- This topic has 115 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“Can there be an executive without a state?” An excellent and fundamental question. Inasmuch as an institution “does,” in theory, the executive would be the part that is “doing.” I think.
The legislative from Sinai idea is that the law is divinely originated, not man-made. While we still inherently (must) have a power to interpret, the power to enact, these days, is not clear, and would only be within the rigid rubric from Sinai.
Involved laypersons would be the non-rabbis, who are trying to act upon the rabbinic interpretation of the laws from Sinai and regulations added thereafter.
Obviously this is a whimsical and theoretical discussion. But aren’t these fundamental structures important to define?
Frum, every organized Jewish community has the power to make takkanot for that community (Rema CH 2). The autonomous Jewish communities in pre-Napoleonic Europe had elected councils (the Maharil, among others, discusses who has the right to vote and be elected) which made laws (interestingly the book Juspa of Worms brings down that his job as shamash included assessing and collecting taxes – he would walk into people’s homes and make his assessments on the basis of their lifestyles). In Poland-Lithuania the Council of the Four Lands formed a national Jewish government. It was called the Jewish Sejm. The rabbanim exercised judicial functions, including judicial review.
Stop trying to reinvent Judaism to fit Western constructs. Judaism is a monarchy and certainly not a democracy.
Joseph- who is the current monarch?
Also, AviK do we have organized communities in the US?
European concepts allowed for secular government recognition of quasi-independent religious authority. Our US constitution, as currently understood, I believe, forbids such etablishment of religion.
Joseph, the Netziv (He’emek Devar Devarim 17:14) says:
“ואמרת: אשימה עלי מלך” – אין הפירוש “אמירה” כמשמעו בפה, אלא כלשון (דברים יב כ): “ואמרת אוכלה בשר”וכדומה.
אכן, לפי לשון זה היה במשמע שאין זה מצווה במוחלט למנות מלך אלא רשות, כמו ‘ואמרת אוכלה בשר’; והרי ידוע בדברי חז”ל דמצווה למנות מלך! ואם כן, למה כתיב ‘ואמרת’?
ונראה, דמשום דהנהגת המדינה משתנה, אם מתנהג על פי דעת מלוכה או על פי דעת העם ונבחריהם, ויש מדינה שאינה יכולה לסבול דעת מלוכה, ויש מדינה שבלא מלך הרי היא כספינה בלי קברניט, ודבר זה אי אפשר לעשות על פי מצוות עשה, שהרי בעניין השייך להנהגת הכלל נוגע לסכנת נפשות שדוחה מצוות עשה, משום הכי לא אפשר לצוות בהחלט למנות מלך, כל זמן שלא עלה בהסכמת העם לסבול עול מלך, על פי שרואים מדינות אשר סביבותיהם מתנהגים בסדר יותר נכון, או אז מצוות עשה לסנהדרין למנות מלך…
ומשום הכי כתיב ‘ואמרת’, שיהא העם מבקשים כך, אז ‘שום תשים’.
ומכל מקום, אין סנהדרין מצווים עד שיאמרו העם שרוצים הנהגת מלך, ומשם הכי כל משך שלוש מאות שנה שהיה המשכן נבחר בשילה לא היה מלך, והיינו שלא היה בזה הסכמת העם.
Not only is the public’s acceptance necessary to appoint any official (Berachot 55a) but they can also even recall a king (Yerushalmi Chaggiga 3:2 and Responsa Avnei Nezer YD 312:15). Thissi quite democratic.Frum, the government may not give official status to any religious group. However, actually prohibiting voluntary communities would violate the Free Exercise clause. A law banning an Sharia courts was struck down by the Tenth Circuit (Awad v. Ziriax, et al, No. 10-6273 (10th Cir. 2012)). This would also apply to establishing battei din to adjudicate disputes. Basically, the government may neither help nor hinder religion.
Remarkable every couple of years virtually rehashing the same discussions. Avi K, R Kook was adamantly opposed to womens voting & certainly do not count them towards public” F R Kook & Others to had a very limited belief on what counts as the public. It is likely that a default agreement of Knesset & Coalition would not co
Re separation of Powers:
John Fortescue (c. 1394–1479) was chief justice of Britain’s high court and his classic In Praise of the Laws of England . Fortescue held there that the English constitution limited the powers of the monarch under the traditional laws of Englandin the same way that the powers of the Jewish king in the Mosaic constitution in Deuteronomy are limited by the traditional laws of the Israelite nation. This is in contrast with the Holy Roman Empire of Fortescue’s day, which was supposedly governed by Roman law, and therefore by the maxim that ‘what pleases the prince has the force of law,’ and in contrast with the kings of France, who governed absolutely.
Fortescue laid out “what later tradition would call the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.” He linked “the character of a nation’s laws and their protection of private property to economic prosperity, arguing that limited government bolsters such prosperity, while an absolute government leads the people to destitution and ruin.” His work, adds Hazony and Haivry
“the belief that through long centuries of experience, and thanks to a powerful ongoing identification with Hebrew Scripture, the English had succeeded in creating a form of government more conducive to human freedom and flourishing than any other known to man.”
the 17th century jurists John Selden,
Hugo Grotious expounded further on this
Eli,
1. When Rav Kook wrote that women were not generally allowed to vote. He said that this step could only be taken by representatives of the people as a whole. Thus if he were alive today he would not oppose it.
2. I do not know of anyone who says that women are not part of the public. They are certainly kahal Hashem (except for giorot and mamzerot – like their male counterparts). The Torah (Devarim 31:11) say this explicitly.The Gemara (Horiot 3a) does say that the Jews in Chutz laAretz don’t count but that includes men.
3. John Selden and Hugo Grotius learned from Rabbi Menashe ben Yisrael. Grotius said aboutthe sheva mitzvot “How well goes the law of Moses with the House of Orange”. In general the Anglo-American philosophers of the 17th-19th centuries were lovers of Tanach (in America it was required in all colleges along with Biblical Hebrew and until 1817 Harvard commencement addresses could be given in it as well as English, Latin and Ancient Greek). The argument over slavery was, in fact, an argument over the Tanach’s attitude towards slavery in general and black slavery in particular (because of Ham’s curse). Both Dr. Yoram Hazony and Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik have written and lectured extensively on this.FYI The torah DOES belive in Seperation of Powers, this was one of the main Averios of the Hashmonim, they were Cohanim and not supposed to be the Kings as well
In Flatbush, I’d say Rabbi Schorr and Rabbi Reisman.
HaGaon HaRav Elya Brudny shlit”a has joined the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of the Agudas Yisroel.
If he’s still alive, The Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Rav dov landau
Rav chaim
Rav Gershon
Rav yaakov Meir
Rav mordechai gross
Belzer rebbe
Rav shlomo MillerLast I checked it was Hashem. I’ll go ask my rabbi if anything changed since.
(Even though this conversation is long over,) you won’t find every frum community accepting one gadol to be the Gadol Hador. There doesn’t “HAVE” to be one Gadol Hador. It won’t happen until we get out of galus.
For Example: I might say that in the later 1900’s the Lubvaitcher Rebbe was the Gadol Hador. A Satmar Chossid will believe that the Satmar Rebbe was the Gadol Hador. A Litvack will say a different posek. The Sephradim also. To have one posek who everyone follows will simply not happen until moshiach.
Everyone should follow their own Rov to pasken halacha.And now?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.