit to their religion, as doing so would be seen asacknowledging idol worship.
It’s important to note that Rav Elyashiv said (Ashrei Hayish y.d. page 92) that the above is true only if the person coercing is doing so with the intent to change the individual’s religious faith. However, if someone says they aren’t Jewish for a different reason, it is permitted. For example, if a person is in the hospital and believes they will receive better treatment by claiming to be Muslim, this is permitted, as the intention is not to change their religion.
This leads us to the question: when the Israeli boys were forced to shout "Free Palestine," does this fall under the category of accepting their coercers' belief? Would this be seen as a denial of their faith, or is it merely a statement made under duress without accepting a new belief?
Well, obviously, we can all understand the big difference between the two cases. When a person says "Palestine should be free," there is no contradiction to one's religious belief. Such a statement doesn't inherently contradict Jewish religion, as it is not a denial of faith or belief in Hashem.
Moreover, anyone who studies history will quickly realize that the concept of "Palestine" and a "Palestinian nation" is a modern construct. The Arab villages that occupied Jewish land before Israel's independence did not have local citizenship; they belonged to either Jordan or were stateless. The "Palestinian" movement emerged years after the establishment of the State of Israel, created in opposition to it. Therefore, saying "Palestine should be free" is meaningless, as there is no actual entity called "Palestine." Furthermore, Arabs in Israel are free; no one is holding them in bondage.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, although we are not allowed to accept a different religion or declare a statement that contradicts our faith, one is permitted to say "Palestine will be free." This statement does not conflict with Jewish belief, as it does not imply a rejection of our religion or an acceptance of another belief system. It is simply a political statement with no religious implication.
The halacha (y.d. 157, 2) rules that one may not declare that they worship idols, even to save their life. The reason is that by making such a statement, one gives verbal admission to something fundamentally prohibited, which constitutes a denial of Hashem
The Radbaz (4, 123) addressed the following question: if a person is coerced by Muslims to verbally accept their faith, must they comply? Islam, being monotheistic and devoid of idol worship, complicates the discussion. On one hand, the principle of ya'avor v’al yeihareg (transgress and do not be killed) allows one to violate most Torah prohibitions under duress, except for the three cardinal sins—idolatry, murder, and illicit relationships—where one must choose death over transgression. Based on this, one might argue that compliance is permissible since Islam does not constitute idolatry.
On the other hand, one could argue that making such a declaration, even under coercion, might carry implications of denying Jewish faith or endorsing another belief system, which could render it akin to a severe transgression. The question remains whether this situation demands self-sacrifice or permits compliance to avoid harm.
The Radbaz concludes, after a lengthy discussion, that while one may transgress most mitzvot (except the three cardinal sins) to save their life, one may not verbally declare an abandonment of Hashem's religion for another. By stating a belief in Islam under coercion, one violates the very essence of faith in Hashem’s religion. This, the Radbaz explains, is a transgression so fundamental that it requires self-sacrifice, as it undermines the core of Jewish belief and loyalty to Hashem.
In addition, although we follow the opinion of the Rambam and Rashba, who maintain that Islam is not considered avoda zara (idol worship), there are a few rishonim who disagreed, arguing that it is. This includes the Ritva, the Eshkol, and the Ran. The Meiri also noted that many Sephardic sages held this view as well. According to those opinions, one should not admit to their religion, as doing so would be seen asacknowledging idol worship.
It’s important to note that Rav Elyashiv said (Ashrei Hayish y.d. page 92) that the above is true only if the person coercing is doing so with the intent to change the individual’s religious faith. However, if someone says they aren’t Jewish for a different reason, it is permitted. For example, if a person is in the hospital and believes they will receive better treatment by claiming to be Muslim, this is permitted, as the intention is not to change their religion.
This leads us to the question: when the Israeli boys were forced to shout "Free Palestine," does this fall under the category of accepting their coercers' belief? Would this be seen as a denial of their faith, or is it merely a statement made under duress without accepting a new belief?
Well, obviously, we can all understand the big difference between the two cases. When a person says "Palestine should be free," there is no contradiction to one's religious belief. Such a statement doesn't inherently contradict Jewish religion, as it is not a denial of faith or belief in Hashem.
Moreover, anyone who studies history will quickly realize that the concept of "Palestine" and a "Palestinian nation" is a modern construct. The Arab villages that occupied Jewish land before Israel's independence did not have local citizenship; they belonged to either Jordan or were stateless. The "Palestinian" movement emerged years after the establishment of the State of Israel, created in opposition to it. Therefore, saying "Palestine should be free" is meaningless, as there is no actual entity called "Palestine." Furthermore, Arabs in Israel are free; no one is holding them in bondage.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, although we are not allowed to accept a different religion or declare a statement that contradicts our faith, one is permitted to say "Palestine will be free." This statement does not conflict with Jewish belief, as it does not imply a rejection of our religion or an acceptance of another belief system. It is simply a political statement with no religious implication.
הוסף תגובה
עוד מהרב שי טחן
עוד בנושא עם וארץ ישראל