Flags

ARR 64-66

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

21. National Flags at Religious Services

(Vol. LXIV, 1954, pp. 79-80)

QUESTION: In our Temple we have two flags on the pulpit: one is the United States flag and the other is the flag of Israel. Some members of the congregation seem much disturbed by the practice. They feel that these flags have no place in the auditorium where religious services are held and should therefore be removed to the social hall. The matter has been referred to our Committee on Religious Practice. We are anxious to avoid unnecessary emotional conflicts among our members. We should like to bring to them a proposal that would rest on sound principle and could be followed by all factions.

ANSWER: In Judaism, devotion to the welfare of the country in which one lives has long assumed the character of a religious duty.

When, in the sixth century B.C.E., the people of Judah had been carried into captivity by the Babylonian conqueror, it was the prophet Jeremiah who proclaimed God’s message to the captives in the following words: “And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace” (Jer. 29:7).

Centuries later, when the Roman emperors ruled over many kingdoms, including Palestine, it was the Rabbis who pronounced the same religious principle, “Pray for the welfare of the government,” they said, “since but for the fear thereof men would swallow one another alive” (Avot 3.2).

Accordingly, a special prayer for the ruling power soon found its way into the fixed liturgy of the synagogue (Abudarham, p. 47c). On the Sabbath Day, during the morning services, immediately after the Scriptural lesson, the prayer for the welfare of the government is recited in all the synagogues of the world. In every country the Jew thus affirms his faith from week to week that loyalty to the institutions of the particular country of which he is a citizen is a solemn religious obligation.

The presence of the American flag in the synagogues of the land, far from being an intrusion, may well serve to strengthen in us the spirit of worship. Symbolizing, as it does, the duties we owe to our country, obedience to its laws, and zealous support of its rights and interests, our national flag speaks to us with the voice of religion and partakes, therefore, of the sanctity of our religious symbols.

What the American flag is to the American Jew, the British flag is to the British Jew; the French flag is to the French Jew; and the Israeli flag, to the citizens of Israel. The American flag has no proper place in the synagogues of Israel, even as the Israeli flag is quite out of place in an American synagogue.

The United States army regulations governing the display of any national flag other than our own–and these regulations have now become the standard civilian practice as well–are quite broad and adequate. While frowning on the practice of habitually flying a foreign flag alongside the American flag, these regulations provide that (1) in the presence of a visiting dignitary of a foreign land or (2) on some notable anniversary of that land, its national flag may be displayed as a token of respect.

American Jewish congregations, if they so desire, may therefore display the Israeli flag when a representative of the State of Israel is present in their midst, or when the State of Israel celebrates a special anniversary, such as the Day of Independence.
Israel Bettan

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

RR21 no. 5758.10

CCAR RESPONSA

Hatikvah and The Star-Spangled Banner

5758.10

She’elah.

  1. Of Flags and Anthems. Reform responsa have not spoken to the issue of national anthems at religious services. There does exist, however, a line of decisions with respect to the placement of national flags in the synagogue sanctuary and on the bimah. Flags, to be sure, are not a perfect analogy to national anthems. A flag is an item of synagogue ornamentation, usually a permanent presence, while an anthem tends to be sung only on occasion, in connection with a particular religious observance. Still, they are similar to the extent that they raise the issue of our spiritual and emotional attachment to our own country and to the state of Israel, the way in which these attachments can take on religious significance for us, and the potential conflicts that these attachments are said to involve.

Writing in 1954, R. Israel Bettan[1] permitted the placement of the American flag in an American synagogue on the grounds that in Judaism, devotion to the welfare of ones’s country, as expressed through the prayers we recite on behalf of the government, “has long assumed the character of a religious duty.” Far from being a secular intrusion into the world of religion, “the presence of the American flag…may well serve to strengthen in us the spirit of worship… (partaking) of the sanctity of our religious symbols.” As the emblem of a foreign state, meanwhile, an Israeli flag would be “quite out of place in an American synagogue.” A congregation might display an Israeli flag only on those occasions specified by US Army regulations and civilian practice which govern “the display of any national flag other than our own”: to honor a visiting dignitary of a foreign land, or in observance of some notable anniversary (such as Yom Ha`atzma’ut) of that land.

R. Bettan’s view contrasts sharply with an Orthodox perspective dating from 1957 by R. Moshe Feinstein,[2] who regards all national flags as purely secular symbols possessing no religious value whatsoever. Indeed, he calls them “nonsense” (hevel veshetut), which by rights should not be placed in the sanctuary. This is particularly true of the flag of Israel, a state founded by nonobservant Jews (resh`aim) who in Feinstein’s view had abandoned the path of Torah. On the other hand, since the presence of the flags does not violate a ritual prohibition and does not invalidate the synagogue as a place of prayer, the congregation is not required to remove them, especially if to do so would be the cause of needless dissension (machloket) among its members.

A 1977 responsum[3] by this Committee, permitting the display of an Israeli flag in an American Reform synagogue, effectively reversed the Bettan decision. It is true, the Committee wrote, that we recite prayers in the synagogue for the welfare of the country in which we live. It is also true, however, that Jews have long prayed for the return to the land of Israel and the re-establishment there of Jewish national life. Thus, “the flags of the United States and Israel on a pulpit might be said to symbolize the prayers which have always been said in the synagogue.” The flag of Israel, moreover, is dominated by the six-pointed Star of David, which “is now commonly recognized as a symbol of Jews and Judaism throughout the world.” Since “there is no clear distinction between Jews and Judaism, between our religious and our national aspirations,” the display of this Jewish national symbol cannot be objectionable on Judaic religious grounds. This does not mean that the flag must be displayed. As the responsum noted, our synagogues have varying policies on this matter, so that “in any case, both the loyalty of our communities to the United States and our common concern for Israel are clear with or without the placement or possession of flags.”

In its most recent statement,[4] this Committee reaffirmed the 1977 decision: the national flag serves as an expression of a religiously legitimate devotion which may be expressed, should the congregation so choose, by placing the flag in the sanctuary. It also made explicit that our national flag is not a religious symbol and therefore should not be described as such. We therefore put a firm if respectful distance between ourselves and the tone of Rabbi Bettan’s responsum: “we are properly suspicious of rhetoric equating ‘God and King’ or ‘God and Country.’” Such talk, we wrote, may not meet the technical definition of “idolatry,”[5] but the historical experience of the last several decades leads us to associate the language of uncritical nationalism with such disturbing phenomena as chauvinism, racism, and ethnic intolerance. In stressing the secular–that is, religiously neutral–nature of political nationhood, the responsum adopts a view resembling that of R. Feinstein on that issue. On the other hand, “our acceptance of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship,[6] our devotion to the prophetic ideals of social justice, and our love for the state of Israel imply a more positive disposition toward national flags than that assumed by R. Feinstein. We care deeply about the welfare of our societies; their symbolic representations must not be dismissed as ‘nonsense.’”

These responsa speak not only to the specific issue of national flags but also to the more general one of patriotism, of our sense of commitment to our own countries and to the state of Israel. Our observations on this larger issue, of which the question of national flags is but a concrete manifestation, may be summarized as follows:

a. Since Jews have always “prayed for the welfare” of the government, it is appropriate for us to express our love and concern for our country in a concrete way as part of our synagogue ritual.

b. The nation, its government, and the symbols representing them are secular rather than religious matters. We are under no obligation to bring these symbols into our synagogues or insert them into our religious practice. In any event, our loyalty to and concern for our country are beyond doubt even should we choose not to incorporate its national rituals into our buildings or services.

c. The state of Israel is the political embodiment of the age-old Jewish dream of national redemption, a dream which we have expressed in our prayers for two millennia. The survival and welfare of the Jewish state are therefore matters of our utmost religious as well as political concern. It follows that the symbols of the Israeli state are not simply Israeli symbols; they reflect and convey a powerful Jewish meaning to us. Should we choose to display the Israeli flag in our synagogues, we do not thereby declare political allegiance to the Israeli state; we rather affirm that the Jewish ideas and ideals which that flag symbolizes are present in the religious life of our community.

  1. Hatikvah: The National Anthem of a “Foreign” State? Given the above, we find it entirely permissible for a Reform congregation in the Diaspora to sing Hatikvah at a worship service or other event. Like the flag of Israel, Hatikvah is not simply the national symbol of the Israeli state but the long-standing anthem of the Jewish national movement. It thus expresses, quite literally, our hope for the restoration of our people to Zion, which we have seen is a central and quite legitimate theme of Reform Jewish worship. And just as our loyalty and love for our own countries are not called into question when we display the Israeli flag, they remain open and obvious as well when we sing Hatikvah, whether or not we accompany it with our own national anthem.

The objection raised by the vice-president of this congregation, we might add, seems based upon an ideology which we categorically reject. Yes, it is technically the case that Israel is a “foreign” country and that Hatikvah is its anthem. Yet to conceive of Israel solely in this manner is to define our Judaism in a way that is surely foreign to us. Let us consider an illustration. Were our community to host the ambassador of, say, the Czech Republic, it would be proper to honor him or her with the playing of the Czech national anthem, which by common custom would be followed with our own. Such is proper behavior in the presence of a representative of a foreign state. But when we sing Hatikvah, we do not do so in order to show respect for or loyalty to a foreign political entity. We do it because Hatikvah celebrates the symbolic role of the state of Israel in defining our religious and cultural identity as Jews, not our political identity as Israelis. As Jews, we are am yisrael, the Jewish people, rather than simply Americans or Canadians of the Mosaic persuasion. Eretz yisrael, the land of Israel, is the homeland of this people. And medinat yisrael, the state of Israel, is the political structure through which this people unites to give concrete expression to its national existence. Hatikvah, like the flag of Israel, is to us a powerful representation of that nexus of meanings.

The Reform movement in North America has long recognized these facts of contemporary Jewish identity, and we have time and again expressed that recognition through our acknowledgment of the religious significance of the Zionist movement and of the state of Israel. The Columbus Platform of 1937 declared that “in the rehabilitation of Palestine, the land hallowed by memories and hopes, we behold the promise of renewed life for many of our brethren. We affirm the obligation of all Jewry to aid in its upbuilding as a Jewish homeland.” The Centenary Perspective of 1976 notes that “we are bound to that land and to the newly reborn State of Israel by innumerable religious and ethnic ties… We see it providing unique opportunities for Jewish self-expression. We have both a stake and a responsibility in building the State of Israel, assuring its security and defining its Jewish character.” Our most recent and comprehensive statement is the “Platform on Reform Religious Zionism,” adopted by the Central Conference of American Rabbis in 1997.[7] In that document, we proclaim that the establishment of the state of Israel “after nearly two thousand years of statelessness and powerlessness represents an historic triumph of the Jewish people.” Israel “is therefore unlike all other states… (serving) uniquely as the spiritual and cultural focal point of world Jewry.” Yom Ha`atzma’ut, Israel Independence Day, has been established as “a permanent annual festival in the religious calendar of Reform Judaism,”[8] and our prayerbook contains a liturgy for Yom Ha`atzma’ut.[9] We consider it “a mitzvah for every Jew to mark Yom Ha-Atsma-ut by participation in public worship services and/or celebrations which affirm the bond between the Jews living in the Land of Israel and those living outside.”[10] Those services and celebrations have become the norm, the accepted minhag in our congregations and communities.

Israel, in other words, is emphatically not a “foreign” country to us. It may not be the sovereign entity of which we are citizens and to which we owe our political allegiance. But it is, in the most deeply Jewish sense, our own, in our devotion to its well-being and in our identification with the history and experience that its national symbols represent.

We may therefore sing Hatikvah at our religious services, whether or not we choose to accompany it with our own national anthems.

NOTES

  1. American Reform Responsa (ARR), no. 21, pp. 64-66.
  2. Resp. Igerot Moshe, OC I, no. 46.
  3. ARR, no. 22, pp. 66-68.
  4. Teshuvot for the Nineties (TFN), no. 5753.8, 29-34.
  5. See ibid. at p. 30, citing BT Rosh Hashanah 24b.
  6. We stress “citizenship” for a reason. It is quite possible that the age-old tradition of praying for the welfare of the government originated not out of love of country and fellow-feeling with its other inhabitants, but rather out of the desire to demonstrate our loyalty to a skeptical regime and to protect ourselves against an all-too-often hostile population. As citizens of our countries, we are active and equal participants in its democratic governance. “Our” country today is truly ours, in a way that our ancestors could never claim for the nations in whose midst they resided.
  7. Published along with its Hebrew text (Hayahadut hareformit vehatziyonut) in CCAR Yearbook 106 (1997), 49-57.
  8. CCAR Yearbook 80 (1970), 39.
  9. Gates of Prayer, 590-611.
  10. Gates of the Seasons (New York: CCAR, 1983), 102.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 66-68

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

22. Israeli Flag on a Synagogue Pulpit

(1977)QUESTION: Should an Israeli flag be displayed on the pulpit of an American Reform synagogue? In this case, an American flag is already so displayed. (Rabbi R. Goldman, Chattanooga, Tennessee)

ANSWER: The six-pointed Star of David is now commonly recognized as a symbol of Jews and Judaism throughout the world, both by ourselves and by our non-Jewish neighbors. There is no clear distinction between Jews and Judaism, between our religious and our national aspirations.

Since the Babylonian diaspora, our prayers have constantly contained petitions for the return to Zion and the re-establishment of Israel. In the traditional Shabbat morning Torah service, we find in addition a prayer (a) for the academies in Israel, Babylonia, and the Diaspora, (b) for the local congregation, and (c) for the Gentile government under which we live (Abudarham, 47b; Machzor Vitry; Rokeach). These prayers have been part of the service either since the Talmudic period or, at the latest, since the 14th century. In other words, the service has for a long time contained side-by-side prayers expressing the desire for a return to the Land of Israel, gratitude for the land in which we live, and hope for the welfare of our own communities. The flags of the United States and Israel on a pulpit might be said to symbolize the prayers which have always been said in the synagogue. For this reason, there is no religious objection to placing an American flag on the pulpit, nor to placing an Israeli flag alongside it. (Of course there are specific secular regulations about the placement of such flags which should be followed.) It might be helpful to look at the historical background, especially as there is no ancient record of a Jewish flag or symbol for the entire people of Israel.

The six-pointed star was rarely used by the early Jewish community. It is found carved on a stone in the Capernaum synagogue and also on a single tombstone in Tarentum, Italy, which dates from the third century. Later Kabbalists used it, probably borrowing it from the Templars (Ludwig Blau, “Magen David,” Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8, p. 252). It is also found in some non-Kabbalistic medieval manuscripts. None of these usages, however, was widespread.

The first time a Jewish flag is mentioned was during the rule of Charles IV of Hungary, who prescribed in 1354 that the Jews of Prague use a red flag with David’s and Solomon’s seal. Also, in the 15th century, the Jews of that city met King Matthias with a red flag containing two golden six-pointed stars and two five-pointed stars. Aside from this, we have no record of the use of a flag by any Jewish community, and, of course, the six-pointed star now so commonly used was rarely used as a Jewish symbol before the late 18th century and early l9th century. In that period, the newly emancipated Jewish community wished to possess an easily recognizable symbol akin to that of Christianity and so adopted the six-pointed star, which was then used frequently on books, synagogues, cemeteries, tombstones, etc. The star soon became recognized as a sign of Judaism. In 1799 it was already used in anti-Semitic literature. In 1822, the Rothschilds utilized it for their coat of arms, and it was adopted by the Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897 as its symbol. Subsequently, the State of Israel has used it in its national flag, although the official symbol of Israel is the Menora. Naturally, all of us also remember that the Nazis used the six-pointed star on their badges which identified Jews.

If you wish detailed information about this material see M. Gruenewald, “Ein altes Symbol…,” Jahrbuch fuer juedische Literatur, 1901, pp. 120ff; L. Blau, “Magen David,” Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8, pp. 25f; and G. Scholem, “Magen David,” Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 11, pp. 687ff.

Various synagogues have found other solutions to the desire for honoring both the United States and Israel. Thus, some have placed both flags in the foyer of the community hall, but have no flags on their pulpits. In any case, both the loyalty of our communities to the United States and our common concern for Israel are clear with or without the placement or possession of flags.

Walter Jacob, Chairman
Stephen M. Passamaneck
W. Gunther Plaut
Harry A. Roth
Herman E. Schaalman
Bernard Zlotowitz

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5753.8 29-32

CCAR RESPONSA

Flags on the Bimah

5753.8

She’elah

It is customary in many synagogues to place flags on the bimah, both the national flag and that of the state of Israel. Is it appropriate for Reform synagogues to exalt national symbols to the same rank as the symbols of Jewish worship? Specifically, does this practice border upon idolatry (avodah zarah)? (Rabbi Philip Bentley, Huntington Station, NY)

 

Teshuvah

Our sources regard the synagogue as a sacred place. The rules concerning the proper use of the synagogue,1 discussed in the third chapter of the Mishnah’s tractate Megillah,2 are linked to Ezekiel 11:16: “I have become for them a small sanctuary (mikdash me`at).” This midrash, of course, is not to be taken literally. Clearly, many of the rules which apply to the Sanctuary in Jerusalem (for example, those dealing with priestly status and access, ritual purity and defilement) do not apply to the synagogue. Yet in many significant respects the synagogue is patterned after the Temple. The synagogue bimah is customarily adorned with the ner tamid, the aron hakodesh, and the menorah, symbols which evoke the original Sanctuary. None of the appurtenances of the Sanctuary, moreover, were connected with what we would view as the cult of nationhood. The only symbolism permitted there was that devoted to the worship of the God of Israel.

 

The point is obvious: God is to be exalted above all kings and nations. Israel, to be sure, is a nation, but it exists only to serve God; that is the essence, perhaps the entirety of its national identity. To have included purely national symbols within the Sanctuary would have invited the suspicion that we were equating devotion to the nation with the service of God. This, in turn, would have been seen as idolatry, for God alone is worthy of worship.3

 

We might well draw the same conclusion with regard to our “small Sanctuary” and forbid the placement of national flags on the bimahas an improper invasion of the secular into the realm of the sacred.

 

Jewish tradition, however, does not draw that conclusion. The Talmud4 reports that four sages prayed in a synagogue in Babylonia which contained a statue of the king. From this we might infer that the presence of a national symbol, even a graven image which might otherwise create the suspicion of idolatry, is not necessarily prohibited in a synagogue on the grounds of avodah zarah, idolatry.

 

Our specific question, that of national flags, is the subject of several contemporary responsa.

 

R. Moshe Feinstein sees them as purely secular symbols (chulin) which, unlike those associated with idolatry, are not forbidden in the sanctuary. He writes: “these flags are not set up in the synagogue because they are regarded as sacred symbols but rather as indications that the congregation’s leaders love this country and the state of Israel and wanted to display their affection in a public place.”5

 

This Committee has explicitly supported the custom to place national flags on the bimah. Writing in 1954, R. Israel Bettan6 argued that the presence of the national flag is the symbolic equivalent of the prayers which we have long recited for the welfare of the government and its leaders.7 A separate opinion, from 1977, finds “no religious objection” to placing a national flag on the pulpit.8 Given such precedents, and given the fact that it has become a widepread minhag (customary observance) among Reform congregations to place flags in their sanctuaries, we would certainly not urge their removal.

 

At the same time, we see nothing wrong with a congregation’s desire to reconsider this practice. The mere fact that the presence of flags on the bimah violates no ritual prohibition does not mean that they ought to be there, that to place national flags in the sanctuary is a positive good which achieves some high religious purpose.9 Indeed, the opinions we have cited differ widely over this issue. Feinstein, for example, declares that it is “improper” (lo min ha-ra’ui) to put secular symbols in a sacred space, especially next to the Ark. It would be best to remove these objects of “nonsense” (hevel ve-shtut) from the synagogue. In his opinion, this is particularly true of the flag of Israel, a nation founded by nonobservant Jews (resha`im) who have rejected the Torah. Still, since there is no actual prohibition against them, the flags should not be removed if doing so would lead to community strife and dissension.

 

Bettan, by contrast, believes that the display of the national flag performs a vital religious function, that “it may well serve to strengthen in us the spirit of worship.” He declares that the flag symbolizes our loyalty to our country and our “zealous support of its rights and interests.” The flag “speaks to us with the voice of religion and partakes, therefore, of the sanctity of our religious symbols.” The 1977 responsum strikes a different chord and does not make this comparison. It simply reminds us that gratitude for one’s land, hope for its welfare, and concern for the Jews of the land of Israel are valid Jewish religious sentiments which can be symbolized through the placement of flags in the sanctuary. Some congregations, however, choose to express these sentiments by placing flags in the social hall rather than on the pulpit; still others do not place flags in their buildings at all. “In any case, both the loyalty of our communities to (our country) and our common concern for Israel are clear with or without the placement or possession of flags.”

 

This Committee reaffirms the ruling and the attitude expressed in the 1977 responsum. As Reform Jews we believe that our acceptance of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, our devotion toward the prophetic ideals of social justice, and our love for the state of Israel imply a more positive disposition toward national flags than that assumed by Feinstein. We care deeply, about the welfare of our societies; their symbolic representations must not be dismissed as “nonsense”.

 

At the same time, the Committee believes that the language employed by Bettan no longer reflects the precise relationship of many, and perhaps most, Reform Jews to their national state. We are properly suspicious of rhetoric equating “God and King” or “God and Country”. While it may have been proper at one time to speak of the flag as a religious symbol, and while such language may not be, strictly speaking, a case of idolatry, it connotes for many of us today some of the most disturbing historical tendencies of our time: chauvinism, racism, and ethnic intolerance. If it is true that God alone is worthy of our religious worship, we ought to avoid language which, rightly or wrongly, suggests otherwise.

 

We would therefore say rather that, for us, the flag serves as an expression of a religiously legitimate devotion, a devotion which may be expressed, should the congregation so choose, by the placement of national flags in the sanctuary or in some other location within the synagogue building.

 

Notes

  1. See SA, OC 151.
  2. The same arrangement is preserved in the Talmud Yerushalmi. In the Babylonian Talmud, however, this material–perek “Beney Ha`ir“–comprises chapter four, pp. 25b ff. The midrash discussed here is located in BT. Meg. 29a.
  3. Cf. Gates of Prayer, p. 75: “We are Israel: our Torah forbids the worship of race or nation, possessions or power.”
  4. BT Rosh Ha-Shanah 24b.
  5. Resp. Igrot Moshe, OC I, # 46. The opinion was written in 1957.
  6. American Reform Responsa, # 21, pp. 64-66.
  7. Both in the Diaspora and in Israel, elements of the “civil religion” have assumed a prominent place in Jewish ritual practice. See our responsum 5751.3, “Blessing of the Fleet”. In Israel, these issues are exemplified by the debates over the observance of Israel Independence Day in synagogues. While the subject is controversial, many observant Jews do recognize this national festival as a religious holiday. See N. Rakover, ed., Yom Ha-Atsma’ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim: Berurey Halakhah (Jerusalem: Ministry of Religions, 1973).
  8. American Reform Responsa, # 22, pp. 66-68. This teshuvah extends the approval to the placing of the Israeli flag in the sanctuary, a practice which Rabbi Bettan regarded as inappropriate in a Diaspora synagogue except on special occasions.
  9. Indeed, while the four sages prayed in the presence of the king’s image (see note 4, above), that passage does not in any way suggest that such statuary should be placed in synagogues.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕