Dissent & Democracy
July 20th, 2009 | Tikkun Daily
This article has been edited. Hebrew text has been added. Some of the terms used here are explained with links not found in the original version.
I was startled by a question asked two weeks ago by a friend of mine while sitting over lunch in synagogue. He asked me if Judaism and democracy were compatible.
Before I explore that question I want to provide some background on how the fervently liberal and the fervently Orthodox behave with respect to traditions, especially traditions that don’t make any sense.
These are traditions that have an element of choice involved and thus have an impact on the notion of democracy.
Matt and I part company on the lens one uses to view Torah. Matt thinks the lens can only come form an authorised commentator. He does not believe he can make his own commentary. He’s right — but only for the time being. He will know enough soon enough.
Will he ever make his own commnetary?
The fervently Orthodox unquestionably validate traditions that make no sense. Jewish religious liberals most often reject a great deal of tradition they think (incorrectly) is invalid. No tradition is invalid.
There is, for example, a semi-annual fasting tradition called B’Hab [בה“בּ] ]in Hebrew and Monday-Thursday-Monday in English. Torah is read weekday mornings on Monday and Thursday because these were the market days when Ezra began to construct the traditions we now recognise as Rabbinic Judaism.
Many ferevently Orthodox recite the B’Hab prayers but do not fast. Yet the halakhic (legal) tradition calls for a fast. The liberals neither fast nor recite the prayers. The fervently Orthodox should fast — and the fervently liberal should donate a day’s pay to the local foodbank.
Our discussion of democracy will begin with a collection of Mishna that makes no sense. The Mishna is organised into 64 tractates — 63 of which are organised topically. One is organised historically. This is Mishna Edu’yot (M Edu).
I teach M Edu in my Deliberative Ethics course because the topics covered are eclectic. A magistrate needs to deal with eccentricity and the selection in M Edu are nothing if not eccentric.
The Mishna is as ignored a part of the Jewish tradition as exists. It is neglected by the Orthodox and almost unheard of among the liberals. Matt is quite happily learning the Gemara about the Jewish holy day of Passover without having learned the Mishna on which it is based.
The Gemara and the Mishna together are most often called “Talmud”. Every halakha given in the Mishna is decided by majority vote. There are no votes in the Gemara.
In M Edu 1:5 this anonymous question is asked:
Why note the dissent of one among the majority when halakha follows the majority? So that a court may refer to the precedent of a dissenting opinion — for the court may not set aside another court’s decision unless it is greater in wisdom and in number. …
Halakhic decision making in the Mishna’s time and place — 2nd and 3rd century Roman Israel — is democratic: the process described (a) recognises the right of dissent and (b) adds the qualification of merit.
No criterion for wisdom is passed to us in this M Edu discussion. In Mishna Pirqei Avot we do have a definition attributed to Ben Zoma (PA 4:1):
Who is wise? The one who learns from all people.
Ben Zoma does not say all Jews. The Hebrew is kol adam – all people. Rebbi Yehuda asks for some clarification in M Edu 1:6 –
Why mention the opinion of a dissenter…? Because then one cannot say “Thus have I received the tradition” since one may answer “You have a minority opinion”.
Dissent — a minority opinion — is still tradition. It is recorded and I have never seen an unattributed dissenting opinion.
Dissent is part of democracy. Dissent is part of the commentary. Be a democrat: Start writing.
