MILEVSKY: Should Canadian Jews still be reciting the prayer for the government?

Article content

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege and honour of having a meeting with Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, chief Rabbi of the UK.

In the time I shared with him, I asked him a question that I have been debating for over a year. I asked him whether Canadian Jews should still recite a prayer for the government.

As I explained, the current government’s inaction as synagogues are being vandalized, Jewish schools and institutions are being targeted and harassed, and Jews no longer feel safe even in Jewish neighborhoods, might call for a reassessment of the practice.

Before I had the chance to fully explain my views, he reminded me that the practice is based on a mishnah, a second century text.

In what I am calling the second reason why the prayer is said, Rabbi Mirvis refers to a mishnah in the third chapter of Ethics of the Fathers, a second century CE source, which states that one should pray for the wellbeing of the government; because, in the absence of a government, people would swallow each other alive.

Rabbi Mirvis did not mention the first source for the prayer, which is the prophet Jeremiah’s letter to the Babylonians, as recorded in Jeremiah chapter 29. In this letter, Jeremiah instructs the Jews to seek the welfare of Babylon, the city of their captors.

In Canada, like so many other democratic countries, Jews have had very little reason to reconsider this ancient practice. If Jews said a prayer for the Czar, as my late 19th century prayer book indicates, certainly they should do so for a democratic country such as Canada.

Several generations of Canadian Jews speak so proudly of their heritage, a feeling that explains why thousands of Canadian Jews joined the army in both world wars. But Jews are not being treated as they use to be. And the government is not what it used to be either. More broadly, Rabbi Mirvis referred to the basis for both these sources, an almost Hobbesian social contract, in which we hand over our rights to the government in return for protection.

But the argument to stop the prayer is that this government no longer meets the criteria for the prayer.

The reasons are as follows:

The passage in Jeremiah, which serves as our first source, makes it clear that the benefit of seeking the city’s welfare is ultimately the safety of Jews – the words are, “for in its welfare, you will find your welfare.” However, the current policies of this Canadian government, including backing anti-Israel resolutions of the UN, have served to undermine the safety of Jews. More troubling is that Canadian forces stand by as those calling for worldwide intifada and dressing up as Yahya Sinwar are allowed to roam the streets.

The aforementioned mishnah, which is the second source, grounds the practice in the safety of society, and that may not apply in these circumstances. As the 16th century sage Obadia of Bertinoro states, it is fear of the government that promotes peace. But there is arguably no fear of this government. On the contrary, this government has stood by as Jews are themselves intimidated.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Play Video

The Spanish 13th century sage, Rabbi Jonah of Gerondi, writes that the mishnah expresses the idea that Jews are concerned not only with themselves but with society as a whole. Seen in this way, there are two obstacles to continuing the prayer: it is not only that the government fails to do enough to protect Jews, but also that a society that does not protect Jews is likely to itself be subject to persecution.

For over eighty years, the expression that has given voice to this fear is “the Jews are the canary in the coalmine” when it comes to the safety of minorities and religious freedom. As the eternal outsider, Jews represent how society can turn on its own. In this way, the ultimate purpose of the prayer is undermined as well.

Rabbi Mirvis categorically rejected my argument, arguing the prayer is for stability rather than a particular figure. Rabbi Mirvis’ view is reminiscent of the opinion of 18th-19th century rabbi Israel Lipschitz, who explained the mishnah in question does not mention a specific ruler but the government as a whole. Here we return to the notion of the social contract. As Canadian Jews, we wonder if this government is keeping its side of the bargain.

This point is put into sharp relief when we consider the fact that, by Canadian law, guards of houses of worship cannot be armed. It is likely because of this provision that synagogues in Canada have been shot at, defaced and vandalized.

Thus, it is fair to suggest that the social contract is fraying here in Canada. And as time goes on, and more Jews recognize the hatred this government has allowed to flourish, I wonder if it will soon be time to raise this question again?

– Jonathan L. Milevsky PhD is a teacher and author based in Toronto