vote

Thank you very much! Indeed, that's what I thought about it. And that's why I wanted to hear your opinion. Thank you!

At the time, I thought that elections also serve as a signal to other voters in a group in future elections. Even if I lose today at the national level, I signal to other voters at the local level who can make me a local coalition for local goals. The stratification of the electoral systems and the fact that the elections are repeated means that my influence in the elections is not only local but also broad.

Elections also allow us to accurately gauge the strength of a particular group, as we saw in the Jerusalem elections in the struggle between Degel and Agudat Israel.

Is the rabbi talking about the practical chance of having a net impact or does he also think that there really is no point in going and voting? I remember hearing from the rabbi who brought up Kant's categorical imperative on this issue, which is a moral obligation to go vote.

On the 8th of Kislev, 5779

Let us not take lightly the power of the individual.

After all, the miracle of Hanukkah, in which the few prevailed over the many and saved the people of Israel and its spirit, began with the initiative of individuals, Matityahu and his five sons, residents of a small village on the outskirts of the outskirts. The spark that those individuals lit became a mighty flame that led to victory over an empire.

Even more so in elections, in which the individual is not required to risk himself. Each one will do his small part, joining with many others to give a more significant representation of his path and worldview. Especially since decisions are often made on the strength of a few votes. And those who refrain from voting may cause their camp to lose.

There is also another moral aspect: the state gives voters a Sabbath so that they are free to vote. When a person did not exercise the right to vote, they essentially received a benefit without having to pay for it.

Best regards, Sh”z Levinger

Noam,
There was an inaccurate wording here. What I wrote is that voting has no effect. But there is still an obligation to go vote because of the categorical order. I stated this in column 122 and in the reference there to the fourth notebook, Ch”c.

Shchel, it is true that sometimes decisions are made on a few votes, but that only applies to the Knesset. We are talking about voting in elections. There it never depends on a few votes (it doesn't matter if I vote for Likud or Meretz, it certainly won't affect anything in any way).
The state is us. We give ourselves a sabbatical and spend money on it that belongs to all of us.

In the name of the Lord of the Rings, It will receive only four seats, and the tens of thousands of extra votes it received will be divided among the major parties. The lack of a single vote costs a small party an entire seat.

D. Even among the major parties, there is a situation where a single vote will decide which party will receive more, and there is a situation where, due to the lack of one vote, a party can lose an entire seat (or maybe even two).

Needless to say, in personal elections (as is the case in mayoral elections, and as it once was in elections for prime minister) – one vote can decide who is elected.

And all these considerations exist even assuming that I am the only person who does not come to vote, but when there are many who say ‘What does my single vote matter?’, then those many will lose big because everyone said ‘What does my single vote matter’. This means: It is not worth saying that…

Best regards, Sh”t Levinger

And regarding your claim that the Sabbath is a right granted to everyone by the public – this claim is legally correct, not morally wrong. The law that granted the right to a Sabbath to everyone is not a ‘scripture’. It has one reason: to allow everyone to vote. And whoever does not vote is taking advantage of the right that was given to him contrary to the &#8217intention of the legislator’.

And may MK Amir Peretz, who initiated a change in the law, determine that only those who actually vote will be entitled to a Sabbath, come to the rescue. A solution could be proposed that would also benefit the self-employed, so that a person could vote with a &#8217double envelope’ at the polling station near his place of work or business (and as is customary for soldiers).

The situation in which the economy suffered billions of shekels in damage due to the general sabbatical, when only 30-40% went to vote - is a scandal!

The Sabbath could be abolished altogether, by stipulating that a person could also determine his electoral district according to his place of work or business, and then it would be easier for him to vote near his place of work.

And it is said that there was a Jew who lived in Mamel and his business was in Königsberg, and when they demanded from him a “Kammach of Passover” in Mamel, he denied it, claiming that his business was in Königsberg; and when they demanded from him in Königsberg, he claimed: “I live in Mamel.” The two communities united and sued the man for the right before the Malbit, who ordered that he give a “Kammach of Passover” in the place of his business.

The man who was “educated” And also, he was impudent, demanding from the Malbim a source for his ruling, and said: “I am not willing for you to bring evidence from the Shas and Poskim. I want explicit evidence from the Bible!” The Malbim replied: It is written: A man. In his residence and his deeds in Carmel, and the Scripture calls him: “The Carmelite villain.” This means: A man is named after his place of business and not after his place of residence;

And it was concluded that in the second round of the Ramat Gan municipal elections, Ramada will be able to decide, even though his home is in Lod 🙂

With blessings, Shatz Levinger, a man from Kochav Hashachar and his deeds in Jerusalem

You don't seem to have understood what I was saying; I didn't say that there is no theoretical case where a single vote has an impact, but that realistically it has not happened or will never happen because of the low probability.

Could it be that there is a prohibition on voting in elections?
I will explain my question.
After all, a significant part of running a city is halakhic questions, budget management, Jews/Arabs, and so on.
It is clear that no elected official conducts himself according to halakhic law, so what do we have to do with this trouble?

Therefore, we need to run for office so that more representatives will be elected who will try as much as possible to act according to the Torah, and will bring about with God that even what is not proper will be considered the “lesser evil.”

With blessings, The Rebbe of Uto,

This is exactly my question regarding both elections and any other decision.
When it is known that the representative you choose will not act according to halakhah/morality, is it better to try to minimize harm in order to minimize harm, even though the price for this is your intervention and the election of a representative who does not act according to what is appropriate, or is it better not to intervene, and even if a worse situation arises, at least it does not concern me and my actions, and whatever happens will happen (this seems to me to be an important philosophical/halakhic question, not exactly on the subject of elections, is it better to take an incorrect position out of several incorrect ones in order to minimize harm, or is it better not to take a position at all)

Maybe, but in my opinion there is no prohibition. You are a partner whether you want to or not, because you are part of the game. You belong to this community, and everything is done by your power whether you voted or not. If you advocate for the separation of the communities, be respectful and separate.

Q’, on the subject of the lesser evil, see the Rabbi's article https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2-%D7%91%D7%91%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA/

This is not true, I am part of the game in that I am affected by what will happen, but I ask in principle when I have two bad choices (let's assume I can choose the less bad option), and on the other hand I have the option of not choosing at all, (then the worse option will happen).
What should I do from a halakhic / moral perspective?
Choose the less bad option and thus be directly responsible for the consequences of my choice, or not intervene, and then even if the worst situation arises, it has nothing to do with me.
I think this is a question that needs to be considered, it concerns not only choices but many decisions throughout life.

On the 1st of Kislev, 9th of September

Thirty-ninth of September, – Peace be upon you,

And if a person chose to ’sit and do not do’ and caused the worse result to come true – is he not directly responsible for the outcome of his choice?

In this way, Rabbi Yochanan said about Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkoles who chose falsehood – lest the believing men say, – or lest they say, –He who defiles the holy things shall be put to death– – whose humility ‘destroyed the house of our God’

Is it appropriate to resort to the Holocaust?

Best regards, Shatz Levinger

On the 9th of Kislev

Saturday, Good morning,

Does a choice to sit and do nothing that led to a worse outcome not impose responsibility for the outcome? Wasn't this the argument of Rabbi Yochanan against Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkolas, that his choice to feel the wrongness lest the believing husbands say, "We are relatives" or lest they say, "He who defiles the holy things shall be killed"?

With blessings of a good choice, Sht. Levinger

The defendant is not similar to the witness, where apparently from the side of the law the conditions were divided on how to act in that morality, and each had a reason for his method, and not from the side of avoiding the return and do not do.
On the other hand, in the case of Didan, choosing a lesser evil is an active choice, and it is found that that evil is the result of your choice, that is, there is a direct causal connection between that evil and you, on the other hand, lack of intervention (even where there is a possibility of completely preventing the evil) does not link the person causally to the evil, the evil happened because of some factor, and I could have prevented it and did not prevent it, I am still not the cause of the evil. And where I do not have the possibility of preventing the evil, but only to actively choose a lesser evil, I do not think it is so simple that choosing the lesser evil should be preferred over lack of intervention.