Audio Shiur:
Parshat Shoftim - Faith in our Rabbinic Leaders

Emunat Chachamim isn't simply an important detail in Jewish life; it's a fundamental aspect of Orthodoxy. In an era of democracy of information, where the notion of questioning authority in every area is not only encouraged, but essential culturally, the issue of emunat chachamim is a critical element of religious faith.

Click here to navigate to the shiur on YUTorah.org.

Click on the player below to play the Shiur or right click here to download)



Did you know that this shiur is available as a free podcast on iTunes? Click here to subscribe - and leave a comment and rating so more people will find the shiur! Thanks!

For many years - decades in fact, the United States actively promoted the idea of spreading democracy around the world, spending many millions of dollars on efforts to promote democracy, believing that this would lead to greater freedom, fewer regional conflicts, and greater global stability.
Sometimes, this did in fact work. Japan is now a stable, democratic country, after centuries of imperial rule. But, in more recent history, this effort has backfired, and even has served to bolster those who wish to do the United States harm.
As we've witnessed in recent years, giving people the right to choose their government does not guarantee that they'll choose a liberal government that guarantees rights and freedoms. In fact, when given the right to choose, citizens of Egypt chose the Muslim Brotherhood, while their cousins in Gaza chose Hamas - sister organizations dedicated to the promotion of radical Islam. In fact, rather than leading to "liberal democracies", free elections in Muslim countries have resulted in "illiberal democracies" whose governments then proudly promote their legitimacy, as they were indeed freely elected.
None of this should come as any surprise to those who study Chumash with Ha'amek Davar, the commentary of Netziv. While following the will of the people seems inherently sensible, Netziv, noting a seeming self-contradiction in the Torah points out an obvious truth: what's seems sensible, isn't always the best choice.
Moshe instructs the nation that when the enter into the Chosen Land, they must appoint a king to lead them:

כִּי-תָבֹא אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ, וִירִשְׁתָּהּ, וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ; וְאָמַרְתָּ, אָשִׂימָה עָלַי מֶלֶךְ, כְּכָל-הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתָי. שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ: מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ, תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ--לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אָחִיךָ הוּא.

When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein; and shalt say: 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me'; thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother. (Devarim 17:15-16)

Netziv notes that rather than just instructing the people to appoint a king, that appointment can only come should the nation desire a king - when the people say, "I will set a king over me." It seems that the Torah only commands the nation to appoint a king when they look at the nations around them, and wish to have a similar form of leadership. Yet, this condition seems to contradict the apparent commandment to appoint a king. In fact, Chazal do indeed interpret these verses as a commandment - a mitzvah - to appoint a king. So, must we appoint a king or not? Is it a mitzvah or not? According to Netziv, it depends. He writes:

ונראה דמשום דהנהגת המדינה משתנית אם מתנהגת ע"פ דעת מלוכה או ע"פ דעת העם ונבחריהם. ויש מדינה שאינה יכולה לסבול דעת מלוכה ויש מדינה שבלא מלך הרי היא כספינה בלי קברניט, ודבר זה אי אפשר לעשות ע"פ הכרח מצות עשה, שהרי בענין השייך להנהגת הכלל נוגע לסכנת נפשות שדוחה מצות עשה. משום הכי אי אפשר לצוות בהחלט למנות מלך כל זמן שלא עלה בהסכמת העם לסבול עול מלך ע"פ שרואים מדינות אשר סביבותיהם מתנהגים בסדר יותר נכון או אז מצות עשה לסנהדרין למנות מלך.

It seems [that the verse is ambiguous] because the leadership of the State is varied - whether it be a leadership of monarchy, or a leadership based upon the will of the people and their chosen [leaders]. There may be a state that cannot suffer monarchy, while another state without a king is like a boat without a captain. This matter cannot be enforced through a positive commandment, for matters related to the public can be issues of life and death, and would therefore supersede a positive commandment. For this reason, it is impossible to issue an absolute command to appoint a king, as long as the public has not agreed to suffer the yoke of a king, having seen the countries surrounding them functioning with greater order [due to their king]. Only then is it a positive commandment for the Sanhedrin to appoint a king.

Some nations - at some times - cannot suffer a monarchy, while others (or even that same country, in a different era), would literally disintegrate without the firm guidance of a powerful leader. It interesting to note that the Obama Administration seems to have come to this very conclusion (a bit late, in my opinion), drastically cutting funding to promote democracy in the Middle East.
Look what happened to Egypt (and Tunisia and Gaza - and probably Syria as well): While democracy sounds good, it seems clear in retrospect that only the firm grip of a powerful leader kept those countries from destroying themselves, and those around them.
Is Democracy the best choice? It can be. But, Netziv reminds us that it's only a good choice of government when the nations themselves are ready for it.

Audio Shiur:
Parshat Shoftim - Is Democracy a Jewish Value

The modern State of Israel chose a democratically elected form of government. Had the founders of the State followed the Torah, would they have made this choice? The answer, based on a section in Parshat Shoftim, might surprise you.

Click here to navigate to the shiur on YUTorah.org.

Click to play the Shiur (or right-click to download)

Audio Shiur:
Shabbat Shuvah 5772: Temimut - A Critical Key to Teshuvah


[埋込みオブジェクト:http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf?audioUrl=http://download.yutorah.org/2011/1070/764638/Shabbat%20Shuvah%20-%20Temimut%20-%20A%20Critical%20Key%20for%20Teshuvah.MP3]



Now you can subscribe to this shiur as a podcast, directly from iTunes! To subscribe, click here.

While change is often good and neccesary in life, the Torah prohibits other types of change. For example, the Torah explicitly forbids השגת גבול -- adjusting and overstepping boundaries in the Land of Israel. Put simply, I can't change the markings on the border between my fields and my neighbor's so that I get more while he gets less. Rashi explains that while moving the border of my house to overstep my neighbor's is indeed also stealing, God gives an additional admonition in this particular area. Why would the Torah need to prohibit a behavior that it already forbids?

Ramban notes that a person might come to feel that God had apportioned the Land of Israel unfairly for any number of reasons: the land tracts seem uneven; my needs are greater than my neighbor's -- or any number of other reasons. When I arrive at this type of conclusion I don't feel consider moving boundaries "stealing." Rather, I'm just setting things straight.
For this reason, the Torah adds the additional prohibition of "changing borders." God knows what he's doing. He gives every person the proper piece of the Land of Israel -- despite the fact that we may feel slighted. So even though I might feel justified, I still may not take what is not mine.

In other words, when we approach the notion of change during the month of Elul, instead of looking to change what we've been given, first we need to change ourselves. That's the best place to start.