Религиозные лидеры определяют границы мира: принципы веры важнее всеобщего согласия

The Limits of Shalom by R. Gil Student I. Peace and Religious Crisis We live in an age of polarization, of partisan conflict and cancellation. We need to overcome these divisions through unity and peace. Jewish tradition holds shalom, peace, communal harmony, as a high value. The Sages describe shalom as the vessel that contains blessing (Mishnah, Uktzin 3:12), and Rambam eloquently states that the Torah was given to bring peace into the world (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Chanukah 4:14). We are instructed to place shalom above other values, such as truth, when unavoidable. Yet, shalom has its limits. Of course, the Bible tells us that there is a time for peace and a time for war (Eccl. 3:8). Beyond the need for self-defense, there is a time to sacrifice for communal harmony and a time to stand on principle. We see that particularly in the writings of nineteenth-century defenders of German Orthodoxy. At that time, Jews in Germany (and later in Eastern Europe) were leaving Torah observance en masse. The opportunities offered by emancipation made religious reform and secularization extremely enticing to the Jewish public. Time and again, Orthodox Judaism found itself on the defensive. Broadly speaking, there are two roads to leading a largely secular life. The first is apathy, simply failing to observe religious rituals. The second is heresy, denying the teachings underlying religious rituals which thereby frees, at least in their minds, the individual from observance. Apathy usually leads to heresy as a post facto justification of non-observance. In those days, there were many Jews who encouraged their brethren to abandon traditional beliefs and practices, and embrace a more secular lifestyle. This growing ideological and social rift eventually found expression in civil law. 150 years ago, on July 28, 1876, the Prussian parliament (part of the broader German legislative system at the time) passed a law allowing secession from a Jewish community without formally renouncing affiliation with Judaism. This enabled Orthodox Jews and non-Orthodox Jews to split, to create their own, separate communities. In this anniversary month, we will take the opportunity to examine some of the issues involved with these theological disagreements and particularly with secession—a legal mechanism that forced leading Orthodox thinkers of the era to choose between communal unity and religious integrity. The Orthodox rabbinate struggled to find the tools to counter these new threats to traditional Jewish life. Many rabbis followed traditional patterns and responded ineffectively to the theological and practical challenges of the day. Those who fought back with new tools found some success in creating thriving Orthodox communities. But is not this confrontation with disbelief and non-observance the opposite of shalom? II. Peace Begins With God Rav Ya’akov Ettlinger (1798-1871) served as the chief rabbi of Altona. The yeshiva he led was extremely influential, training many of the leading rabbis of Germany. His Arukh La-Ner commentary on the Talmud has become a classic. Rav Ettlinger was a leading opponent of religious reform in Germany. In his Minchas Ani collection of sermons (Parashas Pinchas), he writes: “A fighter in the war of God against the heretics should not hold back because of the false claim that peace is of supreme importance and that it is better to strengthen unity among all who are called by the name of Israel than to create division of hearts….” Why does peace not take priority? Rav Ettlinger explains that first we must have peace with God and only afterwards peace with our fellow Jew and man. Our first obligation is to follow the divine command to believe and observe, and encourage others to believe and observe. We see this from the biblical story of Pinchas. In the face of Zimri’s sacrilegious immodesty, Pinchas made a public spectacle of punishing the sinners (Num. 25:7-8). Pinchas’ divine reward for this provocative act was a “covenant of peace” (Ibid., v. 12). Rav Ettlinger elaborates that since Pinchas restores the peace between the Jews and God, he received a personal covenant of peace. Rav Azriel Hildesheimer (1820-1899) was a student of Rav Ettlinger who initially served as a rabbi in Hungary and then returned to Germany to serve the Orthodox community in Berlin, where he opened a modern rabbinical seminary that was faithful to traditional beliefs and practices. This Berlin seminary trained rabbis to promote and defend Orthodox Judaism against its modern detractors. In an uncharacteristically long exegetical essay, included in his responsa as a commentary on Parashas Pinchas (vol. 2, pp. 499-501), Rav Hildesheimer examines the limits of shalom. He refers sarcastically to “the pursuers of peace ‘at all costs’” and disputes a biblical interpretation they offer. He quotes the last Mishnah (Uktzin, loc. cit.) that there is no vessel which contains blessing like peace but adds a textual note. The Mishnah actually says that there is no vessel which contains blessing “for Israel” like peace. Rav Hildesheimer explains: “If it is still possible to remain ‘Israel’ together with the obligation commanded to it in the sacred Torah. And if so, only in this manner is it possible to maintain peace: if we are prepared at all times and in every season to fight and to devote our lives for the fulfillment of the Torah and the commandment.” A necessary condition for shalom is devotion to the Torah. Absent that, peace cannot be a blessing. III. Truth Before Peace Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888), also a student of Rav Ettlinger, served as the rabbi of the independent Orthodox community in Frankfurt am Main, where he pioneered a unique ideology of Torah and Derech Eretz, worldliness. Rav Hirsch was a fierce advocate of Orthodox independence and separation from non-Orthodox institutions. When a non-Orthodox movement dominated a community’s leadership and infrastructure, Rav Hirsch demanded Orthodox secession, austritt. In discussing austritt, Rav Hirsch explicitly addresses the damage it causes to unity and peace. Rav Hirsch writes: “But then, what about peace within the community, a peace supposedly endangered by those who would secede? Is not peace also a sacred value to the conscience of the Orthodox Jew? Is not shalom more important to him than any other consideration? Certainly not! No truly Orthodox Jew would say such a thing. There are indeed circumstances under which I may, and indeed must, give up everything that is mine for the sake of preserving peace. There are circumstances under which I may, and indeed must, give up my property, my legal claims, and even refrain from making some injudicious remark in my social relationships, in order to preserve the peace, or to restore it. But I cannot restrain myself with what is not mine but God’s, the Divinely uttered truth, the integrity of my life. My peace with God, my peace with my conscience cannot be for sale.” (Collected Writings, vol. 6, p. 176) Rav Hirsch further quotes the verse: “You may purchase truth, but you must never put it up for sale” (Prov. 23:23) as a prooftext of the importance of truth. He points out that in the verse, “Love truth and peace” (Zech. 8:19), truth comes first because it must precede peace. In order to pursue peace within the community, we must first uphold the theological truths of the Torah and the behaviors which follow. In his commentary to the Torah (Num. 25:12), Rav Hirsch restates Rav Ettlinger’s statement: “True peace between people is only possible if they are all at peace with God.” All three of these scholars agree that peace is important but that it does not override religious beliefs and obligations. However, none of them argue that conflict must always be pursued. They each concede that refined, expert judgment is necessary before assigning priorities. We dare not replace “peace at all costs” with “conflict at all costs.” If we always fight, we end up with the polarization we currently experience. If we never fight, we stand for nothing. Neither approach is correct. Rather, we must be zealous like Pinchas and pursue a “covenant of peace” that includes both peace with God and peace with man, standing up for our principles while pursuing peace.