Thoughts on Kings and Democracy

It is a bit puzzling, perhaps, that when we pray for a Messiah, we speak of a successor to the throne of King David, Mashiach ben David. This Messiah is supposed to be some kind of monarch ruling over the world with absolute authority to do what he will. In an age when we are struggling to maintain democratic values in the face of rising totalitarian rule around the world, why would we want to be ruled by such a king and pray for the re-establishment of the monarchy of David? Are Jewish values and halakhah contrary to the democratic ideals on which our country was founded and which many other nations have since emulated?

Our teacher for the Chicago Board of Rabbis Annual Kallah study sessions earlier this week was the Av Bet Din, the leading rabbinic authority, of the Chicago Rabbinic Council, Rabbi Yona Reiss. The rabbi not only is a master of Jewish learning, but he demonstrated for our rabbis a wonderful ability to extract the essence from the texts he shared and put them into a modern context. In the relatively short time span he was allotted, Rabbi Reiss shared with us an abundance of texts from the Bible and the Talmud and later halachic works, responsa, and essays that deal with the rabbinic concept of a righteous monarch, a king governed by (Jewish) law as well as the principles of democracy that can be found within our ancient tradition even under such a ruler.

Rabbi Reiss brought together a variety of texts that demonstrated the limitations and guardrails that the rabbis envisioned for this King of Israel. The Torah itself in Deuteronomy 17 sets down a number of rules the king is expected to follow (though admittedly even King Solomon in later years seems to have violated some of them leading to the splitting of the kingdom under his son Rehoboam.) The Torah says that if the people decide at some point in the future that they want a king, it is permissible to appoint a king from among the people of Israel. A foreigner, however, may not apply for the position. The king of Israel according to Deuteronomy may not acquire a large quantity of horses. Nor may he create a large harem. He is not allowed to amass great wealth in silver and gold. Rather, he is expected to write or commission someone to write a copy of the Torah for himself. The word translated as “copy,” “mishneh torah” is taken by Rashi not as a copy of the Torah, but as two Torahs, one to be placed in his archives and one to be carried with him at all times to consult on various issues. This is a striking contrast to the briefcase ("the football”) carried with the President of the United States at all times, containing the codes for launching a nuclear war.

In the Talmud we learn that there is not an automatic succession to the throne. Though the king’s son has preference over others, if he is not fitting for the position, someone else is to be chosen.The king is expected to exemplify the teachings and values of Torah. Unfortunately this expectation was seldom fulfilled by the rulers over Israel and over Judah during the biblical period. The Messiah is envisioned as very different, a truly righteous king.

You may recall the story of the prophet Samuel who tries to dissuade the people when they call upon him to appoint a king to rule over them so they may be “like all the other nations.” Samuel describes the power of the king to draft their sons into his army, to enlist their daughters to his service as maids and cooks. He will be empowered to confiscate fields and vineyards (eminent domain) to supply his servants and to appropriate animals from their flocks and herds for his table to feed his troops. In spite of this warning, the people chose to accept a king because the situation at the time of the judges was so chaotic and they felt the need for a strong authority to pull the tribes together and to govern the land. The rabbis in the Talmud are divided over whether all of these prerogatives mentioned by Samuel are actually permitted to the king or if this warning was merely to instill fear in their hearts. Later medieval authorities felt that while the king had great authority to rule his people, Samuel was actually describing the rule of other kings in the surrounding nations. The rabbis ultimately ruled that the king of Israel was limited by the laws of the Torah. He is expected to follow the law. When he sins, he is expected to seek expiation by offering the appropriate sacrifice.  

Samuel’s objection, it seems, was not to the institution of the monarchy itself but rather to the demand that this king that they requested serve also as the judge of the people, i.e. they wanted to merge the power of the king with that of the courts, the executive branch taking over the role of the judiciary. This was not what Samuel wanted to see. The Torah scroll that is supposed to accompany the king is intended to remind him to rule within the bounds of Torah law. The sages tried to maintain boundaries between different offices. They also condemned the Hasmonean rulers, the priestly family of the Maccabees, who ruled for about a century after the events of the first Chanukah. In spite of the positive things they did to save the Torah and Judaism, the rabbis condemned them for arrogating to themselves the authority vested in the line of King David. The “crown of the priesthood” and the “crown of the monarchy” are to be kept separate as well (separation of church and state, in our terms).

In one source brought by Rabbi Reiss, we see that an attempt was made to judge one of the kings of Israel calling him before the Sanhedrin, however, this ended badly and thus the rule the rabbis established was that kings may not judge or be judged nor may they be called to testify before the bet din, the rabbinic court.

In the Torah commentary of the 19th century rabbi, Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berln known by the acronym, the Netziv (the pillar), he claims that while it may be a mitzvah to appoint a king, it is not required. It depends on the situation in the land. The people have to consent to the rule of the monarch. In general, the leaders of the community nowadays are considered like judges and it is forbidden to appoint someone who is ineligible to judge because of his wickedness (his crimes.) In a responsum by the Chatam Sofer, Rabbi Moshe Sofer, also from the late 18th – early 19th century, he is asked about the authority of a rabbi who appoints himself to the leadership of the community. Rabbi Sofer points to the Talmudic story which describes God suggesting to Moses the appointment of Betzalel over the construction of the tabernacle. They imagine Moses replying, “If he is good enough for you, God, then he is good enough for me.” Nonetheless, God insists that Betzalel be presented to the people for their consent and acceptance. So too nowadays, leaders may govern only by the consent of the people. That is certainly the foundation of a democratic government, “we the people.”

A contemporary rabbi, Herschel Schachter, points out that nowadays all of the citizens of a place are considered partners in the collection of taxes and their expenditure for the communal needs and salaries, etc. One who fails to pay his taxes is cheating his partners, his fellow citizens, not the ruler. Taxes, he reminds us, are collected to provide funds to pay for the expenditures of the community and are not gathered in order to enrich the ruler. The majority of the leadership determines what the taxes shall cover and as partners in the community we are required to pay our portion regardless of whether we agree with the majority or whether we benefit from it.

According to the Talmud, God weeps for three types of people, for one who is capable of studying Torah and does not, for one who is not capable of study but nonetheless tries to study, and for a leader who acts pridefully over the community.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in the 20th century was cited by Rabbi Reiss as calling on Jews to exercise the right to vote as a recognition of the benefits afforded us and as an expression of appreciation for the freedoms we enjoy in this country. Another modern rabbi at Yeshiva University, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder, in an essay excerpted by Rabbi Reiess, argues that a “Torah Jew” should not identify as either a Democrat or a Republican, but should support those issues that accord with the laws of the Torah and oppose those that don’t regardless of which party proposes those policies. One should view oneself, he argues, rather as a member of the party of the Ribbono shel Olam (The Master of the Universe). 

Other authorities cited by Rabbi Reiss uphold the authority of elected bodies representing the people. However, there is also an issue to consider according to another rabbi of a candidate who claims to support one point of view and then once elected pursues a different path. This becomes a “mekach ta-ut” “a deceptive purchase” and, by rights, people should demand a new election. The candidate was elected under false pretenses.

Summing things up, Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik is quoted, “The thrust of Halakhah is democratic from beginning to end.” He argues that “a religious ideology that fixes boundaries and sets up dividing lines between people borders on heresy.”

The final source brought at the end of the session was the famous letter by George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport, Rhode Island, in 1790 responding to their warm congratulations on his election as president. His letter is in response to one first from the congregation that contains the famous quote, “For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” Washington included these words and added to them that the government “requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” What he is saying is that in a democracy, we should have no reason to fear the government on one hand, but on the other, we bear responsibility as “we the people” to support our country and to work for its benefit.

The rabbi did not choose to directly apply these texts to our current situation, but clearly his choice of texts reminded us that the rulers we choose have an obligation to uphold the laws of the land and to act benevolently toward all the inhabitants of the land. In our tradition, it becomes clear, that even as we pray for the restoration of the ancient monarchy of King David, the rabbis’ vision of a king and of how a community should be governed points to a person of strong moral character, a person governed by law, who acts for the benefit of the people, not for his own enrichment and aggrandizement. Rabbi Reiss let us draw our own conclusions.

Shabbat Shalom,

Rabbi Edward Friedman