Parashat Mishpatim: You, someone who hates you and a donkey rebuild ‎society

Hebrew

Parashat Mishpatim marks the establishment of Israelite society in the wilderness. Beginning at the ‎end of Parashat Yitro, the Torah presents a diverse collection of laws as the foundation on ‎which to begin building a stable society. It is important to note that a “stable ‎society” is not necessarily utopia. The Torah is well aware of this and includes commandments ‎concerning people who do not get along with one another, such as:‎

כִּי תִפְגַּע שׁוֹר אֹיִבְךָ אוֹ חֲמֹרוֹ תֹּעֶה הָשֵׁב תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ׃ כִּי־תִרְאֶה חֲמוֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ רֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ וְחָדַלְתָּ מֵעֲזֹב ‏לוֹ עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב ‏ עִמּוֹ (שמות כג:ד-ה).‏

When you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, you must take it back to him. ‎When you see the ass of someone who hates you lying under its burden and would refrain ‎from raising it, you must nevertheless raise it with him. (Exodus 23:4-5)‎

The context here is internal to Israelite society, and the enemy or hater is not a national enemy ‎who wants to expel or kill you, but rather a person from within the community with whom you ‎are at odds. Rabbi Nathan Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael (23:4; Israel, 2nd century CE) gives some ‎examples: “This refers to a situation in which someone becomes your enemy, temporarily, as a ‎result of striking your child or picking a quarrel with you.” ‎

Laden Donkeys and Ploughing, Tomb of Djar
Nina M. Davies, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Two points stand out for me: the commandment is to help your enemy and someone who hates you ‎in cases related to an ox or a donkey, because its not the animal’s fault that you had a falling ‎out. Preventing cruelty to animals requires that you to lend a hand. Second, you are supposed to ‎lend a hand “with him” not for him or instead of him, but together with him. The other ‎person may not be lazy at your expense. Moreover, the joint effort could potentially heal the rift:‎

R. Alexandri said: Two donkey drivers who hated each other were going along the road. ‎When the donkey belonging to one of them lay down, his companion saw it and passed ‎by. After he had passed by, he thought: It is written in the Torah: When you see the ass of ‎someone who hates you, he immediately returned and shared the load with him. He began ‎to consider in his heart. He thought: Ploni actually loves me, and I did not know it! They ‎entered an inn, to eat and drink. Who caused them to make peace? Because this person ‎considered the Torah. (Midrash Tanhuma (Buber edition) Mishpatim 1‎)

A society can be divided because of interpersonal rifts, such as those described in the Midrash, ‎but also because of differences of opinion on fundamental issues, as we have seen in recent ‎years, not only in Israel. We have also seen, especially in Israel, that a severe crisis can unite the ‎sides, when they cooperate in response to the crisis. The intensity of the October 7 crisis has ‎been blunted in the ensuing 16 months, and the passion for volunteerism has also subsided. ‎This is natural, but nevertheless the Torah reminds us that reconstruction can be facilitated ‎comes through working together on concrete projects. ‎

Parashat Toldot: Do not silence the pain

 Hebrew

The Babylonian Talmud (Taanit 21a) tells with amazement about Nahum Ish Gamzu who, despite extremely severe suffering, would always respond by saying, “This too is for the good.” Without detracting from the inner strength of this extraordinary person, it is important to ask whether this attitude is mandatory. Is every individual expected to respond to all suffering with acceptance?

The example of Rebecca at the beginning of this portion teaches us that it is not.

After many years of barrenness, Isaac prays to God in the presence of his wife and she becomes pregnant (Gen. 25:21). All the other stories about pregnancy in the Torah are very short (for example: “Leah conceived and bore a son, and named him Reuben” [Gen 29:32]), as if the pregnancy itself was a non-event. Perhaps this is the best proof that the Torah was written by men. Pregnancy – even a desired, healthy pregnancy – is a complex and sometimes painful experience. Rebecca discovers this and does not remain silent: “If so, why do I exist?” (Gen. 25:22). The midrash and classical commentators do not try to beautify her words. According to Rashi, she wonders why she wanted to conceive in the first place: “If the pain of pregnancy is so severe, why did I desire and pray to become pregnant” Ramban goes even further. In his reading, Rebecca is willing to forgo not only pregnancy but life itself: “Would that I did not exist, that I should die or never have come into existence.”

Does the Torah condemn her for this “heresy?” Not at all. In her distress, Rivka turns to the Highest Authority, “and she went to inquire of the Eternal” (ibid.). She inquires and receives a response. As befits an oracle, the answer is enigmatic, but neither denies her pain nor reprimands her for the question. Rather, God confirms the legitimacy of her question by providing information. Rebecca’s pregnancy is a stage on the way to the establishment of the people of Israel. The process involves suffering, and the Torah does not take it lightly.

Another stage of our existence as a nation began on 7 October 2023, and the scope of the suffering around us continues to increase. We are repeatedly called to respond to suffering, our own and that of others. In the presence of immediate grief and pain, it is important for us to remember two lessons from Rebecca’s story: first, it is permissible, even beneficial, to cry out in pain; second, even explanations that come directly from God are not always clear. Therefore, it is preferable to support the people who are suffering and leave the explanations to other forums.

Divine Sovereignty & Wartime Ethics, Rosh Hashanah 5785

Hebrew

Did the Rabbis invent Rosh Hashanah? 

There is no Biblical holiday called “Rosh Hashanah.” The “the seventh month on the first day” appears twice (Lev. 23:24; Num. 29:1) but more is concealed than revealed. The day is indeed called “the day of T’rua-blasts” but nothing is said about the type of blast. Is it a panicked cry, a shout of joy or summons to move the camp in the desert? Even the instrument to be blown, a trumpet or a shofar, is not specified.

Without any introduction, Mishnah Rosh Hashanah (1:1) begins with not one Rosh Hashanah but rather with four – in Nisan, Elul, Tishri and Shvat – all of them with administrative and financial significance. Then, in the very next paragraph we read:

At four set times the world is judged: On Pesah in respect to the produce. On Shavuot in respect to the fruit of the tree. On Rosh Hashanah all the people of the world pass before Him like a division of soldiers [more traditionally, “sheep”]…. And on Sukkot they are judged in respect of rain. (Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:2; trans: R. Joshua Kulp on Sefaria)

Three new year days have disappeared and the significance of the one remaining has changed from an internal Jewish matter to the day of judgment for the entire world. But the rabbis did not actually invent a new holiday; rather they brought to the surface a meaning that had been submerged. The key to opening this understanding is the verse that the shofar blower declares before reciting the blessing: “God ascends midst acclamation; the Eternal, to the blasts of the shofar (Psalm 47:6).” The verse is intended to direct our intention to a primary meaning of the shofar blowing on Rosh Hashanah: recognition of divine sovereignty.

The language of this verse and of Psalm 47 in its entirety (which the congregation reads shortly before the shofar blower’s declaration) is reminiscent of human coronations in the Bible and the ritual re-enthronements of Canaanite gods that were practiced by neighboring peoples. The parallels are so strong that scholars in the late 19^th and early 20^th century believed that similar annual ceremonies had also been conducted in Israel. However, the lack of any collaborating evidence tipped the scales and the current research conclusion is that such ceremonies were not held in Israel during biblical times. However, this scholarly conclusion does not contradict the societal and human need to confirm God’s sovereignty. Therefore, a “Yom T’rua” was established and coronation-style psalms were written using the poetic language that was familiar at the time.

Psalm 47 also reflects the integration of a Jewish holiday with a universal perspective. The people of Israel are the speaker in the Psalm and they invite all of the peoples to join them: “All you peoples, clap your hands, raise a joyous shout for God. For the Eternal Most High is awesome, great ruler over all the earth (verses 2-3[1]).” This display of unity is reminiscent of prophecies regarding the end of days, such as “On that day the Eternal shall be One, and God’s Name shall be one” (Zecharia 14:9; my translation).

It's no coincidence that I quoted the verse that concludes the Aleinu prayer, which was written in the 8^th or 9^th century as an introduction to Malchuyot, the sovereignty section of the Rosh Hashanah musaf service. Psalm 47 and Aleinu each present both a universal vision of divine sovereignty and a particularistic conception that highlights the uniqueness of the Jewish people who “God did not make like the other nations” (Aleinu) but “chose an inheritance for us” (Psalm 47:5).

On the judgment day for all peoples, after the horrendous year we've experienced, I will leave judgement of the nations to God and turn our gaze inward. How do we see ourselves in light of the sources that grant the Jewish people special status? Even if we don't all accept this idea, we can't deny that it is present in the sources and in Israeli society, and consequently influences our life. Therefore, it is deserving of our attention.

Note, the Torah does not mention any special trait of Abraham, Sarah or their descendants that makes us worthy of divine election. Quite the contrary. Deuteronomy 7:7 makes it clear, “It is not because you are the most numerous of peoples that the Eternal grew attached to you and chose you.”[2] God’s choice is the result of grace, not merit. Furthermore, God is steadfast and “keeps this covenant faithfully to the thousandth generation” (v. 9). The covenant is guaranteed; the schedule is not.

My teacher Rabbi Shai Held summarizes the situation thus: God’s love is unconditional but does come with expectations. It not preclude disappointment.[3] Rabbi Held frequently quotes the prophet Hosea who prophesied at a time when God was deeply disappointed with Israel and considered destroying them but recants: “I have had a change of heart, all My tenderness is stirred. I will not act on My wrath, will not turn to destroy Ephraim. For I am God—not human…” (11:8-9). “Part of what makes God God and not a human being is the fact that God cannot, will not, give up on God’s children no matter what” (Judaism Is About Love, p. 104).

 To clarify some of the expectations, I now turn to Rabbi Yuval Cherlow’s book, The Ways of God are Straight (in Hebrew) in which in which he discusses, among other things, behavior during wartime, even in justified, defensive war.

At the outset, Rabbi Cherlow establishes that the Torah recognizes the existence of independent, evolving human morality. It is “a great privilege to be a partner in this progress” (p. 207[4]), which includes striving for a situation in which nations do not resort to war in order to solve their problems. That day has not yet arrived. Progress is indeed gradual, with ups and downs, but the direction is clear. Rabbi Cherlow emphasizes that we must not behave according to a simplistic reading of the written Torah, but rather understand its deeper message and apply it in a manner appropriate to our times. As an example, he concludes a detailed review of the section in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 concerning female prisoners of war by stating, “In its day, this commandment was the peak of morality... Today, it means that we are to rise above the nations' standards of what is acceptable in war, and strive for the highest moral heights” (p. 194-5).

I am not here to teach a lesson in the laws of war – and even more so in a war against an enemy that ignores these laws. However, I am arguing that we ought to exceed international standards, especially in situations that are not life-threatening. When there are exceptions – such as those in Sde Teiman Prison and Givat Ronen – it is also important how we as a public respond to them: do we justify them or disavow them? With all my heart I hope such events are indeed rare. If not, I am very fearful for our existence here.

Earlier, I spoke about of Rosh Hashanah as the day when we reconfirm Divine Sovereignty. Rabbi Cherlow speaks in terms of Kiddush Hashem-sanctifying God’s name, “Observing the principles of war ethics is an inseparable part of the sanctification of God’s Great Name, which is the basis of the entire Torah...” (p. 206). Writing before October 7, Rabbi Cherlow expresses hope that “the constant reality of an existential war in which we ourselves find ourselves, and the limitations we impose on ourselves by virtue of this moral concept, might be a guide to the world.”

I do not doubt that our situation now is more complicated than it was when those lines were written, but difficulty, even trauma, does not absolve us of the obligation to strive for exceptional morality. Even if we don't always succeed, it is important to keep trying. 

In Psalm 47, we call upon the nations to join us and recognize “God reigns over the nations” (v. 9). With all due respect to the power of words, sometimes action speak more loudly. When we know how to set a moral example, despite all the difficulties, the great shofar blast of our freedom and the redemption of the entire world will be heard.

Shoshana Michael-Zucker, Hod veHadar

--------------

[1] All Biblical translations modified from the Revised JPS translation (2023) on Sefaria, unless noted.

[2] For a detailed analysis of this idea in Deuteronomy, see Jon D. Levenson, The Love of God: Divine Gift, Human Gratitude, and Mutual Faithfulness in Judaism, p. 38ff.

[3] Summary from my notes. For the full idea, see Shai Held, Judaism Is About Love: Recovering the Heart of Jewish Life.

[4] All translation from Rabbi Cherlow are my own.

מלכות שמים ומוסר מלחמה, ראש השנה תשפ"ה

האם חז"ל המציאו את ראש השנה?

אין מועד מקראי בשם "ראש השנה." ובשני המופעים של "בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ" בתורה הנסתר רב על הגלוי. היום נקרא "יוֹם תְּרוּעָה" אבל לא נאמר דבר על סוג התרועה – צעקת בהלה, קול של שמחה או קריאה להזזת המחנה במדבר – אפילו לא נאמר באיזה כלי מדובר, חצוצרה או שופר.

ופתאום הדיון במשנה ראש השנה (א:א) מתחיל לא עם "ראש השנה" אחד אלא עם ארבע ראשי שנה – בניסן, באלול, בתשרי ובשבט – כולם לצרכים מנהלתיים וכספיים.

ואז בסעיף (א:ב) הבא אנחנו קוראים:

בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְרָקִים הָעוֹלָם נִדּוֹן: בְּפֶסַח עַל הַתְּבוּאָה, בַּעֲצֶרֶת עַל פֵּרוֹת הָאִילָן, בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה כָּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם עוֹבְרִין לְפָנָיו כִּבְנֵי מָרוֹן (כִּבְנוּּמֵרוֹן).... וּבֶחָג נִדּוֹנִין עַל הַמָּיִם.

ברווח בין המשניות, שלשה ראשי השנה נעלמו ומהותו של זה שנשאר הפכה מעניין יהודי פנימי ליום הדין כלל עולמי.

אבל חז"ל לא המציאו את המועד אלא הציפו משמעות שהתקיימה מתחת לפני השטח. המפתח להבנתי נמצא בפסוק שהתוקע קורא בקול רם מיד לפני ברכת המצווה: "עָלָה אֱלֹהִים בִּתְרוּעָה ה' בְּקוֹל שׁוֹפָר." הפסוק מכוון אותנו למשמעותן הראשונית של תרועות השופר בראש השנה: הכרה במלכות ה'.

השפה בפסוק זה ובמזמור מ"ז כולו, שקראנו כקהל דקות ספורות קודם להכרזת התוקע, מזכירה את טקסי הכתרתם של מלכים אנושיים בתנ"ך ופולחן ההמלכה המחודשת של אלילים אשר היה נהוג בתרבויות השכנות. המקבילות החזקות הובילו חוקרים בסוף המאה ה-19 וראשית המאה ה-20 להסיק כי טקסים שנתיים דומים התקיימו גם בישראל. אך חסרונן של ראיות כלשהן הכריע את הכף והמסקנה המחקרית היום היא שלא היו כאלו טקסים בישראל בימי המקרא. אבל, הממצא המחקרי איננו סותר את הצורך החברתי והאנושי לאשרר את מלכותו של ה'. לכן נקבע יום תרועה ונכתבו מזמורי המלכה שמשתמשים בשפה השירית המוכרת דאז.

המזמור גם משקף את השילוב בין מועד של עַם ישראל והמבט הכלל עולמי. הדובר במזמור הוא עַם ישראל, אשר מזמין את כל העמים להצטרף למעמד: "הָרִיעוּ לֵאלֹהִים בְּקוֹל רִנָּה׃ כִּי־ ה' עֶלְיוֹן נוֹרָא מֶלֶךְ גָּדוֹל עַל־כׇּל־הָאָרֶץ." למפגן האחדות יש ריח של אחרית הימים, מעין "בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִהְיֶה ה' אֶחָד וּשְׁמוֹ אֶחָד."

לא במקרה ציטטתי את הפסוק מזכריה אשר מסיים את תפילת עלינו. תפילת "עלינו" נכתבה במאה השמינית או התשיעית כמבוא לסדר מלכויות בתפילת מוסף של ראש השנה. גם מזמור תהילים מ"ז וגם תפילת עלינו, מחזיקים חזון אוניברסלי של מלכות שמים ביחד עם תפיסה פרטיקולרית המעלה על נס את יחודו של עם ישראל, הרי אלהים לֺּא עָשָֽׂנוּ כְּגוֹיֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת אלא בחר־לָנוּ אֶת־נַחֲלָתֵנוּ.

ביום הדין לכל באי עולם, אחרי השנה האיומה שעברנו, אני משאירה את דינם של העמים בידי שמים, ורוצה להפנות את המבט פנימה. איך אנחנו רואים את עצמנו לאור המקורות המקנים לעם ישראל מעמד מיוחד? גם אם לא כולנו מקבלים את התפיסה הזאת, אין להכחיש שהיא נמצאת במקורות ובחברה הישראלית, ומשפיע על חיינו. לכן היא ראויה לתשומת לב.

קודם כל, נשׂים לב לעובדה שהתורה אינה מציינת שום תכונה מיוחדת של אברהם, שרה וצאצאיהם שמזכה אותם ואותנו בבחירה. להיפך. דברים פרק ז מבהיר "לֹא מֵרֻבְּכֶם מִכׇּל־הָעַמִּים חָשַׁק ה' בָּכֶם וַיִּבְחַר בָּכֶם... כִּי מֵאַהֲבַת ה'."[1] הבחירה באה מחסד ולא בזכות. בפסוק הבא נאמר "הָאֵל הַנֶּאֱמָן שֹׁמֵר הַבְּרִית וְהַחֶסֶד לְאֹהֲבָיו וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֺתָו לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר." קיום הברית מובטח.
הלו"ז לא.

מורי הרב ש"י הלד מתמצת את המצב כך: "אהבה אלוהית באה בלי תנאים אבל עם ציפיות... ולא מונעת אכזבה." הוא מרבה לצטט את דברי הנביא הושע שדיבר על מצב שבו האל אכן מאוכזב מאוד מעם ישראל ושוקל להשמידם, אך מתחרט ומסביר "נֶהְפַּךְ עָלַי לִבִּי... לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂה חֲרוֹן אַפִּי, לֹא אָשׁוּב לְשַׁחֵת אֶפְרָיִם, כִּי אֵל אָנֹכִי וְלֹא־אִישׁ" (יא: ח-ט). מהותו של ה' הוא אהבתו הבלתי ניתנת לעׅרעור. אבל ציפיות ישנן.[2]

לבירור חלק מן הציפיות אני פונה עכשיו לספרו של הרב יובל שרלו כי ישרים דרכי ה', בו הוא דן בין היתר בהתנהגות בזמן מלחמה, גם מלחמה הגנתית מוצדקת.

קודם כל, הרב שרלו מוכיח שהתורה מכירה במוסר העומד בפני עצמו. המוסר הזה מתפתח ו"זכות גדולה להיות שותף בהתקדמות זו" (ע. 207) שכוללת שאיפה למצב בו עמים לא יפתרו את הבעיות ביניהם במלחמה. יום זה עדיין לא הגיע. ההתקדמות אכן הדרגתית, עם עליות ומורדות, אבל הכיוון ברור. הרב שרלו מדגיש שאסור לנו היום להתנהג לפי קריאה פשטנית של התורה שבכתב, אלא עלינו להבין את המסר העמוק של התורה, וליישם אותו בדרך המתאימה לתקופתנו. כדוגמה, הוא מסכם סקירה מפורטת על פרשת "אשת יפה תואר" הדן ביחס לשבויות מלחמה בטענה שמצווה זו "בשעתה הייתה פסגה מוסרית... ומשמעותה היום היא התנשאות מעל למקובל בדרכי מלחמה של אומות עולם, אֶל פסגות מוסריות עילאיות" (ע. 194-5)

אינני באה ללמד שיעור בדיני מלחמה – ועל אחת כמה וכמה במלחמה מול אויב שמתעלם מדינים אלו. מצד שני, אני כן טוענת שאנו צפויים להתעלות מעל אַמוֺת המידה הבינלאומיות המקובלות, במיוחד כשאין סכנה נפשות. כאשר יש חריגים – כמו אלו בכלא שדה תימן (תרתי משמע) וגבעת רונן – חשוב גם איך אנחנו כציבור מסתכלים עליהם: האם אנחנו מצדיקים אותם או מתנערים מהם? בכל לבי אני מקווה שאירועים כאלו אכן נדירים. אם מתברר שלא, אני חוששת מאוד לקיומנו כאן.

דיברתי תחילה על ראש השנה כיום בו אנחנו מאשררים את תוקפה של מלכות השמיים; הרב שרלו – שלא כתב דווקא על ראש השנה – מדבר במונחים של קידוש השם וכותב, "שמירה על עקרונות מוסר מלחמה היא חלק בלתי נפרד מקידוש שמו הגדול שהוא מבסיסי התורה כולה...." (ע. 206). בדברים שנכתבו לפני ה-7 באוקטובר, הרב שרלו מביע תקווה כי "המציאות המתמדת של מלחמת קיומית שבה אנו עצמנו נמצאים וההגבלות שאנו מטילים על עצמנו מכוחה של תפיסה מוסרית זאת, עשויה להיות מורה דרך לעולם."

אינני מטילה ספק שמצבנו היום מסובך יותר ממה שהיה כאשר הדברים נכתבו אבל הקושי, ואפילו טראומה, לא פוטר אותנו מהחובה לשאוף למוסריות גבוהה. אם לא תמיד נצליח חשוב להמשיך את המאמץ. 

במזמור מ"ז אנו קוראים במילים לעמים להצטרף ולהכיר כִּי מָלַךְ אֱלֹהִים עַל־גּוֹיִם. כבודן של המילים במקומם מונח אבל יש כוח גם למעשים. כשאנחנו נדע להוביל גם במעשים מוסריים, על אף הקושי, נשמע תקיעה בשופר גדול לחירותנו ולגאולת העולם כולו.

שושנה מיכאל צוקר, קהילת הוד והדר, תשפ"ה

------------

[1] לניתוח מפורט לסוגיה זהבספר דברים ראה:

 Jon D. Levenson, The Love of God: Divine Gift, Human Gratitude, and Mutual Faithfulness in Judaism, p. 38ff.

[2] Shai Held, Judaism Is About Love: Recovering the Heart of Jewish Life, p 104.

Parashat Shoftim: On Monarchy and Mental Health

Hebrew

כִּי תָבֹא אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ וְאָמַרְתָּ אָשִׂימָה עָלַי מֶלֶךְ כְּכָל הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתָי… שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ… (דברים יז:יד-טו_א(.

If, after you have entered the land that the Eternal your God has assigned to you, and taken possession of it and settled in it, you decide, “I will set a king over me, as do all the nations about me… set a king over yourself.... (Deuteronomy 17:14-15a; trans. JPS 2023 on Sefaria)

These verses are a classic example of the multivalence of verb tenses in Biblical Hebrew. Is there a commandment to appoint a king or is there permission to appoint one, if the people insist? The question arises already in the days of the judges, when the people indeed ask for a king, and God agrees with frustration and sadness: “The Eternal replied to Samuel, “Heed the demand of the people in everything they say to you. For it is not you that they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected to rule over them” (I Samuel 8:7; trans. JPS 2023 on Sefaria).

This is the beginning of a controversy that continues in rabbinic literature and to this day.

Instead of reviewing the development of the debate over the generations, I will present several modern sources that examine the question in a world in which most countries in the world are not ruled by monarchs, even if they have a royal house with symbolic powers.

Rabbi Hayim David Halevi (1924-1998), Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv-Jaffa and recipient of the Israel Prize for Torah Literature, saw the openness of the Torah’s text as positive and appropriate:

There is a particular realm in the Torah in which matters are deliberately presented ambiguously and vaguely. In no way can one find in the Torah a clear political or economic regime. Even the section on kings is presented so ambiguously as to have caused disagreement amongst our Sages in the Talmud about whether or not it is a commandment at all, or merely something permitted.…. In my opinion, this is a great strength of the Torah -- that it does not have a clearly defined regime, neither political nor economic. There are two reasons for this:  a) By the very nature of these domains of life, they are given to change from era to era, and God’s Torah is eternal, and thus intentionally refrained from determining these areas in too fixed and defined a way. b) The Torah did not want to force the nation to conduct itself, in its secular life, according to a particular regime; it left that decision up to the nation’s free will in these areas (Aseh Lekha Rav, vol. 3; trans. Rabbi Shai Held).[1]

Rabbi She’ar-Yashuv Cohen (1927-2016), the Chief Rabbi of Haifa, went a step further, warning that any effort to implement previous models in a changing world would not end well:

Anyone who thinks it is possible to take the paragraphs from Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah and turn them into state law as they are, without taking circumstances into account, is not only an ignoramus but has gone astray and is leading others astray too.… It is impossible to make rulings today based on ancient formulations, without taking into account the changes that hav
e taken place between then and now” (Bein Demokratiyah Le-Yahadut: Diyyun; trans. Rabbi Shai Held).

Rabbi Yehuda Shaviv (1941-2018), of Yeshivat Har Etzion, emphasized the words “as do all the nations,” when he wrote:

If the nation wants to adapt for itself an institutional system of government as is accepted in other nations, it may do so; and this permission receives the heavenly seal of approval and becomes a commandment…. In modern times, when humanity believes it more appropriate to govern by direct representation, then this will be the commandment… (Democracy and Judaism; trans. Rabbi Shai Held).

First Knesset session in its permanent building, Aug. 1966.

Who knows better than Israelis of the 2020s that democracy has many challenges? Therefore, I would like to conclude with the words of Rabbi Chaim Hirschensohn (Safed, 1857–Hoboken, New Jersey, 1935). Hirschensohn was among the founders of religious Zionism in the Land of Israel but was forced to emigrate when he was placed under a ban due to his radical views (e.g., he supported teaching secular subjects, like mathematics in Hebrew, and women’s suffrage). In response to discussions at the Zionist Congress in 1918, he began to develop a halachic framework for a Jewish democratic state.[2]  He categorically rejected the possibility of crowning a human king over the people in the twentieth century. If there is no king, there must be a legislature, and it is necessary to prevent it from passing unreasonable laws that the public cannot abide. Therefore, he made a very original suggestion:

It is surely appropriate for the legislature to have special psychiatrists on staff to monitor the mental state of legislators. Each time a new law is passed but before it takes effect, it will not be published unless the doctors examine the legislators leaving the plenum and agree that they were of healthy mind (Eilu Divrei HaBrit, vol. 3, p. 63; trans: SMZ).

What would we do with a little governmental sanity?

---

[1] Similar Ideas have been expressed by Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Neria, Rabbi Naftali Rothenberg and others. For a broader perspective on these issues, see Rabbi Shai Held, Judaism and Democracy: Encounters, Obstacles, Possibilities. 

[2] Malki BaKodesh, in 6 volumes.