July 10th: Matot-Mas’ay
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich
Last week, we reflected on the evolving and developing nature of both Judaism and the United States. Principles laid down in founding documents were not immediately made manifest, and the work of putting them into practice has been ongoing for a long time. Both are living traditions, and one of the blessings for both has been our ability to adapt and improve.
The story of the Daughters of Zelophehad provides an excellent and ancient example. Initially presented in last week’s portion, the case brought by Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and No’ah asks that they be allowed to inherit their father’s allotment in the Promised Land. “Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son? Give us a holding amng our father’s kinsmen.” (Numbers 27.4) Their case is presented in Numbers 27 (last week’s portion), and God answers them in Numbers 36 (this week’s portion). The women are allowed to inherit, and we learn that God’s justice involves developing and improving the Torah.
A similar dynamic is present in America’s development. Not all of our noble principles—our attempts “to form a more perfect union”—were fulfilled at first, and our national history provides many example of development and improvement. An example came from the dialogue between the Hebrew Congregation of Newport and President George Washington. Stating their congratulations and their anxiety to the President, the Jews of Newport (and all of America) received his assurance that America would be good to its Jews.
But we were not the only religious group concerned about religious freedom. In 1801, the Baptist congregation in Danbury, Connecticut feared being taxed by the dominant Anglican/Episcopal Church. They wrote to Thomas Jefferson, the then new President, inquiring about their religious freedom. Though we may think of Baptists as a dominant religious group, back then, in New England, they were a minority and often considered pariahs. Though they had religious freedom, they experienced it “as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.” Contending that “the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor,” they were concerned that the Anglican majority would punish them soley “on account of religious opinions.” President Jefferson wrote back to the church leadership on January 1, 1802, and added an important interpretation of the First Amendment. As in all developing systems, things in these United States could have gone in many different directions. Here is what Jefferson considered the right path.
Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.
Gentlemen,–The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Th Jefferson
Notice how Mr. Jefferson quotes the two clauses in the First Amendment that deal with religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” He saw these two limitations—the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause—as demanding a strict separation between Church and State. The nature of this “wall of separation” has been a matter of lively debate. If one religion wishes to “bring America to its knees before God,” is limiting them an unreasonable prohibition of religious expression, or is it a protection for others who have different religious views? On the other hand, is it possible to have civil and national values that, while finding inspiration in religious teaching, do not represent “an establishment of religion?”
In this continuing discussion, Thomas Jefferson’s view is like that of the great Rabbis on matters of Halachah. He has the bona fides to opine on this important subject, and his opinion is front and center. However, his opinion is just that: a learned and authoritative teaching that may or may not prevail as we work on our “more perfect union.”
Afterthought:
The importance of religious freedom to the ratifiers of the Constitution is evidenced by its prominence in the Bill of Rights. Not only are the two religious guarantees in the very first Amendment; they are also listed as the first in the Amendment’s six concerns:
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.