Have Questions or Comments?
Leave us some feedback and we'll reply back!

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone Number)

    In Reference to

    Your Message


    Kahanism & Democracy Part 3

    I. DEMOCRACY IN JEWISH HISTORY

    For the past two weeks, we have discussed R. Meir Kahane’s view of democracy, as presented in his book, Or Ha-Ra’ayon. R. Kahane suggests of appointing a nasi (regent) until we can appoint a king, which is the only acceptable form of Jewish government. This suggestion is clearly based on the talmudic precedents of Rabban Gamliel and others. Their political leadership under the title nasi serve as excellent historical basis for any contemporary leadership. Similarly, the institution of reish galusa was a single leader who ruled over his subjects with the power allocated to him by the secular government.

    However, Jews also governed themselves in another way. The model of “seven high-ranking townsmen” served Jews well for centuries. In Poland, the Council of Four Lands (Va’ad Arba Aratzos), consisting of seventy delegates from local communities, governed Jewish communities for nearly two hundred years. In other words, the community appointed representatives to govern based on the acceptance of community members.

    R. Avraham Kook (Mishpat Cohen 144:15a) proposes that any leader or form of government Jews accept on themselves functions as a monarchy, a position that R. Shaul Yisraeli (Amud Ha-Yemini, no. 7) attempts to bolster with sources and arguments. However, Maharam Schick (Responsa, Orach Chaim 34) explains that members of a community join together as partners. The government they select serves based on the community members’ consent in the partnership. Regardless of the reason, the responsa literature is clear that the decisions of communal governments such as the “seven high-ranking townsmen” are binding on all community members (e.g. Responsa Rashba 1:769; Responsa Rosh 6:19; Responsa Rashbash 566; Rema, Choshen Mishpat 163:6).

    II. REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT

    R. Kahane objected to the idea that people give the government the right to rule in their name. As we saw above, this is contradicted by the example of the “seven high-ranking townsmen.” When we examine the underlying concept of monarchy, we find something even more surprising.

    The Chasam Sofer (Responsa, Orach Chaim 208) argued that a king is allowed to execute those who rebel against him through consent of the governed at the time of his appointment. R. Shaul Yisraeli (Amud Ha-Yemini, no. 9) and R. Shlomo Goren (Toras Ha-Medinah, ch. 5) built on this idea and argued that any government appointed by the populace governed retains the right to punish and legislate for the same reason as a monarch. The people empower the government.

    III. NON-RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATIVES

    In response to another issue R. Kahane raised, let us look at R. Waldenburg’s response to the question of whether religious Jews may serve in the Knesset if they know the non-religious majority will outvote them. In Hilchos Medinah (vol. 3, 3:3), R. Waldenburg reproduced precisely this question as asked him by the Religious Zionist leader, S.Z. Shragai, along with his lengthy reply. R. Waldenburg rejected all possible precedents – including that of kesher resha’im – because the Knesset will pass laws with or without the participation of religious representatives.

    Additionally, the religious representatives object to legislation that runs counter to Judaism. This rebuke serves to disassociate them from the kesher resha’im.

    Furthermore, R. Avraham Kook (Iggeros Ra’ayah 6, 9) writes that non-religious Jews today must be considered exempt from liability for their sins. They are tinokos she-nishbu due to their lack of proper education in religious Jewish ways and cannot be considered wicked.

    And finally, refusing to serve in the Knesset with non-religious Jews or to allow them to serve at all would generate immense hatred and cause a tremendous rift in the Jewish people.