(link to original page)

Knesset Israel Cannot Be Divided.

Mati Hershkovitz

The Book of Leviticus is called the "Laws of the Priests" and the early
Torah portions of Leviticus indeed deal with the service of the priests
and the process of anointing and preparing them for their priestly
duties. However, the latter Torah portions in Leviticus mainly relate to
purification and sanctification of the people of Israel. Only in the
Torah portion of Emor do we return to the subject of priestly
purification and sanctification. The Torah portion first deals with the
sanctification of the people of Israel before that of the priest because
the holiness of the priest emanates from the holiness of the whole of
Israel. Without holiness of the people as a whole – of Knesset Israel –
the priest cannot be holy. Support for this idea can be brought from the
Torah portion of Acharei Mot regarding the Yom Kippur service. In regards
to the sin offering of the people, it is written that the priest will
"atone for himself and his family and for the entire community of
Israel." Why does the priest, who already sacrificed two sin offerings
for himself and his family, include himself in the confessions of the
people's sin offering? As long as there is no atonement for the people,
the High Priest is still deficient and can only be purified through the
sacrifice of a sin offering for the people.

We find a verse about Moses in Ki Tissa that also refers to the idea
that the holiness and greatness of a leader depends on the people: "Go
down because your people have become corrupt." The Talmud (Brachot 32)
remarks about this passage that "the Almighty said, 'Come down from your
greatness. The greatness I gave was to Israel not to you and now that
Israel has sinned, where is your greatness?'" (Similarly, when Rabbi
Ovadia Yosef called Prime Minister Netanyahu a "blind goat", he did not
intend his statement as a personal criticism rather as a moral criticism
towards the public to improve their ways).

As we see, the holiness of our leaders emanates from the people and the
holiness of the people itself is derived from its existence as a
community. In the book "On Repentance", Rabbi Soloveitchik states that the
individual is atoned on Yom Kippur by sending the goat to Azazel which is
the sacrifice for the people as a whole. Only when individuals serve and
come together as one whole people, can they be atoned as the people of
Israel as a community achieve atonement. This idea is also found in The
Holidays and the Life and Thought of Rabbi Abraham Yitzchak Kook. In the
section of the Haggadah about the evil child who separates himself from
his people, the child rejected the principle that the people of Israel
must be one united whole, and damaging this unity destroys the essence of
the people.

In this Torah portion, the subject of creating a community and unity
arises when referring to two holidays. First, as previously mentioned,
during Yom Kippur we are atoned as part of Knesset Israel. In the words
of Rabbi Soloveichik, "The Jew who has lost his or her belief in Knesset
Israel and even sanctifies and purifies himself through severe
restrictions and prohibitions is not ready to be part of the service of
Yom Kippur, which includes all of Knesset Israel and all of its parts
throughout the generations." Regarding the second holiday, Succot,
according to the well-known Midrash each of the four species symbolizes
one of the four kinds of Jew: the etrog – has Torah and good deeds; lulav
– has Torah but not good deeds; myrtle – has goods deeds without Torah;
and willow – has neither Torah nor good deeds; and what does the Holy One
do? He cannot deny His people, but must bring them together so that each
will atone for the other." In addition, Succot was chosen to be a
communal holiday, symbolizing unity.

What is this unity based on? According to Rav Kook the glue bringing
the people of Israel together is the collective spirit – the spirit of
G-d. If, according to Rabbi Soloveitchik, our spirituality promotes
unity, one of the elements contributing to the fragmentation of our
people is materialism. One of the ways, then, to foster unity is to
de-emphasize the importance of materialism. This Torah portion contains
some relevant passages about Yom Kippur and Succot and the idea of unity.
"And you shall afflict your souls" – what is the affliction? Five
corporeal pleasures are prohibited on Yom Kippur: eating, drinking,
washing, wearing leather, and sexual intercourse. According to the
Midrash, on Yom Kippur the people of Israel are likened to ministering
angels without any physicality, and in this way we attain unity (see
Ramban 16:8). According to the Midrash "as the ministering angels of
peace mediate among themselves, the Israel of peace mediates among
themselves on Yom Kippur."

On Sukkot we also encounter the idea of redirecting our lives away from
materialism. Sukkot, the harvest celebration, should be the high point
of materialism in the year. On this holiday, though, we are commanded to
leave our comfortable homes and shrink ourselves by dwelling in booths.
The author of Akedat Yitzhak writes about the sukkah: "People should
leave all economic matters – business, most income-bearing endeavors, and
that connected with possessions and go out to this small sukkah, a
fundamental realization that human beings should not seek to increase
their material possessions, except for what is absolutely necessary."
Minimizing our preoccupation with our individual needs is insufficient.
The second element in the creation of a community is the concern for the
welfare of the other person. In his book "The Man of Faith", Rabbi
Soloveichik distinguishes between the first man in Chapter 1 of Genesis
and the first man in Chapter 2 of Genesis. One of the differences is the
capacity of the first man in Chapter 2 to create a community of prayer
and covenant, which the first man in Chapter 1 is unable to do. "Only
the first man in Chapter 2 knows the art of prayer since he faces G-d
when petitioning for the many. The first man in Chapter 1, who is
egocentric and consumed with himself, does not earn the privilege of
belonging to the community of prayer and covenant…"

This idea is one of the main messages of Yom Kippur and is expressed in
the Haftorah reading of the Yom Kippur morning service: "Is not this the
fact I have chosen? To lose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bonds
of oppression, to let the crushed go free, and to break every yoke?…Then
you will call and G-d will answer. You will cry, and He will say, 'Here
I am.'" Only when social justice becomes an integral value in our lives
can we be part of the community, the community of prayer, and our prayers
can be accepted. In the midst of describing the holidays the Torah
reminds us of the seemingly unrelated commandment, "when harvesting your
land, leave the ends of your field." Even while observing the holidays,
when time is spent serving G-d, we may not neglect the other person.
From Torah portion Emor we learn about the meaning of true unity. We
are now at the height of the election season with much discussion taking
place about divisiveness among our people and the need to mend the many
fractures. The way to mend these fractures is not through a magic formula
where each individual forfeits a portion of his or her values and
principles to reach a compromise. We will attain true unity when we
understand that Knesset Israel cannot be divided and each one of us must
see his or her community as an inseparable part of Israel and not
representing a separate group or sub-group within the whole. If we are
able to rise above our own egocentricity, we will be able to put our
individual and group needs aside and see the true needs of the community
– social justice, equality, economic growth, and the building of peace in
our region.

Mati Hershkovitz is a graduate of Yeshiva University and lives in Petah Tikvah.

Letters to the Editor

(Reactions to the article by Professor Abraham Yitzhak Green in Shabbat
Shalom 75)

Although I identify with your ideas and enjoy your articles very much, I
reacted very negatively to Abraham Yitzhak Green's article which appeared
in the Shabbat HaGadol issue of Shabbat Shalom. His statement we should
view the plight of the Palestinian people as an expression of this
generation's experience with oppression seems inappropriate. We should
not use this complex and controversial issue when bringing the memory of
leaving Egypt into the present. As I do not wish to dialogue with those
in favor of ruling over the Palestinian people, Green's article is naive
and superfluous. It is also disturbing to read about these ideas in an
article written by an individual who does not reside in Israel.

Alex Isaaacs, Jerusalem

I am writing to protest the unfortunate decision to print the last two
sections of A.Y. Green's article.
One of the major strengths of Shabbat Shalom is its presentation of
Jewish sources which uphold the values of peace and tolerance and allows
the sources to speak for themselves. The extreme politicization in the
above sections violates this principle, creates divisiveness and hinders
the objectives of the movement and its power to effect change among the
wider public. I hope this publication will continue to conform to its
usual standard and not be drawn into printing political "impressions".
The stature of the writer should not have any bearing on the decision to
include an article in this publication.

Dr. David Gilad, Beer-Sheva

Although we should never withhold the freedom of speech, I am writing to
protest the printing of this article in Shabbat Shalom. The fact that
this article moralizes to those who live in Israel is in itself immoral.
Neither the personage nor the philosophy of the writer should be of any
consequence, certainly not regarding whether to agree or disagree with
the writer's position.

Professor Green shows his impudence as an individual who has chosen to
live in the diaspora and preach to us about fundamental issues related to
our very existence. We are all too familiar with the anti-Zionist
self-righteousness of the diasporan Jewry and the fact that the State of
Israel is not moral enough for these people. No one who is unwilling to
share our fate has the right to interfere regarding issues related to the
blood of our children or the future of our homes. If we err in our
decisions, either way, we must pay the price. As the founders of
Professor Green's nation declared "no taxation without representation",
we maintain "no representation (that is, expressing opinions) without
taxation (that is, placing your fate with us)."

The editor responds:

This issue arouses much controversy and abounds in complexity and
therefore the opinions the writers express are taken very seriously.
The subjects raised in this article provoke strong emotion among all of
us and I wish to thank the writers for their thoughtful comments.
The ideas, though, presented in Professor Green's article are not new. Even
stronger ideas, were expressed by Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz z"l over
30 years ago when few among us were aware of the heavy price paid for
ruling over another people. Although the association of remembering our
people's departure from Egypt was not made through references to sources,
many sources exist requiring us to use this memory to fulfill moral
responses in our present society ("and you shall remember because you
were slaves … therefore I command you…"). Political implications
resulting from the moral statements Professor Green expressed in this
article likely created an impression of politicization and at times may
have blurred the limits between making value judgements and the need for
tolerance. A delicate balance exists between the "truth" (an essential
quality of G-d) and "peace" (one of G-d's names). I hope we continue to
be able to maintain this balance. The emotional appeals regarding the
right of diaspora Jews touches on the question of their shared
involvement and the participation in the fate of the Jewish people both
in Israel and in the diaspora. Much contention has ensued regarding this
sensitive issue and some Jews have even proposed granting Jews
living outside of Israel the right to participate in Israeli elections.
I think that the voices of those concerned Jews, including intellectuals
such as Professor Green, should constitute part of a healthy public
discussion but the right to make decisions should of course be reserved
for those responsible for paying the price.

Translated by Evelyn Ophir