Of late, and especially since the assassination of
the Prime Minister, we have heard that there must be an unavoidable
conflict between Judaism and democracy.
We cannot remain blind to the disastrous
consequences to Israel as a Jewish state if Israelis were to begin to
believe that the halacha opposes democratic rule. It is frightening to
think of what would happen to relations between religious and
non-religious Israelis, and especially to our own children who would
grow up thinking that they must make an "either-or" choice between Torah
and Israel.
The religious Zionist community has made a crucial
contribution to modern Jewish life by showing that there need be no
contradiction between commitment to Torah and living in the modern
world. Just as our community demonstrated the compatibility of Torah and
science, of halacha and technology, of Torah and modern Jewish
nationalism, we must now show that we can both be committed to Torah and
remain full partners in building a democratic Jewish state.
The relationship between Torah and democracy may be
examined on a number of different levels. On the ideological level, we
must examine the fundamental principles of democracy in light of
fundamentals of Torah. We shall undoubtedly encounter tension between
the two. And yet, on an operational level, the implementation of
democratic principles and living a life of Torah can go hand in hand. We
recall the well-known opinion of the Netsiv that the Torah did not
dictate any one system of government because conditions vary from time
to time and from country to country, and that we may accept a system of
government from non-Jewish states if it proves to be best ["seder yoter
nachon"]. In his opinion, the basis for any ruling authority must be
popular support ["haskamat ha-am"]. This surely is consistent with
modern political theory.
Even those who disagree with the Netsiv and believe
that an ideal "Torah state" cannot be democratic, must realize that
given present conditions the only realistic way to maintain the Jewish
State of Israel is to keep it a democracy. With all that separates the
many different sectors of the population, and with each sector believing
(sometimes absolutely) in the exclusive right of its own position, we
have no choice but to agree that all must abide by the democratic
principle of "majority rule". There is simply no other way for us to
live together. And from a Torah perspective, our not living here
together would be disaster.
This being said, we must also dismiss demagogic
pronouncements about the "supremacy of the laws of the state over the
halacha". It is perfectly obvious that a believing Jew is bound
absolutely to the halacha, just as a secular Jew may have moral
principles which he sees as more compelling than state law. But this
need not constitute a conflict between Judaism and democracy. On the
individual level, one of the important characteristics of modern
democracy is its commitment to maintaining the rights of the
individual--including his freedom of religion. And on the public level,
we have shown that the Torah itself has sanctioned the authority of a
government that rules with the consent of the people.
Of course, the Torah's scope is not restricted to
the realm of the individual. There is more to Torah than kashrut,
shabbat, or tefila. Indeed, the Torah has much to say about public
matters. Fashioning a society on the basis of the values of Torah has
always been one of the goals of religious Zionism.
However, halachot that apply to individuals are the
result of a long and continuous process of halachic rulings, a process
which does not exist in halachot that could apply to a modern state. A
posek today has a rich tradition of precedents concerning questions of
kashrut or shabbat, for example. By drawing on those precedents, he can
be reasonably confident when deciding questions of kashrut and shabbat.
There is no comparable tradition of halachot on how to govern a modern
state. There is no Shulchan Aruch, and certainly no ShaCh or TaZ on
"hilchot medina". The halacha has not dealt with matters of state long
enough to allow a posek to give an unequivocal "psak" in this area.
As such, declarations by Torah scholars on public
issues may be respected as statements of values and moral guidance, but
they are not binding halachic rulings. Anyone who has taken a serious
look at what was presented over the last few years as "piskei halacha"
or "daat Torah" on political issues, will readily see how shallow and
unconvincing are the halachic arguments brought in support. The central
argument of virtually all such "rulings" has been the posek's own
interpretation of the facts at hand and his projection of the
political/military implications of the situation. Such interpretations
or projections are the subjects of legitimate public debate and are
usually so complex that even political or military experts cannot agree
on a single conclusion. As such, no posek--no matter how well schooled
he may be in hilchot shabbat, basar b'chalav' or nida and mikvaot--can
give an unequivocal, universally binding halachic ruling on such
matters.
Seeing as how "Daat Torah" or "piskei halacha" are
based on only one of what could be any number of legitimate
interpretations of a military/political situation, their accuracy and
authority is no greater than the interpretation on which they are based.
To the degree that the military/political interpretation is open to
debate, the "psak" cannot be seen as having the kind of universally
binding halachic authority that would allow it to overrule state law or
the authority of the military command.
In conclusion: It must be understood that if one
chooses to be a responsible citizen of the state, and to take part in
the democratic process by voting in state elections, he/she has agreed
to abide by decisions made in accordance with the principles of
democracy. As such, it is Torah, and not "just" state law, that obliges
him/her to accept the rule of the Knesset in all public matters over
which the government has authority.
