Modern Orthodoxy and Minui Melech
Adapted from Rabbi Braun’s sermon in 5773
We have entered the month of Elul and the countdown to Rosh Hashanah has begun. It is definitely a time of introspection, both personally and communally.
I will leave the personal introspection for each of you because that is something each of us must do alone. This morning I want to raise the flag of communal introspection for the modern orthodox community.
The mitzvah of appointing a king is recorded in Parshat Shoftim. A mitzvah literally is a commandment. God issues the command and the people obey. Nearly every mitzvah in the Torah is given that way. God tells Moshe to tell the people to do or not do “x.”
This mitzvah is slightly different.
דברים פרק יז
יד) כי תבא אל הארץ אשר יקוק אלהיך נתן לך וירשתה וישבתה בה ואמרת אשימה עלי מלך ככל הגוים אשר סביבתי
טו) שום תשים עליך מלך אשר יבחר יקוק אלהיך בו מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך לא תוכל לתת עליך איש נכרי אשר לא אחיך הוא
14. When you come to the land which the Lord your God gives you, and shall possess it, and shall live in it, and shall say, I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me;
15. You shall set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose; one from among your brothers shall you set king over you; you may not set a stranger over you, who is not your brother.
Is this the people’s idea of God’s? Is God actually giving us a mitzvah because of what the people want and not as an expression of the divine will? Does God want the king or do the people want the king?
Furthermore, the people don’t simply ask for a king. I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me. They request a king like all of the nations of the world. What does that mean and how does that impact our first question?
These pesukim are the beginning of every discussion on the proper, allowable and ideal form of Jewish governance.
There are those that believe that there is an absolute positive mitzvah to appoint a king. Others argue the mitzvah is conditional upon the Jews requesting a king and yet other believe that it is permissible to appoint a king but never obligatory. That discussion is fascinating, beginning with the book of Samuel, continuing to the Talmud in Sanhedrin, the Rambam, and up until today. There is a great piece of commentary by the Neztiv that discusses the need for different governments in different times and different eras. There is an even better piece against the monarchy in the writings of the Abarbanel who served in Ferdinand’s court during the Spanish expulsion in 1492. Rav Chaim Hirschenson, the great Rav of Hoboken begins his defense of democracy in the state of Israel with our verses.
Hirschenson was actually motivated by the very question that I want to talk about today – the influence of the outside world upon us as Jews, individually and communally. He is impressed with the American democratic system which gives everyone a voice as opposed to a monarchy where the king has the final and only say and sets out to promote democracy as the ideal government despite the apparent command to appoint a king. Hirschenson clearly looked at the world in which he lived, found something that he saw as positive and productive and found a way to incorporate that into his Jewish worldview.
That very issue, how we look at the world around us, whether or not we should incorporate things from the outside into our Judaism are addressed in the commentaries to I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me.
What are the people looking to emulate in the world around us?
The Midrash Tanaim gives two explanations and they go from bad to worse.
The first is – they wanted a king that judges and is not judged liked the kings of the world, a semi God if you will. That is certainly not appropriate as every Jew; king included is bound to the Torah.
The second explanation is that they wanted a king who would perform idolatry, participate in illicit relationships and murder, just as the gentile kings do. To be fair to the author of this Midrash who lived in Greco Roman times, that is what the kings did.
Hirsch on the other hand has a positive spin on the request. He argues that “like all the other nations” means “just as all of the other nations only achieve the highest national well-being …by subordination under one unifying Head of State to unite all your national forces for the well-being of your state… That is certainly a very positive sentiment.
That is what they wanted. The only difference Hirsch writes is that for other people very often the purpose of unification, the highest national well-being is power and strength. For the Jewish people that purpose and ideal is commitment to Torah and Mitzvoth.
When you take these two approaches and read them back into the psukim you come up with the two general approaches to the outside world in Judaism.
Let’s take the Midrash first. The people come to God and say – we want and king like the world, a king who sits unjudged and can do as he pleases in the realm of idolatry, immorality and murder. God responds – you will appoint a king but it will be nothing like the other kings. This king is not only going to be held accountable; he is going to ensure that you and he are committed to the Torah.
In this conversation the outside world is seen in a very negative light and we want no part of it at all. There are their kings and ours and never the twain shall meet.
According to Hirsch – the people see the potential for good and unity with a king who can bring the people together for a common goal and purpose. They turn to God and say- we would like a king like that.
God responds – yes there is potential for good with a king, appoint your king but make sure that this king knows that the common purpose and higher good is serving God, the ultimate king.
This is a different and nuanced approach. It argues that there are things of value in the world at large and they can be absorbed and integrated into our Judaism but we must ensure that whatever we bring in is done so for the right reasons, to help in our spiritual growth and development.
Which is the correct approach?
They both are! There are things as the midrash writes that exist in the world, that are even ubiquitous in the world that are antithetical to Judaism and have no place in our lives.
Yet there are things that are certainly good and valuable and can be an asset in our religious growth. The trick is to ensure that we use them properly and productively.
Our communal introspection as a modern or centrist orthodox community should focus on the following questions:
- Do we simply let everything from the outside world in? Can we distinguish between what is good and what is bad?
- Even those ideas that we find appealing and good – are we discriminating in how we integrate and apply those principles to our world?
