April 17, 2008
The commotion stirred up by Sen. Barack Obama’s recently retired minister, Jeremiah Wright, as well as the commemoration of the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. brought into focus in the Jewish community a fundamental question that all rabbis continually address: how engaged ought they be in social action and political advocacy?
Without even considering the dominant role of black churches in America in the civil rights movement, these issues have come up in the Catholic Church’s debate over liberation theology, the mainline Protestant churches’ engagement in the challenges of immigration, and with the Reform movement’s support for abortion rights and opposition to the Iraq War.
Recently, a number of comments made by rabbis reopened a concern as to how today’s rabbis are defining their roles specifically with respect to Israel.
Inherent in the role of the rabbi is the need to address the moral and ethical issues of the day in one’s community, one’s country, and throughout the world. In particular, responsible clergy must address matters involving the Jewish people and the State of Israel. The question is to what extent rabbis should take these considerations to an end where they address a specific public policy proposal and/or legislative initiative.
Today, especially within the Orthodox rabbinate, there are fewer and fewer rabbis who are actively engaged within their own community, let alone nationally or internationally, on issues that fall outside the immediate purview of relations with Israel and Jewish survival. In this regard, two recent incidents suggest that some leading rabbis may well be losing their perspective as to how they are teaching ethics and morality.
Earlier this month in Jerusalem a memorial gathering was held on the occasion of the conclusion of the shloshim, the 30 day-mourning period, for the students from the Mercaz Harav yeshiva who were gunned down by a former Arab employee. Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, a former Sephardi chief rabbi, is reported to have said: “Even when we seek revenge, it is important to make one thing clear — the life of one yeshiva boy is worth more than the lives of 1,000 Arabs.”
Such provocative language, similar to what was heard prior to Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination and the Gaza withdrawal, is dangerous. Rabbis who sought to use this gathering to express their grief about the tragedy at the yeshiva and their faith in the future were drowned out by the call for disproportionate vengeance.
Similarly, in Jerusalem last month, Rabbi Herschel Schachter, one of Yeshiva University’s leading halachic authorities, addressed a group of, among others, American post-high school students. He suggested conditions for which defiance of the Israeli army and the Israeli government was warranted: “If the army is going to give away Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), then I would tell everyone to resign from the army — I’d tell them to shoot the rosh hamemshala (prime minister).”
While Rabbi Schachter subsequently apologized for his remarks, such provocations do not become great rabbinic leaders, who seek to transmit by word and deed Jewish values and morals. Advocacy of violence, even in an offhand remark, hardly demonstrates responsible representations of the Torah and its teachings to all Jews, especially impressionable teenagers.
In 2006 the Orthodox Union decided that after what it viewed as the failed Israeli decision to withdraw from Gaza, it no longer had a moral obligation to support the policy decisions of the Israeli government. “The Orthodox Union may, in exceptional circumstances, take public positions contrary to those of the Government of Israel,” its statement read. Even for those who support such a position, the rhetoric of Rabbis Eliyahu and Schachter are over the line.
Part of the attack by many Jewish leaders against the Rev. Wright was that he spoke inflammatory words, which could lead in some cases to dangerous actions. The Talmud teaches rabbis the very same lesson when it states: Hachamim, hezahru b’devreichem (Rabbis, be careful of what you say).
Rabbis must establish the ethical and moral framework within which Jews ought to understand issues; they should not advocate a specific policy. They should encourage voluntary actions by Jews to operate within such parameters; but they ought not to advocate specific legislation. Most importantly, they should be exceedingly careful of what they say and the consequences and implications of their words.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn is a professor of political science at Kean University in Union.
- Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com