“Endorsing with Caution: Jewish Law and the Politics of the Pulpit” by Michael J. Broyde

View of the Grat Synagogue and the Portuguese Synagogue in Amsterdam by Gerrit Berckheyde (US-PD)

---

This article is part of our series on Law, Religion, and The Johnson Amendment. If you’d like to explore other articles in this series, click here.

---

American clergy have long navigated the seam between preaching values and practicing politics. The so‑called Johnson Amendment—codified in the Internal Revenue Code—has for decades signaled that churches and synagogues risk their § 501(c)(3) status if they “participate in, or intervene in” political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to candidates. Though enforcement has been inconsistent and federal signals in the past decade suggested a lighter touch in some contexts, particularly for statements made in the course of worship, the perceived space for overt endorsement has widened. That widening raises for rabbis a practical question more than a theoretical one: if endorsements from the pulpit are now more tolerated, should rabbis engage in them —and if so, whom should they endorse and why?

This essay aims to offer an initial Jewish legal and ethical framework for answering those questions in the United States. Its core claim is modest: halakha (Jewish law) does not command rabbis to endorse candidates whose platforms most closely mirror Torah or its values. Rather, the Jewish tradition entrusts its religious leadership with prudential judgment, prioritizing the overall welfare of the Jewish community and the stability and fairness of the polity in which Jews live. Endorsement of specific candidates (rather than causes or ideas or values)—when appropriate—is less an act of theological alignment and more a judgment about security, liberty, and justice for Jews and their neighbors.

To situate this within the broader American conversation: debates about clergy speech are not uniquely Jewish. Evangelical pastors, Catholic bishops, and mainline Protestant ministers have all wrestled with the pull of partisan politics. Across these communities, a recurring pattern emerges: endorsements can electrify a base but also alienate congregants, tarnish the moral voice of clergy, and erode trust among the wider public. Jewish law’s diasporic wisdom—shaped by centuries of minority life—adds a distinctive emphasis on pluralism and long‑horizon risk assessment, themes that guide the analysis that follows.

The Problems of Candidate Endorsement

Endorsements from the pulpit are not merely expressions of preference; they can be understood as sacralizing a partisan choice. That carries at least four dangers. First, there are halakhic‑ethical concerns. The Torah’s prohibition of  placing a stumbling block before the blind warns against leading others into error, and is widely understood to include validation that which is invalid. When a rabbinic imprimatur causes congregants to conflate divine will with a politician’s program, or to excuse grave misconduct because “the rabbi said so,” the result may be either a violation of this prohibition or a desecration of God’s name, especially if the endorsed official behaves corruptly or even personally immorally.¹ Leviticus 19:14 (lifnei iver); Maimonides, Sefer Ha‑Mitzvot, lo ta’aseh 299 (chillul Hashem). Second, endorsements produce communal harms. Synagogues are politically diverse. Anchoring the synagogue to a candidate alienates members, undermines pastoral trust, and reframes disagreement as partisan loyalty tests. Third, endorsements pose institutional risks. Even if formal penalties are uncommon, overt political activity can invite IRS scrutiny, jeopardize philanthropic relationships, and complicate interfaith and civic partnerships that Jewish institutions rely upon. Fourth, endorsements create strategic costs. Rabbis serve as teachers of Torah and shepherds of souls; when they appear as party operatives, their capacity to speak across lines of difference diminishes. Coalitions against antisemitism and for religious liberty frequently require bipartisan cooperation. A reputation for partisanship can make such coalitions harder to build and sustain. In sum, endorsements trade the rabbi’s hard‑earned moral authority for uncertain, short‑term political capital—and the exchange rate is rarely favorable.

One might respond that silence bespeaks indifference, especially in moments of moral urgency. That critique has force. Jewish tradition demands a public voice for justice. But a public voice for justice in a specific cause is not the same as a partisan endorsement of a named candidate. Rabbis can teach values, host issue forums, organize service projects, defend the vulnerable, and push for policy outcomes that are very specific —all without attaching Torah’s name to a specific candidate. Indeed, the expressive power of nonpartisan moral leadership is often greater precisely because it resists capture by transient party agendas.

Halakhic Foundations: What Jewish Law Requires—and What It Does Not

A central premise of this analysis is that Jewish law does not impose a generalized duty on Jews to police non‑Jews into compliance with Jewish law or general Noahide ethical norms. Maimonides writes that Moses was commanded to compel all humanity to observe the Noahide laws, but mainstream Jewish legal and practical practice never implemented this as an individual mandate. Important commentators and later authorities of Jewish Law read Jewish responsibility to the broader world more narrowly: Jews are not obligated to ensure Gentile compliance with the Noahide code in ordinary circumstances.² R. Moshe Isserles (Rema), Gloss to Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 148; Shabbetai ha‑Kohen (Shakh) to Yoreh De’ah 151; Ezekiel Landau, Noda Bi‑Yehuda, Tinyana, Yoreh De’ah § 62.  See my article “The Obligation of Jews to Seek Observance of Noahide Laws by Gentiles: A Theoretical Review” in Jewish Responsibilities to Society, Orthodox Forum Series, edited by David Shatz and Chaim I. Waxman pages Pages: 103–143 (1997).  Indeed, as far as this writer can determine, nearly all Jewish law authorities do not follow Maimonides other than the late Rabbi Menachem Schneerson. The doctrine of assisting likewise limits the prohibition of assisting to cases where one’s help is integral to the transgression; where the other party could readily act without Jewish involvement, most authorities impose no duty to decline to help. In practice, then, Jewish voters (and rabbis) are not charged to transform America into a Noahide polity. We are charged to keep mitzvot (the commandments described in the Torah), build Jewish institutions, and conduct ourselves so as to honor God in the public square.  We are not the world’s ethical policemen.

The classical diasporic posture is explicit. Jeremiah instructs the exiles: “Seek the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you … for in its welfare you shall find your welfare.” Pirkei Avot urges prayer for governmental stability, “for without fear of it, people would swallow one another alive.” And the Talmudic maxim “the law of the kingdom is the law”reflects cooperation with civil authority in matters of public order. Taken together, these teachings counsel Jews in pluralist societies to contribute to peace and justice rather than to seek theocratic conformity. The question of endorsement thus moves from a theological litmus test to a prudential judgment.

This prudential frame also reflects a deep current in halakhic political theory: humility about the state’s capacity to legislate morality well. Where substantial religious disagreement exists about God’s will, empowering the government to enforce one theology risks boomerang effects against minorities. Hence the preference, in much of modern Orthodox thought, for strong religious liberty coupled with a robust civil order.

From Theology to Policy: Prudence, Liberty, and Long‑Term Interests

Once endorsement is understood as a policy decision, the operative question shifts from “What does Torah forbid society from doing?” to “What advances justice, liberty, and Jewish flourishing over the long term?” Two contemporary conversations illustrate the point and help specify when endorsement may be justified.

1. Abortion: Halakha generally restricts abortion but does not reduce it to murder simpliciter. The tradition recognizes circumstances in which terminating a pregnancy is permitted or required to save the mother, and rabbinic authorities debate its precise status. Given this complexity—and the divergence between halakhic rules for Jews and the Noahide rules for non‑Jews—Jewish law does not map neatly onto a single public policy. In the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), I have argued that American law should preserve a zone of decisional freedom broad enough for Jews to comply with halakhic obligations — even knowing that such a regime permits abortions we would not condone religiously. That conclusion flows not from moral indifference but from humility about legislating contested theology into civil law and from a principled commitment to religious liberty.
2. Religious liberty and minority rites. Idolatry is anathema to Judaism, yet Orthodox groups supported the Santeria community’s challenge in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), which concerned animal sacrifice. Why defend rites we reject theologically? Because a regime that protects “civil rights for pagan rites” also protects circumcision, kosher slaughter, and Sabbath observance. The coalition logic of religious liberty is straightforward: what is done to “them” today can be done to us tomorrow. Endorsing candidates who champion robust free exercise thus serves both principled and prudential aims.

These examples converge with a broader halakhic intuition. Rabbi J. David Bleich argues that Jews are not obligated to ensure Noahide compliance—though seeking a more moral society can be laudable where effective. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, as conveyed by Rabbi Moshe D. Tendler, warned against giving the state any foothold in legislating morality, fearing such power would be turned against minority religious practice¹. Both perspectives counsel preferring policies (and candidates) that preserve religious liberty and social peace over those that would deputize government to enforce contested theological norms. In American politics, that usually means avoiding single‑issue litmus tests and asking which candidate will best protect the security and freedom of Jews and other minorities over time.

Case Studies and Broader Context

Consider a few additional illustrations beyond abortion and religious liberty. Circumcision and kosher slaughter periodically face legal or political pressure, whether from animal‑welfare advocates or public‑health regulators. A candidate who is hostile to robust religious exemptions may, even unintentionally, empower movements to curtail bris milah or shechita. By contrast, a candidate who is committed to pluralism and neutral application of law in religious matters will be more reliable in protecting these core Jewish practices. Similarly, hate‑crime enforcement and communal security are not abstractions. Synagogues rely on state and federal grants, police cooperation, and prosecutorial attention to deter violence. Endorsing a candidate who takes these threats seriously is a defensible application of protecting the Jewish public square, even if other things about the candidate might make one squirm.

On economic and social policy, Jeremiah’s injunction to seek the welfare of the city can support endorsements for candidates whose programs realistically improve the lot of the vulnerable and sustain public order – particularly when that also benefits the Jewish community (as it normally does). While halakha sets rigorous expectations for personal morality, Jewish tradition also commands structural justice—fair courts, honest weights, protections for the poor. Endorsing with these priorities in mind favors long‑term communal flourishing over symbolic wins.

Finally, it is important to recognize that clergy endorsements can backfire politically. An endorsement that plays well in one news cycle may trigger backlash, increase polarization, or pull rabbis into endless partisan fights. Judicious non‑endorsement—paired with vigorous moral teaching and civic engagement—often preserves greater influence for the moments when an endorsement truly serves communal survival or religious freedom.

Who Should Rabbis Endorse—and Why?

If, after weighing the risks, a rabbi or communal body chooses to endorse specific candidates, Jewish law suggests criteria that privilege communal welfare over ideological purity:

1. Security first: Preservation of life and communal institutions overrides nearly all other commandments. Endorsing candidates committed to combating antisemitic violence, enforcing hate‑crime laws, and securing houses of worship is a proper and weighty basis for endorsement.
2. Religious liberty: Favor candidates who defend the Free Exercise Clause and resist narrowing religious exemptions. The lesson of Lukumi—and countless diaspora episodes—is that minorities fare best under strong neutrality.
3. Democratic stability and rule of law:  Support leaders committed to constitutional constraints, orderly transfers of power, and judicial independence, consistent with Avot 3:2’s admonition about the need for government.
4. Justice and social welfare: Jeremiah’s call to seek the city’s welfare legitimizes endorsing candidates whose policies meaningfully improve the lot of the vulnerable—even when those candidates diverge from halakhic norms on private morality.  “Justice, justice shall you pursue” is not confined to intra‑Jewish life.
5. Character and integrity: Lending Torah’s moral capital to manifestly corrupt leaders risks desecration of God’s name. Endorsements communicate what Judaism honors; prudence counsels against blessing open corruption.
6. Long‑term risk assessment: Evaluate downstream effects. Will a given candidate polarize the polity, embolden extremists, or erode constitutional norms? Diaspora wisdom favors long‑horizon thinking—even at the expense of short‑term symbolic wins.

Finally, process matters in endorsements. If a synagogue or federation considers endorsement, procedures should be clear: consultation with congregants and lay leaders; written criteria foregrounding security, liberty, and justice; explicit disclaimers that the endorsement binds no one’s vote; and strict separation between religious services and campaign activity. Many communities will conclude that robust voter education—issue forums, halakhic learning, nonpartisan guides—better serves their mission than naming a candidate. Where the stakes for Jewish safety and religious freedom are acute, however, endorsement should remain on the table.

When Not to Endorse

In many contexts, restraint is not cowardice but wisdom. Three scenarios especially counsel against endorsements. First, when a congregation is evenly split politically, endorsement may fracture communal life without commensurate public benefit. Second, when candidates’ likely effects on Jewish security and liberty are uncertain or roughly equivalent, the costs outweigh the gains. Third, when the rabbi’s authority would be perceived as trading Torah for power—such as where a candidate’s personal misconduct is notorious—silence protects the sanctity of the pulpit. None of this forecloses forceful teaching about values or policy; it simply recognizes that the most effective rabbinic voice is often nonpartisan, even as it is sharply moral.

Conclusion: A Policy of Prudence

Jewish law supplies both humility and courage for democratic life. It rejects the fantasy that rabbis can engineer a halakhic state within a pluralist republic, and it empowers them to act when fundamental goods are at stake. The tradition’s guidance for endorsements is twofold. First, there is no obligation to align civil law with halakhic norms across the board; Jewish sources instruct us to seek the city’s peace, preserve the rule of law, and guard the freedom to serve God. Second, within that framework rabbis may endorse—but should do so sparingly, transparently, and only when the balance of reasons favors the community’s long‑term security, liberty, and justice.

In practice, that will often mean endorsing candidates who promise a safer, freer, fairer society for all—even when those candidates diverge from Torah on matters of private morality. Such endorsements are not retreats from Jewish values; they are faithful applications of those values to the realities of democratic life. Endorsements should serve liberty, humility, and justice—or not be made at all. ♦

---

---

Recommended Citation

Broyde, Michael J. “Endorsing with Caution: Jewish Law and the Politics of the Pulpit.” Canopy Forum, December 5, 2025. https://canopyforum.org/2025/12/05/endorsing-with-caution-jewish-law-and-the-politics-of-the-pulpit/.

Recent Posts