Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried
— Winston Churchill (aka Otto von Bismark)
Tonight I have listened to a lecture on the philosophy of Plato, in which I heard that he famously proposed two types of societies:
1) An ideal city-state, which was ruled by philosopher kings who alone had access to the truth and intellectual tradition and were able to reason and derive ethical standards. (The other citizens of the polis were soldiers who enforced the laws and the rest of the citizens who weren’t intellectual. Plato used this model of society as a moshol for one’s mind which consists of intellectual, emotional and spiritual parts. Everyone knows he got the idea by reading Tanya.)
2) A more realistic polis, which was ran democratically. The role of the philosophers in such a polis was to come up with laws and explain them to the general public. All the people would then vote on the laws. (And by “people” I mean free men who were citizens of the polis. [And by “men” I mean “males”.])
Now, upon hearing this, I wondered: what if the system of halachic psak was more like the second model than the first one? What if Halacha was determined not by authorities (the king, the Sanhedrin, the talmidei chochamim having enough education, experience and authority to pasken), but democratically? The role of talmidei chochamim would be to explain the proposed piskei din and the halachic reasoning behind them, and then all the Jews in a particular community would vote, and the outcome would be incumbent upon all the Jews of the community.
Please share what you think in the comments or by voting in the poll on the right.
22 comments:
The majority of people would vote for whatever sounds easiest, regardless of the rationale behind it, or the ramifications. Just like real democracy!!!!
But perhaps if this was the main method for deciding Halacha, the communities’ majorities would be granted s"d, just like the poskim are (after all, we don’t say that are holy poskim are moved by the ulterior motives, do we?).
Also, I think you’re being too harsh on the real democracy. People sometimes vote for decisions which are not necc. easiest for them.
What if everyone actually followed Halacha?
But how would one know what the Halacha is? — That’s the question.
Whatever G-d wants, that's what Halacha is.
Aye, but how to figure that out, that’s the question.
Also, G-d wants whatever we decide, as a nation, doesn’t He? When angels asked G-d what day Rosh HaShana was that year, He answered: “Why ask me? Ask the Jews.”
How do we figure out? G-d has laid out a way already.
Indeed. But it says: “Live with the times.” Modern way of determining what’s best for people is democracy. So, perhaps we should adapt it to the halachic psak din as well.
And it’s not like one couldn’t find precedents in Jewish religious history and quote parts from Tanach and Gemara to support this model.
Live with the times does not mean that. And you know so.
Nu, and you could find precendents for communism also. The system developed with S"D, so obviously that's how it should be.
I think I know so. But maybe the masses would vote for a different system.
Surely enough things have been innovated (within framework of Halacha) in the 20th century that changed the tradition.
The masses are asses.
Such as?
Let's recognize that Halacha is divided into three parts.
1) Things that are so because of the Kabalah from Har Sinai. (e.g. It is forbidden to plow on Shabbos)
2) Things that are so because they are logically derived from the Kabalah from Har Sinai using the principles that were Mekubal from Har Sinai. (e.g. it is forbidden to smooth an earthen surface on Shabbos. Although not part of the original list of 39 Melachos, it is derivable from the prohibition against plowing using the principle of Av and Tulda which was part of the Mesora.)
3) Rabbinic Legislation (e.g. It is forbidden sweep a dirt floor, because that might lead you to smoothing the ground.)
These same three categories can be translated to modern times as 1) things that are explicitly stated in Shulchan Aruch, and nobody argues about it. 2) Things that need to figured out and 3) new legislation.
For the first category, your question is meaningless, because the role of the sage is simply to serve as the repository of the information, there is no analysis.
For the second category, the Jewish system is essentially a meritocracy, in that any (male) person that wants can become learned enough to take part in the discussion, and to have his voice taken into account. But, the opinions of people that don't understand the nuances of Halacha are irrelevant.
For the third category, your question is a good question.
It is interesting to note that the Halacha already has a small democratic element in that the people have a sort of veto power over Rabbinic legislation. If the majority of the community does not accept a piece of Rabbinic legislation, it is nullified. The one example that everyone brings is the Gezeira against oil produced by non-Jews, which was rejected because the people found it too onerous. Some people say that the same is true about the Issur for a Bal Keri to Daven or learn.
Another example might be the holiday of Purim, which the Gemara says was intended by Mordechai and Esther to be a full holiday with work prohibitions, and this was not accepted (though that could refer to its acceptance by the rest of the sages, not the people).
I think the real answer is that in the case of legislation, we merely establish how the society should be, and it’s somewhat arbitrary. E.g., we establish which rights are primary, etc.
But in the case of Halacha, we are establishing the truth, in which case vox populi is meaningless, and ad numerum is a fallacy. Just like people can’t come together and vote on whether Pythagorean Theorem is true or false (they can, but that won’t do anything regarding the veracity of theorem and therefore, regarding how the engineers should apply it while building a bridge — so, there is a practical component too), people can’t vote on whether tefillin should be black.
Just like people can’t come together and vote on whether Pythagorean Theorem is true or false
Have you heard of the Indiana Pi Bill?
But, on the question of democratic Halacha - your point is true about the first two categories, possibly, not about the third
But, regarding your three categories, there are also issues in which there is lack of clarity. I.e., there are sources supporting both ways, and it’s really hashkafa, not halacha, which is swaying the opinion. So, why can’t people vote on, e.g., the rabba issue in each community. How is it worse than the individuals stating their non-halachic opinions?
Re: Indiana Pie Bill: one of the dangers of democracy is when people are idiots. That’s why democracy doesn’t work in Russia.
I would place the Rabba issue in the third category, not the second.
OK. So, is there any reason to say that completely new decisions should not be enacted democratically in Jewish communities, except that this is not how things have been done?
E.g., if we decide that the rabbis have to make newlywed couples sign prenuptial agreements. A certain community may decide it’s a good thing; another community may decide it’s not.
This is how it works anyway, behind the scenes. The whole rabba issue would never work in CH, e.g., because the social scene would not support it.
(Btw, I can definitely see why you were confused originally. I was looking at this and wondering: what Rabba issue? Like, Rabba vs. Abaye?)
Post a Comment