Bring Back Our Judges

Dear ****,

as we approach this second round of mostly-meaningless elections, I would like to describe my own historical perspective. I do not wish to endorse any particular party, and I believe that that which I am offering would have been relevant to previous elections and future elections.

Many of us look at Israeli elections as though they have some sort of mystical, biblical significance beyond any other elections that would be held elsewhere. Yes, it is important for us to participate in democratic processes and to take responsibility for our own governance, but here in Israel, the potential is even greater. Many romantically think they could/should be electing the Messiah himself, while others attach a deep responsibility to obeying the dictates of the greatest, and therefore infallible, Torah scholars, as a regular form of public and mass “acceptance of the Kingdom of Heaven.” I also ask that you read what I have written previously about this issue.

I believe that we have the responsibility to do whatever we can to sanctify the name of Heaven, and we have to ensure that we have the ability to serve God as best we can. In the West, the classical freedoms assumed by classical liberalism and guaranteed in the US constitution have been shown to be the best at ensuring individuals’ liberties and that decent people, including Jews, can thrive and worship as they wish. I am alarmed by the gradual erosion of constitutionally guaranteed right, and by the rhetoric of those who wish to continue doing so. Here in Israel, we have another layer of responsibility: to bring our fellow Jews closer to the Torah, and we pray that we be given the chance to keep those commandments that we have been unable to keep since the destruction of the ancient Jewish commonwealth.

If someone wants to vote for the usual left-wing or right-wing parties because of his own political or practical considerations, or even out of superficial or personal reasons, that is his prerogative. I specifically do not understand how self-described religious people vote. Some vote for parties that are openly hostile to religious values and sensibilities, while others are wholly disconnected from their professed religious beliefs when voting. Others vote for the so-called religious parties, even though those parties and their constituents suffer from a cognitive dissonance of sorts because their parties only stand for select parts of the Torah, and blissfully ignore others. Much has written about this elsewhere.

What I find interesting this year is a discussion among certain backers of the Otzma Yehudit and Zehut parties. The former are scandalized by how the allegedly libertarian Zehut would, out of principle, allow private bus companies to operate on the Sabbath, if they so chose, and would allow farmers who wish to do so to raise pigs, which are seemingly anti-Torah policies, because a true religious party would seek, when in power, to strictly enforce the Biblical law against driving automobiles on the Sabbath and the rabbinic decree against raising pigs in the land of Israel. In response, the Zehutniks would argue that in the current state of affairs, it is important to secure the rights of the individual to his freedom of movement and commerce, and as long as the Sabbath drivers and travelers and pig farmers do not harm others, so be it. For his part, Moshe Feiglin, whom I have personally supported until today, argues that today, the key to bringing others closer to Judaism is not by force but by persuasion and setting a good example, not by forcing sabbath observance, but by fostering it. As he put its, an Israeli will say a blessing over a cup of water because eventually he will realize that appreciation is part of our unique culture.

I believe that this ideological difference of opinion is actually echoed in the works of the prophets, specifically, in the contrasts between the era of the Judges and the era of the Kings.

The kings were the ultimate regime charged with universal enforcement of Torah law, and any king is judged by that standard: did he uphold and enforce the Torah? The vast majority ultimately get a failing grade. But in the time of the Judges, it was every man for himself, and for better or for worse, every man did what was right in his own eyes because there was no king. As to which era was better for our people, I can not know, and that is a matter of dispute among the commentators and scholars. I however, was brought up in the the school of Rabbi Miller who viewed the era of the judges as far superior. I also ask that you re-familiarize yourself with all of the literature, especially that of the Netziv and the Abarbanel, in which they explain how the Jewish monarchy is not necessarily the Torah ideal.

I believe that Zehut is basically advocating for a system that has its roots in the era of the Judges: live and let live, and the people will know to do what is right without a constitutional monarch enforcing he law, while the Kahanists of Otzma seek a system of idealized Jewish monarchy that will enforce Torah.

…

Last year, I had the distinct privilege of being part of the editorial staff of the new Koren-Steinsaltz Tanakh in English. I am still awed at the breadth of knowledge the editorial team had. When it came time to work on Isaiah 11:4,

וְשָׁפַ֤ט בְּצֶ֨דֶק֙ דַּלִּ֔ים וְהוֹכִ֥יחַ בְּמִישׁ֖וֹר לְעַנְוֵי־אָ֑רֶץ וְהִֽכָּה־אֶ֨רֶץ֙ בְּשֵׁ֣בֶט פִּ֔יו וּבְר֥וּחַ שְׂפָתָ֖יו יָמִ֥ית רָשָֽׁע

He will provide justice for the impoverished and will guide the meek of the land with probity; he will smite the land with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.

I pointed out:

The Hebrew word shafat has in many contexts the meaning of “provided for” or “tended to,” most notably the eponymous Judges, who did not “judge” in the juridical sense, but rather, were unofficial leaders who provided for and looked after the people (similar to the role of the “parnas” in medieval Europe). In the verse at hand, I made the change [to “provide for”] because the [Steinsaltz’s original] Hebrew commentary specifically explained the verb that way. The translator left the literal translation of w’shafat as “will judge,” and in the commentary added “and take care.” As it is, it is now awkward, “He will judge and take care.” Normally, judgment has a strict, letter-of-the-law connotation, but in this case it is clear that the one who will do this “judging” is biased toward his case.

but the editor-in-chief responded that,

I am not sure if I would say that “to tend” or “to take care of” is the meaning of the word in the strictest sense. Throughout Tanakh, a central part of a leader’s role was to judge disputes. There was no separation of powers but rather the proper use of political authority is the resolution of disputes. It is true that judging the impoverished with righteousness sounds odd to the modern ear: should he not judge everyone with  righteousness? The point, of course is that he judges even the impoverished so, even though it does not serve his political purposes. I am wary of “take care” or “tend” simply because it takes it too far. The prophet is not talking about a welfare state or even giving charity. He is talking about ensuring that the weakest strata of society were not exploited. I do not have a good way to say that in English…

In Hebrew, sometimes the word judge שוֹפֵט should rightly be translated with a lower case j and sometimes with an upper case J, and the latter have an interesting halachic status. They, unlike the kings, are not chosen by God, nor by the Sanhedrin, nor by the people, but rather are natural and organic, in the right place at the right time, and ultimately, their deeds and authority would come to be recognized by the halacha as legitimate as those of the prophets and kings.

It is therefore not surprising that I have heard the claim that when we pray three times daily that God “restore our judges as of old,” the intent is not that of the lower-case judges, as in halachic courts, but rather of the political system of the Judges, with a capital J. Perhaps the time has come for us to try to re-implement such a system, or at least some of its features.