Let's discuss - Parliamentary Monarchy

[rylah]

It's a thread I've wanted to open for some time now,
seems the time is ripe, the situation on the ground,
especially the confused state of current politics,
and the desperation of the young generation.

The desperation is globally universal, on various levels it's a good one,
promising major progress of the human soul and unity.

That is all romantic, but what about practicality?
How is that to express in reality, and how is that progress?
Aren't we supposed to emerge with something new, away with old structures?

From Practical perspective, there's a whole range of topics to discuss,
but for the opening post I want to focus on one essential idea,

the idea of - unity of human social-political character,
rather than it's division, in favor or denial of either.
We're looking towards the broadest possible
structure capable to contain and direct the
broadest variety of human contradictions.

In other words - what structure is broad enough to meet and engage as contrasting positions,
as Hamas Islamists with Secular and Religious Zionists of all colors, Pan-Arabist Communists,
and their other radical Post-Modernist counterparts?

A Jewish king.
Royalty from river to sea, in the heart of Judea,
in some ways similar to that in Jordan, only Israeli.

Intellectually I think it's already becoming clear, at least not so shocking,
seeing the alternatives and the state of things of both West and East,
there's a will to unite those characters, sort their proper function.

But for that they need to a broad and strong enough
structure to engage them politically in one place.

Let us discuss the function of royalty in a Parliamentary Monarchy,
it's correct practical and symbolic extent, to engage a broader electoral contrast.

 

[MisterBeale]

. . . so. . . you're not really a "one state," solution sorta person?

 

[rylah]

. . . so. . . you're not really a "one state," solution sorta person?

One state.

Jewish king,
conditional approval,
with a limited veto power,
authority on long term economic and military strategy,
on unusual cases sentence to capital punishment when courts won't or can't.

The king should have the say mainly on long term decisions,
that concern the future of coming generations.

With the parliament to sort out and express
the personal, social questions of the day,
which directly concern most people,

The Sanhedrin tasked with voicing authentic Jewish answers, valid alternatives,
to the most complex moral, intellectual, psychological challenges of the generation.

 

[rylah]

Otherwise the democratic element is overburdened,
people today supposed to vote each 2-4 years,
on heavy fundamental ideological questions,
based on photo-op's and populist slogans
instead of the practical in their reach.

The electoral threshold should also drop.

When zero-sum game power is taken out of the equation,
the democratic element freed to function more sincerely,
then real discourse starts, engaging the true potential
of contradicting positions to reveal creative answers.

 

[rylah]

'Lean towards the many' | Can we maintain Democratic rule with the authority of Jewish law?

Indeed this is one of the sources for the legitimacy of Democratic rule, according to Jewish law.

Student: Incorrect
R. Sherki: Why is that incorrect?

Student; From the perspective of Jewish law?
R. Sherki: It's a clarified law, Democracy is binding, it has the rule of the kingdom.

Student: Regarding everything?
R. Sherki: Like everything, it has boundaries. Respect of parents, is it a Torah law?
It's a Torah law, is it for everything? No, so is Democracy - it has the rule of the kingdom according to Jewish law. But for everything? No, there's nothing in Torah which is for everything - understood?

Student: What happens when Jewish law contradicts current law?
R. Sherki: I remember I was in the village of Maimon and with me some thousands of Jews, who came to do important things. And I sat there with students from Machon Meir under the trees, and several other Yeshivot. A journalist approaches, says to me: "Tell me, are You a Rabbi?!", yes, "may I ask You a question?!", always this rigid approach, ok what, "what did You come here, to do?", I came to fight for the Democracy. Journalist tells me "it's wrong!", I asked why was it wrong, he says "because You're a Rabbi! You don't believe in Democracy, You believe in God". I said, I think he wasn't just, and explained, he said "I've never heard a Rabbi speak like that, it's wrong what You're saying". I said, if You know ahead what I think, why ask me - he walked away. Then approached a Yeshivah student, asked, "tell HaRav, why didn't You tell him the truth? That we're for God and against Democracy"

So I've realized, people didn't learn Torah their entire days, if thus.
Because Torah favors Democracy, what can I do?

Student: Yes, but why?
R. Sherki: We just learned a verse if You noticed, "lean towards the many" (Shemot 23),
and HaRosh tells You, this thing is binding, that decisions are made based on the majority opinion.

Student: We see that the rule of Torah, was not according to this commandment.
R. Sherki: You say we can see that Torah rule is not according to Democracy.
From where do You have that?
Student: We see according to all the decisions they make, they need Mosheh to write it down for them.
R. Sherki: I don't understand, what is written here in the words of Mosheh, 2nd verse?
Student: Ok, so HaRosh says.
R. Sherki: What? So HaRosh is wrong, meaning HaRosh says thus, but I know better, and I have decided that Torah is against Democracy...
Student: No, but it's only from one perspective.
R. Sherki: What one perspective?

Student: Mosheh decides all the way.
R. Sherki: All the way everything is done by dictatorial decisions?? Where did You see this?
Student: Whatever Mosheh tells they do, whatever HaShem says they do.
R. Sherki: What??!

You know it's written, in Tanhumah, God asked Mosheh, "is Bezalel fair for You?", told Him, "the Creator of the world, if fair before You, of course, he is acceptable to me". Said to Mosheh, "despite that, I am asking - you".

Says, and then God tells Mosheh, "go ask the people of Israel if they want him", the people of Israel said to Mosheh, "if before You fair, before God fair, then why do You ask us?... Nevertheless.

And from here was learned the law, brought by Hatam Sofer in length, that there is no appointing a leader on a community, but if it is considered in the public, at first. Meaning, You cannot enforce any rule or authority on the public, without asking the public - this is Jewish law.

And when appointing a Rabbi that is not according to the opinion of the public, for example, the Hatam Sofer says, he's not a Rabbi, all his rulings are void.

Therefore what You're saying, that we see that they specifically go against Democratic decisions - from where do You have that? The Jewish law says the complete opposite. And the legal reality shows this also, along the generations.

Even when the rule in Israel was Monarchy, they wouldn't appoint a king without asking the public. And each time a kind died, the simple people, meaning the representatives,
were those who crowned the king.

An entire argument in Tractate Rosh HaShanah, 2nd page, regarding a king appointed on the 30th of Adar because as comes 1st of Nisan, he starts his 2nd year. The Gemara says that they were 'appointed' to crown him on the 30th of Adar, and didn't crown him until the 1st of Nisan. So - 'appointed to crown', what does it mean? Meaning someone makes that decision.

Student: And Shaul and David?
R. Sherki: Shaul and David, HaShem crowned them without asking the nation?
Student: The nation asked for a king.
R. Sherki: the nation asked, and then it's written "and Shmuel said to the nation: we shall go to Gilgal and renew there the kingdom" - meaning it was needed that there was the backup of the nation, to accept Shaul.

Student: What about a Democratic rule, when it rules something against Torah? For example against Kosher certification.

R. Sherki: Why should I always answer, You answer, what is the answer?
Student: Answer what, whether to go according to Jewish law or the rule?
R. Sherki: I'm asking You a question - according to Jewish law,
do I have to do what my father tells me?

Student: Not always.
R. Sherki: Meaning, there's a law in Torah to respect my father, and if he tells me to do crime I don't, right? It's not that because of this, there isn't the commandment of respect for parents in Torah. As everything in Torah - everything has its boundaries, nothing is for everything.

Then a decision can be legally a Democratic, as much as You want, if it's immoral, against Torah, we don't uphold it, this is literal. Not that because of this, it means there's no value to a Democratic rule according to Jewish law. There's a value to Democratic rule according to Jewish law, and it has boundaries, like everything.

By the way, if the Democratic rule didn't have the rule of the kingdom according to Jewish law - it is forbidden to go on reserve duty, forbidden to pay taxes. If so, the moment I go on duty I'm a murderer, and the moment I pay taxes I'm a thief. Right? Who allows You to go on reserve duty, and who allows You to pay a tax? It's only because the government of Israel has the rule of the kingdom. And as long as I know, the state of Israel has a Democratic rule, a parliamentary one.

Student: There are great Rabbis who rule this way.
R. Sherki: There are great Rabbis who are mistaken about that, correct, but Jewish law is not like that.
Here, in the Responsa 'Yeheveh Da'at'(First to Zion Rabbi 'Ovadiah Yossef Ztz'l), 2nd part, it's clearly written there, forbidden to hide from the income tax, because the state of Israel has the rule of the kingdom, and he brings for that an interesting source, he refers to 'Responsa Mishpat Cohen'
(1st Chief Rabbi of Israel Rabbi Avraham HaCohen Kook Ztz"l).