העורך Editor

Here is a well-written article comparing the comparative downsides to the US gang’s depredations upon its citizenry to those of the Israeli government upon their own victims. Some excerpts:

Many who have run-ins with “the system” in the US would disagree about it being “fairly tightly regulated”.  In particular the administrative state in the U.S. has become so ridiculous that it’s pretty hard not to break laws on a daily basis – and get hung out to dry if somebody arbitrarily comes after you on it.  I personally was accused of “building without a permit” for removing old carpeting (go ahead, prove you didn’t build), and for trimming a tree (yes, it was a crime to cut down a tree in my own yard where I lived).  But putting that aside…

Yes the Israeli system has some problems with corruption, and with influence peddling.  In some ways this isn’t so different than the US, just a little more obvious…

There are almost no police shootings in Israel, even in normal crime situations.

How’s the DMV where you live?  Every tried to get a permit (yourself) to remodel your bathroom?  Ever been fined for a “obstructive bush”?

“How do people like you navigate your way through this to achieve some sort of protection from your own country?” 

You learn the system.  How do you avoid getting audited by the IRS, with 100,000 different regulations that could get you?

I recommend reading the full original, especially for those preparing to make Aliyah to Israel.

One cannot override Hashem’s plan, but one may certainly be punished for trying.

Gemara Sotah 9a, end – 9b:

תנו רבנן סוטה נתנה עיניה במי שאינו ראוי לה מה שביקשה לא ניתן לה ומה שבידה נטלוהו ממנה שכל הנותן עיניו במה שאינו שלו מה שמבקש אין נותנין לו ומה שבידו נוטלין הימנו

וכן מצינו בנחש הקדמוני שנתן עיניו במה שאינו ראוי לו מה שביקש לא נתנו לו ומה שבידו נטלוהו ממנו

וכן מצינו בקין וקרח ובלעם ודואג ואחיתופל וגחזי ואבשלום ואדוניהו ועוזיהו והמן שנתנו עיניהם במה שאינו ראוי להם מה שביקשו לא ניתן להם ומה שבידם נטלוהו מהם.

Soncino’s translation:

Our Rabbis have taught: The guilty Sotah set her eyes on one who was not proper for her; what she sought was not given to her (She is not allowed to marry her lover) and what she possessed was taken from her; (She dies if she drinks the water, and is divorced with loss of her settlement if she confesses) because whoever sets his eyes on that which is not his is not granted what he seeks and what he possesses is taken from him.

We thus find it with the primeval serpent [in the Garden of Eden] which set its eyes on that which was not proper for it; what it sought was not granted to it and what it possessed was taken from it. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I declared: Let it be king over every animal and beast; but now, Cursed art thou above all cattle and above every beast of the field. I declared, let it walk with an erect posture; but now it shall go upon its belly. I declared: Let its food be the same as that of man; but now it shall eat dust. It said: I will kill Adam and marry Eve; but now, I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. Similarly do we find it with Cain, Korah, Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, Gehazi, Absalom, Adonijah, Uzziah and Haman, who set their eyes upon that which was not proper for them; what they sought was not granted to them and what they possessed was taken from them.

“ויברך אותם משה”.

א”ל ה’ אלקי אבותיכם יוסף וגו’ (תו”כ שמיני פ”א) וי”א ויהי נועם וגו’ (במדב”ר פי”ב) וי”א יהי רצון שתשרה שכינה במעשה ידיכם (ס”ע פ”ו ותו”כ הנ”ל) וי”א יה”ר שלא תשלוט בכם עין רע ולא אויב במעשה ידיכם (מדרש אגדה) וי”א ברכת כהנים (ס”ח סי’ תתרכ”א) וי”א כשם שנתעסקתם במלאכת משכן ושרתה שכינה על מעשה ידיכם כך תזכו ותבנו לפניו בית הבחירה ותשרה שכינה על מעשה ידיכם (תוספתא מנחות פ”ז וסע”ר פ”ו ע”ש).

מתוך “למכסה עתיק” של הרב חיים קניבסקי

An excerpt here:

I saw a great deal of checklisting in my career. For example, when the prison department grew alarmed at the number of suicides in prison, or perhaps I should say at the publicity being given to the number of suicides in prison, it developed a form that in effect was a checklist, to be applied to any prisoner thought to be in the least suicidal or likely to attempt suicide (not quite the same thing).

The purpose of this form, I soon discovered, was not so much to prevent suicide as to prevent criticism after the suicide had taken place: For if the form had been filled correctly, it was possible to argue that all that could have been done to prevent it was in fact done. This kind of magical thinking was accepted more or less wholesale by the courts investigating the suicides of prisoners.

 In fact, the form was even more cunningly designed than this suggests. It was of such complexity that it was almost impossible to fill it in correctly, or at least sufficiently. So that if blame had to be apportioned, which is to say if negligence had been incontestable, it could be apportioned to the last person who had not filled his little bit of the form properly. It could then be claimed that, but for this omission, the suicide would not have happened; and the chief glory of the form was that the failure to fill it adequately was almost always by someone very lowly in the hierarchy.

An excerpt:

The Rishonim in Nedarim (28) distinguish between dina d’malchusa, fair laws that are necessary for good governance, and dina d’malka, arbitrary laws decreed by whim of the ruler. Halacha demands that we respect the former, but shows no recognition of the latter. A theoretical question: when the President withholds necessary anti-terror funds from a city, endangering the entire population, as an act of retribution against a Senator from his own party who dared cross him, are we dealing with dina d’malka or dina d’malchusa?  Or when the Attorney General threatens to prosecute those who engage in “anti-Muslim speech” but  makes no move to bring charges against a Secretary of State who kept top secret data on an unsecure mail server in a bathroom, are the laws of the land being enforced dina d’malka or dina d’malchusa? I can give plenty more examples, but you get the idea.  Just wondering at what point we’ve crossed the line.

I prefer his second example.

From Divrei Chaim, here.