The media and political scandals to which Education Minister Rabbi Rafi Peretz once again proved that rabbis' active involvement in politics is bad for the rabbinate and Judaism they represent, and bad for politics as well. Rabbis are not necessarily better or better politicians than politicians with different backgrounds. But politicians who win their seats for being rabbis, that is, as representatives of an ideal Jewish world of moral values, are more likely to fail. The dilemma is clear: either remain loyal to their rabbinate and then disinherit in their political office, or become politicians for all intents and purposes, and then they will most likely desecrate their rabbinic name and belief in many. It is not a matter of evil or stupidity, but of conflict between conflicting roles.

Rabbis' involvement in Israeli politics is an old axiom. Through formal or semi-formal "Torah Councils", or public rabbinic influence on politicians, they "elect", form and break up parties, approve coalition agreements, and sometimes overthrow governments. This increased rabbinic involvement in Israeli politics is bad, but worse is the role played by rabbis as active politicians.

To succeed, a politician is required to play on the political field according to format rules. Both in his conduct and in his essential sense he must constantly compromise. A successful politician is able to make alliances, but also to break them when necessary, he is the one who can attack his rivals and sometimes his colleagues, he is the one who can present reality in a way that aligns with his interests, even if it is not entirely true.

A rabbi, a ruler and a spiritual leader, is the opposite of the politician. To make himself worthy of a spiritual rabbinic leadership he must be exemplary. In his life, in his daily conduct, in his way of speaking, in his relations with people, and in his commitment to good law and values ​​and measurements, he should be a role model to his students and to follow him. In their eyes and in the eyes of the general public, he must represent Judaism in the most straightforward and purest way and be fully committed to its values.

The same is true on the substantive level. It is true that even a religious politician who is not a rabbi is obliged to obey the law. But due to Rabbi's commitment to halakhic rulings, his ability to agree with compromises, for example, on issues of religion and state, is nil. For example, in the 1950s, religious politicians approached Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog to request a ruling on the nature of Shabbat in Israel. In his reply he stated that from the halakhic point of view the change they asked for was not allowed, but since they are politicians and non-halakhic rulers, he is sure to exercise their discretion and reach the best result, even if it does not align with the thorn of iodine in halakhah. Rabbi Herzog's answer well illustrates the inherent difficulty of a rabbi who becomes a politician. The tension between the halakhic desires and the political realities can paralyze his ability to act and optimally lead the public he seeks to represent.

Rabbis should not be skeptical in the beit midrash and disengage from reality. The Jewish-value baggage they bring with them may contribute greatly to the Israeli public arena. But entering the mud pool of politics can put slime on them, their image as rabbis and Judaism they purport to represent, and this is bad for them and the Judaism they carry.

Dr. Shuki Friedman is Director of the National, Religious and State Center at the Israeli Institute of Democracy and Law Lecturer at Peres Academic Center