Ideas and Opinions of Religious Leaders on the Disengagment
Continue to Other Articles of Interest
Back to Hitnatkut Articles Continue to Other Articles of Interest
Proceedings of the World Council on Ideology and SpiritualityEntered: 6/Apr/2005 |
Dear Friends,
During the past decade, a number of Israeli peace-making efforts and some social changes in Israeli society have led to significant tensions within the Religious Zionist community. These tensions have resulted in an internal lack of clarity, and to a change in the external perception of the Religious Zionist movement. In response to this challenge, the World Mizrachi Organization has formed the World Council on Ideology and Spirituality. The purpose of this council is to create a forum for an open, non-political discussion among leading Rabbinic and Academic figures on Religious Zionist ideology in contemporary times.
I am pleased to share with you the attached summary of the initial meeting of the council. As you will see, the discussion at this meeting affirmed the legitimacy of the multiplicity of voices in Religious Zionism, and began to tackle some of the critical issues that confront us today. I am confident that this meeting will serve as the foundation for future deliberations that will serve to clarify our tenets, strengthen our movement, and enable us to maximize our impact on Israeli society.
I would be pleased to receive your feedback, and look forward to sharing future developments with you.
Bivracha,
Harav Shaar Yashuv Cohen
President, World Council on Ideology and Spirituality
__________________________________
World Mizrachi Organization
World Council on Ideology and Spirituality
January 2, 2005
ë"à áèáú úùñ"ä
Participants:
Harav Shaar Yashuv Cohen, chairman; Eliezer Sheffer, Harav Shlomo Aviner; Professor Moshe Kaveh; Harav Haim Drukman; Harav Aharon Adler; Harabanit Esther Rosenberg; Harav Chaim Eisenberg; Harav Shlomo Riskin; Harav Yisrael Rosen; Harabanit Chana Kahat; Harav Shlomo Sheffer; Professor Daniel Sperber; Professor Shlomo Eckstein; Harabanit Dr. Naomi Cohen; Harav Yuval Sherlo; Professor Yehudah Eisenberg.
Note: The following is a summary of the deliberations and not a direct citation.
Harav Shaar Yashuv Cohen, Chairman: The World Mizrachi Organization has decided to establish a think tank with worldwide participation to work on a reformulation of the ideological foundations of Religious Zionism in our times, particularly in light of the dissension in our camp that is of great concern. After much consideration, we have invited rabbis and academics to sit together, to speak and to hear each other's opinions, without political considerations. We have tried to create an atmosphere that brings together all of the streams that see themselves committed to Religious Zionism - the schools of thought of Harav Kook, Harav Soloveitchik, and Harav Reines. We have intentionally not invited political personalities from any party, because we want the discussion to be on the ideological and philosophical level, rather than on the political level.
In my letter to you regarding this meeting, I raised the issue of setting priorities in the values of Religious Zionism in three areas: the Land of Israel, religious education, and the unity of the Jewish people. It is ironic that the unity of the Jewish people was the banner of Harav Kook zt"l against those who wished to divide the community into different camps, and today we are witness to divisions within our own camp. We hope to hear today fundamental positions on this issue - for example, if there is a priority in practice to the Land of Israel, the people of Israel, or the welfare of the people of Israel. At times, these elements seem to conflict in the public and political sectors. Or perhaps we will hear that it is impossible to set priorities.
In order to "take the bull by the horns", Eliezer Sheffer and I have asked two of our honored participants to present their positions on this issue: HaravA viner, one of the devoted students of Harav Kook, and Professor Moshe Kaveh, author of a well-known article on "The Ten Commandments of Religious Zionism". They will present their positions on the issue that we have raised as to whether there is a hierarchy of values in Religious Zionism, addressing both the fundamental principles and their practical implications. Each presenter will speak for 10-15 minutes. Afterwards, we will open up the discussion, asking respondents to keep their comments brief so we can end on time and ensure participation in coming meetings.
Harav Shlomo Aviner: As an introduction, we must first consider if it is indeed permissible to establish a hierarchy of values. As is known, the Radbaz opposed the establishment of "principles of faith" such as those established by Maimonides and others. When he was asked what his principles of faith were, he responded that everything that is written in the Torah of Moshe, we will hear and do (na'aseh ve-nishma). Everything is important, and it is impossible to degrade any one component. Who would be brazen enough to decide what is more important. This position is supported by the positions of Resh Lakish and RavYochanan: Resh Lakish said that anyone who profanes one law of the Torah goes to the netherworld, while RavYochanansaid that anyone who fulfills one law of the Torah merits a portion in the world to come. This is an organic and harmonious approach that can be illustrated through an analogy to the human body. An organic view of the human body would contend that each limb is important to the health of the person. If one limb is infected, it can destroy the entire body. So too, every commandment is equally important to the whole.
Nevertheless, we find that Maimonides and others did establish principles of faith. This is an approach that Harav Kook described through a similar analogy in his primary work, Orot. Although we tend to the entire body of a healthy person, when a person is sick, we recognize that life depends on certain organs while others might be dispensable. For example, we must first make sure that the heart is functioning well, before saving a leg. If we are unable to save the leg, we can still save the life of the patient by tending to the heart. So too, according to this position, the health of Judaism depends more strongly on certain specific beliefs and commandments.
If we follow the second opinion, we must define what constitutes the heart of Judaism. Harav Kook in Orot identified that the two most important elements are love of the Jewish people and faith in G-d. And the Rav said that love of the Jewish people precedes faith. In other words, the most important thing to us, today as well, is the unity of the Jewish people. If we can achieve unity among the Jewish people, we will succeed as well in all of the arenas including education and the Land of Israel. We have many strengths in the Religious Zionist camp and in the state of Israel. Yet, if those strengths are operating in opposite directions, they become counter productive. It is like a person who is propelling a boat with two paddles that are not synchronized. In such a situation, the boat does not advance. If we do not synchronize our strengths and we continue to divide into camps and sub-groups, success will be impossible. When I talk about unity, I do not mean that we have to agree. Each person can maintain his own positions, but we must listen to each other and succeed in working cooperatively. We have a state by virtue of the unity that was achieved, a unity that is particularly reflected in the army. Yet, today we have much work to do in this area. If we can unify our strengths, we will solve all of the problems - problems relating to the Land of Israel, security, education, and social justice.
Professor Moshe Kaveh:I take seriously the goal of creating a common language for Religious Zionism, a goal that is less ambitious than creating unity. A common language allows for differences of opinion. I will focus on a common language for Religious Zionism, and not for a Jewish democratic state, which is also an important goal, but one that is much broader and is perhaps a subject for the long term.
Approximately 9 years ago, after the Rabin assassination, a meeting of rabbis and academics, very similar to this gathering, was held at Bar Ilan to discuss the creation of a common language for Religious Zionism. The conference ended in a lack of clarity and frustration. Let us not repeat that exercise. That gathering was motivated by the sense that the Oslo process had created a crisis in Religious Zionism. Unfortunately, no significant responses emerged from the meeting. The participants repeated their slogans - followers of Harav Kook discussed the importance of redemption in Religious Zionism, while adherents of Meimad focused on social justice - but in the final analysis, everyone remained with his original position.
In the wake of that conference, I wrote ten principles of Religious Zionism, in an attempt to create a framework that would be inclusive. While it is perhaps dangerous to discuss a common language during a time of crisis, it is a necessity. I think that we must create a forum for all who feel themselves connected to Religious Zionism to discuss critical issues like Gaza, Gush Katif, Yehudah and Shomron, and the Golan Heights. I am certain that there will be a variety of opinions expressed. We must make sure that nobody is defined as outside of the parameters because of his opinion. If we begin to exclude people who express alternative opinions, we will end up with a few rabbis who have a common language but no community.
I believe that a fundamental principle of this process must be that Da'at Torah suggests but does not obligate - to posit that no one has a monopoly on correct opinions, and that the are a multiplicity of opinions that might be considered valid, as long as they are genuine. The inability to tolerate other opinions is reflected in the schism that exists today among the leaders of the National Religious Party. How can we talk about unity in the Religious Zionist camp if the NRP is so fractured? I believe that sharp, unequivocal declarations are always dangerous to the process. They are the antithesis of unity and of common language. A somewhat obscure platform is preferable.
With regard to Da'at Torah, we hear a variety of opinions as to whether a Religious Zionist party is obligated to follow rabbinic opinions on political matters. I believe that it cannot be bound to Da'at Torah and function as a party in a democratic state. It can certainly consult with rabbinic advisors, but not be bound to their positions. In contrast to the position that Da'at Torah on political issues is obligatory, some take a radical position that holds that rabbis should refrain from commenting on political issues so as to not create a crisis of faith between fidelity to the rabbi and loyalty to the state. I would like to suggest a more moderate and unifying position. Certainly, a rabbi has a structured worldview that he is obligated to disclose publicly. Nevertheless, he should not express it as a binding halakhah. Perhaps the model should be that of the Prophet. The Prophet did not lay down laws for the King, but rather expressed the word of G-d. I must say that HaravSchapiro's declaration on refusing orders will cause great damage to the Religious Zionist community.
I will conclude by proposing that our common language must address the needs of the various constituencies in our community. We must provide broad guidelines for Religious Zionist educators, Hesder yeshiva students, religious soldiers, and congregational rabbis. We must address the issues that effect the general population. We hardly hear the voices of our rabbis on issues of social justice, poverty, domestic violence, etc. This must change - these issues must be on the agenda of Religious Zionism. I also feel that we need to agree on an approach to religion and state. We must address issues such as agunot, conversion, the place of women in public positions, and civil marriage.
This in my opinion is a holy enterprise. In order to succeed it will require ongoing and serious attention. This meeting can only be the beginning of that process.
Harav Haim Druckman:First of all, our basic assumption must be that we cannot place anyone outside of the camp, even if there are sharp differences of opinion. On this there is complete agreement. I would like to relate to two points:
In response to professor Kaveh, I believe that there are issues that are halachic in nature. I agree that there can be differences of opinion in halachah. Nevertheless, on an issue that I consider to be a halachic issue, I must express it in halachic terms. I do not accept the notion that Harav Schapiro's comments on refusing military orders caused great damage to our community. He did not organize a press conference to announce a position. Rather, he was asked a question, and gave an answer. It is unacceptable to contend that it is inappropriate for a rabbi to give a response in such a situation. The reality is that today, in contrast to previous times, many in our community seek out rabbinic opinions, perhaps too much - i.e. on issues that do not require a halachic question.
With regard to the comments of Harav Aviner, I can agree that unity is our primary value. I believe, however, that our primary focus in the long-term must be on education, for it is the foundation of unity. As has been indicated, there are many problems that must be addressed in the short-term. Solutions to these problems, however are only symptomatic treatments. A fundamental, long-term treatment of our problems must focus on education.
Harav Eisenberg:We have referred frequently to Harav Kook, on whom we base much of our philosophy and our vision. However, if we only read his books, we fail to see the degree to which he was a realist and a pragmatist in his life. This is a quality that has characterized Religious Zionism - that its vision was always accompanied by pragmatism and realism. In this sense, I disagree with Harav Druckman. While it is true that our philosophy and the halachah do not change, the reality does change. Current circumstances may demand a response that differs from our position ten years ago, and it may be different as well ten years from now.
Harav Riskin: I agree with Harav Aviner that the love of the Jewish people must be at the top of our hierarchy of values. I also agree with Professor Kaveh that there would be value to convening a forum of rabbis and roshei yeshivah to address a variety of issues and to publicize the different opinions expressed. This would be very positive, as it would demonstrate that there is not an absolute Rabbinic opinion on many issues.
I would like to return to our original subject, the prioritization of values for Religious Zionism. Although I am a proud settler and am opposed to the disengagement plan, I am also opposed to the fact that from the perception of the broader Jewish community, our rabbis are interested in only one issue. The public declarations of the Religious Zionist rabbis relate only to disengagement, and the public declarations of the Haredi rabbis relate only to the internet and cell phones. There are other issues that warrant rabbinic declarations, such as the disengagement of public education from Judaism, economic issues, etc. - issues that touch on the daily lives of the people of Israel, and of humanity in general.
Furthermore, on the issue of disengagement, there is not unanimity. Although I am opposed to the disengagement plan, as a student of Harav Soloveitchik, I learned that there are situations in which it is permissible to give up territory. Perhaps in this regard, I am in the minority in our society. I agree with Harav Druckman that we are permitted, or even obligated, to express our halachic opinions. There are areas in which there will be agreement, and areas in which there will be a multiplicity of voices. Simply by publicizing these voices, we can at least change our image.
Harav Rosen:I would like to be a bit practical, and not engage in a competition to raise additional issues of importance. Although I identify strongly with Harav Aviner's position, it is my opinion that the differences of opinion in all areas of our ideology makes the discussion of unity as the main value of Religious Zionism impractical. I do not accept the approach that each rabbi should come forth and say that the halachah is as I say. Interestingly, in the Sanhedrin, opinions were expressed by the Sages in order of their wisdom, starting from the sides, where the less accomplished scholars sat. Today, we begin with the greatest scholars expressing themselves, and others are unable to disagree. I would be happy for each individual to consult his rabbi and to follow his rulings, but not to impose it as Da'at Torah on the community. There is a difference between PsakHalachah (legal rulings) and Da'at Torah. I also do not agree with the self-criticism that our rabbis do not deal with a variety of issues.
I believe that there is a gap between the academic world and the Torah world. Whoever belongs to the academic world feel obliged to advocate certain positions, and whoever belongs to the Torah world feels obligated to accept other positions. I would be very happy if we could blur these distinctions.
The primary point that I wish to make is to suggest a practical maxim for Religious Zionism - "The Jewishness of the State". Religious Zionism should be concerned with all issues that relate to public life in the State of Israel - i.e. taking responsibility for societal issues from a Torah perspective. As such, someone who does not participate in the broader society and does not see himself falling under this maxim is not part of the Religious Zionist deliberation. He might be a religious person and/or a nationalist, but religious Zionism means taking on this responsibility.
Harav Shlomo Shefer:Education in an age of openness requires tolerance and the ability to listen to the opinions of others. In the words of my teacher, Harav Lichtenstein, our students must be able to distinguish between the holy and the profane, between the impure and the pure - to clarify and to filter. Our students often do not come to us at the university with this ability. As a result, we find members of the Religious Zionist camp protesting outside of the home of the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, not allowing his family to live. Is this the way that a debate is conducted ? The issues are complex. We must educate our students to listen to other opinions that might be less popular, and to truly respect them.
Harav Druckman (in response to Harav Shefer): The people who perpetrated this were not members of a particular school of thought. They are a fringe element. The problem is that the same rabbis who made strong declarations against the disengagement plan must make specific declarations as to what behaviors are permitted and prohibited.
Harabanit Esti Rosenberg (in response to Harav Druckman): Note that Harav Riskin had to state five times that he is against the disengagement plan - "but I am against the disengagement plan". Otherwise, he would not be able to speak in a Religious Zionist forum. Harav Druckman, you were with me at a Bnai Akiva gathering where it was impossible to express any opinion in favor of disengagement. And this is the halachah. You yourself said that if this is the halachah, how can I speak against it. But if you don't teach your students about the complexity of halachah and points of legitimacy, then it is not halachah.
Professor Sperber: When we talk about priorities, we all know that there are three halachot about which it is said that "one should die rather than transgress" (yehareg ve'al ya'avor). These have the highest halachic priority. But the Gemara adds that there are times that a one who is forced to abrogate other halachot and to "die rather than transgress". This means that at different times and in different circumstances, there are different priorities. Thus, the question of priorities is a complex question, as it is relative to different people and different communities. In my opinion, we cannot define a hierarchy of priorities for Religious Zionism since it differs for different people and different communities. This brings into question Harav Druckman's assertion regarding the clarity of the halachah and the requirement to express it. Essentially, it is impossible to say that the halachah is clear-cut. If it were, the halachah would not be able to stand up against the variables that change throughout the generations. The halachic concept of "acharei rabim lehatot" ("follow the majority") is designed to achieve a consensus for that particular generation. When stating a law, the Mishnah includes the minority opinion, because in a different generation, it may become the accepted position because of changing variables. Our situation is dynamic, and I do not believe that today there is one set of priorities or a clear-cut halachah. We must be very careful, therefore, in the statements that we make.
Harbanit Esti Rosenberg: It is very important that Harav Aviner hear this before he leaves. The Rav talked about unity in the camp. I believe that we must do more work in order to achieve this. I know that some of my students feel threatened and attacked because they are possibly not "in line" with the camp. I was happy to hear that the central flag that the Rav chose to wave was that all parts of the camp should feel accepted and halachically and spiritually legitimate.
Harav Aviner (in response to Harabanit Rosenberg): By trying to convince me of this, you have chosen an easy task.
Harbanit Esti Rosenberg (in response to Harav Aviner): But Harav Aviner, you lead the camp and I know that this feeling exists.
ProfessorS hlomo Eckstein:It seems to me that the concept of “Aseh Lecha Rav” (“designate for yourself a Rabbi”) relates to individual family matters and not to communal matters. If we do not have the ability to distinguish between the “Aseh Lecha Rav” that obligates me and my family and the option to choose between conflicting rabbinic opinions, then we are in a trap from which our youth will find it difficult to extricate themselves. If we all seek unity, we must be prepared to accept differences of opinion on particular Torah issues. Each person should have the right to choose the path that seems appropriate to him, as long as it falls within the “Shivim Panim La-Torah” (“the seventy faces of the Torah”).
Harabanit Esti Rosenberg: With regard to the actual implementaton of Harav Druckman’s approach, when a Rav says that this is the halachah and that there are other halachic opinions, in the ears of the listener, there is no room for other opinions.
Harabanit Dr. Naomi Cohen: I think that we are exaggerating the importance of authority in religious education and in general education. We must develop the concept of personal responsibility, and transmit the knowledge and skills necessary for character development.
Harav Yuval Sherlo: I think that we have seen a very interesting process develop here. The discussion began with the question of the hierarchy of values. Harav Aviner suggested unity as the highest value, and Harav Druckman suggested that the primary focus must be education. In the second part of the discussion, we slowly developed the important elements that should be included in education. The two primary elements suggested were both relativism, i.e. that there a variety of legitimate opinions, and the limits of relativism, i.e. that there are nevertheless opinions that fall outside of the parameters. There was general agreement on these points and they remain a strong foundation for future deliberations.
I believe, however, that our situation is much more serious than reflected in these points. I feel that Religious Zionism is in a process of disengagement from Israeli society. This is reflected in two phenomena. First, in that the Religious Zionist rabbinate is not found in the streets of the state of Israel, in academia, in law, in the media, in culture, in politics, or in the army. Second, it is reflected in positions such as calls for refusal to follow military orders, threats of a civilian uprisings, the call for military rabbis to resign, our relationship to democracy, and our inability to sit in any government be it with Likud or Labor. This is causing us great internal damage, particularly for our children. The problem is no longer education, it is much broader. I believe that Religious Zionism is no longer relevant to the image of the State of Israel on both the political and spiritual levels. I conclude that our maxim must be the Jewish Identity of the State of Israel, which includes three elements: 1) our connectedness to the State of Israel, 2) Judaism, and 3) the ethical identity of the State of Israel.
Harav Shaar Yashuv Cohen: Allow me to conclude.
I think that it is incorrect to say that halachah does not relate to public matters. However, the halachic authorities must be very careful when to issue rulings. Furthermore, there is a consensus that halachah allows for a variety of opinions. There is practically no issue on which there is not a difference of opinion. One of the goals of this forum was to provide a safe place within the framework of Religious Zionism for academics and roshei yeshiva to talk and express a variety of opinions.
The negative events that we all have seen recently, attacks against individuals and military rabbis, are unacceptable. Yet, I recognize that those who perpetrate them are unable to control themselves because of the deep hurt that they feel. We must communicate to these people that, although we understand their pain and difficulty, such activities are prohibited.
I learned in the house of my father that the State of Israel is very important, but that the Land of Israel is more important. In the first years of the state, we exaggerated our religious zeal and ascribed political concepts to it. Now, we are experiencing a crisis because of this very point. We must conduct further deliberations on the co-existence of these two values - religion and state.
Eliezer Shefer: First of all, I would like to thank all of you for coming. I feel that the public is waiting to hear some statements on current issues that reflect the thinking of the Religious Zionist community. There is a hope that we will hear the thoughts of the leadership of Religious Zionism. This group is a representative body of the variety of perspectives that exist in Religious Zionism. This is the basis of this gathering that will, G-d willing, have a continuation. The discussion does not obligate anyone, it does not represent Da'at Torah, and it does not constitute a halachic ruling. It does, however, reflect the variety of opinions that make up Religious Zionism. That is what is special about this meeting, and that is the uniqueness of Religious Zionism.
Back to Hitnatkut Articles Continue to Other Articles of Interest
