Queen Elizabeth and the Biblical conception of royalty

As an Englishman living abroad, I have been approached numerous times in recent days by my friends and neighbours here in Jerusalem who wished to offer condolences and discuss matters of British royalty. On more than one occasion, they were curious to know what exactly the Queen did and, since she had no recognisably significant role, why people were so upset at her passing.

The function of the Queen within the British political system was perhaps best summarised by the 19th century political theorist, Walter Bagehot, who explained that the British political system is built upon a ‘double set’ of institutions. It is the dignified ones which “impress the many” while the efficient ones “govern the many”. The dignified or “theatrical” parts of the system play the essential role of winning and sustaining the loyalty and confidence of the nation; they help the state to gain authority and legitimacy which the efficient institutions can then utilise. “The use of the Queen in a dignified capacity, is incalculable”, he argued, “in that it strengthens the government through its combination of mystique and pageantry”.

Queen Elizabeth certainly excelled as head of the dignified institutions. While she may have lacked formal legal power, she used her “right to be consulted, right to encourage, right to warn” in weekly meetings with Prime Ministers throughout her 70 year reign. Most importantly, by publicly standing apart from the discussions and debates which gripped the “efficient institutions”, the Queen was able to transcend the political squabbles which so often divided the nation – she thereby represented a figure and institution which could unify warring classes and political groups.

It struck me today when I reviewed the passage in the Torah which describes the royal prerogative in Judaism (Devarim 17) that it contains absolutely no reference to any positive role that a monarch should play within the Jewish governmental system. The king does not legislate: Torah law is legislated and enforced by a system of Sanhedrin and its agents (as the Torah sets out in the immediately preceding section). Nor does the king act as a religious leader who conveys God’s word to the people or serve in the Mikdash – that was the job of prophets and priests. An appointed priest is also described as conducting matters of war. While Shmuel’s rebuke to the nation concerning the potential pitfalls of installing a king discloses considerable royal powers, the sages are divided as to whether he is describing legitimate legal rights or warning them of what monarchy would inevitably descend to. Certainly biblical kings assumed greater powers for themselves than those set out by the Torah – perhaps as was required by the realities of the nation at the time.

All that the Torah appears to positively require of a king is largely symbolic and ceremonial. He must write a Torah scroll and “read from it all of his days”. More significantly, a later passage is understood to task him with the commandment of “hakel”, which involves the public reading of the Torah to the entire gathered nation. The Torah emphasises that this includes young children who are incapable of understanding. They must still be included in this ceremonial gathering in which the king can symbolically be seen to unite the Jewish nation around the Torah’s teachings and values.

While the Torah therefore provides little positive guidance as to the role of a Jewish king, it certainly sets out rules as to what he should not do. As I analyse in the chapter of Judaism Reclaimedwhich contrasts Judaism’s approach to that of other political systems, the Torah introduced a revolutionary new concept in the Ancient Near East – that of a limited monarchy which was subject to the rule of law (not to mention frequent prophetic rebuke).

Not only is the Jewish king subject to the law –legal limits are imposed specifically to restrain any potential abuse of his position for the pursuit of personal wealth and glory. He may not amass horses – a symbol of ancient power and prestige – not may he marry many wives. The explicit intention is that Jewish monarchy is not an opportunity for the person seated on the throne to exploit the nation in order to gain personal status and luxury. Rather the kingship is to be a dignified institution – one which transcends the inevitable legal and cultural disputes which divide nations – and serves to unite the Jewish people around the moral and spiritual teachings of the Torah.

Queen Elizabeth was not a Jewish monarch and it was not her role to publicly represent the Torah and its teachings. Nevertheless, the dignity and selfless sense of duty to her nation which she constantly exhibited combined with her ability to transcend national division in order to refocus and inspire her nation may offer some insight into the sort of monarchy that the Torah envisaged.

First posted to Facebook 7 September 2022, here.

Religious coercion and Jewish theocracy

This week’s parashah opens with a requirement to appoint law enforcement officers. In Torah law, it is not only civil and criminal law which is regulated by governmental authorities, but also religious rules such as Shabbat observance.

How are we to relate to the Torah’s apparent endorsement of such a phenomenon? Can this passage be cited in support of those who campaign, for example, to close entertainment venues on Shabbat in Israel?

Setting aside the practical efficacy of adopting heavy-handed tactics in an attempt to increase religious observance among secular people – and the likely backlash that this would continue to provoke – certain Talmudic passages suggest that implementing such coercion in today’s society may not be correct from a religious perspective.

In its chapter which grapples with the ability of Jewish civil and criminal law to govern a society, Judaism Reclaimed cites a fascinating passage from the writings of Yeshayahu Leibowitz. The passage concerns the Eglah Arufah ceremony – also found in this week’s parashah – which was performed by the elders of a community which had suffered an unsolved murder. By carrying out this rite, the community is brought to realise the enormity of what has occurred and the sanctity of human life.

A Mishnah at the end of Sotah teaches, however, that “when the number of murderers increased, the Eglah Arufa ceremony was suspended”. This religious rite is meaningful only in a society for which murder is an abhorrent and exceptional occurrence. Once murder is commonplace, explains Leibowitz (and supported by Rabbi S. R. Hirsch), there is no need to pretend that we are shocked by an unresolved murder. In such a society there is a certain measure of hypocrisy in such a rite. The society must first be purged of daily occurrences of murder – only then is there reason to hold such a ceremony. A parallel tannaitic teaching informs us that “when adultery became common, the bitter waters [Sotah rites] were suspended”. Once again, concludes Leibowitz, if a society is saturated with sexual immorality, there is no reason to be shocked at the case of a suspected adulteress. One ought instead to try to reform the society.

Leibowitz then proposes that the spirit governing the abolition of the Eglah Arufah and Sotah rites contains an important lesson for today’s generation:

“In a society and state which are not based on the recognition of the obligation to observe the Torah, there is no reason to investigate whether some specific law of the state is in accordance with the halakha. By directing our thoughts and actions to just these details…we make the struggle for the Torah and its mitzvot into a caricature.

In a society and a state in which public life, as based on government and law, involves the operation of ports and airports on Shabbat, where hundreds of factories work on Shabbat with government permission, where there are government radio and television on Shabbat, the struggle against the opening of another movie house on Shabbat makes religion into a mockery. In a society where large parts within it, of all social classes, have ruled that “You will not commit adultery” and “there will not be a harlot” does not apply, and that such phenomena are even understandable – the requirement that marriage must be in accordance with halakha is only a desecration of the institute of religious marriage, a desecration of the Torah, and only serves to increase the number of mamzerim in Israel.

Mend the society, mend the state – and then you are permitted, and even obliged, to be concerned that the details within the framework of the society and the state should be in accordance with the demands of the Torah. As long as you do not struggle for a change of the image of the Jewish people, you cannot struggle for certain details in the lifestyle of the members of this community, and certainly not for details in the laws of that state, that community – which has not assumed for itself the Yoke of the Torah and mitzvot – is establishing for itself.”

It may be possible to bolster these powerful words from Yeshayahu Leibowitz with those of his prophetic namesake, who sharply rebuked Israel for their misplaced priorities in the First Temple era:

“You shall no longer bring vain meal-offerings, it is smoke of abomination to Me; New Moons and Sabbaths, festivals, I cannot [bear] iniquity with assembly. Your New Moons and your appointed seasons My soul hates, they are a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing [them]…Wash, cleanse yourselves, remove the evil of your deeds from before My eyes, cease to do evil. Learn to do good, seek justice, strengthen the robbed, perform justice for the orphan, plead the case of the widow.”

If God, as represented in the first chapter of Yeshaya, considers the ritual observances of a corrupt and unrighteous people to be unwelcome and burdensome, can we rightly expect our secular brethren to embrace a religion which is so regularly tainted with scandal and unethical behaviour? Rather than battling to coerce whole swathes of a resentful secular society to unwillingly curtail their Shabbat entertainment, perhaps the most potent tool of persuasion available to religious warriors is to concentrate on constructing a religious society which is so ethical, holy and righteous that is serves as a spiritual magnet for those searching to better themselves and live a refined and godly existence.

Tel Aviv light rail dispute here.

First posted on Facebook 28 August 2022, here.

Israel alone and isolated -- unique and blessed

The front cover image of the latest edition of The Economist accurately reflects the reality for Israel in the world at this time. The United Nations, whose organisations and employees have been complicit in Jew hatred and genocide, argue only over which words to use to condemn the Jewish state and its attempts to make its borders safe for its traumatized citizens.

It is vital that we remember at these difficult times that standing alone should not be seen as a threat to Jews. It is something that we have come to expect –even as a point of pride prophetically predicted by our great biblical adversary Bilaam (and echoed later by Haman):

“it is a nation that will dwell alone, and will not be reckoned among the nations.” [Bemidbar 23:9]

Israel is seen as separate and apart whether in exile among the nations or dwelling in its homeland. Amos Oz famously commented that:

“When my father was a young man in Vilna, every wall in Europe said, "Jews go home to Palestine." Fifty years later, when he went back to Europe on a visit, the walls all screamed, "Jews get out of Palestine.”

A resounding message which emerges from the tense discussion between Mordechai and Esther at the darkest moments of the Purim story is that God has a covenant with us – revach vehatzalah (divine salvation) will always arise from somewhere. We may not know where or how it will be achieved but we have relied upon God’s promise for thousands of years. Our strength has not come from being popular or great in number:

“Not because you are more numerous than any people did God delight in you and choose you, for you are the least of all the peoples. But because of God’s love for you…” [Devarim 7:7]

This is the message we must recall as we seek to secure our borders after the brutal unprovoked attacks of October 7. As we are lectured by human rights luminaries such as Russia, China and the Arab world – Nations United in their horror of seeing Jews defend themselves as the West did during the Second World War against Nazi Germany. The ideology of Amalek – those who delight in targeting and brutalizing the weak and innocent – must be utterly destroyed from our borders. If we must stand alone in the moral clarity of defeating evil then so be it. Lo Tishkach.

It is poignant when reading in the Megillah of past efforts to destroy the Jewish people to bear in mind the words of Ron Dermer, Israeli ambassador to America, last week:

“When I was Israel's Ambassador to Washington, I must have met more than 160 other Ambassadors. I never met the Ambassador of Babylon, never met the Ambassador of Imperial Rome and I didn't meet the Ambassador of the 1,000-Year Reich. But there is an Ambassador of Israel. We will survive this enemy.”

First posted to Facebook 24 March 2024, here.