 Halacha
and Democracy
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.
Meimad
- POB 8067 Jerusalem 91080 Tel:+972 2 612240
Fax:+972 2 612340
© Copyright -
Rav Yehuda Amital - Rabbi Michael Melchior
BASIC
POSITION: THE PEACE PROCESS
We supported Mr. Peres for
Prime Minister because of our
long-standing support of the Oslo
Accords and the peace process, as well
as evidence of our view that commitment
to Torah does not imply support for one
particular political stance. The
monolithic support of the religious
parties for Binyamin Netanyahu, and the
nature of the campaign material implied
it was a religious imperative for every
observant Jew to vote for the right
wing. This made Meimad's position all
the more important as a message to
religious Zionists.
THE JEWISH
CHARACTER OF ISRAEL
Freie Jüdische Umschau
Internationale Presseschau
D-A-CH
München
'Blau-Weiss'
Jahaduth
haGalil online: Bitte notieren Sie
sich unsere neue Adresse
www.hagalil.com
|
