Upcoming Israeli Elections

[rylah]

בס"ד ​

What is the validity of Democratic elections according to the Torah?
The value of minority opinion against "to lean after the majority"

Lesson by Rabbi Cherki in the Meir Institute,
on the answer written by Rabbi Kook Z"L regarding the question of
proportional and majority elections, to the President of Czechoslovakia.

(Translations B"H next week)

What is the validity of Democratic elections according to the Torah?
The value of minority opinion against "to lean after the majority

| Part a |

Today we'll deal with Rabbi Kook's answer on a Halachic subject,
which is as the end of the book 'Orah Mishpat (Way of Law) by Rabbi Kook.

The discussion at the time occupied the state of Czechoslovakia. In the day Rabbi Kook the state of Czechoslovakia was strong, complete, and there has risen a discussion, essentially the President at the time, I think it was Masaryk, approached Rabbi Kook with a Halachic question.

Because there was an argument in the institutions of the Jewish community in Czechoslovakia, whether to do proportional or majority elections etc.

Student: When was that?
R. Cherki: This was in the 1930's, which year exactly I don't know.
And why did they approach Rabbi Kook, because among the rabbis there, they couldn't get along – regarding Democracy Halachah. It was essentially, almost for the first time that Jews had representation in the full meaning of the word. Then the President of Czechoslovakia approached the Rabbi of Prague, who said he should ask the greatest sages of Israel. The President ask whom, he told him Rabbi Kook, he is in Palestina ask him.
Here we have the answer of Rabbi Kook.

Student: What was the status of Rabbi Kook at the time?
R. Cherki: Rabbi Kook was the Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael.
They've established then the Chief Rabbinate in cooperation with the British Mandate.

Student: He was already known…
R. Cherki: Yes, he was essentially regarded, we can say the greatest of the generation, something of this kind. Meaning he was one of the most important rabbis in the world,
and of course in Eretz Yisrael he was considered Mara D'Atra (Master of the Place).

Although there was established at the time an organization somewhat contestant to the Chief Rabbinate of Eretz Yisrael, as it was called then, there was no state of Israel yet.
This organization is the Bdt"z, and…

Student: They didn't understand what he was saying?
R. Cherki: It depends, in matters of faith they didn't understand what he said, in matters
of Halachah (Hebrew Law) they knew he was the greatest, they knew he was THE greatest.

Now, this is in the Q&A compilation 'Orah Mishpat' by Rabbi Kook, the answer in the Laws of Judges, the 2nd answer. A bit long answer, and the Rabbi brings here various evidence from different sides, so let's see…the Rabbi Brody of Prague, this is the Chief Rabbi of Prague, who approached Rabbi Kook in the name of the President of Czechoslovakia.

The specific year isn't written, it's a bit of a problem, but I assume it's the end of 1930's, meaning the latter days of Rabbi Kook.

We need to understand the context of the question. In Slovakia there were various types of Jews, there were Orthodox Jews, Reform Jews, there were anti-Zionist Jews holding a strong position, and there were Zionist Jews.

Since the anti-Zionist Jews were the majority, they opposed the Zionist minority representation in the name of the Jewish Committee. While the Zionist minority
demanded proportional representation, proportional elections.

The state was in favor of proportional elections, and in this context,
the question arrived to Rabbi Kook. If You want to delve into elections, here.

Student: They've approached him despite knowing he was a Zionist?
R. Cherki: Rabbi Kook was a Zionist, correct, then let's say he's biased.
Despite that, those who approached him knew he was a Zionist,
but they trusted his greatness in Torah to rule on this issue.

Student: The rabbi who approached him was Zionist or anti-Zionist?
R.Cherki: Rabbi Brody approached him, You have to understand that in those days,
the public differentiation between the Haredi and the Zionist wasn't as clear as it is today.
Also today, by the way, it's not fully clear. But in the days of Rabbi Kook, the public was relatively united, the Orthodox public. Even if it had different positions relating Zionism.

Understood? Well, by the way, till this very day, among the real greatest of Israel,
meaning those on the front-line of the study, these divisions don't exist.
Rather they judge each issue case by case.

What is the problem? Something unclear?
Alright, I'm going to read the answer of Rabbi Kook –

"After I've examined the letter of his respectful Torah, I haven't found any basis to the appeal of the rabbi undermining proportional elections."

Meaning the Rabbi says, those who want proportional elections are right.

Yes, what can be the argument against proportional elections?

That Torah said in everything, "lean after the majority", meaning if the majority says something why are You considering the minority? Why give representation to the minority opinion? After all in court You don't say this. Nevertheless today in the High Civil Court it's accepted that if one of the sides is in the minority, then they publish also the opinion of the minority, who and said what. According to Halachah this is forbidden, when the court publishes the decision, it is said in the name of all the judges.

Student: As the jury in the US.
R. Cherki: This is how it is? Right,
though the jury institute is problematic from a Halachic position.
Student: Is it because they're men and women?
R. Cherki: No, men and women isn't terrible, because since they've accepted upon themselves, they've accepted. The problem is these people are not qualified to judge,
what do they understand about it.

Alright.

"After I've examined the letter of his respectful Torah, I haven't found any basis to the appeal of the rabbi undermining proportional elections. Since they've been done according to the agreement of the majority of the public".

Pay attention to the argumentation, the argument is – although the minority has to follow the majority opinion, "lean after the majority", but if the majority agreed to give representation to a minority, then it's also the majority opinion.

Clear? Therefore it's acceptable also according to the principle of "lean after the majority".

By the way, where did we see that "lean after the majority" was said in public laws?
In Gmara it appears in - the laws of judges. In the court we have a principle, that
the majority of judges decide the ruling. Where did You find that it's also for
the public, where is it written in Gmara?

Student: They establish a King upon themselves.
R. Cherki: But where is it written that it's by the majority?

It's not written in Gmara, but it's written in the answers of HaRosh, Rabbi Asher ben Yhiel, he was asked about Public Regulations ('Takanot HaTzibur'). Let's say the public decided to make whatever regulation, and there's a part of the public that opposes the regulation, and while the majority is making the regulation there're in the public who say they don't accept. Can they not accept the public regulation? And to this HaRosh answers, "that Torah said in all her ways to lean after majority". This is one of the Halachic sources for the Democratic regime. Meaning, in a Democratic regime we follow the majority against the minority opinion. And the basis for this is the answer of HaRoch, not the only source, there're several more.

Student: We've seen many public regulations that were not accepted,
neither by the majority and were cancelled. Like the ban of Rabbenu Gershom.
R. Cherki: I don't understand Your question. We've seen regulations that what?
Student: The ban of Rabbenu Gershom, for example, not to marry two wives.
R. Cherki: There's the regulation of Rabbenu Gershom not to marry to wives, so what then?
Student: Not all the public accepted it, the majority accepted.
R. Cherki: The majority accepted, and You say the minority didn't accept.
Student: Correct, the majority accepted but not to charge with the ban.

R. Cherki: Correct. You're asking therefore, if the majority of the nation of Israel accepted the ban of Rabbenu Gershom, then we had supposedly to charge the minority? Correct. The answer – the ban of Rabbenu Gershom is a territorial ban, meaning it applies to places. For example, if a Jew resides in a country in which they didn't accept the ban …let's say he's in Morocco, in Morocco they didn't accept the ban of Rabbenu Gershom. And he goes to reside in Ashcnaz – can he merry a second wife? The answer is no, it's territorial, meaning the regulations are according to the places, according to the communities.

Student: Sephardi communities in Italy, France and Greece accepted the ban.
R. Cherki: No, of course not. The Sephardi communities in Holland, England, Italy and alike didn't accept upon themselves the ban of Rabbenu Gershom.
Student: Then it's not territorial.

R. Cherk: Of course it's territorial, territorial meaning in the community, it's not territorial from a geographic perspective, rather communal. Therefore today in the state of Israel, despite having a mixture of Sepharadim and Ashcnazim, each keep the traditions of their forefathers because he belongs to a certain community. But it's clear that if one migrates from community to community, he changes his customs, it's simple, and his rulings.

Now, regarding what You're saying historically, that the ban of Rabbenu Gershom was accepted by the majority, historically it's neither correct. Because in the days of Rabbenu Gershom the Jews of Ashcnaz were a minority of the nation, 90% of the nation then was,
what we would define Sephardi.

Student: Then if one in Ashcnaz chooses to follow Sephardi customs, violating a prohibition?
R. Cherki: Of course, he isn't to violate the customs of his forefathers, only if he completely moves to a community which is entirely like that. For example, if You’re Ashcnazi moving to a place everybody are Sephardim, the community, the Rabbi is Sephardi etc., then You turn to Sephardi, if otherwise You continue with the customs of Your forefathers.


Student: How then from 10% the Jewish community of Ashcnaz changed into the majority?
R. Cherki: Think about it, think. The demographic change occurred after the Spanish expulsion. Essentially the change happened in the 18th century.
Student: A dramatic change.
R. Cherki: Yes, a very dramatic change. In the 18th century Eastern Europe, there almost wasn't a family without at least 10 children. It changed in a very short period, which brought to this demographic shift. In the state of Israel it's different, the majority of the public is Sephardic compared to how it is globally, that the majority are Ashcnazi.
Student: But because the public was Sephardic then…
R. Cherki: Alright, now we're not at demographics lesson, we want to learn the answer of Rabbi Kook, regarding proportional elections. May I? Thanks, well…

So the Rabbi says –

"since the elections were done with agreement of the majority of the public"
meaning, the majority accepted proportional elections, therefore it's abiding.

"And after all, even if it was against the law of Torah to "lean after the majority", and according to the opinion of the mentioned rabbi".

That rabbi probably argued according to the opinion of HaRosh, the 6th principle,
8th answer if I'm not wrong, either the 6th or the 8th…alright.

"After all it's a simple rule, that the public can 'carry their ends' when it's not conditioned by majority agreement, also in issues that are not according to Torah law, as clarified in the question in Bava Batra p.8b, in the Tanaic verse that "the people of the city are allowed to condition the measurements and prices".

What is it about? There is Braita (Tanaic text) and Tosefta on Bava Batra p.8b that the public,
the heads of the public can 'carry their ends', meaning to fine those who don't follow their regulations, also when it's against Torah law in monetary laws. If so, the public is
allowed to do such a thing.

"And the opinion of the arbiters there is that even a special party, as craftsmen of one craft, they have the force to regulate fines".

It can be dry cleaning shop owners, regulate among themselves, for example not to open on Tuesday evening. According to Hebrew law this is binding, and whoever violates it is fined, like the unions, not to break a strike and things alike.

"However",

there's certain reservation about this -

"However, when there's a person of authority, it requires agreement
from the most important person in the city, which is the city staff.

| Part a |

Watch the entire lesson in Hebrew -

 

[rylah]

Poll shows Religious Zionism party would soar if headed by Ben-Gvir​

A Channel 13 poll finds that if far-right MK Itamar Ben-Gvir takes the helm of the Religious Zionism party from current leader MK Bezalel Smotrich, the party will win 13 seats in the coming election, compared to a predicted 10 under Smotrich.

The extra three seats would shuffle the political map and give Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu 60 seats in his right-wing religious bloc of parties — still one short of a majority.

With Smotrich predicted to bring in just 10 seats, Netanyahu would have just 59 seats in his bloc, according to the poll. Netanyahu’s Likud would get 34 seats, followed by Yesh Atid with 22, Blue and White/New Hope 12, Religious Zionism 10, Shas 8, United Torah Judaism 7, the Joint List 6, Labor 6, Yisrael Beytenu 6, Meretz 5, and Ra’am 4.

Poll shows Religious Zionism party would soar if headed by Ben-Gvir

* * *

www.timesofisrael.com

Poll: Likud 34, Yesh Atid 22, Yamina 0

Real time news brief - Poll: Likud 34, Yesh Atid 22, Yamina 0 - Israel National News flashes around the clock are waiting for you on the site

www.israelnationalnews.com

 

[rylah]

5 Elections, 3 Years: Inside Israel's Parliament​

In the early days of establishment, the young Zionist leaders knew that building a consensus was crucial for building Israel. However, each representative debated over how to establish a governmental system...

What Life Is Like On An Israeli Kibbutz | Zionism Revisited | Unpacked​

In 1909 when young Jews founded the first Kibbutz, they had no idea that they would be forming a symbol of Israel’s rebirth. These agricultural communities innovated the communal experience as an experiment in Democratic Socialism.

Jews from all over the world came to Israel in an attempt to find their identity and participate in advancing the country agriculturally, industrially and socially. Over time, as individualism grew, kibbutzim have changed and adapted in order to thrive and yet, the kibbutz movement will forever be known for shaping Israel as it is today.

 

[rylah]

Israel elections: Both blocs still fail to form a coalition - poll

The results of the latest poll leave Netanyahu's bloc with 60 seats and the opposing bloc with either 54 or 53 seats.

www.jpost.com

Israel Elections: Yamina to launch official campaign this week

Agreements with Hendel, Hauser and Kahana will likely be reached by the launch of the campaign, a source in Yamina said.

www.jpost.com

100 days to elections: Itamar Ben-Gvir seeking full merger with Smotrich's party

Religious Zionism party is riding high in polls, but significant gaps delay agreement.

www.israelnationalnews.com

 

[Indeependent]

Israel does not have a constitution.

 

[rylah]

What is the validity of Democratic elections according to the Torah?
The value of minority opinion against "to lean after the majority

| Part a |

Today we'll deal with Rabbi Kook's answer on a Halachic subject,
which is as the end of the book 'Orah Mishpat (Way of Law) by Rabbi Kook.

The discussion at the time occupied the state of Czechoslovakia. In the day Rabbi Kook the state of Czechoslovakia was strong, complete, and there has risen a discussion, essentially the President at the time, I think it was Masaryk, approached Rabbi Kook with a Halachic question.

Because there was an argument in the institutions of the Jewish community in Czechoslovakia, whether to do proportional or majority elections etc.

Student: When was that?
R. Cherki: This was in the 1930's, which year exactly I don't know.
And why did they approach Rabbi Kook, because among the rabbis there, they couldn't get along – regarding Democracy Halachah. It was essentially, almost for the first time that Jews had representation in the full meaning of the word. Then the President of Czechoslovakia approached the Rabbi of Prague, who said he should ask the greatest sages of Israel. The President ask whom, he told him Rabbi Kook, he is in Palestina ask him.
Here we have the answer of Rabbi Kook.

Student: What was the status of Rabbi Kook at the time?
R. Cherki: Rabbi Kook was the Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael.
They've established then the Chief Rabbinate in cooperation with the British Mandate.

Student: He was already known…
R. Cherki: Yes, he was essentially regarded, we can say the greatest of the generation, something of this kind. Meaning he was one of the most important rabbis in the world,
and of course in Eretz Yisrael he was considered Mara D'Atra (Master of the Place).

Although there was established at the time an organization somewhat contestant to the Chief Rabbinate of Eretz Yisrael, as it was called then, there was no state of Israel yet.
This organization is the Bdt"z, and…

Student: They didn't understand what he was saying?
R. Cherki: It depends, in matters of faith they didn't understand what he said, in matters
of Halachah (Hebrew Law) they knew he was the greatest, they knew he was THE greatest.

Now, this is in the Q&A compilation 'Orah Mishpat' by Rabbi Kook, the answer in the Laws of Judges, the 2nd answer. A bit long answer, and the Rabbi brings here various evidence from different sides, so let's see…the Rabbi Brody of Prague, this is the Chief Rabbi of Prague, who approached Rabbi Kook in the name of the President of Czechoslovakia.

The specific year isn't written, it's a bit of a problem, but I assume it's the end of 1930's, meaning the latter days of Rabbi Kook.

We need to understand the context of the question. In Slovakia there were various types of Jews, there were Orthodox Jews, Reform Jews, there were anti-Zionist Jews holding a strong position, and there were Zionist Jews.

Since the anti-Zionist Jews were the majority, they opposed the Zionist minority representation in the name of the Jewish Committee. While the Zionist minority
demanded proportional representation, proportional elections.

The state was in favor of proportional elections, and in this context,
the question arrived to Rabbi Kook. If You want to delve into elections, here.

Student: They've approached him despite knowing he was a Zionist?
R. Cherki: Rabbi Kook was a Zionist, correct, then let's say he's biased.
Despite that, those who approached him knew he was a Zionist,
but they trusted his greatness in Torah to rule on this issue.

Student: The rabbi who approached him was Zionist or anti-Zionist?
R.Cherki: Rabbi Brody approached him, You have to understand that in those days,
the public differentiation between the Haredi and the Zionist wasn't as clear as it is today.
Also today, by the way, it's not fully clear. But in the days of Rabbi Kook, the public was relatively united, the Orthodox public. Even if it had different positions relating Zionism.

Understood? Well, by the way, till this very day, among the real greatest of Israel,
meaning those on the front-line of the study, these divisions don't exist.
Rather they judge each issue case by case.

What is the problem? Something unclear?
Alright, I'm going to read the answer of Rabbi Kook –

Meaning the Rabbi says, those who want proportional elections are right.
Yes, what can be the argument against proportional elections?

That Torah said in everything, "lean after the majority", meaning if the majority says something why are You considering the minority? Why give representation to the minority opinion? After all in court You don't say this. Nevertheless today in the High Civil Court it's accepted that if one of the sides is in the minority, then they publish also the opinion of the minority, who and said what. According to Halachah this is forbidden, when the court publishes the decision, it is said in the name of all the judges.

Student: As the jury in the US.
R. Cherki: This is how it is? Right,
though the jury institute is problematic from a Halachic position.
Student: Is it because they're men and women?
R. Cherki: No, men and women isn't terrible, because since they've accepted upon themselves, they've accepted. The problem is these people are not qualified to judge,
what do they understand about it.

Alright.

Pay attention to the argumentation, the argument is – although the minority has to follow the majority opinion, "lean after the majority", but if the majority agreed to give representation to a minority, then it's also the majority opinion.

Clear? Therefore it's acceptable also according to the principle of "lean after the majority".

By the way, where did we see that "lean after the majority" was said in public laws?
In Gmara it appears in - the laws of judges. In the court we have a principle, that
the majority of judges decide the ruling. Where did You find that it's also for
the public, where is it written in Gmara?

Student: They establish a King upon themselves.
R. Cherki: But where is it written that it's by the majority?

It's not written in Gmara, but it's written in the answers of HaRosh, Rabbi Asher ben Yhiel, he was asked about Public Regulations ('Takanot HaTzibur'). Let's say the public decided to make whatever regulation, and there's a part of the public that opposes the regulation, and while the majority is making the regulation there're in the public who say they don't accept. Can they not accept the public regulation? And to this HaRosh answers, "that Torah said in all her ways to lean after majority". This is one of the Halachic sources for the Democratic regime. Meaning, in a Democratic regime we follow the majority against the minority opinion. And the basis for this is the answer of HaRoch, not the only source, there're several more.

Student: We've seen many public regulations that were not accepted,
neither by the majority and were cancelled. Like the ban of Rabbenu Gershom.
R. Cherki: I don't understand Your question. We've seen regulations that what?
Student: The ban of Rabbenu Gershom, for example, not to marry two wives.
R. Cherki: There's the regulation of Rabbenu Gershom not to marry to wives, so what then?
Student: Not all the public accepted it, the majority accepted.
R. Cherki: The majority accepted, and You say the minority didn't accept.
Student: Correct, the majority accepted but not to charge with the ban.

R. Cherki: Correct. You're asking therefore, if the majority of the nation of Israel accepted the ban of Rabbenu Gershom, then we had supposedly to charge the minority? Correct. The answer – the ban of Rabbenu Gershom is a territorial ban, meaning it applies to places. For example, if a Jew resides in a country in which they didn't accept the ban …let's say he's in Morocco, in Morocco they didn't accept the ban of Rabbenu Gershom. And he goes to reside in Ashcnaz – can he merry a second wife? The answer is no, it's territorial, meaning the regulations are according to the places, according to the communities.

Student: Sephardi communities in Italy, France and Greece accepted the ban.
R. Cherki: No, of course not. The Sephardi communities in Holland, England, Italy and alike didn't accept upon themselves the ban of Rabbenu Gershom.
Student: Then it's not territorial.

R. Cherk: Of course it's territorial, territorial meaning in the community, it's not territorial from a geographic perspective, rather communal. Therefore today in the state of Israel, despite having a mixture of Sepharadim and Ashcnazim, each keep the traditions of their forefathers because he belongs to a certain community. But it's clear that if one migrates from community to community, he changes his customs, it's simple, and his rulings.

Now, regarding what You're saying historically, that the ban of Rabbenu Gershom was accepted by the majority, historically it's neither correct. Because in the days of Rabbenu Gershom the Jews of Ashcnaz were a minority of the nation, 90% of the nation then was,
what we would define Sephardi.

Student: Then if one in Ashcnaz chooses to follow Sephardi customs, violating a prohibition?
R. Cherki: Of course, he isn't to violate the customs of his forefathers, only if he completely moves to a community which is entirely like that. For example, if You’re Ashcnazi moving to a place everybody are Sephardim, the community, the Rabbi is Sephardi etc., then You turn to Sephardi, if otherwise You continue with the customs of Your forefathers.

Student: How then from 10% the Jewish community of Ashcnaz changed into the majority?
R. Cherki: Think about it, think. The demographic change occurred after the Spanish expulsion. Essentially the change happened in the 18th century.
Student: A dramatic change.
R. Cherki: Yes, a very dramatic change. In the 18th century Eastern Europe, there almost wasn't a family without at least 10 children. It changed in a very short period, which brought to this demographic shift. In the state of Israel it's different, the majority of the public is Sephardic compared to how it is globally, that the majority are Ashcnazi.
Student: But because the public was Sephardic then…
R. Cherki: Alright, now we're not at demographics lesson, we want to learn the answer of Rabbi Kook, regarding proportional elections. May I? Thanks, well…

So the Rabbi says –

"since the elections were done with agreement of the majority of the public"
meaning, the majority accepted proportional elections, therefore it's abiding.

That rabbi probably argued according to the opinion of HaRosh, the 6th principle,
8th answer if I'm not wrong, either the 6th or the 8th…alright.

What is it about? There is Braita (Tanaic text) and Tosefta on Bava Batra p.8b that the public,
the heads of the public can 'carry their ends', meaning to fine those who don't follow their regulations, also when it's against Torah law in monetary laws. If so, the public is
allowed to do such a thing.

It can be dry cleaning shop owners, regulate among themselves, for example not to open on Tuesday evening. According to Hebrew law this is binding, and whoever violates it is fined, like the unions, not to break a strike and things alike.

"However",

there's certain reservation about this -


| Part a |

Watch the entire lesson in Hebrew -

What is the validity of Democratic elections according to the Torah?
The value of minority opinion, source of authority and arbitrary

(Part b)

Where does this idea of a person of importance come from? That there's need to ask an important person? Where did we find a governmental authority given to a special personality?

Student: Reish Galuta?
R. Cherki: Reish Galuta (Exiliarch) isn't the same, Reish Galuta is a king.
Student: There are 2 Reish Galuta.
R. Cherki: What does it mean?
Student: There's one like a kind, and one who deals more with the community.
R. Cherki: I didn't hear about that, but in any way the Exiliarch is a king, he's isn't the most important person. There can be a stupid Exiliarch, he has authority. When saying 'an important person' means moral authority. That if such a person is present, we should ask him about everything. Where did we find this? Essentially, from the prophets.

The prophet has ruling authority, as to say he can instruct the king, sometimes to do different than the laws of the kingdom. He can even instruct the Sanhedrin to do different from the laws of the Sanhedrin, the laws of Torah.

Also here, is remnant of his, what is called an 'important person'.

"And the need to ask an important person, is when there is an important person. The arbiters have already written, according to the opinion of the Rema, in Hoshen Mishpat, end of article 231, that this is specifically in place there a loss to others, the Hagra wrote there in his clarifications, that the purpose is to exclude capital that requires important judgment. But in the rest of the regulations, they regulate what they want according to their agreement".

What the Rabbi says, is that even if we said this wasn't according to law of Torah, according to the opinion of the opposing Rabbi, but eventually the people of the city have authority to make regulations.

Student: What Rabbi Kook says apparently looks dangerous for Democracy, because if the majority wants to crush the minority, it has its right.
R. Cherki: I don't understand what You're saying, Rabbi Kook says the complete opposite.
Rabbi Kook argues, that although the majority can crush the minority, if it chooses not to crush the minority, it has its right.
Student: If the majority decides to crush the minority?
R. Cherki: If they chose so, then it's no longer a Liberal regime, rather Tyranny of the majority. This exists as well, there're many regimes in the world. There's even Dictatorship in which one person decides for everyone, there's also such a thing.

Is Dictatorship illegitimate according to Democracy?

Student: Yes it's not…
R. Cherki: Of course it's legitimate. Let's say there's a Democratic state, which signs agreements with a Dictatorship. Are these agreements invalid according to Democratic elections?
Student: Why would it be relevant?
R. Cherki: Why? Because whoever decided there in a Dictatorship was a single person, and against the majority opinion.
Student: Let's say there's a revolution.
R. Cherki: But there still hasn't been a revolution. I'll tell You even more, You know that in the US, there was a period during which in the North the law forbade slavery, and in the South the law allowed slavery. Right?

And there was an occasion of a slave who escaped to the Northern states, and the court extradited to the Southern states – because of ownership laws, there was a decision that it was impossible to hurt the right to property. Despite this right to property didn't exist according to the North, but the North didn't rule that that right didn't exist.

Therefore I'm saying, the existence of various types of regimes in the world, we know this this isn't new.

Student: A person living in Democracy might tire out the minority rights, the representative right of the minority, because the minority also must have representation.

R. Cherki: The decision to grant minority rights is a decision, if it wasn't taken, then it wasn't. Very simple, meaning the Rabbi doesn't say that proportional elections is a natural right, like those who wanted to claim so, it's not a natural right, it's a legal right, either granted or not.

Here You're asking a more fundamental question about the philosophy of law – what is the source of authority of the regimes? This, already is something complicated.

Maybe we get into this question later – the authority source of a regime, the regime tells me to do something, but was I asked? According to what authority? This a question discussed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He has a book 'The Social Contract", a wonderful book – all of it is fictional, but it is wonderful. What is his fundamental assumption? That there's sort of social contract, meaning that all the variety of the state subjects, agreed to give up on their willpower for the state.

Ok? The bearing question is when was that?

Student: Who is the state?
R. Cherki: Who is the state, which is itself sort of fiction, and when did it happen that they've decided that? It's a fiction, but this fiction works, all the legal system and the political system is built on this fiction. Maybe we should have a lesson on what Torah says on this, where it really comes from.

Alright – "and truly from this law, that craftsmen in their craft, their standing is that of all the city residents on matter of 'to carry their ends'"

they have a right to issue fines,

"there's a big side to proportional elections."

Meaning the Rabbi says this isn't absolute proof, but it supports the idea.

"That indeed, the parties each have some unique interest in which they specialize, and their law is as that of the craftsmen".

What is a party, there's a party that supports a specific agenda, specific social status, specific community and alike. If so it's similar to craftsmen, since craftsmen too have an interest uniting them.

Once someone told me that elections were forbidden by Hebrew law, because of the prohibition "you shall not divide" (Devarim 14:1), not to divide into groups, but we see there are groups, what do I do…

"this explanation allows, that if all craftsmen can 'carry their end' as the way of all the city residents, it's required their conduct in the order of elections as well, as the city residents"

Meaning, how did all the dry clean shop owners reach a decision? They have some committee, how is this committee run? According to elections.

"If several cities were gathering for a common public issue, certainly impossible differently, whether by sending representatives, or elected, from each city according to their number value. And this is the law for all the city's craftsmen, and parties resembling craftsmen as written".

"And the very implication that those elected from one part can't be among the leaders of the majority that didn't choose them…"

Here's an argument according to a hypothesis - I didn't choose You, then why are You telling me what to do? Let's say I get an order from the minister of transportation… should check whether the minister of transportation was from the party I've chosen or not. If he is from my party then I do what he says, if he isn't then no?

This is the argument of that mistaken, so the Rabbi says –

"It's unfounded, according to the first choice of the Judges of Israel, the 70 elders, as said in the question in tractate Sanhedrin, that 6 were chosen from each tribe"

How were the 70 nobles chosen of the elders of Israel? They took 6 from each tribe, how many tribes?

Student: 12
R.Cherki: 12*6=?
Student: 72
R.Cherki: Aahhh…so there're 2 who went out, right?

They made notes there, and took out Eldad and Meidad. When they've chosen 6 from each tribe, there were 6 from the tribe of Naftali – can a person from the tribe of Reuven argue he can't be judged before a sage in the Sanhedrin, because he's from the tribe of Naftali?

Of course it doesn't work, right?

"And then all together judged the entire public. Actually similar to the proportional election, each part of the signified public, in any unique interest, chooses his proxies, and later together lead the general public. And from the said on the question in the Babylonian Talmud, and the Jerusalemite Talmud on that question, proven even more, that it was a simple that they had to choose from each tribe, and it wasn't even according to proportion, they didn't subtract from the smallest tribe, neither prefer to sit with those large in number".

Why did You take 6 from each tribe, for example the tribe of Yehudah, was a tribe with a lot of population, unlike the tribe of Binyamin, which was a tribe of small population. So why take 6 from Yehudah and 6 from Binyamin? Take 7 from Yehudah and 5 from Binyamin!

And despite that no one bothered.

"Maybe all that was according to the Speech, anyway we see that this is the measure of Torah - to choose the appointed from each formal part of the public, then return together, all the representatives and lead the entire public."

R. Cherki: Alright? That's what the Rabbi brings regarding this matter.

"And the matter fits the way of Torah that it's a commandment to sit and judge his tribe, as it's brought in Sanhedrin 16b".

What is this commandment to sit and judge his tribe? That they establish Sanhedrin for their tribes. Let's say I live in the tribal lot of Dan, for example, and I go to the local Sanhedrin of the tribe of Dan. If I'm from Binyamin, I go to the Sanhedrin of Binyamin.

Student: This is the reason that they were charged with annihilation, because they didn't judge their tribe?
R. Cherki: Correct, why did the entire tribe of Binyamin was charged with annihilation? Because they didn't agree to judge their own tribe, the Sanhedrin of Binyamin had to judge the criminals at the hill, and they didn't.
Student: They agreed, didn't agree to turn them to all Israel.
R. Cherki: No they didn't agree to judge them.
Student: The nation of Israel demanded they were turned over at the beginning, to judge them?
R. Cherki: No, the tribes of Israel demanded Binyamin to judge them, and they protected them. Because they protected them, they demanded to turn them over. May his honor look in the book of Judges, and pleasant will be to him the words.

"And the commandment to establish judges, and especially judges for each tribe, as written there in Tosfot from the word 'judges'. That even if there're of two tribes in one city, they establish two Sanhedrin courts. However if this was in reality, depends on the following argument 111b when two tribes share a city. But anyway we see the opinion of Torah, anytime there's a side of an argument between the people, impossible to deprive them of their rights that they won't charge a representative. More so, when they agree to unite under one leadership, impossible to loose for the love of peace and unity from their side. Regarding the matter of peace, the public opinion will certainly trust, only they need a representative from them in the general leadership, and this is according to the law of ZBL"E in matters of individuals."

R.Cherki: Meaning, also in ZBL"E You accept the authority of all the judges – right?

"As said there, 'when this one has one burning, and another has one burning, the judgment was truly revealed', Rashi comments – that the sides in the court will agree".

R.Cherki: Now, I can't without expressing my grave disappointment, I'm convinced that among those listening in this classroom, there's a suspicion that they don't know what is ZBL "E, and they didn't care to ask. What do I teach Torah for? So that You just sit politely? Ha?

Everyone knows, alright. What is ZBL"E?

Student: Rabbi what is ZBL"E?
R. Cherki: Why didn't You ask earlier?
Student: You were in the middle of a sentence.
R. Cherki: Ahh…ZBL"E is an abbreviation - 'Zeh' this, 'Borer' chooses, 'Lo' for him, 'Ehad' one.

This is what's called the laws of arbitration, when people don't want to go to the formal court, they want sort of arbiter. How is the arbiter made? This one selects one, another selects one, each of both sides chose one judge. And both of them choose the third. Who are 'both of them', this is an argument, either both litigants choose the third judge in agreement, or the two judges select themselves a third judge, in agreement. This is called a Court of ZBL"E.

The litigants won't say they only listen to the judged they've chosen, rather listen to all the judges together. So this is another evidence.

"That the guilty assumes, I myself have chosen one, could he turn in my favor, he would. And the judges themselves prefer to turn to the favor of each, because they both have selected. And if this is a fine way in personal matters, to chase the ways of truth and peace, through that each has a representative from his side, more so in public matters, the public wellbeing in general, that we have no more desired way, but for each party to be appeased by knowing it has a representative, who turns in their favor in public leadership – a thing which is impossible without the proportional elections".

Meanwhile the Rabbi says, all the discussion is that it's actually
the way of Torah that there should be proportional elections.

However there's still the claim of the rabbi who claims it's
against the Torah law of "lean towards the majority".

| Part b |

 

[rylah]

 

[rylah]

Israel does not have a constitution.

In the process.
Today the main question is of the extent of the
highest authority in the state. Maybe a constitutional court...

The PM position neither functional anymore, what do You think
about both civil and constitutional courts alongside the Sanhedrin?

 

[Indeependent]

In the process, don't You see today's the main question is of the extent
of the highest authority in state. Maybe a constitutional court...

The PM position neither functional anymore,
what do You think about a having both civil,
constitutional courts alongside Sanhedrin?

I have been informed by people I trust that many rabbaim in Israel are politically motivated.
It's a sad state of affairs.

 

[rylah]

I have been informed by people I trust that many rabbaim in Israel are politically motivated.
It's a sad state of affairs.

I'd be more concerned if they weren't.
It's like Rabbi Cherki said, the merit of this generation
is we have become desperate with just about everything.

"Hunger on earth not for bread, and not thirst for water, but to hear..." 'Amos

 

[rylah]

What is the validity of Democratic elections according to the Torah?
The value of minority opinion, source of authority and arbitrary

(Part b)

Where does this idea of a person of importance come from? That there's need to ask an important person? Where did we find a governmental authority given to a special personality?

Student: Reish Galuta?
R. Cherki: Reish Galuta (Exiliarch) isn't the same, Reish Galuta is a king.
Student: There are 2 Reish Galuta.
R. Cherki: What does it mean?
Student: There's one like a kind, and one who deals more with the community.
R. Cherki: I didn't hear about that, but in any way the Exiliarch is a king, he's isn't the most important person. There can be a stupid Exiliarch, he has authority. When saying 'an important person' means moral authority. That if such a person is present, we should ask him about everything. Where did we find this? Essentially, from the prophets.

The prophet has ruling authority, as to say he can instruct the king, sometimes to do different than the laws of the kingdom. He can even instruct the Sanhedrin to do different from the laws of the Sanhedrin, the laws of Torah.

Also here, is remnant of his, what is called an 'important person'.

What the Rabbi says, is that even if we said this wasn't according to law of Torah, according to the opinion of the opposing Rabbi, but eventually the people of the city have authority to make regulations.

Student: What Rabbi Kook says apparently looks dangerous for Democracy, because if the majority wants to crush the minority, it has its right.
R. Cherki: I don't understand what You're saying, Rabbi Kook says the complete opposite.
Rabbi Kook argues, that although the majority can crush the minority, if it chooses not to crush the minority, it has its right.
Student: If the majority decides to crush the minority?
R. Cherki: If they chose so, then it's no longer a Liberal regime, rather Tyranny of the majority. This exists as well, there're many regimes in the world. There's even Dictatorship in which one person decides for everyone, there's also such a thing.

Is Dictatorship illegitimate according to Democracy?

Student: Yes it's not…
R. Cherki: Of course it's legitimate. Let's say there's a Democratic state, which signs agreements with a Dictatorship. Are these agreements invalid according to Democratic elections?
Student: Why would it be relevant?
R. Cherki: Why? Because whoever decided there in a Dictatorship was a single person, and against the majority opinion.
Student: Let's say there's a revolution.
R. Cherki: But there still hasn't been a revolution. I'll tell You even more, You know that in the US, there was a period during which in the North the law forbade slavery, and in the South the law allowed slavery. Right?

And there was an occasion of a slave who escaped to the Northern states, and the court extradited to the Southern states – because of ownership laws, there was a decision that it was impossible to hurt the right to property. Despite this right to property didn't exist according to the North, but the North didn't rule that that right didn't exist.

Therefore I'm saying, the existence of various types of regimes in the world, we know this this isn't new.

Student: A person living in Democracy might tire out the minority rights, the representative right of the minority, because the minority also must have representation.

R. Cherki: The decision to grant minority rights is a decision, if it wasn't taken, then it wasn't. Very simple, meaning the Rabbi doesn't say that proportional elections is a natural right, like those who wanted to claim so, it's not a natural right, it's a legal right, either granted or not.

Here You're asking a more fundamental question about the philosophy of law – what is the source of authority of the regimes? This, already is something complicated.

Maybe we get into this question later – the authority source of a regime, the regime tells me to do something, but was I asked? According to what authority? This a question discussed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He has a book 'The Social Contract", a wonderful book – all of it is fictional, but it is wonderful. What is his fundamental assumption? That there's sort of social contract, meaning that all the variety of the state subjects, agreed to give up on their willpower for the state.

Ok? The bearing question is when was that?

Student: Who is the state?
R. Cherki: Who is the state, which is itself sort of fiction, and when did it happen that they've decided that? It's a fiction, but this fiction works, all the legal system and the political system is built on this fiction. Maybe we should have a lesson on what Torah says on this, where it really comes from.

Alright – "and truly from this law, that craftsmen in their craft, their standing is that of all the city residents on matter of 'to carry their ends'"

they have a right to issue fines,

Meaning the Rabbi says this isn't absolute proof, but it supports the idea.

What is a party, there's a party that supports a specific agenda, specific social status, specific community and alike. If so it's similar to craftsmen, since craftsmen too have an interest uniting them.

Once someone told me that elections were forbidden by Hebrew law, because of the prohibition "you shall not divide" (Devarim 14:1), not to divide into groups, but we see there are groups, what do I do…

Meaning, how did all the dry clean shop owners reach a decision? They have some committee, how is this committee run? According to elections.

Here's an argument according to a hypothesis - I didn't choose You, then why are You telling me what to do? Let's say I get an order from the minister of transportation… should check whether the minister of transportation was from the party I've chosen or not. If he is from my party then I do what he says, if he isn't then no?

This is the argument of that mistaken, so the Rabbi says –



How were the 70 nobles chosen of the elders of Israel? They took 6 from each tribe, how many tribes?

Student: 12
R.Cherki: 12*6=?
Student: 72
R.Cherki: Aahhh…so there're 2 who went out, right?

They made notes there, and took out Eldad and Meidad. When they've chosen 6 from each tribe, there were 6 from the tribe of Naftali – can a person from the tribe of Reuven argue he can't be judged before a sage in the Sanhedrin, because he's from the tribe of Naftali?

Of course it doesn't work, right?

Why did You take 6 from each tribe, for example the tribe of Yehudah, was a tribe with a lot of population, unlike the tribe of Binyamin, which was a tribe of small population. So why take 6 from Yehudah and 6 from Binyamin? Take 7 from Yehudah and 5 from Binyamin!

And despite that no one bothered.

R. Cherki: Alright? That's what the Rabbi brings regarding this matter.

What is this commandment to sit and judge his tribe? That they establish Sanhedrin for their tribes. Let's say I live in the tribal lot of Dan, for example, and I go to the local Sanhedrin of the tribe of Dan. If I'm from Binyamin, I go to the Sanhedrin of Binyamin.

Student: This is the reason that they were charged with annihilation, because they didn't judge their tribe?
R. Cherki: Correct, why did the entire tribe of Binyamin was charged with annihilation? Because they didn't agree to judge their own tribe, the Sanhedrin of Binyamin had to judge the criminals at the hill, and they didn't.
Student: They agreed, didn't agree to turn them to all Israel.
R. Cherki: No they didn't agree to judge them.
Student: The nation of Israel demanded they were turned over at the beginning, to judge them?
R. Cherki: No, the tribes of Israel demanded Binyamin to judge them, and they protected them. Because they protected them, they demanded to turn them over. May his honor look in the book of Judges, and pleasant will be to him the words.

R.Cherki: Meaning, also in ZBL"E You accept the authority of all the judges – right?

R.Cherki: Now, I can't without expressing my grave disappointment, I'm convinced that among those listening in this classroom, there's a suspicion that they don't know what is ZBL "E, and they didn't care to ask. What do I teach Torah for? So that You just sit politely? Ha?

Everyone knows, alright. What is ZBL"E?

Student: Rabbi what is ZBL"E?
R. Cherki: Why didn't You ask earlier?
Student: You were in the middle of a sentence.
R. Cherki: Ahh…ZBL"E is an abbreviation - 'Zeh' this, 'Borer' chooses, 'Lo' for him, 'Ehad' one.

This is what's called the laws of arbitration, when people don't want to go to the formal court, they want sort of arbiter. How is the arbiter made? This one selects one, another selects one, each of both sides chose one judge. And both of them choose the third. Who are 'both of them', this is an argument, either both litigants choose the third judge in agreement, or the two judges select themselves a third judge, in agreement. This is called a Court of ZBL"E.

The litigants won't say they only listen to the judged they've chosen, rather listen to all the judges together. So this is another evidence.

Meanwhile the Rabbi says, all the discussion is that it's actually
the way of Torah that there should be proportional elections.

However there's still the claim of the rabbi who claims it's
against the Torah law of "lean towards the majority".

| Part b |

What is the validity of Democratic elections according to the Torah?
Public and State norms | Principles in Appointing Shared Authority

(Part c)

To this the Rabbi adds –

"Beside all that, it's not the place to say that the proportional election is against the Torah law of "lean towards the majority" by that the minority also has a side in the decision with their representatives on their part, according to their number. After all if they don’t fulfill the demands of the minority, all the minorities seeking to protect their needs will stand afar without gathering at all in the public gathering. Thus the rule of "lean towards the minority" won't bide them".

Because, what are You saying, who even charged the minority to join the majority? The majority will say we are establishing for ourselves our own parliament, what can You do against that? Can't do anything, unless You go to war.

"The arbiters already agreed that this isn't appropriate but when the majority represents all".

If the majority doesn't represent all, don't have to listen to them.

"Thus only then will be established among them the public power, in a way that will be appropriate to abide by "lean towards the majority". Specifically when the demand of the minority, divided among their aspects is fulfilled, is when they let their representatives to join the secret of the rulers. Only then they consciously join the public in general. Then after the addition everything is done according to the majority, or according to the regulations agreed upon publicly, regarding the ways of conduct in matters of disagreement. And it is entirely inappropriate to say it doesn't belong to Torah law".

Alright, shall I continue?

What?

Student: We've reached the middle of the answer.
R. Cherki: We've reached the middle of the answer, yes.
Student: There's a law or regulation that the sued goes to whatever court he wants.
R. Cherki: The sued goes to the court he wants – more or less yes, not absolutely.
Student: Then if in any place the court can rule excommunication, and the sued can go to another place.
R. Cherki: Can he say he goes to distant place?
Student: Yes.
R. Cherki: No, there has to be justification for that. He cannot in vain say he goes to the big court, and trouble the prosecutor drive and cancel work days etc. He cannot do this.
Student: Not the big court, let's say outside the city.
R. Cherki: Yes, there has to be justification. He can say he can't in that specific court because... he needs a probable reason.
Student: Who decides that?
R.Cherki: Who decides that…I don't know. Obviously he can't refuse a court because a judge has a crooked nose. But he can say a c judge is a relative of either sides, and then there's a concern, an argument that may be acceptable. Or there's hostility from one of the judges etc. This too requires evidence, not simply claim he's hostile, so what if he's hostile? Who told You he was hostile?

"There's no doubt that in interpersonal matters, to them forgiveness and compromise, either individually or publicly.

For example, according to law, whoever builds a balcony in public space, has such and such fine. What if the public decided to concede? It helps, there's use in that, and it has serious implications in Hebrew law. For example, a Noahide who robbed, what is his sentence?
He's killed. For robbing how much?

Student: Any amount.
R. Cherki: Any amount, even less than a penny worth, right? Meaning, a Noahide passes by a candy store, takes a candy, and owes death penalty – probable?

Student: Improbable.
R. Cherki: Improbable, but this is the law, what do You do about it? Only why does he owe a death penalty? Because they don't concede to him, but if they concede? Then it's not a robbery ruling. There's a general pardon to the public, how do I know? Because the public decided that in case of robbery there's such and such penalty and fines – it is instead, it is a public pardon, instead of the payment. Therefore we get that death penalty for a robber in Noahide laws is almost irrelevant.

Understood?

This is what the Rabbi says –

"There's no place to doubt that in all interpersonal matter forgiveness and concession are appropriate, whether individually or publically. And since this is the practice and the agreement that rose among them, that the elections should be according to proportion, to avoid division, which is actually Torah law, as was said similarly in Bava Mzi'aa 27b, 'Rava said, if You claim signs are not from Torah, how do we return a loss with signs?' And adds, 'that it's convenient to find a loss to return by signs' to the owner of the loss that way. Rashi explained, that all who lost something it's convenient to them that this is the law in Israel, to be returned their loss by signs. Despite that according to Torah it's impossible to return by signs, and thus on page 12, despite that according to Torah it's impossible to return by signs, and on page 12 the matter of 'themselves [the poor] it's convenient to them, that when they're employed as workers their children receive for them'. From that it's was done as if one who is not owed is as one who's owed, and this is not according to the rule of Torah".

The evidences brought by the Rabbi, several from tractate Bava Mzi'aa, that there's such a thing as "convenient to the public", to be enough to change economic rules.

Student: Can the public change the laws relating human to G-d?
R. Cherki: It depends, for a murderer not, right? It's written "You may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of a capital crime", then it's a special law for a murderer.
Student: Let's say there's public unrest, and easing circumstance etc.
R. Cherki: It's a wide subject, which I don't want to open.

"Here we have law regarding rules of states, which are not according to Torah law. As written in Bava Mzi'aa that guardians of fruits eat by the laws of the state by not according to Torah law".

A person guards fruits, You have a stand in the market, and You guard it for the owner of the stand. Can You while guarding take some fruit? According to Torah law it's forbidden, by state rules allowed, this what the Gmara says.

Student: Isn't this "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing"?
R. Cherki: No that's the gatherer in the field, when I go to gather crop I the field, Torah law is that I'm allowed to eat while gathering. But now it has already been gathered, it's on the stand in the market, my role is only to guard, let's say strawberries, something ahhhh…may I take or not? After all there're those who say strawberry is forbidden…but according to those who say strawberries are allowed for eating – then it's allowed. Why? It's not by Torah law, but by law of state regulation.

Because this is against our holy Torah, however this is total Torah law, because this is how it was practiced, more so when the public clearly agrees upon that.

And how much does it allow according to the way of Torah, for the representatives to be from each and every part of the general public, that have some difference of sort? And we shall not say that the majority alone will rule in all – we see from the rules of the service of the offerings".

So the Rabbi brings another evidence.

"We have repeated a whole study in Ta'anit 26a, which is from the simple side, that there's no personal offering being offered, and the person is not standing upon it. And thus regulated the services that shall be the proxies of all Yisrael".

Yes? Because according to Hebrew law, a human who's sacrifice is being offered… let's say I brought a Hattat offering to the Temple – where do I have to be during the offering?
After all it's not me servicing the offering, it's the priests - where can I be?
I have to be there!

I can't say, listen here I've sent the offering, take care of it, now Ito catch the sun on the shore. No, during them offering it for You, You have to be there.

Now the Tamid offering, that's being offered every evening, to whom does it belong?

Student: All Israel.
R. Cherki: All Israel, then all Israel have to be there.
Student: No they don't have to be there all.
R. Cherki: Why, because they have emissaries how are they called – standings. In all the nation of Israel, it's called people of standing, who's role is to be present, there're shifts, and they represent the general public.

"As the Rambam wrote, in laws of Temple vessels, that the people of standing to be Cohanim, Levytes, and Israelites. And it wasn't practiced to select from the majority alone".

Maybe the majority are Cohanim, or Levytes or Israelites?

"For the straight and good way is to give a hand and a name to all parts of the general public, in every matter of sanctity, and every order of general ruling. And such is the essence of the rule of the commandment of appointing Sanhedrin. Which in Sifri was said, it's a commandment for Cohanim and Levytes to be in the court. And it's simple that together with the Israelite fellows, who're according to the majority amount, requires to have Cohanim and Levytes, to be present in every part of the nation in the courts. From this we learn an example for a public representative, the arbiters wrote, their rule is as of a court in public matters".

After all the public representatives are as a court in public matters.

"That this is the correct measure, to be included in all parts that have unique characteristic of its own".

For example there're those who claim, that the Chief Rabbinate is not right, it's elected by secular people. Within the nomination committee, there're representatives of all the parties, including the secular parties. If so it cannot be that a Chief Rabbi is elected this way.

What is the answer?

That exactly this is how it has to be. If the Chief Rabbi was elected only by religious people, he wasn't a Chief Rabbi according to Hebrew court. Why? Because he isn't elected by the general public. "A caregiver isn't appointed to a public without asking the public first".

"Since we see that even in matters that are appropriate to be matter of general public, the craftsmen according to their crafts were divided as a public on their own. As in matter of caring for the poor, of course a common obligation, that the city residents force each other to give to charity with all the city residents, according to the language of the Rambam, laws of ch.9 'Laws of Gifts' sec.12. And in anyway, we've seen that in Alexandria of Egypt, all the craftsmen were on their own, as mentioned in tractate Succah 51b".

The synagogue in Alexandria was very big. According to Gmara it could accommodate 100,000's Jews, yes it might be an exaggeration, but anyway it was sort of stadium. And would they sit there? All group of craftsmen had each their place in the synagogue. The smiths in one place, the doctors in another etc. Why is it good?

"When a poor person enters there, he would recognize his fellow craftsmen, and from there would be his income and that of his family".

Someone poor would arrive, they ask his profession, cleaner, the cleaners are there and he takes charity there. Supposedly, what is this? If he's poor, all Israel must take care of him, why only his fellow craftsmen?

"Certainly if all these craftsmen wanted to participate in the charity, the rule would be that they had their own proxies.

Meaning, if You are obliging us to fund him, means that there's a craftsmen fund.

"As all the partners in one business, each gives of his own, that each is allowed to supervise his matters, he and his proxy. And such is the rule in public matters, since there's a possibility for those of various types to divide and become each public of their own. There's no doubt they'll have the right to demand to have representatives according to their amount.

We have already clarified a simple thing, that craftsmen aren't specific, but any members of a party, who have special interests that part them from the general public, they're similar to craftsmen. And the good and straight way is for them to have representatives in appointments, according to their amount.

And as the way of Torah to watch out for the will of the parts of the general public in appointment of elders, which is a general rule to learn from any way that there're divisions in the public, not to do injustice to one part if they say this part cancels out before the general majority. Thus we see in appointment of leaders for the division of the land, that Torah said – "one leader from a tribe". From this we learned for generations, regarding laws of emissaries and representation, as said in Kidushin 40b, in conclusion, from where do the orphans have standing to argue their father's property, that the court appoints them a caretaker? Regarding that was said – "one leader from a tribe you shall take"".

Meaning this law or division according to leaders during division of the land, from this we learn the law for generations.

From here, that the status of each part in the public is as of a partner, for it's inappropriate to say his part is cancelled in the general majority, and even in finance matters is not cancelled. And in the discussion in tractate Beizah 38b "person whose one portion of wheat got mixed in nine portions of his fellow, will eat joyfully?"

Meaning, say some part is cancelled by a majority, say a small part of my food got mixed in my fellow's food, so he can calmly eat mine because he has a majority? Of course not.

"Otherwise if not by this regulation of proportional elections, the matter can come to separation and fragmentation in the communities. Because it's simple, that if the minority isn't reconciled with, will establish a separate stage on itself. And according to law as well, it will neither be possible to protest it, because the essence of a public gathering, is their members are partners. If it was so that a part of the public has its own interests, which it cannot protect by totally cancelling out, without any proxy in the general leadership, then it is at loss, it's ruling is as that of a partner who shares meal against the will of his fellow, as brought in Bava Kama 116b. And to prevent such failures, we have no better or more straight way than - proportional elections.



The small,

Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Kook."

Student: He's an expert in elections.
R. Cherki: Well, in truth, the leaders of Israel have to be all around experts. Since this was a question in Hebrew law, he must know the foundation of the matter. Yes please…

Student: Do the laws of public elections include women?
R. Cherki: This is another question, who are the voters and who are the elected, correct? So…in the beginning of the 19th century, there began demands for representation of women in elections, all around the world, correct? Also among Israel. And during the British Mandate there were the representatives of the Jewish settlement in the land of Israel, it was called 'Knesset Israel'. The public which was mostly secular, wanted equality between men and women, and there were Rabbis who opposed. Among the opposition was Rabbi Kook, who opposed the election of women, that they're elected and that they're voting. There were rabbis who not only opposed but said it was forbidden! Rabbi Kook didn't say it was forbidden, only that he opposed. Why because he knew that according to Hebrew law it wasn't forbidden, but says "it's inappropriate according to the way of Judaism". That it will create tension in the family, and that the woman shouldn't deal with public matter, doesn't fit her etc. There were Rabbis who supported, for example Rabbi Ben Zion Meir Hai 'Uziel, who said there was no prevention for women also to vote.

What happened in reality?

Student: Men elected and women vote.

R. Cherki: Women are elected and women vote, right? What Rabbi Kook said? Well, if it's so, then we vote. Meaning the rule in practice, women vote and get elected, and it's totally fine according to Hebrew law, no problem.

Student: According to Hebrew law?

R. Cherki: Yes, I'm saying Hebrew law, the moment the public, Rabbi Kook didn't want it to be out of reasons of "Jewish ethics" let's say, "the spirit of Torah" and such things, but he didn't say it was forbidden according to Hebrew law.

Like for example shaving with an electric razor, there was one rabbi in the days of Rabbi Kook who wanted to write that it was forbidden. Rabbi Kook wrote that it was incorrect, despite that the way of Judaism, the holistic Jewish feeling is for there to be a beard, but the law is such and such, which is why he allowed.

Student: Today they elect judges, there're no women.
R. Cherki: Regarding law of a judge is a different matter. A judge cannot be a woman, this is a different matter, an individual law, but as public representatives it's different.

Student: That women are elected in religious parties, isn't that a phenomena of the recent decade? It wasn't before that.

R. Cherki: Yes, so what? Yes there're many things said "forbidden", it should be examined case by case, is it really forbidden. And there're things that said "allowed", should be examined how much is this "allowed" appropriate. You see this is not a simple story.

For example a question – can a woman put Tefilin? Can a woman or not?

Students:…!

R. Cherki: So there's a very interesting answer by Rabbi Mosheh Feinstein. He says, if she has, out of fear of heavens to put Tefilin, she can. But if she does so to show she also can, then forbidden.

Student: It's a provocation.
R. Cherki: Provocation, but if it's from fear of heaven, then apparently it won't be known, she'll do it modestly. Although there're those who wrote that it's forbidden according to "will not wear women's garments", such words the mind doesn't bear them, it contradicts clear Gmara discussions.Since it was examined that Michal put Tefilin, so it's impossible that it was reminded of as her character of kindness if it was a forbidden garment. Therefore whoever wrote that isn't right. But what is right, is what Rabbi Mosheh Feinstein says.

Student: But the smaller Talit and Talit, clearly "not wear".
R. Cherki: Talit? Why?

Student: Woman today will wear a Talit?
R. Cherki: Woman will wear a Talit…the question is this, if she puts Tzitzit on women's garment, with four corners, what do You say? There're women's garments with four corners.

Student: She will be laughed at.
R. Cherki: Maybe they'll laugh at her, as also a man puts Tzitzit being laughed at, what are these threads? Only because they got used to it, it's not an argument, it's not an argument.

Student: Despite that a woman is forbidden to wear a weapon according to "not wear"?
R.Cherki: A woman is forbidden to wear weapons because of "not wear", correct.

Student: So what about the Talit some wear at the Western Wall during Minhah?
R. Cherki: So You're saying the women at the Western Wall,
who wear Talit, it's a weapon...thus forbidden…

I'm certain, beyond any doubt that Your intention was a joke.

Good, till here for today!

 

[rylah]

Dr. Bin Nun on Democracy

Since there're at least 12 Monarchies in the west, that also happen to be on top of human development and implement the most progressive policies, - I think we agree there's no principle contradiction.

While when any form of Monarchy is brought up in context of the Middle East, the association is usually with Saudi Arabia, or even the likes of Iran.

But this is a false dichotomy, that only exists in lack of foreseeable alternative. And it would be crazy to to suggest that the alternative, is abandoning Democracy, because it served us fabulously. And neither the alternative, is striving for the other extreme by definition.

Rather the common Israeli expression - 'yallah bye', says it all, everything has its proper place. As You don't expect to eat a whole dinner meal with a spoon so (is) with Democracy. Israel is a bridge, not only geographically, between the West and the East.

Let me refer You to a recent controversial prime time address by Dr. Bin Nun,
on one of Israel's main TV channels, where he emphasized 4 points:

1. The problem is not individual to Israel, its universal.
2. Democracy has been hacked by shallow populism.
3. Only once intellectually abandoned, can we find alternatives.
4. Intellectual elites, academia, raise the issue to the center of public discourse.

This is a good example of how for lack of foreseeable alternative, one is stuck in populism, that prevents expression of ideas but in their most caricature manner, just to provoke for them some attention, ideas that otherwise, expressed clearly in the proper context of a fitting alternative, are mostly correct and true.

Despite this infantile approach to the complex challenge, it actually caught attention of a variety of experts from the academia, and immediately followed up with a more extensive discussion addressing the challenge at face value.

What Dr. Bin Nun did here was merely translate to most common 'secular street' language, what has been at the forefront of our collective (un)concious for decades.

Thus, as Dr. Bin Nun repeats, in contradiction to the shallow populism seen on the surface, in contradiction to all the irrational projection on the person of PM Netanyahu, it has nothing to do with the personal, with the man himself or whatever he does. Because of blind admiration among some of his voters, the undemocratic manner in which the minority opposition seeks to seize position, likely projecting onto him almost inhuman responsibility and and blame, along with cases about wine, cigars and decades back then even furniture... it's so trivial that it proves the opposite, nothing to do with the personal.

Rather the underlying fundamental question, is the nature and extent of the leadership position in the nation, in principle.

Spectrum and practical application

Let's examine the question on a spectrum, not as absolute terms,
there's mixture of nepotism and representation in every polity,
but to examine practical application -

Athens Direct Democracy - all policy is a referendum, on one end,
Tsarist Monarchy - ultimate nepotism by a reign of terror, as another extreme.

When measuring Representative Democracy on the spectrum, I see that result in practice is the worst of both extremes. As in what prof. Bin-Nun said, all Democracy is channeled into a choice of 1-3 individuals, to address a wide range of questions, and not being inquired about anything forth. While the representative You chose for the ultimate seat in the govt,
even if wanted, isn't allowed power to realize any long term policy by definition.

Therefore, and this is neither main nor the best reason for Parliamentary Monarchy,
but introducing the royal institute isn't change in citizen representation in the
government under Representative Democracy, effectively it's a diluted
Monarchy. However a Parliamentary Monarchy can practically allow
more elements of Direct Democracy.

Cantonization - local government

This is a move towards, integration of the Direct Democracy trajectory.
As states have district governments, in Israel the districts are the 12 tribal lots.
By giving more power to local governments without having a powerful authority,
introduces new levels to power struggle because the districts aren't self sufficient.

However by introducing elements of Direct Democracy on the district level,
not only each vote increases Democracy by 100% compared to now,
functionally citizenry serves as an advisory institute, a govt branch,
to ensure coordination in long term strategy, the very purpose of
the monarch in Parliamentary Monarchy.

With a powerful local government, direct participation,
there're also a lot more creative economic options between
the 12 districts and each their advantages for the long term policy.

Popular vote in the choice of the monarch

The very commandment to establish a monarchy is conditioned by the nation's judgement of monarchies being the most successful at the time, compared to other forms of government.
From the stand point of Hebrew court any rule has the general standing of a monarchy,
be it representative democracy or absolute monarchy. The generalization serves the
the purpose, at times when people prefer a monarchy, its a branch that forms and
integrates with a previously existing government, rather than replaces it,
into a dynamic structure.

With authority of the royal institute being itself result of democratic process,
each monarch also has to be literally chosen by the nation, even when
being the first in line to heir the throne, this is not to imply rebellion
and a ceremonial coronation being the extent of the choice; But a
political process in which the parliament acts as an intermediary
branch between the monarch and the local governments to
review policy both ways and from additional branches.

Rambam and legislative branches

Though being the ultimate Halachic source on the rules of the monarchy,
the tendency to immediately go towards the last part of Mishneh Torah,
along with the rules Sanhedrin can be misleading without being used
to Rambam's pedagogic method and terminology with reference
from previous volumes. But there's a principle regarding all rules
of Monarchy and the Temple, that is clear without much
explanation - the world functions normally.

This is not an ideology of 'one for all solution' to all political challenges,
that implies sharp reforms or even replacing the current structure,
rather a natural political process, function of public policy, similar
to formalizing Shabat with other holidays and Hebrew. Likely the
establishment of the Sanhedrin by parliamentary means,
confirms the authority of what the Hebrew court calls
the 'Takanat Kahal' in direct legislative process.

In that context addition branches can be established to separate the power,
and assign certain roles in addition to those currently functioning, as the
civil, high and Rabbinic courts, the Sanhedrin and a tribal council,
with the parliament functioning as the intermediary coordinator.

Between a President and a Monarch main difference
are length and stability possible in main authority,
while some diluted to mere ceremonial function,
as the Queen in Britain or the President in Israel.

I'm not saying it's a solution for every nation,
this is a transition I see clarifying in these
episodes of our frequent elections.

(QUESTION)

What do You prefer, the possibility to change a President every election,
or powerful local governments with direct votes on policy?

Propose better alternatives?

 

[rylah]

Who Is Ben Shapiro's Ideal President? – Ben Shapiro Q&A: Jerusalem, Israel, 2022​

Ben Shapiro answers student questions in Israel.

 

[rylah]

Itamar Ben-Gvir to the Arabs of Israel - "If we reach a position of influence,
I make sure there's calm also in the streets of Um al-Fahm and Rahat"

The chairman of 'Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power), Knesset member Itamar Ben-Gavir, visits all the television and radio studios morning and evening, but one interview he gave today was particularly surprising.

Ben-Gvir arrived at the Arabic studio of the i24NEWS network. Already at the beginning of the interview, the interviewer asked him whether it was not a "political hypocrisy" to come to an interview in an Arabic-speaking studio as a representative of a "Kahanist movement,
that aims to expel and eliminate the rights of Arabs in Israel."

Ben-Gvir replied: "You are wrong in everything You just said, I do not sit in a movement that wants to expel Arabs, I do not hate Arabs, on the contrary. I think that if I reach a place of influence, the majority of Arabs in the State of Israel will be much better off than they are now. "I think that if we reach a position of influence, I can solve the problems in Um al-Fahm and Rahat."

Ben-Gvir added, "There are many, many Arabs who do not hate the State of Israel, and I say, remember, if we reach a position of influence, it will be good. I want there to be quiet in the streets of Um al-Fahm."

צפו: הראיון המפתיע של איתמר בן גביר - סרוגים

סרוגים | איתמר בן גביר הגיע לערוץ בשפה הערבית של i24NEWS: "אם אנחנו נגיע לעמדה של השפעה, אני יכול לפתור את הבעיות באום אל פאחם וברהט"

www.srugim.co.il

 

[rylah]

Ayelet Shaked: 'No unity government without the Likud'

'We need to know to agree on things that most of the Zionist forces are willing to live with,' Interior Min. Shaked says.

www.israelnationalnews.com

New poll shows Likud-led bloc winning 62 seats in elections

Zionist Spirit still polling above electoral threshold, granting Likud-led bloc ability to form right-wing government.

www.israelnationalnews.com

Meretz candidate: 'A government with the haredim? That could work'

Zehava Galon, candidate for Meretz leadership, believes she can reach agreements with haredi parties, citing past experience.

www.israelnationalnews.com

 

[rylah]

Dr. Bin Nun on Democracy

Since there're at least 12 Monarchies in the west, that also happen to be on top of human development and implement the most progressive policies, - I think we agree there's no principle contradiction.

While when any form of Monarchy is brought up in context of the Middle East, the association is usually with Saudi Arabia, or even the likes of Iran.

But this is a false dichotomy, that only exists in lack of foreseeable alternative. And it would be crazy to to suggest that the alternative, is abandoning Democracy, because it served us fabulously. And neither the alternative, is striving for the other extreme by definition.

Rather the common Israeli expression - 'yallah bye', says it all, everything has its proper place. As You don't expect to eat a whole dinner meal with a spoon so (is) with Democracy. Israel is a bridge, not only geographically, between the West and the East.

Let me refer You to a recent controversial prime time address by Dr. Bin Nun,
on one of Israel's main TV channels, where he emphasized 4 points:

1. The problem is not individual to Israel, its universal.
2. Democracy has been hacked by shallow populism.
3. Only once intellectually abandoned, can we find alternatives.
4. Intellectual elites, academia, raise the issue to the center of public discourse.

This is a good example of how for lack of foreseeable alternative, one is stuck in populism, that prevents expression of ideas but in their most caricature manner, just to provoke for them some attention, ideas that otherwise, expressed clearly in the proper context of a fitting alternative, are mostly correct and true.

Despite this infantile approach to the complex challenge, it actually caught attention of a variety of experts from the academia, and immediately followed up with a more extensive discussion addressing the challenge at face value.

What Dr. Bin Nun did here was merely translate to most common 'secular street' language, what has been at the forefront of our collective (un)concious for decades.

Thus, as Dr. Bin Nun repeats, in contradiction to the shallow populism seen on the surface, in contradiction to all the irrational projection on the person of PM Netanyahu, it has nothing to do with the personal, with the man himself or whatever he does. Because of blind admiration among some of his voters, the undemocratic manner in which the minority opposition seeks to seize position, likely projecting onto him almost inhuman responsibility and and blame, along with cases about wine, cigars and decades back then even furniture... it's so trivial that it proves the opposite, nothing to do with the personal.

Rather the underlying fundamental question, is the nature and extent of the leadership position in the nation, in principle.

Spectrum and practical application

Let's examine the question on a spectrum, not as absolute terms,
there's mixture of nepotism and representation in every polity,
but to examine practical application -

Athens Direct Democracy - all policy is a referendum, on one end,
Tsarist Monarchy - ultimate nepotism by a reign of terror, as another extreme.

When measuring Representative Democracy on the spectrum, I see that result in practice is the worst of both extremes. As in what prof. Bin-Nun said, all Democracy is channeled into a choice of 1-3 individuals, to address a wide range of questions, and not being inquired about anything forth. While the representative You chose for the ultimate seat in the govt,
even if wanted, isn't allowed power to realize any long term policy by definition.

Therefore, and this is neither main nor the best reason for Parliamentary Monarchy,
but introducing the royal institute isn't change in citizen representation in the
government under Representative Democracy, effectively it's a diluted
Monarchy. However a Parliamentary Monarchy can practically allow
more elements of Direct Democracy.

Cantonization - local government

This is a move towards, integration of the Direct Democracy trajectory.
As states have district governments, in Israel the districts are the 12 tribal lots.
By giving more power to local governments without having a powerful authority,
introduces new levels to power struggle because the districts aren't self sufficient.

However by introducing elements of Direct Democracy on the district level,
not only each vote increases Democracy by 100% compared to now,
functionally citizenry serves as an advisory institute, a govt branch,
to ensure coordination in long term strategy, the very purpose of
the monarch in Parliamentary Monarchy.

With a powerful local government, direct participation,
there're also a lot more creative economic options between
the 12 districts and each their advantages for the long term policy.

Popular vote in the choice of the monarch

The very commandment to establish a monarchy is conditioned by the nation's judgement of monarchies being the most successful at the time, compared to other forms of government.
From the stand point of Hebrew court any rule has the general standing of a monarchy,
be it representative democracy or absolute monarchy. The generalization serves the
the purpose, at times when people prefer a monarchy, its a branch that forms and
integrates with a previously existing government, rather than replaces it,
into a dynamic structure.

With authority of the royal institute being itself result of democratic process,
each monarch also has to be literally chosen by the nation, even when
being the first in line to heir the throne, this is not to imply rebellion
and a ceremonial coronation being the extent of the choice; But a
political process in which the parliament acts as an intermediary
branch between the monarch and the local governments to
review policy both ways and from additional branches.

Rambam and legislative branches

Though being the ultimate Halachic source on the rules of the monarchy,
the tendency to immediately go towards the last part of Mishneh Torah,
along with the rules Sanhedrin can be misleading without being used
to Rambam's pedagogic method and terminology with reference
from previous volumes. But there's a principle regarding all rules
of Monarchy and the Temple, that is clear without much
explanation - the world functions normally.

This is not an ideology of 'one for all solution' to all political challenges,
that implies sharp reforms or even replacing the current structure,
rather a natural political process, function of public policy, similar
to formalizing Shabat with other holidays and Hebrew. Likely the
establishment of the Sanhedrin by parliamentary means,
confirms the authority of what the Hebrew court calls
the 'Takanat Kahal' in direct legislative process.

In that context addition branches can be established to separate the power,
and assign certain roles in addition to those currently functioning, as the
civil, high and Rabbinic courts, the Sanhedrin and a tribal council,
with the parliament functioning as the intermediary coordinator.

Between a President and a Monarch main difference
are length and stability possible in main authority,
while some diluted to mere ceremonial function,
as the Queen in Britain or the President in Israel.

I'm not saying it's a solution for every nation,
this is a transition I see clarifying in these
episodes of our frequent elections.

(QUESTION)

What do You prefer, the possibility to change a President every election,
or powerful local governments with direct votes on policy?

Propose better alternatives?

King's role in a Constitutional Monarchy

Netanyahu ‘fully backs government and IDF’​

Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu gave his full support to the government and security forces during Operation Breaking Dawn, following a briefing from Prime Minister Yair Lapid and his military secretary Avi Gil on Sunday.

Netanyahu said he gives “full backing to the government, the IDF and security forces” and he supports the residents of the South, calling on them to follow Home Front Command instructions.

“I received a detailed update, I listened carefully and I gave some advice from my experience... and I think this advice can be very helpful to Israel’s security,” Netanyahu said.

Operation was successful for Israel, Lapid; not an electoral game-changer - analysis

In less than two months as prime minister, Israel's Prime Minister Yair Lapid faced what is perhaps the greatest test a leader can face, and passed.

www.jpost.com

Netanyahu ‘fully backs government and IDF’

According to law, the prime minister is supposed to brief the opposition leader on national security every month.

www.jpost.com

 

[rylah]

Two-party Republic is more Democratic,
than a Parliamentary Monarchy?

Americans frustrated with two-party system as midterm election nears - Pew

American respondents detail their disapproval of the political party that opposes their own, as well as general disillusionment with the two-party system.

www.jpost.com

 

[ESay]

Two-party Republic is more Democratic,
than a Parliamentary Monarchy?

Americans frustrated with two-party system as midterm election nears - Pew

American respondents detail their disapproval of the political party that opposes their own, as well as general disillusionment with the two-party system.

www.jpost.com

A two-party system can be incorporated into a parliamentary monarchy. See the UK as an example.

 

[rylah]

A two-party system can be incorporated into a parliamentary monarchy. See the UK as an example.

Yes of course, any political system, state form, can be incorporated with a Parliamentary Monarchy, that's the beauty of it, in its flexibility - it is essentially Liberal.

However, I was suggesting a more extreme Democratic experiment,
as a starting point, to fully explore its Liberal boundaries,
by allowing more Direct Democracy in local legislation.

I want Ben-Gvir in the same parliament
with Ismail Hanniyeh, if he survives...
the legal, and electoral threshold.

That's the real political discussion...prevented by guns.
And Ben Gvir would understand what I say, and what to say.

 

[rylah]

Netanyahu ‘fully backs government and IDF’​

Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu gave his full support to the government and security forces during Operation Breaking Dawn, following a briefing from Prime Minister Yair Lapid and his military secretary Avi Gil on Sunday.

Netanyahu said he gives “full backing to the government, the IDF and security forces” and he supports the residents of the South, calling on them to follow Home Front Command instructions.

“I received a detailed update, I listened carefully and I gave some advice from my experience... and I think this advice can be very helpful to Israel’s security,” Netanyahu said.

Operation was successful for Israel, Lapid; not an electoral game-changer - analysis

In less than two months as prime minister, Israel's Prime Minister Yair Lapid faced what is perhaps the greatest test a leader can face, and passed.

www.jpost.com

Netanyahu ‘fully backs government and IDF’

According to law, the prime minister is supposed to brief the opposition leader on national security every month.

www.jpost.com

Just put this here for those who want...

Melikovsky - Netanyahu

Klein - HaGil'ady

Bennet - Efraim

- 9th of Av Op. 'Breaking Dawn', R. Levy Sudri​