Vision and Covenant | In the Paths of Redemption

Vision and Covenant | In the Paths of Redemption - Rabbi Meir Berlin (Bar Ilan)

In the Paths of Redemption - Rabbi Meir Berlin (Bar Ilan)

Religion and Faith - Religion and State: on the question of our future in Eretz Israel

A.
A great rule holds true in the lives of individuals and communities: Sof ma’aseh b’machshava techila – deeds must be done with forethought. If an individual or community are successful, this is a sure sign that their actions were accompanied by thought, that forethought used to understand clearly how and in what order things were to be done. True, it is hard to plumb the depths of thought and put it fully into practice; thoughts, for the most part, rise like free birds and know no bounds or borders, while deeds are usually constricted and limited, dependent on circumstances of time and place. But if the individual or the community understand the matter at hand and have a planned course of action, then when the time comes they know what to embrace and what to discard, what to forego and where to make compromises, and in this way some of the many ideas come to fruition. But if they have only aspirations and no particular plan for putting them into practice, then this will cause confusion if an opportunity arises to carry them out, or utter despair if there are obstacles along the way.
We are now facing a new life. We hope that we will live to dwell as a nation in our land, and we wish to lead a complete Jewish life, imbued with our national spirit and religious tradition. We look to the days when the question “What is Judaism?” is no longer relevant, for a powerful national spirit will reside within and around us, and each of us will be Jewish both in feeling and in deed. And just as any member of a foreign nation, who lives in his own land, may disagree with the majority and diverge from the views, words and deeds of others and yet not exclude himself nor be ousted from the community, so it shall be with us. There will surely be trespassers among us, but there will be no doubt as to their being part of the Jewish community, for the national spirit residing in every nation that lives under normal circumstances will embrace them also, and we shall have no moral right to exclude any one from our community and prevent him from being in our midst because we deem him undesirable. And yet we heartily wish not to be like other nations, and that the land of the Jews not become like that of the Serbs or even like the United States, which are a united only in language, history and political life. The most excellent of us wish for our land to be touched with a religious spirit, the spirit of our tradition and Torah. Otherwise, we would have lost more than we gained: we would have achieved tikkun in the physical sense, would live peacefully, not suffer temporal exile, and have complete freedom; but we would not have achieved tikkun for our souls. For whereas until now we had continuously spun our historical thread, and had been a chosen people in our own eyes and to a certain extent in the eyes of the world, we would suddenly break this thread and be a simple, small, indigent people, the likes of which there are scores and hundreds in the world. We would have a land beneath our feet, but there would be no heaven above our heads. For thousands of years we have lived in ancient faith, followed an established tradition and preserved our Torah in its entirety; we have abided by our Torah in poverty and in riches, we have gone through fire and water and never betrayed the holiness of our nation. Any one who excluded himself from the community was regarded by us as a wasted limb that fell from the body of our nation. Shall we now betray all this for the sake of “a land that is desirable, good and vast”?
But here a question arises. While we live in strangers’ lands, in which the laws and customs of the land are determined by others while our national identity manifests only in viewpoints and ideas, we can readily declare that the two principles, “all Israel are friends” and “Israel and the Torah and G-d are one” – the one denoting full recognition of the rights of those who think differently, the other declaring complete faith in our own beliefs – are as closely intertwined as an ember and a flame. This principle emerges from our literature, from our worldview, and from the life we have led. But when we live as a nation in our own land, we will be required to formulate rules and regulations, laws and decrees, customs and practices – and countries are now based on very different principles from those of two or three thousand years ago – how shall we adapt our beliefs and views to real, daily life? Many are now in a quandary: what shall the relationship be in our country between religion and state – that is, how shall we resolve the question of “church and state”, with which other nations wrestle? Many inquire what approach we, as faithful Jews, should take with regard to various religious issues that affect public life. And though until now we have exempted ourselves from discussing these questions, we are no longer permitted to keep silent. It is true that our country is not yet in our possession, and it is possible that all our hopes will not be fully realized, but for many years yet we will not be a majority in our land, due to our moderate approach to settling our land thus far. Even when we possess the rights due to us, we shall still to a certain extent depend upon the actions of others. We are now harnessing all our strength to build our country and offering up many sacrifices for her sake, some with their bodies, some with their souls and some with their wealth. Why should we not clarify to ourselves how we can arrange our spiritual lives according to our beliefs? Are we truly indifferent as to whether our spiritual aspirations are fulfilled or not? Can it be that we, who uphold the Jewish faith, aspire only to build our land materially, constructing roads and rails and opening banks, while abandoning all matters of the spirit, all schools and educational institutions, to others?
Is it not time now to clarify, first and foremost to ourselves, what our country’s spiritual character ought to be according our written and oral Torah?

B.
There are terms and concepts that are alike in name but altogether different in content. And it sometimes happens that a certain term develops in the course of time so that it loses its original content and is filled with new content, casting off its inner form and taking on another. These changes are not recognized by the mentally shortsighted, who use these terms interchangeably, taking the words at face value and ignoring their altered content. They use the old content of the term to measure the changed term with its new content.
It is from this erroneous perspective that a “new” question now arises among us – the question of “church and state”. This question has not yet emerged into the open and is not yet a “burning” issue, but already it flickers at the edges of our community, and already there are those who demand that it be addressed. Some of them forecast that the question of religion and state will bring about a harsh struggle in our land between the heads of government and those of the religious establishment, such as took place in other countries. The people will for the most part support the religious establishment while the educated will side with the government, and eventual victory will be theirs. There are also those who believe that the question will be resolved peacefully, for we already acknowledge that “religion is a personal matter, subject to the wishes of each individual”. And so they debate this matter without noticing that they are fundamentally mistaken in equating the issue of religion in our lives with that of “church and state”. They are confusing two issues that are not comparable in any way. Not only is our nation different from any other nation, but our religion is different from any other religion. To the nations of the world, state matters and religious matters are two separate affairs, based on and influenced by separate elements. The state does not enter the domain of religion, nor does religion have any bearing on the leadership of the state. Even the most pious follower of the Christian or the Mohammedan church cannot conduct his life as a citizen according to his religion. These religions do contain indications of what is good or bad in state life, of what is commendable or reprehensible in interpersonal or citizenship matters, but they contain no laws to guide the actions of an entire country. Even the most religious nations must compile law-books to govern state, public and family life. These rules are formulated in a natural way, by human beings, and whoever disputes or misinterprets them is not considered a sinner in the religious sense. Thus religion and government two separate authorities. The minister of religion and the state judge are disparate in duty and position, and neither encroaches upon the authority of the other.
Thus the two entities, government and religious establishment, become two separate, competing powers. Separate because there is no point of contact between them, and competing due to human nature and the nature of political movements, which tends towards domination and control. There is constant conflict between the religious leaders, who wish to influence all matters, and the heads of government who justly claim that two authorities cannot wear one crown. If one ascends the other descends, and if religion dominates, then the secular government necessarily becomes merely an auxiliary. Therefore the heads of government demand that the religious establishment be separated from it. Where the two are not separated they do not work hand in hand, but rather the religious establishment prevails. Sometimes the supreme ruler of a state may create a different impression, but even in these cases he either heads the church himself, as was the case in Russia and in Turkey, or bows to the authority of its leaders. But where such separation does exist it does not constitute heresy but merely a drawing of boundaries. Sometimes the believers themselves endeavor to separate religion from government, not to anger or provoke but because they foresee that if they do not, then the government should submit to the religious establishment. This would be undesirable to them, and all the more undesirable to those who are not members of the dominant religion, and who approve of this separation because they do not wish religion to control the state. To summarize: among other nations, the separation of religion and government does not aim to undermine religion but only to prevent the supreme rule of its leaders and clergy. If we try to typify the two sides in this dispute, we shall see that those who oppose separation are usually those so zealously religious as to wish to take over entirely, while the supporters of separation are the religiously moderate whose motto is “Render unto Cesar that which is Cesar’s”.
All this does not apply to us. Our written and oral Torah is not a law-book written by man but the book of the G-d’s teachings. Criticizing it by saying, “this law is proper and that law is not” is not merely partial rejection but complete heresy, for it divests the Torah of its sacredness. Whoever takes this approach is thereby excluding himself not only from the Jewish community but from the community of the faithful wherever it may be. Our Torah offers not only concepts that pertain to state and public life, but also rules and laws to govern it. These tenets are among the essential components of the Torah; they are religious commandments. The same sections of the Torah that deal with man's relation to his conscience and to his Maker also offer general and specific rules for the conduct of state and social life and relations with other countries - how to wage war on them and how to make peace with them. Never, either in our homeland or in exile, have we ever had books of law that were purely secular. We have no "church" that is not also concerned with matters of state, just as we have no state that is not also concerned with religious matters. Therefore we do not have two authorities. Religion and government are not separate entities, and have no separate leaders. We have never had a head of “church”, such as the Pope in Rome or church leaders in other countries. Our priests, including the High Priest in ancient times, were not leaders of a religious establishment but of ritual. They practiced the sacred rituals and guided the people in the rightful path. The Sanhedrin were not only religious leaders but also heads of government. Just as they dealt with religious laws such as those concerning purity and impurity, so they also passed judgments on monetary and marital matters and decided whether to wage war or make peace. Likewise, those of our kings who did the will of G-d and of the nation would consult their rabbis, who were great scholars of the Torah. Those kings who rebelled against the kingdom of Heaven and defied the precepts of Torah were despised by the people, and are still not mentioned favorably in our chronicles.
And since our religion and government are not fundamentally separate, there is no competition between them. Our religious establishment would never attempt to overrule the government, since this government is part and parcel of it. If there were cases, in the days of the ancient kings and of Herod, where certain rulers would not listen to teachers and Halachic authorities but did as they saw fit, this constituted no dispute between state and religious powers; rather, it was a conflict between the God of Israel and His doctrine and the gods of other nations and their doctrines, or between the Jewish spirit and the Gentile spirit.
All this illustrates that though its name remains the same, the issue of “church and state” takes a very different form in our nation from that which it takes among other nations. In fact, for us this issue has no real substance. For if anyone attempts – once the state is founded – to separate religion from government, this shall not constitute a separation but a contradiction. If anyone should say, “Let the religious deal with religious matters and not interfere with government concerns,” it would be like saying, “Let us cut our Torah to shreds, accepting the lesser part that deals with moral and spiritual issues and rejecting the greater part concerned with actions and customs, which we shall replace with other rules and regulations.” If such an approach were taken, it could not claim to model itself on political life in European and American states; rather, its essence would lie in ancient history, when “our fathers were idol-worshippers…”

C.
A great rule applies to human settlements in the world: laws are not established in advance. People do not congregate in a country after they had decided how to conduct themselves and order their lives. At first individuals and groups congregate in one place, thereafter they form a community, and out of their private and public lives emerge the laws and customs appropriate to the place. Considering this, there is no need at all to establish laws in advance. The customs that prevail among the people are sufficient for the lawmakers and judges, who then record that the custom is thus, and that whoever deviates from it should be punished. The entire history of law, and the laws of Rome in particular, shows that laws are rooted in the circumstances under which each nation came to be. This explains the many differences in the laws of countries that differ from each other in character and living conditions.
Were this not the case, the return to our land would have been fraught with difficulty. A grave question would have occupied us: how shall we settle the time-honored laws with those customs and ideas to which we, children of the Diaspora, have become accustomed in our lands of exile? Since laws are not made in advance but rather generated by daily life, individuals and groups are already set in their ways of behaving and thinking; how then shall we approach law-making in our country? Shall we accept the laws and customs we have brought from exile, though in some measure they contradict those of our Jewish tradition, or shall we not diverge in the slightest from that which was written and transmitted to us, though it obliges us to live contrary to the way of the world? Those who hold that the laws of the Torah should remain so in name only, while life is governed by universal laws, must be asked this: if all who come to our land originated in one place, then they could all follow the custom of the place whence they came. But it is our desire and hope to have Jews of all countries come to our land. We favor Sephardim from Eastern countries as much as European Ashkenazim; Yemenites, who are far removed from modern life, are no less wanted than are Americans. How, then, shall we establish the customs and laws of the land – in the spirit of the “unenlightened” Yemenites or that of the “enlightened” Americans? According to the wishes of Western or those of Eastern persons?
Happily, we see that the process of legislation in the world is recently taking a new course. We see that laws are formulated and life is organized with forethought. It often happens that a group decides to change an established law, and it accustoms the people to the idea, until they gradually perceive that change is required and demand it of their own volition. We are witnessing this phenomenon in America with regard to the “prohibition”. Certain persons began to persuade the nation that prohibiting the sale of alcohol, though it would limit individual rights, might remedy the nation as a whole, so that overall the gain would exceed the loss. Gradually their influence on the nation grew, until the nation resolved to demand that the law be changed. In European countries, too, we see such occurrences. The entire socialist movement fundamentally aims to accustom the nation to change its views and ways of thinking, thus naturally producing a change in law. And this movement is increasingly successful. Many laws concerning property, work and the relationship between worker and employer have developed, seemingly of themselves, in many countries once the thinking of their inhabitants had altered. What was obvious to their fathers and fathers’ fathers – that the property-owner and work-giver has almost complete control over his workers – is not at all obvious to the sons, who already wonder at the notion of employing a worker for more than eight hours a day, or preventing him from striking.
All this shows that between the first approach, that of allowing laws to develop in the course of life, and the second approach that would adapt life to the written law, there is a third approach. It advocates that the order of life be established with certain goals in mind, so that the laws that take shape in the course of life are in keeping with these goals. Once we apply this rule, the question of our future in Eretz Israel is resolved.
Among those who come to Israel will be many – especially Europeans and Americans – who, if they feel any connection to Judaism at all, will be far from familiar with its teachings. They will say, “Jewish law does not concern us. Let each man and each group follow their own customs and mode of behavior, and once life has become settled the lawmakers will find everything set out before them, and they shall then select whatever is solid and wholesome and make it into law. Meanwhile we shall lead a makeshift life and follow our customs, which have become part and parcel of us. And if the written and oral Torah contains principles that conflict with our laws and customs, we want no part of them.” On the other hand there will be extremists who declare we must pay no heed to modern customs. We should follow only the laws of our Torah, and if there are many who do not fathom their meaning, this is no concern of ours. These two factions will create a rift in our nation, and we may yet see a new version of the “reformers” of Judaism in our land. These will worse than the reformers we encountered in exile, for this time it will not be prayer and ritual that are reformed, but the very law and order of life.
This is where our approach may be applied, in the same way that a third text may reconcile two apparently contradictory texts. We acknowledge that “this Torah shall not be altered” and that the only way to unite the whole Jewish nation, with its various factions, under one rule of government, is to return to living according to the laws of our written and oral Torah. Yet we cannot flippantly and disapprovingly dismiss all the feelings and customs of this generation. If they conflict with the laws of our Torah, we should right them gradually. We must begin our task not by formulating laws but by educating the young and influencing the adults. We must affect the nation so that it wants our laws; we must act, albeit indirectly, through schools and textbooks, journalism and literature, to cause the inhabitants of this land to gradually alter their thinking and views, drawing closer to the laws of our Torah. As a result these laws will be accepted naturally, not by moral or physical force but out of inner acknowledgement and willingness.
To summarize: the question of how life is to be managed in the Land of our Hope is the question of education and public influence. Based on this conclusion we must resolve the main issue: what form shall the public schools take in our country? Shall we be satisfied as long as our children learn language and literature in public schools, even if they are taught from a perspective opposed to religion and faith? Or shall we insist that they be taught language and literature from a religious perspective? If we could agree with the prevailing view that state and religion are two separate realms, we could also concede that the laws of life and the laws of Torah are not “two as one”, and so naturally each individual may learn what he will. Let those who are faithful to religion establish their schools and those who oppose it establish their own, providing the language and literature taught in them are our nation’s. However, having seen that to Jews religion and state are not “two as one” but truly one and the same, we cannot trade the laws of Torah for the laws of Rome. Therefore we must accustom our whole nation to admire and know the Torah, just as all wise organizers of public life incline the public towards their goals. To this end we have no better means than to assign the schools to the authority of the public, of the state. In these schools, pupils – and alongside them, parents – will be educated in the spirit of Jewish religion and tradition; for these are to us what language and literature are to other nations.
If we wish to perpetuate our spiritual heritage rather than create a new Judaism, we must make of the schools in our homeland more than places where languages and practical knowledge are taught; they must be true educational institutions, suited to the nation's spirit and ideals. Knowledge of Halacha and of all that it entails should play an important role among these studies. The Talmud and its literature must remain the heritage of the whole House of Israel, if only to some extent. It should not be knowledge reserved only for professional scholars of the Torah. Naturally, we also need experts who will devote most or all of their lives to the study of the Talmud - and these should be of the highest caliber. But the spirit of the Talmud and some knowledge of Halacha and Agada – its legal and narrative portions – should be acquired by every educated Jew. Every school-pupil should be required to master certain sections of the Talmud and to imbibe its spirit, though he may not turn this field of study into his life's work.
This requirement, which many may consider too extreme, obliges us not to be satisfied with establishing yeshivot and Hebrew schools such as now exist in the Diaspora and in Israel. We must acknowledge that our country will and must be an educated, enlightened one, and that we cannot isolate ourselves. If we wish to be a modern nation, we cannot by any means allow our education to be reduced to those national or religious studies particular to us, so that when we need doctors, architects or engineers we import them from other countries or dispatch our children to study there. Likewise, we do not have the right to segregate the schools in our land so that “ours” are devoted solely to the study of Torah and Jewish wisdom, while “theirs” – the schools of those whose views differ from ours – are schools for general, worldly education. If we do so, we shall be putting the pupils of our schools at a disadvantage compared to those who attend secular schools. Not only for material reasons but spiritually, it would be wrong for us to do so. It is a great rule in life that one who increases his wealth increases his dignity. If those who attend secular schools are richer and better educated, while the pupils of our schools are merely God-fearing and well versed in the Torah, the influence of the former will be greater and they will predominate in every aspect of life. Then the sad phenomenon we see in the Diaspora will recur: yeshiva students who are materially poor and spiritually downtrodden, while college students are successful and influential.
Because of our wholehearted wish for all our children to know the Torah and follow its paths, we must establish schools that teach both Jewish and general studies, and the former must teach our children not only literature and language but also Torah, for literacy alone is not enough.