So I was reading a bit about the parsha on the Bar Ilan website, and a line from Hadag Nachash’s “Shirat Hastickerim” came to mind: Medinat Halacha-Halcha HaMedina; a “halachic” State of Israel can only lead to its dissolution. Here’s another example of why I consider myself a secular Zionist, and why I don’t think I am ever meant to delve into the political underpinnings of Israeli law.
According to the Torah reading for this week (Pinchas), daughters do not inherit from their fathers if the fathers have sons- that pasuk is somewhere in Bamidbar 27. Daughters aren’t neglected, rather they receive “support” from their brothers if they are minors/unmarried.
So what about today. In most circles we are familiar with, it is not necessary for the girls in the family to be “married off”. Young women develop careers and lives sometimes for a number of years spouse-free, and therefore require more than monetary support, but strive to possess the financial prerequisites for their own lives, as much as their brothers do. How does the Israeli government, and executors of our Jewish state, view this incongruity of halacha with modernity? Under Mandate law, regarding inheritance, the rabbinical courts ruled that there be “equal distribution of inheritance” among sons AND daughters. Rabbi Herzog and Rabbi Uziel, the chief rabbis, attempted to pass a bill bending this law towards a more halachic approach, but to no avail. What they suggested was that we turn back to a practice cited by the Rema and others called “takkanat chatzi zachar”; that the daughter would be promised a portion worth half of that of a male (or sometimes even a full portion) upon her marriage, and this would be considered part of her dowry (a nice loophole I think). I see the idea here being to give more kavod to the girl, sort of. Not quite sure where I get that from, though. But there have been attempts to have this practice reinstated, to halachic-ize the law.
I’m not quite sure what I think of this whole issue. I think it’s impossible to get the Knesset to agree to such an arrangement in our day and age. And there’s a big part of me that thinks that this is one halacha we should really examine more in this day and age, because it must still apply but how can we make it look more bearable.
And this is why I am a secular Zionist. I don’t believe in the possibility of a halachic state, just a Jewish one in the sense that Jews can safely congregate somewhere where they are free to be Jewish. This law, however, come to think of it, does restrict people from keeping the actual halacha if they so choose. That’s something they should fix. Hmmm. Let’s hear a big hurrah for Bnot Tzlafchad. They completely understood the importance of halacha, kedushat ha’aretz, as well as a mature and practical approach to their reality. Shabbat Shalom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I just read your blog. I had been unaware of its existence until now. It is funny. I did not read the dvar torah one though, cause it looked boring. The rest is unboring. May you continue from strength to strength..
You are funny. But you seem to imply that we cannot reach a consensus to have a halachic state, but that if we did, it wouldn't be so bad. How can it be okay that the daughters inherit nothing (or even half of what the sons inherit)? Isn't it better that we have a secular state because we can make the laws egalitarian and enlightened? Maybe a Jewish state means that we keep the Torah values and incorporate them, as well as the values we gain from living in post-enlightenment society, into laws that fit a modern world.
Post a Comment