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
- See SA, OC 151.
- 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.
- Cf. Gates of Prayer, p. 75: “We are Israel: our Torah forbids the worship of race or nation, possessions or power.”
- BT Rosh Ha-Shanah 24b.
- Resp. Igrot Moshe, OC I, # 46. The opinion was written in 1957.
- American Reform Responsa, # 21, pp. 64-66.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.