Anarchism and Orthodox Judaism

The Bible indicates, that the pre-monarchic Israelite society was anarchistic: "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges, 21:25); The prophet Samuel harshly criticized the Jews for trying to establish a monarchy.[8] Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag, referring to the above-mentioned verse, believed, that the future society will be libertarian communist.[3]

The Essenes were a monastic Jewish sect that flourished from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD. Although the Essenic society was divided into four strictly hierarchic orders, they rebelled against the establishment, lived a radically communal life, kept a vegetarian diet and supported themselves by manual labor, usually agricultural. New initiates to Essenism took some vows, including an oath not to force personal views or authority on others.

Eldad ha-Dani was a merchant and traveler of the ninth century, who professed to have been a citizen of an "independent Jewish state" in eastern Africa, inhabited by people claiming descent from the tribes of Dan (hence his name, "ha-Dani" = "the Danite"), Asher, Gad, and Naphtali. According to his travel narratives, there is somewhere in the world a large land, encircled by the mysterious river Sambation, inhabited by descendants of Moses. The inhabitants of this land have beautiful houses and live happy, wealthy and extremely long lives; they are all equal and farm their land by themselves, because they don't have servants; no one of them locks their doors at night, because they would consider it a shame; unlike the other tribes described in the story, no king or authority is mentioned.[9]

Eldad ha-Dani's fanciful travel narratives were accepted by his contemporaries as true and were very popular in the Jewish world until recent times. Even today, there are a few people, who believe that this mysterious land exists, perhaps somewhere in a parallel dimension.[10] Regardless of the factual truth of Eldad ha-Dani's account, it indicates that many medieval Jews believed that such a utopian society is possible and has been actually implemented.

According to Eastern European Jewish legends, before the establishment of the Hasidic movement by the Baal Shem Tov, there existed a secret society of Kabbalists, who hid their mystical knowledge and refrained from public positions and honors. Some of these mystics, according to the legends, had establishing self-ruled agricultural settlements, which emphasized individual autonomy, solidarity and compassion, closeness to nature and living by their own labor. The sixth Lubavitcher rebbe, Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, said that the village of Lyubavichi took its origin from such a settlement, established by a mystic, named Reb Meyer, whose love to his fellows, both Jews and non-Jews, was boundless, and who also showed great compassion to all living beings. According to the legend, the village was originally named "Luba", meaning "love" both in Russian and Polish.[11]

Some Hasidic rebbes had proposed social structures that emphasize equality and anti-authoritarian principles. Kalonymus Kalman Shapira of Piasetzno had organized a mystical circle of Hasidim, focused on spiritual development and meditation. Rabbi Shapiro had insisted that his organization should refrain from choosing the chairman, vice chairman etc., as it was a custom in many organizations, because in a place, where holiness is revealed, there is no rulership and honors.[12]

Another example of Hasidic anti-authoritarianism are some sectors of the Breslov community, who refuse to obey any contemporary authorities and follow only the teaching of Rebbe Nachman and his disciple, Reb Noson. The Breslov community in general is very decentralized and includes followers of diametrically opposite political opinions, such as far-right settlers of the West Bank, as well as universalistic thinkers and apolitical contemplatives.

Some Hasidic masters, including Simcha Bunim of Peshischa, Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica and Zadok of Lublin, emphasize individual choice, freedom, spontaneity and dynamism of thought and action.[13]

According to the Hasidic panentheistic view, God is the true nature of all reality and the true self of the human soul ("the soul of the souls"). All duality and multiplicity is an illusion, resulting from the Tzimtzum. The contemporary Hasidic researcher Immanuel Schochet had described this view as monistic acosmism.[14] Everything in the world is ever-changing and lacks intrinsic reality,[15][16] while the only true reality – God – is beyond all definitions and boundaries, including time, space, personality and even substantial existence.[17][18][19] Such views of reality are common in the Chassidic literature, although many contemporary Chassidim are unaware of these teachings and might consider them too esoteric.

The appearance of God as a personal being in the world of Atzilut is also a result of the Tzimtzum and, according to the teachings of the Lubavitcher rabbi, is a reflection of the to-be-created human personality,[20] though some other Chassidim might consider such views bordering on heresy. In Kabbalistic and Hasidic literature, God is commonly called Ein Sof (the Infinite) or, sometimes, Ayin (Nothingness). The purpose of "worshiping" God is the realization of the Absolute Reality and unification with it.[21]

Such esoteric views of God differ radically from conventional monotheism and resemble the Eastern concepts of Nirguna Brahman, Suchness and Dharmakaya. Thus, Mikhail Bakunin's and Daniel Guérin's critique of religion can be only partly applied to such a theology.

According to the Hasidic esoteric philosophy, the Halacha is not a set of laws, imposed by an external authority (since in panentheistic view God is never "external"), but a framework of means for spiritual self-development, somewhat similar to the Eastern concept of Dharma. The reward of fulfilling the commandments is the inner development itself;[22] the punishment for the sin is the destructive spiritual impact of certain actions.[23] Thus, the religious laws are seen as natural (and, at same time, divine and supernatural), as the laws of physical nature. Halacha itself is open to inquiry, though actual change or violation of halachic norms, according to traditional Hasidism, usually requires extensive expertise and mystical knowledge, and should be taken with great caution.[24] According to some Kabbalists, in the Messianic world the standardized Halacha will be abolished, because everyone will realize his/her personal spiritual path by personal intuition. Such views are very common in the classic Chassidic literature, although many contemporary Chassidim might consider these teachings too esoteric and view the Halacha primarily as "law".

There are two clearly anti-authoritarian passages in the Mishnaic tractate Pirkei Avot: "Love labor, hate mastery over others, and avoid a close relationship with the government" (Avot, 1:10); "Be careful with the government, for they befriend a person only for their own needs. They appear to be friends when it is beneficial to them, but they do not stand by a person at the time of his distress" (Avot 2:3).

Another passage in Pirkei Avot lists four possible social relationship schemes: "He who says, 'What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours', is the median type, though some say that this is the quality of Sodom. He who says, 'What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine', is a simple (or, according to other readings, an ignorant) man. He who says, 'What's mine is yours and what's yours is yours', is a pious man ('Hasid'). And he who says, 'What's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine', is wicked.'" (Avot, 5:13). According to Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag, consistent application of this ethical rule by all members of the society leads to voluntary communism.[25]

During the Middle Ages, some Jews practiced usury against the non-Jews, while condemning it within the Jewish community. Most medieval rabbis approved of such practice, which helped the Jews to survive in antisemitic states, where they were excluded from most professions. However, a number of prominent rabbis explain that usury is unethical in nature, and is not allowed against people, who treat Jews well.[26] Emphasis on cooperative productive word and criticism of wage labor and of profit from financial operations is found in some Judaic ethical treatises, including Sefer HaBrit by Rabbi Pinchas Eliyahu of Vilna,[27] Tiferet Israel by Israel Lipschitz,[28] and Memoirs of Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, the sixth Lubavicher Rebbe.[29]

Traditional Judaism is often viewed as a national religion, concerned mostly with internal affairs. However, many well known Torah scholars called for international solidarity, cooperation and compassion. For example, the Lithuanian-born Rabbi Pinchas Elijah Horovitz, the author of Sefer haBrit, who lived in 18th century Galicia, had insisted that the Jews are obligated to love their neighbors, Jews and non-Jews alike, like themselves. He called for compassionate international solidarity, mutual aid and cooperative labor.[30]

Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh, an Italian Orthodox Kabbalist, strongly supported religious universalism and political internationalism.

Contemporary Judaism rejects capital punishment and, at least in theory, almost never advocates physical coercion, except for some rare cases, such as forcing a husband who refuses to give a get to his wife, who wants to be divorced. However, historically Judaism (as laid down in the Torah) did mandate, at least in theory, the death sentence for certain crimes, provided that certain requirements are met, namely two eyewitnesses and the perpetrator being warned of (and acknowledging) the punishment if they were to carry out the crime. This however requires participation of active Sanhedrin (the supreme court of Jewish law) which is presently non existent. The only exception to that rule is the case of the "moyser" ("informer") who threatens the life of others by informing the authorities; such a person could be killed, in principle, even today.

While Tanakh contains many violent stories of military conquest, capital and collective punishment for various sins, the Talmud and the later commentators tend to interpret these stories not literally or reduce them to unique one-time contexts. For example, the Talmudic requirements for corporal punishments are so complicated and unrealistic, that render them virtually impossible even in the biblical times and certainly impossible today. The Talmud says, that a Sanhedrin, who would put someone to death even once (or, according to another version, more than once) in 70 years, deserves to be called a "bloody Sanhedrin". According to Kabbalah, the purpose of these rare punishments was the spiritual "correction" of the sinner's soul, in order to liberate it from the Klipot.

Rabbi Abraham Yehudah Khein, a supporter of communist anarchism, noticed that Rabbi Akiva, one of the most prominent Talmudical sages, rejected capital punishment altogether. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon said that if they and their pupils were to participate in a Sanhedrin, they would make sure that no one is ever killed.[31]

The Talmud teaches: "Who is mighty? One who controls his passions" (Pirkei Avot 4:1); "Who is the mightiest of heroes? He who makes an enemy into his friend" (Pirkei Avot, 5:11); "Be of the persecuted rather than the persecutor" (Bava Kama 93a). However, a number of anti-Zionist rabbis, especially, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the late Satmar rebbe, condemned the violence of the Israel Defense Forces, including the Six-Day War, although many observers considered this war an act of "preemptive self-defence". While Judaism fully recognizes the right of military defense, many Orthodox Jews only consider it legitimate in cases of clear and unavoidable danger. Even in such cases, some anti-Zionist Jews deny the right of the State to execute such power.[32]

A few Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionist groups, especially Neturei Karta, don't support any of Israel's military actions and reject the State altogether.They view it as a heresy, in contradiction with the belief in the future Messianic redemption, which is not interpreted literally as the restoration of the Biblical Jewish kingdom, but as a spiritual 'kingdom' of universal harmony and peace.

Though in ancient times the Jewish religious practice centered on the Great Sanhedrin, which acted as a rabbinical legislative authority controlling the whole of ancient Judea, Modern Judaism is a principally decentralized religion that lacks a central clerical body.

Often today, Rabbis are considered to be just more knowledgeable people, who serve as advisors and analyze how the Halacha applies to different situations, although some rabbinical figures and organizations impose their authority though coercive means. Some rabbis have secular jobs and refrain from being supported by the community. Nevertheless, in ultra-orthodox Haredi circles, the concept of Da'as Torah still mandates near-complete obedience to the authority of gedolim (a special cadre of especially esteemed rabbinic scholars) in every area of everyday life. This authority structure exists both in the Haredi Litvish camp and among Hasidic groups, where the Admor or Rebbe is consulted for Da'as Torah. One notable exception are the Breslov Hasidim, who tend to be decentralized and individualistic.

Despite this, even in the most authoritarian Jewish communities it's very common to disobey the rabbis for various reasons, and to organize new independent groups, who would choose their own rabbis, or, sometimes, would refuse to obey any living authority. For example, some Satmar Hasidim refuse to recognize their current leadership and rely solely on the teachings of the late Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum; most Satmar Hasidim do not recognize and harshly criticise all Zionist and pro-Zionist rabbinical institutions, especially the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. Some educated Orthodox Jews do not affiliate with any particular rabbi or group, and choose halachic opinions on their own, by researching rabbinical literature and comparing opinions of different rabbis.

The tradition of decentralization and somewhat critical approach to authoritarian structures is common among Orthodox Jews, especially among the Hasidim, who are divided into over 100 independent sects.

The Kabbalistic and Hasidic literature often views hierarchies, dichotomies and casual relationships as relative and overturnable, based on the ontological principle of Sefer Yetzirah, that the beginning is wedged in the end, and the end is wedged in the beginning, and the monistic concepts of unity and interrelated nature of all things. For example, Malkhut, which usually represents the feminine aspects of Reality in Kabbalah, is the lowest and, at the same time, the highest of the Sephirot, because in its root it's identical with Keter; according to the teachings of Chassidus, Moses had lost some "sparks" of his spirituality due to the misdeeds of the Jews in the desert, because the leader is in some aspect lower the led, "like the head, that can not go without the feet, in which aspect the feet become the head";[33] the empty part of a book or a Torah scroll is considered more ontologically significant, because it enables the very existence of the text; repentance can elevate a sin to the level higher than a Mitzvah; destruction can be a creative force, like the seed, that must be destroyed in the soil, in order to grow into a new plant.

In general, the dialectic of Kabbalah often closely resembles deconstructivist philosophy.[34]

Judaism accepts that truth is relative to some extent and that the opposite Halachic opinions can both be right, although this idea is usually not generalized beyond some traditional contexts. Rabbi Menachem Nachum Twerski of Chernobyl had stated, that even contradicting descriptions of historical reality can both be, and sometimes are, true.[35] According to Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, the true knowledge is denial of any final knowledge; when a person reaches the "peak" of one spiritual world, all his/her previous knowledge is nullified by the new knowledge, that he discovers in the next world. However, one must seek and follow his or her personal truth, in order to keep "climbing" to the higher worlds and new levels of the knowledge, which have no end.[36]

The belief in the future restoration of the Messiah's kingdom on earth is considered one of the fundamental tenets of traditional Judaism. Some classic rabbinical commentaries, especially the Rambam, supported monarchy and viewed the future Messiah as a king in literal sense and the future Messianic redemption as restoration of the Jewish state. According to other classic interpretations, the Torah only tells what limitations are supposed to be put on the king's power and possessions, if the Jews decide to choose monarchy as an option. According to Isaac Abrabanel, the "king" Moshiach will be a universally accepted spiritual teacher and a judge, but not a monarch; the state will be abolished and humanity will eventually return to the original Edenic harmony.[37] Though Abarbanel's commentary is complex and may be interpreted in a number of different ways, his view of the ideal society in not statist. Rabbi Jonathan Sachs considers Abarbanel an 'utopian anarchist' [38]

A number of Hasidic teachers consistently rejected or spiritualized the idea of a future Messianic "kingdom", and viewed Messiah as a compassionate teacher and advisor, but not a coercive ruler.[39] According to such Hasidic interpretation, the Messiah will "fight" God's eschatological "wars" by providing a role model of a great Tzadik.[40] Some Jewish mystics emphasize the concept of 'Messianic spark' or the 'inner Messiah' within every righteous individual or every human soul. According to such view, the whole humanity will attain collectively redemptive Messianic consciousness in the future.

There is a seemingly monarchist passage in the Talmud: Pray for the stability of the kingdom, for were it not for the fear of its authority, a man would swallow his neighbor alive (Avot 3:2). However, Isaac Abarbanel, Israel Lipschutz and a number of other classic commentators hold that this passage only stresses the need for social order ("kingdom"), which might be organized by the people, and not necessarily by the king.[41] Some mystical commentators interpret this passage in non-literal fashion, as referring to the spiritual Divine kingdom inside every human individual, not unlike Leo Tolstoy.