Dissent & Democracy
by: Reb Arie on July 20th, 2009 | 3 Comments »
I was startled by a question asked two weeks ago by a friend of mine while sitting over lunch in synagogue. He asked me if Judaism and democracy were compatible.
Before I explore that question I want to provide some background on how the fervently liberal and the fervently Orthodox behave with respect to traditions, especially traditions that don’t make any sense.
These are traditions that have an element of choice involved and thus have an impact on the notion of democracy.
Matt and I part company on the lens one uses to view Torah. Matt think the lens can only come form an authorised commentator. He does not believe he can make his own commentary. He’s right — but only for the time being. He will know enough soon enough.
Will he ever make his own commnetary? The fervently Orthodox unquestionably validate traditions that make no sense. Jewish religious liberals most often reject a great deal of tradition they think (incorrectly) is invalid. No tradition is invalid.
There is, for example, a semi-annual fasting tradition called B’Hab in Hebrew and Monday-Thursday-Monday in English. Torah is read weekday mornings on Monday and Thursday because these were the market days when Ezra began to construct the traditions we now recognise as Rabbinic Judaism.
Many ferevently Orthodox recite the B’Hab prayers but do not fast. Yet the halakhic (legal) tradition calls for a fast. The liberals neither fast nor recite the prayers. The fervently Orthodox should fast — and the fervently liberal should donate a day’s pay to the local foodbank.
Our discussion of democracy will begin with a collection of Mishna that makes no sense. The Mishna is organised into 64 tractes — 63 of which are organised topically. One is organised historically. This is Mishna Edu’yot (M Edu).
I teach M Edu in my Deliberative Ethics course because the topics covered are eclectic. A magistrate needs to deal with eccentricity and the selection in M Edu are nothing if not eccentric.
The Jewish Courts for Social Justice are organised to inform and influence Canadian social policy. The judges who sit on the Courts are teachers, and the purpose of the Courts is to teach, not impose. This model comes directly from the Mishna.
The Mishna is as ignored a part of the Jewish tradition as exists. It is neglected by the Orthodox and almost unheard of among the liberals. Matt is quite happily learning the Gemara about the Jewish holy day of Passover without having learned the Mishna on which it is based.
The Gemara and the Mishna together are most often called “Talmud”. Every halakha given in the Mishna is decided by majority vote. There are no votes in the Gemara.
In M Edu 1:5 this anonymous question is asked:
Why note the dissent of one among the majority when halakha follows the majority? So that a court may refer to the precedent of a dissenting opinion — for the court may not set aside another court’s decision unless it is greater in wisdom and in number. …
Halakhic decision making in the Mishna’s time and place — 2nd and 3rd century Roman Israel — is democratic: the process described (a) recognises the right of dissent and (b) adds the qualification of merit.
No criterion for wisdom is passed to us in this M Edu discussion. In Mishna Pirqei Avot we do have a definition attributed to Ben Zoma (PA 4:1):
Who is wise? The one who learns from all people.
Ben Zoma does not say all Jews. The Hebrew is kol adam – all people. Rebbi Yehuda asks for some clarification in M Edu 1:6 –
Why mention the opinion of a dissenter…? Because then one cannot say “Thus have I received the tradition” since one may answer “You have a minority opinion”.
Dissent — a minority opinion — is still tradition. It is recorded and I have never seen an unattributed dissenting opinion.
Dissent is part of democracy. Dissent is part of the commentary. Be a democrat: Start writing.
I’m not sure Reb Arie does justice to all the features of a democracy, aside from mentioning the democratic process involved in historically reaching a Talmudic decision. And the original question was never answered. Wasn’t Judaism historically associated with a theocracy, followed by a monarchy, and isn’t it now associated with a repressive ethnocracy? Isn’t G-d’s name invoked by “Melech” instead of, say, “Comrade”? I would say that Judaism, like Confusianism, has always revered the strong leader, the king, the powerful clan leader. Not much has changed from the days of Abraham or Moses. Badly paraphrasing Mordechai Kaplan, Moses had a veto, not a vote. Historically, democracy has been fairly absent from Judaism.
I’m really thrilled with this comment. Thank you muchly.
The only feature of a democracy is choice. How one chooses will differ from time to time and place to place. How is America governed? By the mechanisms established by a written constitution for a republican democracy. How is the United Kingdom governed? By the mechanisms established by an unwritten constitution for a monarchy constrained by responsible government.
Judaism has never historically been associated with theocracy, a topic I will develop in more detail in today’s article. Moe’she (Moses) was trained in statecraft, not priestcraft. The unification of the kohanut (priesthood) with the monarchy under the Hashmonim (Hasmoneans) in late antiquity was controversial and led to a schism among the kohanim (priests), some of whom opened a rival Temple in Alexandria.
The monarchies based on Shau’ul (Saul) and David had to contend with both priestly and prophetic institutions, and these were not necessarily by any means allied with the palace. Furthermore, the Tribal leaderships contended also with the palace, a situation similar to the baronies of Europe constraining the authority of the monarch.
The Name of G!d is not precisely Melekh (there is no correct way to spell this in English). This is actually a compound word (though this is ungrammatical) that I need Hebrew letters to explain, so see the article on theocracy; in brief, Melekh comes from the combination of M’ (from) and Lekh (go forth).
There is, I think, a uniquely American notion that republican democracy must prevail as a system of government and that any other system is corrupt. American republican democracy is not yet 240 years old, a full 100 years younger than the foundation for responsible government laid down by Cromwell on a foundation 500 years older.
The UK functions quite well, thank you, without a written constitution and the American idea that this need writing down is simply incorrect. The world continued apace before the founding of the American Republic and will continue apace after it departs the world stage, as all empires eventually do.
My point was that religions in general, Judaism included, can never even remotely be considered to involve democratic principles. Most of the revealed religions were developed before democracy as we know it evolved. When these religions were grafted onto social organizations (or visa versa) the political structures tended to be clan-based dictatorships and monarchies. When Reb Arie writes that American democracy is not necessarily the only (or best) form, but he is preaching to the same choir to which I belong.
But to the main point. The definition of theocracy is quite broad. It does not necessarily limit the ruling class exclusively to priests. Perhaps not quite to Reb Arie’s taste, Josephus first described Jewish political organization as theocratic. Arie dismisses Moses as a practitioner of statecraft, not as the religious giant he is. This has the feel of a debating style, not a serious argument. Of Aaron and the priestly castes he makes no mention. Whether kohanim, kingdom or Hasmonean state, all these Jewish states based their legitimacy upon religious law. Even when conquered, the right to observe Jewish law was always pursued by Jews. In restoring Jewish law, the Hasmoneans, descendants of kohanim, became the latest class of religious rulers.
Although King David starts his career under Saul as a popular general/warlord, he soon becomes “chosen” by G-d (Book of Samuel ??) and this is the basis of his power. The dynasty that begins with David becomes the basis of both Jewish and Christian messianism, and it is impossible to disengage the historical David from his religious aspects. In fact, David probably did more than any ruler to impose a normative Judaism on all his subjects.
Seen from an historical, rather than religious, point of view, the argument that Judaism has been generally theocratic does hold water.