[Avodah] John Locke and Tzedaqa

[Dov Kaiser]

R. Michael Makovi wrote: 
<<For how Judaism and democracy interact in a modern society and nation, we'd have to study both the halakhah and John Locke much more deeply, and study the words of Rabbis Haim Hirschensohn, Benzion Uziel, Yitzhak Herzog, and anyone else who's written on the subject. Tzarikh `iyun gadol me'od.
 
Interestingly, however, I just saw that Moshe Feiglin advocates the revitalization of localized communities in Israel, precisely because he believes it will lead to a resurgence of Jewishness and Judaism in Israel. In his article "Judaism and Democracy for Israel" (http://www.jewishisrael.org/eng_contents/articles/article7020.html),>>

----------------------------------------------

 

R, Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch (RY at Maale Adumim and author of Yad Peshuta), in his Darkah Shel Torah, deals fairly comprehensively with his conception of government, based on Tanach, Chazal and the Rambam.  IIRC, he finds a form of social contract theory in these sources.  Like Moshe Feiglin, R. Rabinovitch holds that Torah's conception of democracy (yes, he believes it has one) requires direct elections, not proportional representation.

 

On a tangent and by way of well intended advice, I know that you are fond of Rabbis Hirschenson, Uziel, Herzog and Berkovits, and that is your right.  However, by constantly referencing a narrow slice of Jewish thinkers, the appeal of your arguments to others who may not share your fondness suffers.  It is like a Lubavitcher who only ever quotes the works of the Rebbes, Rav Kooknik who only quotes Rav Kook, or American Modern Orthodox type who only quotes the Rav.  We have all met these types, and discussion with them becomes tedious and futile.  I am not accusing you of this and hope that you excuse the chutzpah of my criticism, but I think your argument could benefit frmo being fleshed out by other thinkers, particularly those from Chazal and Rishonim.

 

You prefaced your discussion on this topic with the Talmudic rule that sevara is deoraita.  Of course, sevara is sometimes used in the Talmud to derive binding halakha (e.g. Yoma 82b - who says that your blood is redder than mine?),   However, your use of the expression in this context gives the impression that you are asserting the incontrovertibility of your arguments because they are so logical!  Rn. T. Katz has already taken you to task based, I think, on this (mis)understanding of your words (in a stronger tone than I think was called for - moderators, where are you when we need you?).  I am sure that this is not what you were saying, but you open the way for attacks like those by RTK by using expressions such as *sevara deoraita* out of context.  

 

Kol tuv
Dov Kaiser
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100111/20d5e940/attachment-0001.htm>