Traditionalism and faith

Thank you very much
Updated list following comments:

The tension today between religion and nation in the Jewish people can be described along two different axes:
A. Are you loyal to the Jewish people in its traditional form (i.e. corporate and as we will define it later)?
B. Do you believe in the existence of a God who commands?
There is a difference between the questions. The first question is a question of value: Is the Jewish people important to you? The second question is a question of fact: Do you think there is a Creator who commands the Torah or not? According to Meir Bozaglo in his book “Language for the Faithful” a positive answer to the first question characterizes the traditional person (the question of faith is not clear to Meir Bozaglo). According to Rabbi Mikhi Avraham, a positive answer to the second question characterizes the religious person. Combining the two questions allows us to outline them as two different axes. Thus, a person can be traditional but not a believer, traditional and a believer, non-traditional and not a believer, or traditional and a believer. A traditional but non-believing person will want to integrate his life into the people of Israel in his corporate identity in its various manifestations, marry a Jewish partner in a religious wedding, if he is Israeli to be involved civilly (even someone critical of his polis is still involved, as were Jeremiah and Socrates), if he is abroad to be connected to a Jewish community, and maintain an emotional relationship with the Jewish people and their political representation in the Land of Israel. A traditional and believing person will be similar to the first but in addition to the traditional aspects will feel a commitment to observing commandments and observing halakha. Sometimes his religiosity will cause him to be critical of certain aspects of Israeli nationalism and the State of Israel, but his loyalty to the people of Israel will cause him to keep his criticism to himself and not break the rules in front of his secular brothers. A non-traditional and non-believing person will tend to assimilate and alienate himself from the Jewish identity and his Jewish brothers. From his perspective, Jewish nationalism is devoid of any value or interest, and he will focus his life either on his own personal good or on a universal identity devoid of Jewish characteristics. A believer but not a traditionalist will tend to portray religion either as a completely private matter for a person, defining anyone who is not a human as a heretic or a heretic, or as a completely universal matter devoid of any national importance (Judaism is about liberal world improvement).
These two axes allow us to formulate, in my opinion, a common core of identity for traditional people who are loyal to the people of Israel. The second question is a question of fact that cannot serve as a social touchstone. Someone who believes sees himself as obligated to the commandments. For someone who does not believe, the commandments have no meaning (after all, it is like a monkey doing something stupid). It is possible to discuss whether it is possible to force the prevention of transgressions, but certainly one cannot be forced to believe or observe positive commandments. There is a certain liberation in this and a protest against two opposing positions that are prevalent in discourse today. One position that can be described as extreme Haredi assumes that observance of commandments and faith can be enforced by violence. Hence the disrespect it takes towards secular people in a Haredi environment (and indirectly towards free scientific inquiry). The opposing position is prevalent in educated secular circles and assumes that religious belief is not an indication of fact but a primitive impulse that an adult must overcome on the way to a rational life. According to it, the debate over whether there is a God was settled long ago and a person who does not accept this is not rational. Since only rational people can be accepted for important positions, being a religious believer constitutes an unofficial obstacle to entry into such positions (especially in what is perceived as the core of intellectual thought, such as academia, culture and setting the cultural tone). These two positions have in common with regard to faith. From their perspective, faith is universal, only that while some demand it for praise, others demand it for denigration. In the position of faith as an indication of fact, faith becomes a private matter. It is not related to other people but to the person himself – does he believe or not?
It seems to me that the majority of the population in the State of Israel takes this approach. On the one hand, traditionalism is important to him to one degree or another (each to his own degree). Most Israelis believe in mutual responsibility expressed in military service or Torah study, choose a relationship with a Jewish partner, and live in the Jewish circle of life. On the other hand, faith is perceived as a private matter. This can be seen in the news about more and more kibbutzim opening synagogues. The kibbutzim have come to the conclusion that today no one is bothered by their secular identity as the spearhead of secular Zionism. It is unnecessary to quarrel with private individuals over their private belief in God. Therefore, if a person is a member of a kibbutz, donates and is donated to, and also wants to pray in a synagogue because he happens to be a believer, then it is a shame to quarrel with him. It is better for him to have a synagogue. There is a reverse case of ultra-Orthodox who find themselves losing their faith and moving towards a secular lifestyle of secular studies, military service and integration into the world of work. Many religious people find that religious education without secular studies for their children is too heavy a burden to bear. They prefer that the child have a means of earning a living rather than burdening him or her with Torah knowledge (a study by the Taub Institute was recently published that found a mismatch between the number of ultra-Orthodox and religious births and the number of children studying in the streams of Haredi and religious education). Growing up in Torah is a great thing, but since we are simple people, it is better to allow the child to succeed in terms of employment and society. It seems that the State of Israel is presenting a framework that allows traditionalists to be loyal to the people of Israel while maintaining the corporate framework while individuals move on with their religious identity according to their free choice.
So far we have examined the issue empirically and we still need to examine the issue in principle. Is Jewish traditionalism as important as loyalty to the people of Israel from a religious perspective? On the other hand, is there legitimacy to this from a philosophically rational secular perspective? I will not deal with the secular perspective here. From a religious perspective, there are those (I think Rabbi Mikhi Avraham holds such a position) who claim that there is no religious importance to our involvement from a civic perspective. There are defined halachic obligations, but beyond that, the reason for involvement lies in the way of the land. From the way of the world, a person has a civic obligation and must uphold it. There is a lot of force in this position, but it seems to me that it is lacking and does not reflect the full behavior that is much more committed from both the ultra-Orthodox and the secular sides. From a religious perspective, I would therefore like to offer the following argument:
According to Beit Yosef, the authority of the Talmud requires that it be accepted by the entire nation. We learn from this that the nation has precedence over the Torah. The Torah is the law of the Jewish people, but if there is no Jewish people, there is no place for the Torah. The Torah is not a matter for a sect or group of people. Nor is it some universal principle that everyone demands according to their own opinion. The Torah is the law of the nation. From this it follows that there is an ontological precedence of the nation over the Torah. Before the Torah can be given, a nation needs to accept it. This argument stands in some contradiction to the claim of the Rabbis, "Our nation is not a nation except through its Torah." The Rabbis' conclusion is that it is not the nation that accepts the Talmud, but rather the Talmud that establishes the nation. The following solution can be proposed. What establishes the nation is the Bible. That is, that document that testifies to our connection with the Lord of the universe and with the Land of Israel (our Kushan, if we want to take a Ben Gurionist side). The Talmud, on the other hand, does not establish us, but rather defines for us the right action based on the nation's acceptance (like the difference between witnesses of existence and witnesses of investigation). The nation exists on the basis of the Bible and is the one that accepts the Talmud as the one that clarifies the right action.
If this is true, it can be argued that the importance of traditionalism as loyalty to the Jewish people lies in the importance of the existence of the nation. It is true that those who do not believe are prevented from deciding or from being a party to the determination of the law, but the very fact that they are connected to the Jewish people and participate with them in the frameworks of the Jewish people (the state, the family and the community) is part of what constitutes the nation as a nation. If they believe, they can realize their potential and influence the determination of the law itself, but even without faith, the mere fact that they are part of the Jewish people allows the Jewish people to exist as one people who can accept the Torah. It seems to me that this approach explains why even for ultra-Orthodox circles, partnership with their secular brothers is important beyond a sense of civic duty that exists or does not exist. They felt that as long as there is a partnership of the nation, the Torah does not belong only to them but to all Jews.
From the non-believer side (if I may speak for them), it seems that loyalty to the people of Israel in its historical form is expressed in the acceptance of the national framework of the State of Israel and the religious framework of the Rabbinate (Yeshaynat Ramon seems to have argued this in the article “Secular in Your House, My Kingdom in Your Departure”; Shiloah 2). In this sense, Rabbi Mikhi is right that those who uphold the Rabbinate are the secular and traditional. However, their choice does not express a hidden belief but rather an acceptance of Jewish identity and a desire to maintain contact. Jewish identity is not a cruise or an attempt to “express a sense of commitment to religion and Jewish history without being prepared to actually realize them. People are looking for alternatives to an identity that was once religious, so that they can feel Jewish after shedding their religious identity and commitment.” (“On Jewish Identity in Our Time and in General” Rabbi Michael Avraham), but loyalty to the corporate Jewish identity as it is given to them even in the objective reality of lack of belief in God.