Torah Portion Vayeshev (5760)

With God's help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath of the Vayeshev Torah portion, 5760

Leadership, Monarchy, and Democracy

In our Torah portion begins the description of the formation of the royal line of the House of David. In a winding and eventful

narrative, Judah marries off his sons one after another to Tamar, afterward stands ready to put her to death,

and finally, through a kind of brilliant stratagem, and with an extraordinary display of courage and integrity on Judah's part, he

himself joins with her, and the line of the tribe of Judah begins, of which it is said, 'the scepter shall not depart from Judah' (Genesis 49:10),

that is, that kingship should belong only to his descendants.

Yet the road is still long before we reach the kings of the House of David themselves. Along the way there is the story of Lot

and his two daughters, who thought that they had been left alone in the world and therefore decided to obtain offspring from their father and thereby

continue the human race. The two peoples that emerged from this dreadful union, Ammon and Moab, are

also partners in the creation of the Davidic line. Ruth the Moabite ('the mother of royalty'), daughter of Eglon king of

Moab, marries Boaz in a manner that seems improper: she comes to him at night without his permission,

and lies down at his feet. From Boaz come Obed, Jesse, and King David. Ammon too has a share in the continuation of

the Davidic line, and there is also the episode of Bathsheba, but this is not the place for further detail. The winding

process of the formation of the Davidic monarchy receives extensive treatment in the commentaries. Why was the monarchy of

Israel created, and perhaps even why did it have to be created, in so strange a fashion, with the participation of two

nations that were born in sin (according to Jewish law, it is forbidden to accept a male Ammonite or Moabite as a convert).

The king of Israel, whose origin this is, is presented here deliberately as an ordinary human being. He is born of woman, and perhaps

even from the lowliest among them. By contrast, the Sages explain that Pharaoh king of Egypt would go out early

in the morning to the Nile to relieve himself where none of his subjects could see him, so that

his status as a god would not be diminished. In many nations, the ruler's status was established through some

form or another of deification. Even in countries such as China and Japan, until the twentieth century emperors

were considered to possess divine status.

The king of Israel is nothing more than flesh and blood. We, and perhaps even more so he himself as he stands before the Holy One, blessed be He,

and before his subjects, must remember this. The Sages describe how King David's 'questionable' lineage

worked against him during his reign. The people, who had not internalized this message, argued against him on account of his ancestry

that he was unfit to be king. This is part of the price the Torah is prepared to pay in order to clarify

this important issue.[1]

Even so, monarchy is meant to exist in Israel, and even to pass by inheritance. The Torah does not draw from

this concern democratic conclusions about the need to replace the king by elections so that 'his heart not be lifted above his brothers' (Deuteronomy 17:20).

There must be a king, and at the same time we must be aware of the problematic character of

this institution.

In our day, the State of Israel has a democratic 'king'; this is a kingship that does not pass by inheritance but

is determined by the people through elections. On the face of it, such a situation ought to cheapen the ruler's status

(the 'king'), since we determine his standing, and the very fact of his kingship, and we can also replace him

with someone else who seems better to us. It is possible that precisely this state of affairs is what concerned the Torah when it did not

choose the democratic solution.[2]

Yet in our time, quite surprisingly, a different attitude is also developing. Time and again we hear

criticism of our 'leaders' for not behaving as a leader ought to behave, and for not providing

a personal example (especially for the youth). There is a dangerous and mistaken assumption here. None of the

politicians is a 'leader'; he is a high-ranking executive official, upon whom there is sometimes placed

heavy responsibility, but I did not choose him to be my leader on any plane of values. For that reason as well,

I have no expectations of him beyond what I expect from any other person. My leaders on the

plane of values are chosen only by me, and public leadership on the plane of values likewise emerges on its own

through the recognition that the leader receives from the public. Moral leadership is not replaced in elections every four

years, and its standing is determined by its conduct itself and by the public's acceptance of its leadership.

A healthy way to cure the youth of the harmful influences of the corrupt behavior of

politicians is not to demand that they serve as a personal example, a legitimate demand in itself, but rather

to make clear to every young person the simple truth that this is not our leadership. It is more accurate to say

that this is our executive bureaucracy.

If such an approach reminds any of the readers of a different political structure, in which spiritual leadership

is what guides the executive echelon as to what it should do and how it should conduct itself, that is certainly

not accidental. It is no wonder that such a structure, the House of Lords in England, or the Council of Great

Torah Sages/Scholars here, is constantly attacked by the political 'leaders,' since it contains a genuine undermining of

their status. A king, precisely because of his permanent status, can, and indeed should, be a leader in every

sense. A democratic 'king' who becomes a 'leader' only because of his political status is not

a 'king' but a 'Molech' (=a form of idolatry in antiquity).

Peaceful Sabbath

This may be deposited for proper disposal of sacred texts in any house of study or synagogue. Comments are welcome.

———————–

[1] Because of this problematic aspect, the attitude toward monarchy in general appears rather ambivalent in Scripture. On the one hand,

Israel is commanded, upon entering the land, to appoint a king for themselves (Deuteronomy 17:14-15), while on the other hand there is

a conspicuously negative attitude toward the people's desire to appoint a king for themselves like all the nations (I Samuel 8:5-7).

[2] Scholars of 'Jewish Studies' will argue that the democratic model was still unknown, and the Torah

'did not think' of it. Embedded here is the assumption that the Torah was written by a human being, for the Holy One, blessed be He,

can certainly think of everything; indeed, He is the one who helps human beings think all their

novel ideas as well. It is precisely because of these hidden (or not) assumptions that underlie 'Jewish Studies'

that I very much doubt their classification as a 'science,' despite the importance that some

of their conclusions may have.

Biton14.doc