Letter to a Friend: On the Intersection of Rabbinic and Political Authority

Dear ****,

As you know, a zaqein mamrei is a scholar who specifically rules against the ruling of the Sanhedrin, and is deserving of death for his sin. Therefore, I would be a little more reserved when considering if to describe a modern-day rav as a zaqein mamrei for “denying the authority of the Babylonian Talmud.” By the way, I do not know of any rabbi who does so, and even the individual you mentioned does not do so. On the contrary, he fully believes in the binding authority of the Babylonian Talmud, and follows its rulings for the most part. What sets him apart is, as we have already demonstrated, that he, like Maimonides and the Vilna Gaon before him, treats the Palestinian Talmud as a halachic authority on par with the Babylonian Talmud, and therefore sometimes rules like the former over the latter. There are many examples of Rishonim and Aharonim occasionally following Yerushalmi instead of the Bavli, and that should not seem scandalous to us.   

…

Concerning the upcoming Israeli elections, you have heard that various rabbanim claim that to vote is forbidden, as one should not have a hand in the establishment of a government that will inevitably violate the Torah. I hear that. Other rabbanim have claimed that voting and participating in the formation of a new Knesset, which will in turn lead to the formation of a new government, is a form of the fulfillment of the commandment to appoint a king. They quote Deuteronomy 17:15, “You shall surely set a king over yourself.”

I believe that the truth is somewhere in between. The verse is indeed a positive and binding commandment, and one that, God willing, is to lead us to fulfill the subsequent commandments of wiping out Amalek (i.e. securing national security even if it entails preemptive action) and building the Temple (the physical manifestation of a national sense of unity and purpose).

The full verse also says that the king should be one “whom the Lord your God shall choose.” Who is such a candidate? Well, only a prophet could tell you, but we also know that the Davidians (the worthy ones among them) have already been chosen and anointed. Therefore, it is proper that one vote for the party that intends to put a qualified and worthy Davidian in charge. Voting for anyone else is not a fulfillment of the commandment. I am surprised that I have not seen this point made elsewhere, but it is reflected in our ancient history. After Samuel anointed Saul, the Israelite majority did not accept him as king. It was only after he led a successful military campaign against the Ammonites that the people accepted him. David as well was not immediately accepted as king, and neither was Solomon, even though both had received divine approval. As with most of history, there is nothing really new.

Nahmanides, as you may recall, wrote this concerning the Hasmonean dynasty. They should have been replaced by Davidians, and Nahmandes would be right to similarly criticize our generation. Maimonides, to be fair, would countenance non-Davidians ruling Israel, if they also received a temporary prophetic endorsement, so unless a prophet arises and endorses the the Jewish Home or whomever, they do not have my vote.

…

Concerning that which I said earlier about trying to find a prime minister who would execute David’s agenda and not Jeroboam’s, I would like to elaborate. As I wrote about years ago, Jeroboam’s major historical policy, the only one the prophets chose to focus on for posterity, was his initiative to prevent Jewish people from ascending the Temple Mount, and this was done out of a desire to maintain  the status quo thsa was favorable to himself. And, as Rabbi Avigdor Miller pointed out, his policy seemingly had rabbinic-prophetic-halachic approval and backing. Conversely, the main Davidic policy, the one whose adoption resulted in David’s earning an eternal kingdom, was his advocacy and encouragement of construction of the Temple and the pilgrimage there to. Jeroboam repudiated the what-was-then-novel idea of a permanent location of the Temple, defined by Maimonides as the place of sacrifice and pilgrimage.

Be very suspect of political pronouncements from religious figures! If I were to tell you who to vote for I would do so on my (non-)authority as a (wise?) friend. The rabbinic establishment, including the Chief Rabbinate, should not put out politically motivated pronouncements. I am convinced that the Rabbinate’s published ban on ascending the Temple Mount is fatally flawed because of its politicization, as R’ Tendler believes, and that once again, history is repeating itself. The mahloqeth between the Rabbinate and the rebels in this regard is a reincarnation of the mahloqeth between Jeroboam’s party and the prophets, respectively. The current Israeli regime and rabbinic establishment are following precedent: Jeroboam’s corrupt precedent, and because we have no other recourse, we must, in the current situation, at least use our vote on behalf of those who would advocate David’s policies, even they are not themselves Davidians.