THE TIKVAH FUND

Tikvah Campus Fellowship, 2015-2016

Irving Kristol, “On the Political Stupidity of the Jews”

Assignment Two

Prompt One: When trying to develop an economic or foreign policy,

should modern Jews look to ancient Jewish sources? Why or why

not?

THE TIKVAH FUND

Moshe Beiser

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

“Jews still have no idea what statecraft is,” writes Irving Kristol in the opening line of his

astute article On the Political Stupidity of the Jews, in which he explains his beliefs on why Jews

seem to be so foolish, nearly “suicidal,” politically. His main argument seems to involve two

premises. First, that political wisdom and experience are the most important factors in

determining good political policy; greater even, Kristol posits, “than any theory.” The second leg

of his argument is that one would be hard-pressed to find moments where the Jewish people

possessed authentic political power during their history, in fact this person would most probably

be overwhelmed by the recurring “powerlessness and victimization.” This history, concludes

Kristol, is not one which could possibly lead to political wisdom, and what is worse is that

neither the rabbinic nor prophetic traditions do anything to fill this gapping hole that history has

left in the hope for Jewish policy. For Kristol, the solution is a simple one: “Translate the classics

of Western political conservatism into Hebrew,” and in this cause a true understanding of

conservative politics to permeate Israeli culture and and perhaps even develop into a certain

flavor of political wisdom. In my humble opinion, a better result may be achieved by utilizing

one of the elements that Kristol all too readily rejected.

Kristol may be right in claiming that a conservative history and/or political tradition is

necessary for the development of proper economic and foreign policy, but his rejection of the

ancient Jewish sources takes away some of the potency from his proposed solution. The Torah,

the oldest of the “ancient Jewish texts,” contains within it the foundations of structure which the

modern mind could present as political thought. Professor Joshua Berman in his book Created

Equal argues that along with the new theology that was introduced to the world by the Torah

came a “blueprint”1 for a political and economic system. While I do not believe that the specific

structure that Professor Berman proposes would work in the modern era I believe the method he

used to find it in within the Torah itself deserves attention. I think a similar approach could be

used to reveal the underpinnings of a Jewish national foreign policy as it appears throughout the

stories of chazal and the plethora of economic policies which make up a large portion of rabbinic

literature. So while ancient Jewish texts do not delineate specific instructions for running a

modern country, they do develop values in, though not limited to, the realms of economics and

even foreign policy that one could incorporate into an existing modern model to convert it into

something that would be both implementable and comfortably Jewish.

Joining Biblical or Rabbinic values with a modern political structure would relieve

another tension mention by Kristol. He observes that, historically speaking, the conservativism

1 The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures “In Conversation with Joshua A. Berman, Created Equal: how the bible broke

with ancient political thought.” 2008. <http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_137.pdf. Accessed 12/23/2015

THE TIKVAH FUND

that he is a proponent of is the same political thought which has led the European Right to view

Jews through a less-than-favorable lens. One could alleviate this negative context, however, by

modifying conservative ideology with Jewish values found in ancient texts and in doing so make

this type of thought more appealing to the modern Jew. In other words, the development of

foreign and economic policies for the modern Jew should definitely refer back to ancient Jewish

sources in order to “jewisize” an already successful political tradition which will fulfill both

Irving Kristol’s requirement for a historical, political tradition and additionally enhance it by

sticking to our Mesorah, i.e. the Jewish tradition.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Jonathan Deluty

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

The Zionist experiment has run into a very serious problem: trying to pull two thousand

year old legal systems out of storage and putting them to work today hasn’t gone quite as

smoothly as planned. In looking for ways to run the state, Israel has to look beyond exclusively

Jewish sources. After all, Israel is a modern liberal democracy, with separation of powers

between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It is not a Bible-based constitutional

monarchy with separation of powers between the king, prophet, and priest. The question of the

relevance of sources that deal with previous Jewish commonwealths and legal frameworks seems

to have been settled in Israeli law: they are not relevant to a modern society. This outlook is

consistent with a typical secular Israeli shame regarding “the old Jew,” and an embarrassment

about the ostensibly primitive, backwards nature of the Jewish religion. Because of this outlook,

Israeli lawmakers have put on blinders to avoid a potential rich, coherent source of laws for

running the state.

If one visits the Israeli Supreme Court in Jerusalem, one will find an impressive library

of sources of legal wisdom that Israeli justices use in decision-making. There are sources from

the Greek tradition, the British tradition, and more, with an obvious compendium missing: the

Talmud. It is remarkable that the Jewish State should voluntarily be governed more by British

law than by Jewish law. Why is British law regarding damages more coherent or enlightened

than Seder Nezikin in the Babylonian Talmud? Is it not worth at least attempting to incorporate

Jewish law into civil law? Without contaminating the essence of the laws, Talmudic law could

certainly be adaptable to modern courts.

The actual mechanics of such an adaptation would be contentious, but some changes

would be obvious. Testimony from women and gamblers would be legalized. The development

of modern technologies would render various standards of evidence, such as the migo (see

Tractate Bava Batra, particularly Ch. 3), obsolete. But fundamentally, the laws would stay the

same. The discussion of squatters in in Bava Kama, for example, is still as relevant as it was

when the great Jewish academies in Fallujah flourished centuries ago.

The central problem with such an arrangement is that most of Israeli society would

dismiss it immediately as theocratic; an unconscionable violation of the separation between

synagogue and state. The rabbinate already has too much power, and its corruption disgusts

secular (as well as many religious) Israelis. Using Jewish law to formulate an economic or other

legal policy would be another excuse for corrupt theocrats to grab power.

In order to deal with this problem, Irving Kristol, in his essay, “On the Political Stupidity

of the Jews,” cites Edmund Burke. As Kristol notes, Burke was the type of thinker desperately

needed in contemporary Israel: “a secular political theorist who could explain, to a critical mind,

why a religious orthodoxy (like a political orthodoxy) can make intellectual sense” (Kristol 4).

The most important thing secular Israelis miss on this point is that Talmudic law is not just an

THE TIKVAH FUND

abstract religious law. It is also a “political concept” (4) essential to the conduct of a good

society. It may stem from a religious background, but it only does so because the Jews lacked

sovereignty for thousands of years. If a country such as Israel deems its own traditions as bereft

of political value, it necessarily looks to other sources and submits itself to those traditions

against its own, in the name of anti-theocracy.

But no secularism is totally bereft of tradition. Burke understood that markets alone are

not enough, but knew how to make this idea palatable to secularists. Although he lost that

argument to Thomas Paine in America, perhaps he can win it in Israel. Although it will

undoubtedly be difficult, the Jewish tradition must come out of storage and take center stage in

Israeli courts. Jewish law is more organically Israeli than any law based on British or Ottoman

law, and Israel should start acting like it.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Elijah Diamond

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

Should the Jews consult ancient Biblical sources when formulating an economic or

foreign policy? In any practical sense, of course not. It could be argued, though, in specific cases,

that the Jewish Canon does provide some framework for dealing with political problems.

Examples of these abound in the Bible and require no exploration here. It would, nevertheless, be

both naïve and irresponsible for policymakers, Jewish or otherwise, to consistently rely on

examples so few and far between.

What the Jewish Canon does offer—something that the Western political tradition surely

does not—is a fresh way of looking at the purpose of policy and politics. Of course, this “fresh”

way of looking at the purpose of policy, that of homo religiosus, is nothing new: it predates the

advent of a cohesive Western political tradition by nearly two millennia.

But this fact should be irrelevant when talking about the often-stark realities of modern

policymaking. What works, works. Faithful obeisance to ancient dogmas cannot prevent foreign

armies from crossing your border and bleeding your citizens.

Consequently, Realism and Realpolitik have become, by such historical necessities, the

theory and practice of the modern statesman. If one agrees that the ultimate goals of

statesmanship are most basically national security and most optimally the maximization of the

state’s material well-being, both of which fall under that nebulous term, the national interest,

then Realpolitik—if not publicly affirmed, then in practice exercised—becomes the natural

means of achieving those ends. A quick reading of Machiavelli, Richelieu, and Bismarck, or a

brief look at their legacies, will defend this observation more suitably than can I.

Yet if you take the Bible on its own terms, then surely such an interpretation of the means

and ends of statesmanship is hollow. At the same time, we must ask ourselves: what specific set

of policy tools does the Bible prescribe its people to follow in times of political exigency? What

of prudent economic and security policies in times of peace? The Bible cannot tacitly indict the

cold-blooded practitioners of Realpolitik or the GINO (God-in-name-only) metaphysicians of the

Enlightenment if it offers no alternative in their place. What did G-d expect the Jews to do when

He wrote the Bible?

As usual, the Jew finds himself in a dilemma, and one of no small proportion. He cannot

comfortably adopt the political thinking of the Western tradition, yet he is neither capable of

forming a concrete one out of his own.

Recognizing this tension, Irving Kristol, one of the 20th century’s eminent conservative

thinkers, suggests a classically Western compromise. In his seminal essay, “On the Political

Stupidity of the Jews,” he proffers to them the one man capable of resolving their dilemma:

Edmund Burke.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Kristol sets out to demonstrate that Burke, who was “not a pious man” and who wrote “in

the language of rational secular discourse,” is uniquely qualified to reconcile “a powerful defense

of tradition” with the demands of secular policymaking.

Unfortunately, not everyone subscribes to Kristol’s portrayal of Burke as a merely

secular statesman who happened to jive with the ethos of tradition. Another eminent conservative

thinker, Russell Kirk, writes that Burke was in fact “a pious man,” whose answers to “the most

important questions of the human race” were opined directly “from the Church of England’s

catechism.” So, according to Kirk at least, Burke’s legitimacy in secular and religious circles

alike cannot be implied solely because he possessed such convincing criteria—or rather, rhetoric,

according to Kristol—of dissimilarity.

For the Orthodox Jew, adoption of a particular political practice must serve a broader

religious imperative. To this end, Kirk’s Burke becomes indispensable. Kirk brings to light a

Burke who argues that a political repertoire of Prudence, Prescription, Principle, and Prejudice is

not merely a compromise in the face of mounting Western intellectual superiority, but is in fact

the primary means by which homo religiosus, acting uncharacteristically as statesman, fulfills G-

d’s “gradual revelation of a supreme design”.

Tradition, then, according to Burke, is important not simply because it represents

accumulated wisdom “distilled from popular common sense,” as Kristol writes. Tradition is

important because G-d said it is. For Kirk, a conventional justification for tradition’s place in

politics derives its legitimacy from a priori dogma. For Kristol, the opposite is true. In his mind,

such dogma is only legitimized insofar as its offspring, traditional wisdom, can be proven to

reliably produce political dividends. Kristol’s reduction of Burke’s Prescription to a secular

philosophy among others makes it, on a fundamental level, no different than the intellectual

competition he consistently deplores.

So, contra Kristol, deference to tradition cannot just be the means of Jewish

statesmanship, it must also be its end. Sadly, however, neither will bear meaning—or

dividends—if the Jews fail to consult their beginning.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Tal Fortgang

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

Modern, secular, educated, middle-class, largely assimilated Jews like us have a hard

time with the word “theocracy,” and with good reason. We tend to think of countries like Iran,

run by hard-line, homosexual-hanging aggressors who justify their actions in their theology.

These are bad theocracies, to be sure, and I don’t think there are any exceptions in the year 2015.

But it would be dishonest to contend that Judaism does not have a system analogous to Sharia

meant to govern the Jewish nation. Halacha is not a strictly spiritual system, nor is it “in the

heavens,” beyond implementation by our very hands. Of course Jews—at least those who believe

in God, or even just the wisdom of the Torah--should look to ancient Jewish sources to shape

their policies. Out of fear of looking intolerant and backwards, Jews have not established rule by

halacha in Israel, but a theocracy done right—with freedom of exit, of course, for those who

wish not to abide—does not seems so wrong on its face.

The Torah does not offer terribly much by way of policy recommendations so much as

principles, which is fine given how much the world has changed over the last few thousand

years. Policies are necessarily mutable; principles endure. One principle that would surely inform

the foreign policy of The Good Theocracy (TGT) is the tenet outlined in the Talmud, derived

from Exodus, “If a man comes to kill you, rise to kill him first.” Unsurprisingly in a system that

values the dignity of man created “in God’s image,” self-defense is an inalienable right. This is

the first notion from which TGT’s entire foreign outlook springs: if you attempt to kill us, you

shall surely die. It is a hawkish, unwavering commitment to our citizens’ safety, since they are

all made in God’s image. It is no coincidence that this does not diverge from the fundamental

message of Locke’s charge to governments to preserve life, liberty and property, or Mirandola’s

great Renaissance Oration. The western ideal of man’s natural dignity is a biblical idea,

necessitated by the presence of his Creator. Looking to ancient Jewish sources only affirms

human dignity, rooting it in the dictates of a higher power.

Economic policies are more difficult, inasmuch as one may try to look to ancient Judaism

and say “this is a socialist book!” or “this is capitalist doctrine!” But again, if the Torah is to be

taken seriously, and not discarded as an archaic forgery at worst and product of its time at best,

the principles within it should be made to endure. Fundamentally, the ancient Jewish thought

recognizes that property is not theft—the heavens are God’s alone but Earth he has given to

mankind—and can be taxed, claimed, reclaimed, or even prosecuted for should someone try to

steal it. Rich people and poor people will always exist, and full egalitarianism is not a value;

while we must care for the poor, there is no imperative to make everyone share equally in

misery, to paraphrase Churchill.

What binds these principles together is in some ways an ungratifying synthetic thesis: the

Torah encourages Jews to shape policies that work. It is incumbent upon the architects of TGT to

THE TIKVAH FUND

follow halacha, yes, but in the way that years of wisdom and experience have found works best,

and will continue to work. A foreign policy that is best at protecting the fundamental dignity of

its Jewish denizens is the best policy. An economic policy that allows TGT to establish a

flourishing economy is the best policy. All we can point to are the declaratively outlined

principles, often those that fall not far (not coincidentally) from Westernism. Should Jews

establish TGT, they may still be a light unto the nations by respecting these fundamental

principles and, importantly, not forcing them upon others. If that means establishing an Orthodox

Jewish state, an ultra-Orthodox one, and an ultra-ultra-Orthodox state, so be it—the legitimacy of

those making the rules stems from those who stand to be governed. But there is something quite

compelling about those who take the ancient law seriously establishing a good theocracy upon its

precepts.

THE TIKVAH FUND

David Freilich

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

Irving Kristol’s “On the Political Stupidity of the Jews”, not surprisingly, did not mince

words. Kristol noted that Modern Jews didn’t seem to have the deftest political touch in the

public arena, and certainly hadn’t been handling things very well in the past 60 years they have

been influential. Why? As he put it, “With the exception of a few quotations from the Prophets,

there is nothing in the Jewish tradition that prepares Jews to think politically about foreign

policy”.

That claim, much like any other, must be measured - and particularly given that it seems

to be proved by absence of evidence, we must consider whether there truly is nothing in the

Jewish tradition regarding foreign policy, or more does remain to be seen. The question which

must be first dealt with however, is slightly different - would a political Jewish tradition be

useful, even assuming it exists?

Kristol himself firmly posits that it certainly would. Quoting from Burke, Kristol had

proposed a defense of general tradition which he perceived as critical to conservative thought.

Within Orthodox thought, however, the point should be strengthened even further. Given the

divinity of our texts, and a perspective of Eilu veEilu underlying the rabbinic commentary

throughout the ages, the uniquely eternal nature of the Jewish tradition is highlighted; and its

application to appropriate circumstances in the modern world become encouraged and expected,

rather than question. Obviously, the key qualifying term is ‘appropriate circumstances’; to claim

that ancient principles should be blindlessly applied to a different situation entirely is a

dangerous proposition.

And so, given that assumption, the question then becomes - are there sources in Jewish

tradition which would be of relevance in charting an economic and foreign policy, given the

changes between the times of our forefathers, and our own? I would propose that the answer

certainly is yes (again, informed by my religious position that a Godly work must have addressed

all concepts, whether directly or implicitly/inferentially). Halacha is replete with discussions of

economic policy, with sages across the ages publishing many a compendium concerning

economic practice, with themes focused on, inter alia, combating poverty (Tzedakah, Leket,

Shikecha, Pe’ah), individual’s interference with public (Boros), taxes (Gemarot regarding public

funds with obligated contributions) and much more.

The same would hold true with regards to foreign political policy. Certainly in Scriptures

alone, the story of Yaakov's meeting with Esav and the preparations for said encounter would

raise questions of foreign policy, and provide possible instruction. It would be wise, as well, to

investigate works penned by famous Orthodox courtiers, whether it be Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel,

or more medieval/modern figures (Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, Shmuel HaNaggid, Moshe Ibn Ezra, and

THE TIKVAH FUND

more), and see how their decisions were informed by their religious sensibilities and

weltanschauung.

The above argument, however, is tempered by a discussion found in rabbinic literature,

concerning the interface between the judicial system and the monarchy. In particular, Rabbeinu

Nissim of Gerona, the influential talmudic commentator, discusses the inability of the Biblical

economic system (what he terms the Seder Eloki, Godly system) to truly discipline the nation;

and thus, Rabbeinu Nissim proposed, the monarchy would serve to implement a further Seder

Midyani, a more realistic system, informally filling in the gaps of the system, while keeping the

Godly sublime system in its pure and unfiltered form. And, as is widely noted, Don Isaac

Abravanel (or Abarbanel, if you’re so inclined) disagreed, arguing that the Torah system was

capable on its, and should be run as a democracy of sorts, with the Sanhedrin, the judicial

system, essentially ruling the people.

This position of Rabbeinu Nissim should, at first glance, give one looking to Jewish

tradition for economic (and perhaps foreign) policy advice pause, given its apparent lack of

comprehensiveness. What seems clear, however, is that the religious corpus, even for Rabbeinu

Nissim, should certainly be influential in its policies and its inclinations, representing the divine

will, even if one not fully adoptable at the moment. Particularly for a people very taken with

Tikun Olam, we should be angling for a policy informed, at the least, by the power of our

tradition handed down generation after generation, which we believe to be the only with a God-

given stamp of approval.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Josh Glahn

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

The place of ancient Jewish sources in the development of contemporary economic

policy is of questionable value. More generally, the existence of a static Jewish value system and

a divine quintessential model for society is also dubious. It is abundantly clear from Samuel I

that God opposed the concept of kingship; however, a dynasty of kings was established with His

consent (though not approval). This alteration of sovereignty systems would have been

inconsistent with a predetermined ideal.

In analyzing the role of traditional Jewish sources in economics, it is necessary to realize

that economic policy is a veiled term for social policy. Pure capitalism is dependent on

socioeconomic stratification and an oligarchic distribution of wealth. There must be rich and

there must be poor. The Social Darwinism so aptly described by Andrew Carnegie relies on the

mechanism of survival of the fittest (leaving the biological corollary “extinction of the unfit”).

Despite the capitalist claim that a more robust economy will raise the quality of living for the

poorest in society, that only applies to the society which is benefitting through the foreign poor.

Socialism, on the other hand, uses economic policy as a tool for monetary redistribution and a

theoretical equality of living conditions and work according to capability. The goal of a socialist

economy is not to rake in cash so everyone can live a lavish life. The predominant factor here is

a commitment to the “universal humanism” that Irving Kristol so derisively dismisses.

Despite the clear distinction in value systems between the two ideologies, rabbinic

interpretation of traditional Jewish sources has led to drastically different approaches to

economics based on identical texts. Interestingly enough, there seems to be as split between

American and Israeli rabbis on economic issues. In discussing Israel’s choice not to have a

“Sunday” like in America, Rav Rimon (a future contender for Rav Harashi) emphatically

condemned the concept of “Sunday” because it disproportionately affected the poor, forcing

them to work when their rich counterparts enjoyed a vacation. He grounded his decision in

biblical verses and a zeitgeist stemming from a lifetime of Torah study. Many American rabbis

take the opposite approach by trumpeting the importance of a capitalist society. Instead of

highlighting the need for society to care for the poor the emphasis is instead put on the largess of

the wealthy. Somehow the value of an individual’s tzedakah replaces the pursuit of a more

effective and concerted altruism.

Although Kristol claims the legitimacy of a long conservative tradition of capitalism he

fails to use sources older than Adam Smith and Edmund Burke to establish the lasting “Jewish”

value of capitalism. Instead of claiming that capitalism is based in Jewish values he claims rather

that both are traditions and therefore both have value.

Clearly, the interpretation of texts is a subjective matter that acclimates to whatever

environment it is in. In this case, American capitalism and Eastern European socialism generate

THE TIKVAH FUND

these conflicting views. In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe satirizes this same

phenomenon by grounding the Northern opposition to slavery and the Southern justification in

the same verse. The better question is if this approach is valuable? Is there any use in an ancient

text subject to constant and varied interpretation?

The function of a text in these circumstances cannot be to define a single worldview. The

quintessential function of an Oral Law to accompany the Written is not to a to hide the law from

the prying eyes of the gentiles or to inculcate a single value in its students like they tell children

in day school. Rather, the Oral Tradition functions to expand and evolve Judaism so it continues

to serve its function in the modern day. Jews are free to believe whatever it is they want to as

long as it is not clearly covered by the text. Jews are free to incorporate their own moralities and

contemporary ideologies. Jews can choose to take a conservative approach to society or try new

radical ideas. Neither side has a monopoly on the Jewish tradition.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Gidon Halbfinger

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

The history of the Jews has, for millennia, been one of statesmen without a state. From

Moses Maimonides to Don Isaac Abravanel to Moses Mendelssohn, Jews have often held the ear

of their rulers, advocated on behalf of their people, and – although often faced with hatred,

disgust, or at best obvious disdain – they have managed, in large part due to their political

intercessions, to survive. Perhaps Moses Seixas’ letter to George Washington, and the famous

response to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, are sui generis in their explicit assertion that

Jews stand on equal footing with all citizens of the United States; however, such correspondence

is simply one recent step on the long road of preservationist Jewish political entreaty.

Perhaps Israelis, with a sovereign Jewish state and a new spate of geopolitical tribulations,

have little to learn politically from Jewish sources. Joshua’s formula for conquering the land of

Israel would undoubtedly bring repeated UN censure and global cries of colonialism; David’s

hereditary monarchy would cause AIPAC indigestion in trying to find their treasured “shared

democratic values” between the US and Israel. Indeed, the best lessons for Israeli politicians to

take from Jewish sources would be ethical ones, like the Biblical exhortations against corruption,

bribery, and cruelty. But diaspora Judaism is different. Irving Kristol dismisses with broad

strokes the value of ancient Jewish sources to a modern political enterprise, positing that “A

people whose history is largely a story of powerlessness and victimization, or at least is felt to be

such, is not likely to acquire the kinds of skills necessary for astute statesmanship” – but here he

is wrong. A people with a 2000-year history of downtrodden victimization ought to have been

wiped out somewhere along the way; but Jews haven’t. American Jews would do well to learn

from their predecessors, who fought brilliantly for Jewish security in political conditions

Americans could hardly imagine.

The Talmud includes modifications and limitations imposed on otherwise strict halakha for

reasons of eivah – that is, to prevent the hatred of Jews by their neighbors that would surely arise

should the Jews practice discriminatory or inflammatory religious law. The Talmud even goes so

far as to abrogate the restrictions of Shabbat, in which it places deep regard, in the interest of

saving a gentile’s life. Indeed the Jews of Babylonia, following the Talmud’s common-sense

instruction to treat their more powerful neighbors with deference and equality, enjoyed enough

peace and prosperity to give rise to a flourishing culture of study and a religious legal

compendium unrivaled in its scope and endurance throughout human history. And Jewish history

is replete with examples of this pragmatic, careful adaptation by the Jews to their setting, ending

both in failure and in resounding success.

So perhaps Kristol is right. There is little practical political knowledge for Israel to take from

the Bible. Although laws governing statecraft might impose religious obligations on today’s

Jewish state, they likely don’t yield many useful tidbits of realpolitik that can’t be gleaned from

THE TIKVAH FUND

modern sources, especially in today’s globalized setting. But Kristol is wrong to dismiss the past

2000 years of Jewish history as meaningless exile. In the spirit of true conservatism, we ought to

mine it, understanding that the historic Jewish responses to threat yield important insights both

when our efforts have borne fruit and when they haven’t. In tackling the dichotomy of the

American Jew who wants to practice outwardly but limit religion in the public square, we can

look to the past: to the flourishing but isolated Babylonian Jew, the deferential and educated

Medieval Jew, the culturally rich Shtetl Jew, the politically active yet chronically ‘othered’ Jew

of the haskalah. And in tracking the path of our people to this point, we can chart the best course

forward.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Ricki Heicklen

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

In “On the Political Stupidity of the Jews,” Irving Kristol argues that when it comes to

statecraft, the Jewish people are foolish, dogmatic, and idealistic to the point of being nearly

politically suicidal. Modern-day Jews, shaped by the utopianism of the Enlightenment, turn to

abstract theories of universal rights and ignore the practical experience of statesmanship and

political wisdom that they desperately require. The Jews refuse to think politically about foreign

policy, he argues, denying “a reality of competition and painful political dilemmas and

particularistic Jewish interests,” and thus have never managed to develop a realistic political

system.

Kristol’s critique of Jewish idealism is right in that a system based solely on abstracts and

philosophical theories lacks a groundedness required for political prosperity. But his criticism

goes too far, denying any value in a foundation of ideals upon which to build such a political

system. He dismisses the Jewish tradition as contributing nothing to a political discourse on

foreign policy. He may be right that ancient Jewish texts offer little in terms of practical

experience--indeed, other than some early prophets, the Tanach is limited in its concrete

examples of battle--but the texts offer a base of ideals for a coherent and moral political system,

one far more meaningful than just a formula for military success. For the particularistic Jewish

interests we should strive for should include not only political prowess, but a commitment to a

deep and timeless tradition and a set of religious values that holds us to a higher standard than

just success. For this reason, we should have ancient Jewish sources as the foundations of our

political and economic systems, and then we can allow experience to mold those systems as our

country grows and prospers.

A commitment to these religious and biblical ideals is a deeply conservative pursuit,

more meaningfully so than the growth through experience that Kristol advocates. Kristol

criticizes progressivism for constantly changing its mind and thus becoming irrelevant. But he

simultaneously calls for a foreign policy shaped by trial-and-error. I propose Jews should base

statecraft deeply in tradition, but a tradition of values, and one that is therefore far more eternal

that a system shaped by practice. For the system built on practice lacks ideals toward which to

strive, lacks fundamental values; a system must first have a set of values in place, and then can

mold itself and its particulars based on experience, for the greater goal of fulfilling its

fundamental values.

This is precisely what has happened with Judaism’s economic tradition. The Hebrew

Bible lays out religious and legal duties centered on caring for the poor and needy. The Torah

mandates helping the widow, the orphan, and the stranger, the neediest members of society. And

the laws laid out in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are evocative of a welfare state, with

THE TIKVAH FUND

mandatory tithes left for the poor, a prohibition on charging interest on loans, and forgiveness of

all debts in the sabbatical year. These rules were established with the goal of protecting the poor.

But in practice, many of these laws backfired. Instead of giving interest-free loans, the wealthier

members of society would refrain from giving loans at all. And if debts were to be forgiven

within a few years, there was less incentive to give money with no guarantee of getting it back.

The result was not the intended welfare state but a worse scenario for the poor than an entirely

free market.

So Judaism developed tools to account for these problems, with the ultimate goal of

fulfilling the Torah’s ideals of caring for the poor. The laws of ribbit, interest, evolved to allow

Jews to charge non-Jews interest, and thus also charge Jews interest, with a non-Jewish

intermediary. The pruzbul, instituted by Hillel in the times of the mishna, allowed people to

secure their loans through the Shmita year. These ‘loopholes’ of sorts still happened within the

context of a halachic system, ensuring their validity within the Jewish tradition, and though they

seemed to go against the laws set forth in the Torah, they ultimately succeeded at fulfilling the

goals at the heart of the biblical laws, goals that prove to be timeless, though the details of how

to accomplish them developed on the shoulders of real-world experience.

Admittedly, the ideals of the Torah in regards to statesmanship and militaristic endeavors

have not yet been tested by time in the way its economic policy has--the Jewish people lacked

sovereignty for two millennia, and thus both halacha and Jewish ideology around laws of

warfare remained stagnant and idealistic. Thus many of the military laws of ancient Jewish

sources--for example, a prohibition on laying siege on a city from all four sides, which is

benevolent in theory but completely overlooks the purpose of a siege in practice--may not be as

easily applicable in our modern day. But the ideals behind the restrictions on warfare laid out in

the written and oral law, which include a sense of respect for life, empathy toward the enemy,

protection of innocents, and a general sense of moderation, are incredibly relevant now, as we

have control over a military and a greater degree of power than Jews have ever had before. And

the way to move forth is to develop a uniquely Jewish statecraft much how we developed

economic policy: letting our core religious values guide us, but allowing experience to shift our

policies when necessary.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Gefen Kabik

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

I would posit that most Jews would answer this question with a resounding “no”. What

does the bible have to teach us about the interest rates, tariffs, monetary policy, and inflation?

Well I’m sure a real gaon could fine a pasuk that speaks to each of these, but to most Jews the

bible would offer very little in guidance here.

Some topics like taxation do appear in the bible. The system of tithing was in affect a flat

tax. And there are many aspects dealing with foreign policy. The Israelites are seemingly—when

not fighting among themselves—dealing with a foreign power. But I would be at a loss to find an

example of something of relevance in the Tanakh that would lay out a guiding foreign policy.

Modern economic and foreign policy should be constructed so as to produce the best

results. Foreign policy—and to a slightly lesser degree—economics are not sciences. We

formulate our policies in these fields based on what we have learned from past events in these

arenas. The policies should be based on facts and logic, not the Tanakh or the writings of Rabbis

two centuries ago.

These ancient sources do have a role to play though. They need not—and should not— be

the basis for our economic and foreign policies. The role that they play should be one of teaching

us how to think about these policies. They should guide us in how we construct the lens through

which we view the world. The Jewish canon should be the basis of a Jew’s education. Not just

religious education but their overall education. From a young age a Jew should not just be taught

the stories of the bible but rather the Torah itself.

The Torah and the other works of canon can have an almost unconscious effect on how

we make the decisions in the economic and foreign policy fields. The Jewish canon is not unique

in this. Everything we learn, we hear, we see, we feel, has some sort of effect on us—however

slight. Studying Torah is an intellectual act. It is exercise for the brain that will later make

policy. It is in that way that it should be a part of economic and foreign policy.

The Jewish canon should be the basis on which we build our minds. Jews for centuries

have devoted themselves to two things: survival, and study. Learning is an essential part of

Jewish life. If no other culture is scholarship so prized. And Jews are smart. Everyone knows

this. We know it. Our enemies know it. We all know the statistics about Jews and Nobel Prizes.

Where does this come from? It comes from a love of learning and this love of learning leads us

to make the choices we do. Jews are always asking questions and answering them and asking

questions about those answers and so on and so on. The Jewish canon should be the basis for

how we form our ability to ask questions about the world around us and how we answer those

questions. In that way we should look back to them—not as a source of answers of as a pair of

glasses that allows us to see.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Naomi Kadish

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

In Irving Kristol’s “On the Political Stupidity of the Jews” he speaks about the

importance of looking into older texts for sustainable insights into how to run a country and

establish a comprehensive political and economic theory. He is a firm believer that in order to

establish a cohesive political theory for the Jewish state, the developers must first be proficient in

the texts of the past in order to figure out what should go into the political model. Without the

understanding of the texts that founded modern states, Kristal claims, it is nearly impossible to

set up a system that will withstand the test of time. Kristal writes, ” [t]he test of a great tradition

is whether its perspective is sufficiently insightful to be of use long after it is written and the fact

is that conservatives can continue to read and reread a good part of the literature in this tradition

and profit from it”. Here, Kristal is not saying that these works should just be understood as they

were in the context they were written in. What is crucial about rereading foundation texts is that

it is not just the wisdom from the past that makes these texts significant, but the way they have

influence different parts of our society and the modern perspective that can be infused into the

older texts. By bringing modern insights and understandings into these foundational texts they

continue to be applicable and will be the best solutions as they have proved many times before.

Further Kristal writes about the lack of foundational Jewish texts. He writes, “there is

nothing in the Jewish tradition that prepares Jews to think politically about foreign policy”.

While ancient Jewish sources any not dictate specific political maneuvers for the Jews, a more

accurate reading of the texts may be to draw the underlying values to influence modern political

and economic decisions. Thusly it is crucial that Jewish ancient sources are studied, as they are

the foundations of Jewish political values. Traditional Jewish texts inform the underpinnings of

political values such as the roots of socialism, for example with pe’ah the corner of every Jew’s

field that must be left for the poor, and have certain values infused in them that need to help in

some way inform policy in the state.

If the Jewish people truly want to build a truly Jewish state they need to be proficient in

their foundational texts and use them in conjunction with their modern perspective, just as

Kristal states earlier in regards to general development of political thought. To clarify, these

sources while they should be studied they should not be taken as the core point of economic or

foreign policy. These sources while kept alive for 2,000 years have been out of practice on a

state level. They were developed before democracies even existed. Thusly, they should inform

the values that are driving the policies, but should not necessarily be considered while

developing practical applications of such policies.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Ariana Kaufman

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

What better way to answer a question on the relevancy of ancient Jewish sources than to

dissect the question with (my albeit novice level) talmudic logic? To do so, I will first attempt to

clarify the terms implied meanings based on the context of the question. As a Modern Orthodox

Jew, I am committed to behaving in a manner consistent with the values of our Torah and sages

that address timeless concerns. Therefore, I believe that a “modern” Jew who’s Judaism is not

merely a habit or a social convenience (aka construct to a progressive) should look at such issues

through a Jewish lens because presumably there is wisdom to be gleaned from our ancestors.

This does not make me a better Jew or person and is not a value judgment. It is the lens through

which I choose to view the world knowing that it will not always provide me the solutions I seek

but where I first look for guidance.

I am assuming, therefore, that the term “modern Jews” in this context refers to those

whose Judaism plays a lesser role in their behavior although it could still be significant part of

their identity. Assuming that they are not wondering about a Jewish perspective on an issue

because of guilt or intellectual curiosity then the most rational criteria would be to determine if

there was a Jewish wisdom that could help shape a constructive solution.

Jews have survived (and often thrived) thousands of years and have clearly, by common

consensus, defied the laws of history. We have done so not by hiding from society, but by

engaging in it often at the highest levels. We were forced to learn the skills to address many

economic problems at the local, national and even at the international level. We have even

served as advisors to heads of state. Certainly our world today is facing issues that are orders of

magnitude greater than those faced even by our previous generation. However, basic human

characteristics and flaws have not really changed. It seems logical that Jews, especially almost

always subservient minorities, must have developed skill sets that are still relevant. As a people

dedicated to teaching and communal survival and who taught the world the concept of a linear

history we must surely have had sages whose insights can still guide us. Therefore, it would

seem that our experience would be relevant and that even for those who are less traditional our

sages would indeed have much practical wisdom to offer. In addition, being based on an ethical

foundation it would hopefully help its users act in a manner that may guide them toward actions

geared to the common good.

In summary, I believe that it would be foolish for anyone to not ignore George

Santayana’s adage that if we “do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it”.

Even the most secular Jew would be wise to look to Jewish sources to determine if they can help

guide them toward a solution to a problem that has an ethical basis as well. It is human nature to

not consider our own need and not necessarily focus on those of others. Judaism can help remind

THE TIKVAH FUND

one that a correct and sustainable solution should consider the needs of all parties including those

that may not be at the bargaining table.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Jared Kraay

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

The State of Israel carries religious significance. While I have neither the confidence nor

the fortitude to equate modern Israel with the messianic redemption or the biblical kingdom,

Israel allows the Jewish people both a religious sanctuary and a modus operandi of Judaism’s

global responsibility. Therefore, Israel must reflect upon ancient sources to inspire its economic

and foreign policy. Ancient sources may be unable to adapt fully to the modern economy or

international arena, yet they retain Israel’s religious element so essential in its political ethos.

Jewish political values exist, and they stem from the Bible. As Abraham Joshua Heschel

noted, the god of the Bible seems more politician than he does theologian, prioritizing social

improvement over ritual. Biblical ideas such as legal equality and constitutional monarchy have

already shaped much of the Western political arena, particularly the founding of the Unites

States, and the State of Israel should be proud to claim these tenets as part of our religious

heritage. The State of Israel, while situated in the Middle East and founded upon socialist-secular

values, cannot ignore the contributions of its own people to the Western political canon. In

addition, Israel must not be afraid to proclaim itself a religious state. This particular religious

state is not a theocracy nor an ancient kingdom, but rather a state that is partial to certain moral

responsibilities that its people were charged to represent.

The term “ancient sources” incorporates a vast set of texts. First, there is the Bible and its

various laws of military conquest, poverty alleviation and property rights. The paradigms of

successful and disastrous kingship are followed by the prophets’ moral imperative of justice and

compassion. Lastly, the rabbinic, malleable halakhic corpus that explicates the monetary

ordinances meant to govern the Jewish community. (The concept of Jewish statehood, or foreign

policy was largely omitted from most halakhic discourse until fairly recently). Israel can draw

from all of the categories above, yet I believe that biblical ideals will contribute most to the

religious character of the nation. Halakha simply has not yet stood the tests of statecraft.

Economic and foreign-policy foundations can be derived from biblical and rabbinic laws.

For example, the laws of peah and leket, biblical commandments designed to alleviate poverty,

can serve as inspiration for the communal responsibility towards the poor. It also stresses the

personal, rather than the national, responsibility for the welfare of the less fortunate, as the

famous Mishna declares that peah and leket do not contain a regulated measure. The Torah’s

emphasis on private property should have implications for modern Israel’s economy.

Additionally, the god of the Torah is the world’s first god to give its people borders, demanding

that its people respect other nationalities and states as it does its own. These ideals need not be

instituted as they were in ancient Israel, yet they give Israel a much-needed religious background

and the opportunity for religion to realize its societal responsibility.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Yet I warn against the blind imitation of biblical laws or ideals. While I believe that the

Torah has a political and societal message, those messages are often contradictory, and it may be

difficult for the State of Israel to define and propagate certain values. The Bible’s convoluted

vision of kingship and the balance between private property and national tributes are examples of

the Bible’s differing political messages. Israel’s politicians may find it arduous to convince

various sectors of society of the authenticity of their versions of Biblical politics. Therefore,

Israel’s Biblical-political foundation must be coordinated with an educational reform. Israeli

education should provide vigorous yet healthy debate over the Bible’s role in politics, and

religious education in Israel must emphasize the societal implications of religious laws and texts.

Furthermore, while such texts are valuable, they are also ancient. We cannot be afraid of

incorporating texts from other traditions that have experienced statehood. The halakhic system

has historically been a process of self-evaluation and malleability to fit contemporary needs.

Such a tradition of analysis should not be left out of the quest for Jewish yet modern politics.

Rabbi Abraham the son of Maimonides wrote that Judaism’s mission is one of global

improvement, by setting a global example. This requires first an appreciation of our own societal

and political values – found in ancient texts. However, Israel’s search for Biblical politics cannot

exist only in the political realm; only an educational reform and reemphasis on religion’s societal

implications will effectively bring ancient biblical values into the modern state.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Michael Krasna

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

Judaism has a rich civic and religious culture. Ancient Jewish sources have inspired

great leaders from Moses to Ben Gurion, Joshua to Reagan. They have filled speeches and

motivated political action, they have ushered in times of war and times of peace. Jewish law has

changed through the development and experiences of the Jewish people to cover a number of

civil and economic issues. As an example, in biblical times, inheritance was through the eldest

born son. The book of Bamidbar discusses the case of the Daughters of Tzelafchad who

petitioned Moses to adapt halakha to allow them to inherit their father’s land. At that point,

Moses consulted with G-d and a new legal tradition was formed.

Ancient Jewish sources can be morphed and adapted in a variety of ways when it comes

to economic and foreign policy decision-making in the modern world. They can be used to

promote a strong but ethical military that carries out its missions in the name of G-d. The IDF is

an incredible example of Jewish strength and ethics. Like the warriors in the Book of Prophets,

Israel’s modern warriors carry a Sefer Torah into battle, but also call Palestinian homes to warn

them before they are bombed. The Torah also points to the imperative to treat prisoners of war

and Avadim Ivrim with respect and dignity. Policy makers should heed this commandment today

to ensure that the enemies of the Jewish people and the West are respected as children of G-d.

The idea of a strong and ethical military can be applied to broader foreign policy. In this

vein, foreign policy should be used to defend the nation while also protecting others around the

world. Traditional Jewish sources point to the importance of caring for all of G-d’s children. In

today’s world, I believe, this means that Jews should support foreign aid for development

projects, support for threatened religious minorities, and military intervention on humanitarian

grounds if necessary.

Ancient Jewish sources can also inspire greater economic and social policies. The

concept of Leket, setting aside a portion of one’s earnings for the poor, is a beautiful example of

charity that should be encouraged in today’s world. Although I support the concept behind the

mitzvah of Leket, I do not believe that this money should be used at the government’s discretion.

Rather, the government should internalize the idea of Leket by incentivizing individuals to

voluntarily give charity to those in need. This can manifest itself in tax exemptions and lower

income taxes, which will encourage people to give more of their money to those in need.

Furthermore, the concept of appointing judges and a justice system are integral in

building a strong moral country. The commandment to install Shoftim and Shotrim has translated

itself into an independent judiciary. Further, the concept of Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof has become a

hallmark of Judeo-Christian civilization, and graces major symbols of justice throughout the

world. Given these examples of Jewish civic traditions, Jews in the modern world should use G-

d’s outline to build a more just and moral society.

THE TIKVAH FUND

THE TIKVAH FUND

Matthew Kritz

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

In this celebrated era, the two centers of Jewish life on Earth, the United States and Israel,

have given the Jewish people the opportunity to participate in the political sphere. But Irving

Kristol sees both of these as lost opportunities. The Jews, after centuries of living under the

dominion of others, have finally earned political independence, and yet they have squandered

this gift. They have stupidly, using his terminology, wasted their chance at political wisdom.

And how? They are politically liberal.

Kristol criticizes the Jews for not making more extensive reference to the classic works of

Western political thought in their discourse. But this is a tautological criticism. The Jews, it

would seem, ascribe to a political view that is not dependent on the ideas outlined in a traditional

canon, and perhaps for good reason. As Kristol admits, the political left attracted Jews because

they were more open to accepting Jews among their ranks. If Jews are to work towards

protecting Jewish interests in the political arena, it makes sense that they would support the

political views that cohere with their interests and self-protection, which for much of the past

century has been the political left, with the political right dominated by those maintaining a

social order in which not all citizens are given equal access to the political system. The debt of

the Jews to progressive politics ought not be taken lightly.

Is there something lost in not turning to tradition in the construction of one’s political

views? Kristol claims that the wisdom of the ages should guide us through contemporary

problems. Yet he does not lay out clearly why the ancients understand contemporary dilemmas

and realities better than contemporary thinkers, nor what constitutes ‘ancient’ or ‘traditional’

(Smith and Burke are modern compared to Aristotle and Plato, and their writings certainly broke

with tradition). His conviction that words of bygone years are the best resource for contending

with the issues we face today seems unsupported, nor does he provide guidance for which

traditional views, such as the exclusion of Jews and other groups from political life, ought to be

rejected. While he does suggest a defense in his description of Burke, who saw religious

observance as a way of protecting moral values in the face of a pure capitalist system, such a

view adopts tradition only hesitantly, and somewhat circuitously. Religion as a socio-

psychological agent to benefit politics is a disgrace to religion and a subversion of the political

order, and real adherence to those moral principles would dictate applying them to the economic

system itself. While few can doubt the intellectual and educational value of tradition, little has

been said, by Kristol at least, in defense of its political applicability.

But more fundamentally, Kristol glosses over a fundamental element of Jewish politics.

Rather than quoting Smith and Burke, Jews in both the United States and Israel do not hesitate to

THE TIKVAH FUND

cite the words of the prophets, the wisdom of their Sages, and the rest of their own canon in

defending their views. While the Jews have minimal background in political thought in the

traditional sense of contending with questions of economic systems and governmental structures.

But that hardly means that the Jewish tradition has nothing to say about various issues of central

import for the political arena. Does not Isaiah (58:6-7) declare that we must feed the hungry,

clothe the naked, and open the bonds of injustice? Did not R' Yehoshua ben Gamla institute a

public school system for the children of Judea (TB Bava Batra 21a)? Are there not hard fast

limitations on the free market, including prohibitions against overcharge (Leviticus 25:14),

interest (ibid. 35-37), and unfair competition (Deuteronomy 19:14)? The Jews have sources to

cite, and they proudly cite them. The Israeli project of mishpat ivri, Hebraic Justice, seeks to

structure the law based on traditional Jewish principles. Israeli and American activists and

politicians point to relevant sources in defending their positions. They may not do so

consistently, but this is because they don't believe they need to; the value of turning to Jewish

sources is maintaining the Jewish character of the discourse, not because ancient Judaism must

play a prescriptive role in modern Jewish thinking. Using Jewish language and terminology for

guidance provides a Jewish flavor to our political thinking, not in Kristol’s sense of adherence to

transmitted wisdom, but as a way of adding Jewishness to all elements of Jewish life, including

political engagement.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Doron Levine

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

There is no such thing as practical wisdom. A discussion of domestic or foreign policy

must begin with determining basic values and their relative importance. Once a basic axiological

hierarchy is laid out, minor quibbles over practical politics can be ironed out by lesser minds;

Considerations of effectiveness and political expediency require no wisdom.

The basic structure of political questions is as follows: The goal of individuals is to do

what they should be doing. And the goal of the state is to facilitate appropriate action. So the

question addressed by politics, namely “what is the right thing to do?”, is the primary focus of

traditional religion. Thus we have no reason to expect that religion can be peacefully divorced

from the workings of the state.

Kristol argues that we need to be “sensible and non-dogmatic.” We need an

“understanding that ideas that are incompatible in the abstract can often coexist and complement

one another in practice.” But this is a frivolous prescription. In fact, the opposite is true – we

need to be dogmatic and non-sensible. We need basic orienteering, a reimagining of our goals

and values under the aspect of our tradition. When Kristol calls for “reasoned experience over

abstract dogmatism,” he forgets that reasoned experience can only be applied under the guiding

principles of an abstract dogma.

Tradition is critical for helping to form a set of dogmas. Abstract beliefs must inform

practical judgment, but practical judgment can help to shape the abstractions. When we discover

normative fences erected by traditional authorities and honored by our people for a handful of

millennia, we must confront would-be radical reformers with G.K. Chesterton’s wise words: “If

you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then,

when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This is why modern visions of democratic neutrality are doomed to fail. There is no such

thing as a polity that rises above dogmatic quibbles and constructs a government that all

ideologies can get behind. Basic problems will inevitably arise for which clashing ideologies will

offer vastly divergent solutions. This is what is meant by religious folk who argue that atheism is

a religion as well. Atheists, too, often offer grand theories of morality, axiological hierarchies

that determine what one ought to do in any given circumstance and which cannot be divorced

from the political question. So the recent clashes over church and state which Kristol references

are not due to a lack of practicality, but rather a monumental clash between two basic dogmas:

traditional western religion and secularism.

When trying to develop economic or foreign policy, it is the duty of modern Jews to look

to ancient Jewish sources. To do otherwise is to compromise the integrity of our sacred tradition.

Be forewarned: such an undertaking might yield surprising results. We might read the

Kuzari and discover a tradition of metaphysical ethno-centrism. We might look to the Talmud

THE TIKVAH FUND

and discover an ontological distinction between men and women, inconsistent with modern

notions of non-essentialism and self-identification. We might vainly search our tradition for a

permissive individualist sexual ethic and emerge empty-handed. More dangerous still, we might

even find that a universalistic text like aleinu, often trumpeted for its reference to tikkun olam, is

actually a call for God to remove all foreign worship from the world and to subjugate all peoples

to belief in the Creator. It is not the case that, as Kristol writes, “political thinking is inherently

secular thinking.” If we wish to remain faithful to Jewish tradition, we cannot divorce our

politics from our faith.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Aaron Liberman

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

Throughout their long history, Jews have interacted with a changing world in which, at

times, their very survival required considerable innovation. In the process of dealing with non-

Jewish societies, Jews often selected from outside political philosophies and intellectual

discourses and knit these together with their own to create a distinctly Jewish ethos. The

Rabbinic tradition, in particular, offered a medium through which Jews could adapt to the

shifting environment while maintaining a stable core. Maimonides, for example, introduced

Greek philosophy into Jewish theology and even into Jewish law. More modern thinkers, such as

R. Joseph Soloveitchik, R. Aharon Lichtenstein, and R. Nachum Rabinovitch have fused the

ideas of Kant, Kierkegaard, and C.S. Lewis into the web of Judaic thought. The tectonic shift in

the status of the Jews since the establishment of the State of Israel, from a scattered, diasporic

people into a sovereign nation, has reignited this need for innovation. It has raised the question of

the extent to which the Jewish state should look towards ancient traditions in order to establish

its political policies, rather than adopting systems tried and tested by other nations. The question

is essentially one of goals. If the goal is to create the best state, regardless of particular histories,

then an argument might be made for the setting aside of Jewish tradition by Israeli strategists. If,

however, the hope is to create a functioning and flourishing state that is an extension of the

Jewish historical experience, then a fusion of internal, Jewish ideas with the best of the outside

world must be sought.

In order to answer the question of the extent to which ancient Jewish traditions should

play a role in modern statecraft, it is necessary to consider policy as having two parts. The first

part, the more superficial, concerns the form of a policy. The second, more profound, part

considers the values that underlie a policy. For the structure of the policy and the mechanisms by

which a system is to function, Jews should look to the best available models regardless of their

provenance. When the Rabbis of the Gemara were deciding on laws concerning medical issues,

they did not turn to the bible for expert advice on advances in medicine. Rather, they sought the

professional opinion of the best doctors available in Babylon and Israel. Maimonides, writing

centuries later in his codex of law, the Mishna Torah, notes that only those who “also know other

fields such as medicine, mathematics, astrology, and astronomy” are appointed to the Sanhedrin,

the Jewish court (Mishna Torah, Laws of Sanhedrin, 2, 1). The model of using adapted, non-

Jewish ideas and practices to structure Jewish life is one that has proven advantageous over

millennia. Jews should look towards the most successful contemporary practice to answer

questions about the political direction of the Jewish state. It makes little sense to delve into

Jewish texts to try to extract a system of statecraft when historical examples within the texts were

often based on non-Jewish sources from the various places in which Jews have lived.

THE TIKVAH FUND

There is, however, a clear distinction between the system or policy implemented and the

values that it expresses. When the question of values arises, I believe Judaism should remain true

to its own tradition. Adopting an extrinsically developed economic or diplomatic position does

not mean that a sovereign Jewish state must become a mirror image of the source of that

position. Rather, the reason that the Jewish state remains a Jewish state is that it has stood by the

moral values that define the Jewish way of life. Rabbinic Judaism, which has arguably provided

Jews with a type of governance and mode of sovereignty while they remained stateless,

embraces this approach. The ancient rabbis may have been open to non-Jewish knowledge in

various forms, but the conclusions they drew based upon that knowledge do not simply restate

the thought of other nations. The Talmud, for all its accretions and external influences, is

something uniquely Jewish. Similarly, when Maimonides inserted Aristotelian physics into his

codex of Jewish law, he did not create a Jewish flavored Greek philosophy. Rather, he wove the

wisdom of the day into the tapestry of Jewish thought. Those looking to craft the policies of the

Jewish state should take note, seeking out the best systems available, and mapping them onto a

set of Jewish values that has proven durable.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Yael Lilienthal

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

Other than an ancient historical narrative or a prescriptivist code zealously adhered to by

a pious minority, if the Torah—in its loose connotation implying the broader Jewish cannon—

does not fuel Jewish political attitudes, then what is its relevance in a modern, non-Orthodox

context?

Of course this approach depends on the refutation of Kristol’s assumption that the

rabbinic and prophetic traditions fail to offer sound advice in this realm, “since political thinking

is inherently secular thinking”. Western thought might be helpful in defending “a strong

deference to tradition…in the language of rational secular discourse,” but the extent to which

Kristol himself turns to traditional sources—not only once Jewishly-popular sentiment—is

questionable.

Indeed, Jewish history offers many different models of Jewish civic life and political

engagement: conditions of slavery and autonomy, oppressive rule and expulsion, cultural

flourishing in Spain and Morocco, and raging assimilation in eighteenth-century Germany are a

small selection of the varied circumstances in which Jews have contended with the governing

bodies. The exact examples that Kristol discredits as useless are those which can most accurately

advise Jewish political attitudes. The Hasmonean dynasty that inherited both religiously charged

positions of monarch and priest, as well as the long and tense relationship with the Roman

empire, are perfectly imperfect enough to parallel today’s dystopian political climates. From the

corruption of Alexander Yannai to the placid relationship of Antoninus and Rebbi, Kristol

unknowingly turns to perhaps the era most adept in advising political dialogue.

An additional reason to incorporate Jewish sources in the development of political policy

negates Kristol’s claim that “the risk of being progressive is that there is always some new

version of ‘progressive’” and that the conservative’s adherence to permanent terms preserves his

ideas as “relevant”. Progress is by no standards inherently wrong nor un-Jewish, but it will

categorically “over-progressify” the progress that comes before it. Conversely, permanence is

itself not a value and may often be detrimental to an honest prognosis of reality. In fact, the

Halachic system itself, as well as the plethora of evolving Jewish thought, serve testimony to this

phenomenon more than ever. A study of American history results in a similar realization;

conservative streams of the fifties and sixties were hostile to minorities, while Jewish ideals

aligned themselves much more harmoniously with the progressive stances encouraging equality

of race and religion. One might claim that the views of left-leaning streams of modern America

have progressed past Judaism’s nuanced vision of equality. What hallmarks Jewish wisdom as

eternally relevant is neither its rigidity in rejecting the sway of progress nor its automatic

alignment with the newest, most progressive stances, rather its relevance in a diversity of

THE TIKVAH FUND

circumstances with varying political environments, national stability, and cultural integration,

spanning thousands of years and developing countries across the globe.

Kristol admonishes the Jewish State for its inability to creatively incorporate “genuine

political wisdom” in the country’s infrastructure, opting instead to mimic prevailing trends of the

West. What he fails to realize, however, is that his perspective imitates a still relatively

uncreative tradition, differentiated solely by its origination in a slightly older era. Truly

ingenious would be to apply an expansive and dynamic cannon of Jewish thought to modern

political theory. Truly ingenious would be to translate not the “classics of Western political

conservatism into Hebrew for the benefit of Israeli readers,” but the prophetic visions of a

functioning society and the Talmudic tractates of legal and non-Jewish into a relatable

framework for realistic implementation.

The fault of Jewish political stupidity may lie with Kristol himself. As long as Jews allow

their traditional sources to shape cultural masterminds as Hayim Nachman Bialik, Natan

Alterman and Chava Alberstein, while refraining from applying its wisdom to their political

dialogue, they quarantine the tradition to a sphere of leisure and literature. Jews, including

Kristol, would shed their political stupidity if only they realized that the answer is neither to

drain the public sphere of Christian undertone solely for the self-interest of Jewish natives, nor to

advocate otherwise solely for the restoration of religious—and by extension, Jewish—undertones

in the public sphere. The much less stupid approach would be to understand that a Jewish

identity is formed by an honest commitment to Jewish wisdom in all factors of life, including

political thought.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Celeste Marcus

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

He’s doing it wrong. Irving Kristol believes in the prudential necessity of religion – not in

Judaism. In his essay The Political Stupidity of the Jews Kristol advocates for Judaism based

solely on its stabilizing effects on society – there is no allusion to its axioms, axiology, or

philosophical underpinnings. Indeed, Christian readership has praised Kristol for promoting

religions that foster Judeo-Christian mores as if all such religions are equal. As Catholic author

Tom Wilson explains in an article featured in First Things, “it seems clear that what is really

being promoted here is a set of broader Judeo-Christian ideas that Kristol believed applied to

society as a whole. He was undoubtedly in favor of Jews being more traditionally Jewish—with

the hope that this would help them to resist the secular counterculture. But he was also an

advocate of Christians embracing Christianity, which meant a strong Christian tenor to American

society in general”. Primacy of values fostered within a faith based community over the faith

itself yields a three-cheers-for-faith approach to society that will eventually deteriorate into an

orthodoxy that worships pragmatism. Underscoring the advantageous aspects of Judaism strips it

of its depth. It allows the practitioner to fancy himself superior to the practice, it places the Jew

before Judaism and the state before faith. Promoting faith based solely on its stabilizing effects

on society is analogous to promoting reading Austen or Kipling based on the contention that it

will improve your vocabulary. Of course it will; of course this is secondary.

Intellectuals like Irving Kristol discuss faith as if they lived outside it. Religion is for the

masses who require training; they are the wise men who do not require such conditioning.

Viewing faith as means to a political end allows for intellectuals like Kristol to create a

dichotomy that relegates the intellect to the secular realm and faith to the religious. What a

shallow religion! What a paltry version of Judaism! Our texts are rich with wisdom that extends

to all aspects of life. Our Torah breaths beyond the Beit Midrash. Of course we should study

ancient Jewish sources when developing economic or foreign policy!

Kristol’s approach to faith is a Christian one – his faith is blind and love based. We Jews

have an opposing conception of the role of the human mind in the Man-God relationship. Jews

think the Christian conception is wrong. Is this anti-pluralistic? Yes. First Things will not feature

an article praising the inclusivity of this interfaith approach. We shouldn’t want them too.

Judaism isn’t pluralistic. Jewish Choseness is a central tenant of Judaism. Kristol himself

recognized this. In his essay The Spiritual Roots of Capitalism and Socialism, he quipped, “Here,

I will simply plead my Jewishness and say, equality has never been a Jewish thing. Rich men are

fine, poor men are fine, so long as they are decent human beings. I do not like equality”. Agreed.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Yaffa Leah Pacht

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

This question sparked an internal struggle between two seemingly contradictory ideas

that I both believe to be true. Interpreting “ancient Jewish sources” to mean “Torah sources,” my

mind jumped to the Talmudic maxim which states, “Turn it [Torah] over, and turn it over, for all

is therein” (Tractate Avos, 5:22). If I believe that the Torah is the source of all knowledge, then I

must believe that it has within it not only tenets for religious guidance, but also economic and

foreign policy guidance.

But seconds later I was struck by another thought: the Torah and the stories that fill it are

written as lessons for the individual, not as political instruction. As Kristol points out, “with the

exception of a few quotations from the Prophets, there is nothing in the Jewish tradition that

prepares Jews to think politically about foreign policy.” I disagreed with the statement at first.

Much of the early Prophets go into great detail about wars, relations with neighboring nations,

and deals struck with previous inhabitants of Israel. But upon second thought, I felt that Kristol

didn’t go far enough. The incidents related in Prophets aren’t lessons in foreign policy. Important

strategies are barely mentioned while seemingly insignificant incidents are dwelled upon at

length. Why? Because the Torah focuses on what can teach us the most valuable lessons in

individual self-improvement. Therefore, I thought, it would be a mistake to search ancient Jewish

sources in formulating current political agendas. But how could I reconcile this idea with my

initial impulse?

Kristol brings several concrete examples of what he calls “the political stupidity of the

Jews.” One is a Jewish tendency toward socialism, and the “socialist ethos” that remains

powerful in Israel today. Another is the “dual vision” of Jews in their secularization of a

formerly openly-religious America. A third is the belief in “conflict resolution,” that conflict is

based on misunderstanding, and “good ‘human relations’” can replace political relations in

foreign policy. Kristol suggests that at least one of these may be because of a Jewish

“predisposition,” and perhaps he is not far off. To incorporate another Talmudic source,

Yevamot 89a states that there are 3 signposts of the Jewish nation: they are merciful, they have a

sense of shame, and they perform acts of kindness. These apparently inborn character-traits are

meant to be a testament to the Jewish people. But, like any value untempered and out-of-context,

they can prove to do more long-term harm than good.

This is where Burke enters the argument. Man’s “own private stock of reason…is small.”

For a Jew to stand with only these three innate character traits can and does lead to a place where

mercy outweighs reason, where shame outweighs common-sense, and where kindness outweighs

long-term effectiveness. These values are meant to be utilized in the context of a biblical

traditional, what Burke might call prejudice. They are meant to be tempered by an understanding

of how and when they are appropriate to exercise. When they are not, it leads to a socialist-

THE TIKVAH FUND

leaning Israel, an overly secular America, and an inclination toward unrealistic foreign policy. If

we are unwilling to understand things in the context of our tradition, we are politically “stupid.”

And here is where I discovered an answer to my question. To approach ancient Jewish

sources looking to formulate an economic or foreign policy upon a superficial reading of the text

would be absurd; that it not the Torah’s purpose. To open the Torah in search of a phrase or two

out-of-context that supports an individual agenda would be foolish; it leads to misunderstanding.

We need to read Western political thought, to understand the political issues of our times, to

formulate “secular” policies. But once we have, we need to apply them in the context of ancient

Jewish sources, building upon “the latent wisdom which prevails in them.” Rabbi Lord Jonathan

Sacks exercises this approach in his lectures and writings on the affinity between Jewish

ideology and the free-market.

He articulates it best, so I’ll use his words: “If we are to apply Torah to the world, we

must understand the world. We need a new generation of Jews committed to the dialogue

between sacred and secular if Judaism is to engage with the world and its challenges.” Only in

taking that lesson, in uniting the sacred with the secular, the theory of the West with the ancient

knowledge of the Torah, can we achieve properly formulated policy that is powerful enough to

override our previous stupidity.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Leead Staller

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

“The bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.” This Galilean

aphorism, penned in the 1615 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, concisely summed up a

revolutionary shift in scientific attitude. One of the cornerstones of the scientific revolution, the

epistemological division between scientific truth claims and revealed biblical “truths” was key in

establishing the methodological and conceptual foundations that the entirety of modern science is

predicated upon. That being the case, were a devout Catholic minister to preach a Ptolemaic

model of geocentrism in the modern day, undoubtedly he would be laughed out of his church.

That said, a church-going Christian undoubtedly expects his religious minister to inform his

worldview, and thereby his very perception of reality, with the religious texts that form the

content of his tradition. So why is it that religiously-informed scientific conclusions are so

universally dismissed?

Perhaps the most obvious explanation for the wide-spread acceptance of a division of

(certain areas) of science and religion is a pragmatic one. Were man to have stuck with a

geocentric model, Neil Armstrong would have never reached the moon and Google Maps would

have been but a dream of science fiction. In other words, there are tangible products of scientific

progress that one can observe in the world, and moreover, that the common man benefits from on

a regular basis. To acknowledge this fact, one has no choice but to concede the limitations of

their faith in ancient religious texts, and confine “scientific” statements of ancient origins to the

realm of the metaphorical or otherwise non-literal.

However, while perhaps partially a post facto apologetic, I believe there exists a

powerfully coherent theological argument for the exclusion and non-literal treatment of certain

aspects of biblical and otherwise ancient Judaic literature. A closer look at the above quoted

Galileo quote highlights a powerful idea. More than merely arguing that the bible does not show

“the way the heavens go,” Galileo argues that this is because “the bible shows the way to go to

heaven.” In other words, ancient religious texts are first and foremost concerned with a religious

agenda, and, as such, choose to be unbound by the confining literal truths of empirical

information such as science.

To limit the messages of ancient tradition to the products of scientific knowledge presents

two dangers: Firstly, it risks losing meaning by disqualifying certain images or ideas because of

their factual inaccuracy. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it risks rendering the ancient

canon irrelevant with time. Undeniably, science progresses and changes, and previous ideas are

demonstrably rejected. If the bible were to be bound to a specific scientific theory or idea, even if

it were to be the most modern and technically correct scientific conception, when science

inevitably progresses and changes, ancient literature would find itself outdated.

THE TIKVAH FUND

All of that said, one must now consider how we view social sciences, such as economics

and political science in light of the above. Undoubtedly, the pragmatic argument is harder to

maintain. While it may be true that innovations in economic and political theory have had a

direct impact on the lives of many, it is hard to say definitively what exactly that impact is. There

is no tangible breakthrough that can be identified as being too important to be rejected by, or at

least interpreted in light of, traditional canon.

That said, the latter theological argument seems to still resonate as true within these

social sciences. To claim that the ancient cornerstones of the biblical canon were writing texts of

political or economic truth is to limit their effectiveness, and ultimately, their relevance. Even the

most conservative of thinkers must view certain political and economic ideas as “outdated,” and

must admit to the constantly changing trends of the (even conservative) academic world. That

being the case, it would be undermining to the weight that these religious texts are supposed to

carry to turn them in political doctrines or economic works. Rather, to ensure the longevity and

the fullness of the traditional messages and meaning of ancient Jewish texts, one must view them

as transcending the empirical truths of the observable “sciences,” be they soft or hard, and

speaking to a deeper Truth. Thus, one would be better served turning to the secular realm of

academia to refine their knowledge of economics and political theory, utilizing the traditional

canon for loftier goals.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Justin Soffer

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

As described in Kristol’s piece “On the Political Stupidity of the Jews,” Jews have no

prior experience in modern politics and statecraft before the establishment of the State of Israel.

Since ancient Jewish texts were composed and compiled, political thought has advanced

thousands of years beyond ancient Jewish texts describe. Kristol makes the argument that like

the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, politics in Israel requires an “infusion of thought

from the outside.” By this infusion, Kristol means that Israeli politics needs a continuum of

classical conservative principles for which they can base their policies. Kristol essentially argues

that if secular liberal Israelis understand the works of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke, they

would be more inclined to skew towards capitalism and traditionalism, rather than the relatively

new Western phenomena of socialism and progressivism. Kristol further examines why

American Jews have waged a war on “public square” religion, opining that liberal Jews feel that

the solution to the Jewish problem is to live in a country that is nominally Christian but

completely egalitarian, rather than just tolerant for all religions. However, Kristol is missing a

broader point that must be addressed, and that is ancient Jewish texts are by modern standards

conservative texts. The Torah advocates for Jews to live by a very specific behavioral code, the

Talmud demands that Jews uphold commandments and even oral traditions not included in the

Torah in their daily lives. Both documents oppose abortion, oppose same sex marriage, advocate

for private charity rather than a welfare system, and demand that Jews consider themselves a

nation, and one that is specifically chosen by God. Yet, liberal American and Israeli Jews

disregard this. Most liberal Jews are secular, and don’t feel a strong connection to ancient Jewish

texts for the very reason that it conflicts with their modern values of social justice, socialism, and

cultural relativism. When faced with the conflict between modern liberal values, and their very

own religious values, liberal Jews choose to be liberal rather than be religious. This is

demonstrated in the United States on multiple scales, perhaps the most telling being that

American Jews vote 3 to 1 for Democrats, yet Orthodox Jews vote 2 to 1 for Republicans. This

begs the question, with Judaism withering, and liberal values gaining amongst American and

Israeli Jews, how can we reverse this trend?

To me, the long term answer is not yet Kristol’s answer of infusing conservative thought

into Israeli politics. Western conservative thought exists in America, yet liberalism still triumphs

in the minds of American Jews.The most effective way to root out liberalism among Jews is to

return to the ideas of the Torah, and to make Judaism a priority amongst Jews both in America

and in Israel. Only after Jews make Judaism, specifically Judeo-Christian values, a priority the

conservative philosophies of Edmund Burke and Adam Smith can be effective in statecraft. Jews

both in America and in Israel by nature should be conservative, and they should agree with

THE TIKVAH FUND

Burke and Adam Smith’s writings, however before they do, they must recognize that being

Jewish means that you must hold true to certain conservative values.

When constructing economic and foreign policy, modern Jews should look to Western

political philosophies. They should asses what is best for them according to Burke and according

to Adam Smith, and Jews will likely find that the policies of free market capitalism, and an

inclusion of tradition in political society will fit better according to their Jewish conservative

values. They will find that constructing a foreign policy that is “best for the Jews” is incumbent

upon them according to ancient Jewish texts, and will find that it creates for a better reality on

the ground. However, without the reestablishment of conservative Jewish values among secular

Jews in Israel and in America, the works of Burke and Smith are meaningless. Without a

conservative Jewish base, secular Jews will flatly reject the works of Burke and Smith as

“outdated” and “unfair.” That is why before Jews can be sold on these conservative Western

philosophies, which they can use to construct positive economic and foreign policies, Jews must

be sold first on the conservative values of the Torah, and the responsibility of a Jew to adhere to

those specific values. Judaic values and the conservative values are one in the same and should

thus be treated as such. The basis of Judaism and conservatism must be restored among secular

Jews, it would be most effective to create the base of conservative values through Judaism, and

then follow with modern western conservative philosophies.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Avinoam Stillman

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

Kristol repeatedly bemoans the fact that there are no Jewish texts that provide realistic

political wisdom: “With the exception of a few quotations from the Prophets, there is nothing in

the Jewish tradition that prepares Jews to think politically about foreign policy.” However, he

also embraces a religious conservatism that turns to tradition as a stabilizing influence on

society:

“According to conservative thought, a market economy cannot work except in a

society comprised of people who are… orderly, law-abiding and diligent, and

who resolutely defer gratification—sexual as well as financial—so that, despite

the freedom granted each individual, the future nonetheless continues to be

nourished at the expense of the present. For people of this kind to lead lives of

this kind, it seems to be the case that religion is indispensable.”

There are issues with both halves of this approach, although Kristol himself provides some

resolutions to the issues.

There are examples of Jewish statescraft which Kristol fails to mention; Samuel

HaNagid’s role as military leader in the government of Grenada in the 1000s comes to mind, as

does the court role of Don Isaac Abarbanel. It also seems facile to dismiss the deeply political

books of the Bible, such as Judges, Samuel, and Kings. However, I think even these neglected

examples would fail to pass muster for Kristol. Kristol argues that policy should be governed by

conservative thought, which is a wisdom derived from long traditions of practical action in the

public sphere. Jews have had virtually no political power over the exile, and so have no store of

wisdom to draw on, since the only worthy wisdom is wisdom derived from practical experience.

And since there is no Jewish tradition of statecraft, policy must be rooted in other traditions; for

Kristol, this is the salvific function of Anglo-American conservatism.

This approach places religion firmly in the place of handmaiden to political society.

Practical matters have to be decided based on the rational, common sense wisdom derived from

years of political statecraft, not from abstract moral or theological principles. In a sense, Kristol

seems to be perpetrating the same Enlightenment reduction of religion to the private realm as his

opponents. Reducing religion to a stabilizing social force robs it of its role in shaping society; it

now serves only to confirm predetermined values. When Kristol writes about religion here, he

seems to address it only from the perspective of the life of an individual as an actor in society: “It

is religion that reassures people that this world of ours is a home, not just a habitat, and that the

tragedies and unfairness we all experience are features of a more benign, if not necessarily

comprehensible, whole. It is religion that restrains the self-seeking hedonistic impulse so easily

engendered by a successful market economy.” Religion is therapeutic, and it keeps people from

being too greedy in a market economy. That is the extent of its contribution, although it also

THE TIKVAH FUND

supplies a vague cipher for “fealty to tradition.” His version of religion is scarcely more vital

than that of the liberal Jews he decries.

Is there not a wider scope to religion? Are the political philosophies of Maimonides or

Rabbenu Nissim of Gerona irrelevant? What about the long tradition of internal Jewish self-

governance, the ways in which rabbis and lay leaders have exercised their power? R’ Israel of

Rizhin had a Hasidic court of thousands of followers; didn’t he know how to wield political

power? The communities of Mainz and Worms are not significant examples of self-governance?

Modern Jews should look to ancient sources for policy guidance, but before that they should look

to early modern and medieval sources. This entails a shift in emphasis, away from a macroscopic

globalized world and more towards particular historical contexts. Still, Jewish history has a depth

and breadth of scenarios that can match Burke’s England any day. That requires a little more

digging in books and archives than simply “infusing” conservative thought into Jewish life

through Hebrew translations. Now, it could be that, as a short-term measure, the adoption of

Anglo-American conservatism will bear fruit more quickly. But it seems unlikely to have the

staying power of a truly Jewish conservatism, one which roots itself in the texts and memories

that Jews—some Jews, at least—still share.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Elan Teichman

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

As a believing Jew, I hold the Torah to be something deep, meaningful, and valuable.

However, in this day and age, what does that actually mean? Surely it doesn’t mean stoning to

death people who work on shabbos and killing adulterers. Though there are some Jews,

especially in certain segments of Israeli society, who would advocate for this type of “Biblical

utopia”, I am not one of them.

The Torah is thousands of years old. It emerged out of a completely different culture and

time then the current milieu in which we find ourselves today living in the modern era. But that

doesn’t mean that the Torah is completely irrelevant for Jews living in 2015. Many of its ideas

and principles should still guide us. A good parallel of this would be the Unites States

constitution. It also emerged centuries ago, a time which was radically different than the twenty-

first century. But the constitution still contains and enshrined certain foundational ideas which

the US still tries to stay in line with, even while keeping with the perpetually changing times.

Many people think that the Torah is completely irrelevant for Jews today, and that it has

nothing to teach people living in modern society. This was the message conveyed by Irving

Kristol in his piece On the Political Stupidity of the Jews. According to Kristol, “Neither the

rabbinic nor the prophetic traditions can be of much assistance in this respect, since political

thinking is inherently secular thinking.” However, as Jews, we must look to the Torah for

guidance, for that is what Judaism is based on. The Torah is the foundational basis of Jewish

history, identity, ideology, language, philosophy, and culture. That’s not to say that the Torah is

the only influence on Jews, but rather that a Judaism divorced from the Torah can’t be called

“Judaism.”

Accordingly, if we aspire to anything even remotely “Jewish”, we must look to the ideas,

values, and principles of the Torah – where applicable. According to Kristol, politics is

“secular”, so therefore the torah has nothing to say on “political matters”. He says that as if the

whole Torah is all high-minded visions of messianic otherworldliness. Though messianic visions

of global peace surely have their place in the Torah’s ultimate vision for humanity, the Torah

also contains many pragmatic, practical, and actionable ideas.

With a strong focus on “this world”, the Torah contains many wonderful principles and

ideas which are basically the backbone of “political” policies and ideologies. In the realm of

labor issues, shabbos has much to teach society. With economic issues, the laws of shemittah and

yovel contain profound wisdom. With issues of poverty, income inequality, and social welfare,

the Torah’s notion of charity and caring for the abandoned, weak, and helpless of society have

much to teach us. This is not to say that we should just start living under Biblical law as the law

of the land, but only that we should realize that the Torah has much to say and contribute when it

comes to political ideology.

THE TIKVAH FUND

However, we also need to openly and readily acknowledge where the Torah really

doesn’t have anything to say on the matter. As Kristol says, “With the exception of a few

quotations from the Prophets, there is nothing in the Jewish tradition that prepares Jews to think

politically about foreign policy.” In this regard I’m inclined to agree with him. In the modern era,

the geopolitical landscape is completely different than the model the Torah is operating with. For

example, the idea of “rules of engagement” or “battlefield ethics” is unheard of in the Bible. This

idea simply just didn’t exist for millennia, while today it is taken as a given. Similarly, with the

field of economics, there is no concept of the stock market in the Torah. It is a modern invention,

and thus the Torah provides no framework for how to deal with it. There is no such thing as

dealing with an IPO in a “Jewish manner”. So we must look to the Torah’s ideas for inspiration

and guidance where possible and applicable, but we must also admit where it just doesn’t deal

with the issue at hand.

THE TIKVAH FUND

Eric Wasserman

Writing Assignment Two

Prompt One

When trying to develop an economic or foreign policy, modern Jews should not look to

ancient Jewish sources. When I was in Tzfat on Birthright we went to a Chabad where the Rabbi

led a session on making political decisions rooted in Jewish texts. We were divided into groups

and handed excerpts from the Torah, Mishnah, Gamara, and Kabbalah and shown a video on

Gilad Shalit’s capture. We were given the task to decide, based on the texts we were given, if we

should trade 1000 captured terrorists for his return.

Many people in Israel were against making the exchange based on secular values. Some

were saying the old slogan “you don’t negotiate with terrorists.” However, they had an Israeli

and some thought the government should do everything in their power to get him back. Another

concern about making the trade was that once the 1000 confirmed murderous prisoners were

released they would return to terrorist activity. If you were to let Gilad die at the hands of

Hamas, his one death would be less than the total amount of deaths caused if the 1000 prisoners

were released. However logical this sounds, it is still troubling to abandon one of your own.

Another argument against the release was that if Hamas knew that Israel would give up 1000

terrorists for a captured soldier than they would be more inclined to capture future soldiers and

not kill them. There was even a petition floating around Israeli soldiers that if they got captured

the government should not make a trade like this.

My group had a passage about how the mind rules over the heart but takes into

consideration the feelings of the heart. I learned from Meor that the word for king, melech, is

spelled lamad, mem, kaph. The lamad is short for the word for mind, the mem short for the word

for heart, and the kaph short for the word for body. In other words, a king is supposed to think

with his mind and that will affect his emotions and then he will carry out the decided action with

his body. In the end we decided to make the trade because even though it didn’t make logical

sense- more Israelis would be dead in the end as a result of the swap- we had to make every

effort to save Gilad because we felt we could not let him be tortured. We had to make a chesed.

We figured if it was our relative captured, we would want the Israeli government to make the

swap.

After we all came up with our decisions concerning Gilad, the Rabbi showed us a video

of what was actually done. Of course, Gilad was returned home for the release of 1000

murderous terrorists. It wasn’t before long that they returned to terrorist activity and more

civilians were killed. A special unit in the Israeli army was created to go out and try to recapture

the 1000 terrorists.

A problem with making political decisions based on Jewish texts is that it is hard to find

consistency. All four of our groups came up with different decisions on whether to trade Gilad

Shalit for 1000 prisoners. Different texts can say different things and the same text can be

THE TIKVAH FUND

interpreted to mean different things. Someone can twist a Jewish text to fit their agenda. Clearly

making political decisions based on Jewish texts is flawed. Therefore, I would favor the method

Irving Kristol lays out of publishing books, pamphlets, articles, and newspapers to create a

distinct Jewish political culture that leaders can turn to.