The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Irony of the Battle Over Legal Reform in Israel
The Jewish world was once ruled by a religious lawyerocracy; the Zionist left wants a secular version.
After the fall of the Second Temple in the first century, Judaism gradually became a lawyerocracy, a society ruled by lawyers. Jews call these lawyers "rabbis," but think about the training rabbis traditionally receive–it's primarily many years of law school, learning the Talmud and other sources of Jewish law until one becomes sufficiently expert to be a legal advisor and judge.
Jewish lawyerocracy helped keep the Jewish people united during their dispersion. One could travel from one Jewish community to a far-flung one hundreds of miles away, and be assured that others would accept you as a fellow Jew, and that the laws and prayers would be quite similar.
But lawyerocracy also caused problems. For one thing, lawyers are trained to see every problem as a legal problem, and to therefore to address problems with more and more law. Thus, from relatively modest beginnings, halacha [Jewish law] gradually took over every aspect of daily life.
To be sure, the rabbis developed doctrines to mitigate over-legalization, such as the precept that laws that a community has longed ceased to follow are no longer laws. But such precepts were rarely followed in practice. Instead, law was law, custom became law, and new laws were created to help ensure that the existing laws weren't violated. For many Jews, law became an onerous burden rather than a path to connecting with G-d.
Another problem was that rabbis, i.e., lawyers, often became the community's leaders and rulers. From Sa'adia Gaon serving as Exilarch in the Eastern Holy Roman Empire to the Council of the Four Lands in eighteenth century Eastern Europe, rabbis frequently held secular power as well as religious authority. And as Lord Acton noted, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Over the centuries, the power accrued by the rabbis was subject to explicit and implicit criticism by various dissenting movements and individuals. The Karaites believed the rabbis had strayed too far from the written Torah. Kabbalists implicitly found Jewish legalism inadequate to explain the precarious state of the Jewish people, and the chaotic state of the world. Various messianic movements sought immediate redemption, with overthrowing the yoke of the law often high on their agendas. Early Hasidism revolted against the notion that being learned in the Talmud, something unattainable for many poor, rural Jews, was a higher value than a spiritual connection to G-d. The Reform movement sought to reorient Judaism around ethical monotheism and prophetic values, correctly predicting that the lawyerocracy would largely fail to win Jews' allegiance once they integrated into Christian societies. Socialist Jews held public Yom Kippur feasts to mock pious adherence to the law at the expense of material concerns.
And of course, Zionism was itself a dramatic revolt against the authority of the rabbis, insisting that Jews take responsibility for their own fates and restore Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael. Zionists utterly rejected the accepted view of the lawyerocracy that Jews needed to wait for the Messiah to be redeemed, and should obediently obey the law in the meantime.
Thus, the irony. Zionism, especially in its dominant secular variety, was the culmination of centuries of percolating distrust of the notion that the law is Jews' salvation. And yet the notion that law matters above all, and lawyers can be entrusted with the fate of the Jewish people, obviously has persisted in the cultural DNA of Israeli Jews.
The Israeli Supreme Court has accrued to itself more power than any other Supreme Court in the world. Even more striking, the attorney general has power to by herself undermine almost any Israeli law or policy, a power that is shocking to those of us used to the American concept of separation of powers. And both the Supreme Court and the Attorney General have seized these powers based on only the flimsiest of rationales.
Hence, the irony referred to in the title of this blog post. Secular, left-leaning Zionists have seen their power erode for decades. The peace process is on life support. State-run industries have been replaced by economic liberalization. Rabbinical authority governs family and conversion law with ever-increasing stringency. Religious Zionists have gradually replaced secular kibbutzniks in the military elite. Shockingly illiberal parties are now routinely serving in government.
None of those developments managed to galvanize the Zionist left. Instead, relatively minor proposed limits to the authority of the attorney general and the supreme court, which would still have powers unheard of in most of the democratic world, has led to months of mass demonstrations and general social turmoil.
Don't get me wrong. I think some of the proposed reforms are sensible, but many are unwise. Israel could have developed a system of checks and balances that did not rely so heavily on the judiciary, but it did not. Therefore, significant legal reform needs to be accompanied by other reforms that create new checks on the Knesset and incumbent governments.
That said, though, the irony is palpable. The faith that the Zionist left has in the judiciary and the attorney general is faith in a modern form of lawyerocracy. Veneration of the law and the lawyers who interpret and enforce it have more than a bit in common with traditional Jewish veneration of halacha and leading rabbis. It's ultimately unsurprising that Israelis, the descendants of people who lived under lawyerocarcy for centuries, would naturally look to lawyers to guide society.
So as an American Jewish law professor, and a fellow secularish Zionist, allow me to point out the obvious. The rule of law is important. Fetishization of the law, and faith in lawyers, be they learned graduates of yeshivas or secularists with degree from Hebrew University and Oxford, is problematic.
Despite being a young, successful "Startup Nation," Israel faces many challenges, including its own internal demons and divisions. Law and lawyers have an important role to play. But Jewish history teaches us that there is such a thing as giving lawyers too much power, and faith in the wisdom of lawyers is often misplaced. In short, whatever problems you think Israel faces, don't expect lawyers, even those serving on the Israeli Supreme Court, to ultimately save the day.
[cross-posted at the Times of Israel]
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Who ever's running this site has somehow screwed up the formatting and columns are overlapping each other. I see Reason is proudly carrying on its particular and traditional libertarians in general, reputation for tech incompetence.
This (along with the rampant pop-up ads that appear on the right side of my screen--from my perspective) are both new and fucking annoying. Something has changed at the Reason site, and it's a dreadful change.
(If Amos and I can agree on something, certainly less-likely things, like Jews and Arabs getting along peacefully, can happen.) 🙂
The Flavacol on brussel sprouts was not ideal; flavacol doesn't handle roasting well at 400. I think I need to figure out when to sprinkle it on toward the end of cooking.
Appears to be fixed, at least on my browser.
The “Download” ad is particularly noxious and seems to be involved in the problem.
Whatever ad service they switched to the past few weeks has one foot in the sketchy.
*shrug* They know their audience.
Same here. I can't read an article on my phone anymore. It's SLOW and will, in the end, lock it up.
Dont disagree, and moreover one can see the issue of too many reinterpretations of a thing causing anti-democratic behavior from lawyers claiming the mantle of "democracy" ... but uh, what do yall do again?
Seems somewhat overlapping with certain American tendency to win a momentary political squabble by selling out a principle of higher value.
Impeachment for political gain.
Prosecution of political opponents.
Senate super-majority.
Packing the court.
Defying the SC.
Importing voters expected to vote a particular way.
Lax ballot security
These kinds of things never stay with the dagger pointed at the other guy.
The whole controversy says a lot about Jews. It is hard to imagine any other country having a similar controversy.
In what sense? Can you explain a bit about what you intended to say?
Please elaborate.
Bernstein said it better than I can. Jews are willing to let a bunch of rabbis have a hyper-legalistic debate about some issues, and then expect everyone to go along with what the rabbis decide. To non-Jews, it is a weird way to do things.
Sounds like a synod to me.
Well only because in most western democracies the legislative branch has ultimate primacy. Which is what Netanyahu seems to want to achieve now. Subject of course to the edicts of a constitutional order, rather than the judges preferences.
Autocratic governments which are at least as predominant as Western democracies prefer a judiciary that is subject to the governments preferences.
Its not exactly a fine line but I think Israel is well within the western democracy camp.
I'm not going to try to compare a theoretical Judicacracy to a theocracy but the comparisons are definitely there.
(It is interesting that trying to coin a word that connotes a judicial theocracy comes out as almost as a jew-diacreacy, but that was not my intent, but I will note I saw the similarity)
in most western democracies the legislative branch has ultimate primacy
Isn't judicial review pretty common across the US and Europe?
How is he doing that? Israel has no constitution.
I think the fundamental problem here is that Israel has no agreed upon, hard-to-amend written constitution creating an authority above both the legislature and the courts. While I think the American constitution is too hard to amend, Israel’s “basic laws” are far too easy. Despite the quasi-comstitutional window dressing, they are just ordinary legislation. Nearly all can be amended by a simple majority.
Thus Israel’s Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to create a liberal bill of rights, and review nearly evefy aspect of government, that nobody ever agreed to. But if it should be deposed from the role it has usurped, the legislature would go unchecked. It could do whatever it wants, including running roughshod over Israel’s ethnic and religious minorities. It could end liberal democracy and individual rights entirely if it wanted to.
Neither outcome, an unchecked court or an unchecked legislature, is a good outcome.
You think a legislature that wants to run roughshod over ethnic and religious minorities would be deterred by a SC ruling?
ReaderY is completely correct. Israel is one of the few countries in the world that lacks a written constitution to protect minority rights.
In my view, the failure of its founders to create such a constitution was a serious error, which I suspect was a product of internal debate with respect to whether all citizens in the country should be treated equal or whether Jewish citizens should be given favorable treatment. The Israel Supreme Court's attempt to fill the gap with a "reasonableness doctrine" designed to protect minority rights was understandable but unsatisfying; it gives excessive power to the Judicial branch. But the Netanyahu government's attempt to repeal the reasonableness doctrine is far worse; it gives excessive power to the Legislative branch, with nothing to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
"...Socialist Jews held public Yom Kippur feasts to mock pious adherence to the law at the expense of material concerns...."
David, do you (or any other VC reader) have a link to this? I know it was almost a throwaway line in your OP, but I've never heard of this activity before, and I'd like to learn a bit more about this.
I think he’s referring to the so-called “Yom Kippur balls”. There’s a short Wikipedia article under that title that should at least give you somewhere to start, and googling that will give you a few more places to go for info.
Thanks! I hadn't heard about that.
[truly tasteless AC/DC reference deleted]
George,
Thanks. Never had heard of this. And surprising to me, to learn that the tradition goes back almost 150 years.
Wikipedia is a treasure for almost all things non-partisan (ie, subjects where there is no huge incentive to lie or fudge details). I feel like I'm a 1% better Jew than I was yesterday...which goes to show how low the bar is, for a secularist like me.
This was not just done by anarchist and socialist types. 19th Century Reform Judaism preached that traditional practice was barbarous superstition in a manner similar to militant Protestantism’s harshest preachings about Catholicism. (Before the 20th Century, the Coronation Oath required a British monarch to recite a list of specific Catholic practices and swear he regarded them as superstition and nonsense.)
The American 20th Century experience softened things. But that softening largely bypassed Israel. Israel’s religious right today regularly says that non-Orthodox people do what they do for the specific purpose of mocking Orthodox Jews. (Look at the whole controversy over the Western Wall.) While today it’s a trope, and Americans who go to the non-Orthodox section of the Wall for a bat mitzvah have no clue why there are these teenage boys in black hats throwing shit at them, the history helps explain how the trope came to be.
Don't listen to lawyers, a law professor "explains".
More like “don’t overeat, chef explains.”
Maybe a declaration against interest, but a fair point about overdoing the whole rule-by-lawyers thing.
More like, "leave yourself a way to vote the lawyers out."
What's happening now makes sense....
There is nothing new under the sun:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."
Is that what turning the other cheek is supposed to look like?
Attachment to lawyerocracy might be some part of it.
I think a simpler explanation is that the secular left is freaking out because this is (in their view at least, and maybe correctly) the most ethnic/religious nationalist government ever, while the parties of the left are at their weakest point ever. It’s further inflamed by a few key ministers of the new government with the habit of openly saying provocative things that were previously discussed less directly. The protestors have latched onto this judicial reform thing, partly because it does weaken the last check on the right doing absolutely whatever they want. But it’s also the central element of the program of a government they strongly dislike, and they’d be protesting that central element no matter what it was.
This post more or less says that the libs are not wrong here, but OP is pleased to see them owned.
Ends vs. means. He sympathizes with a lot of the goals of the left but still sides with Churchill about democracy being the least worst, etc.
Wow! This was good reading!
Jews disagree over laws. In other news, ursus horribilis was found defecating in sylvan environment.
Really I find usually they try to redistribute my recycling, since I don't leave my garbage out where they can get it.
But after awhile, and I chase them off whenever I see them, they go back to the manzinita berries because there isn't a wildass hippie with a .357 disturbing them.
But damn they do leave some piles in the woods.
The bears of course, not the jews. I can tell a bear when I see one. I can't tell a wandering Jew from a genitle out in the woods.
"After the fall of the Second Temple in the first century . . . . "
Is that the Jewish first century or the Jesus birthday anno Domini thing?
We just had Rosh HaShanah and it's now 5785 under the Jewish calendar.
apedad, I think you hit fast forward on time. It is now 5784. 🙂
(I want my year back)
Oops typo!
I need to get a Jewish deli fix: https://katzsdelicatessen.com/shipping.html
I periodically commute to the Big Apple. All I will say is Katz's can become a very expensive habit. No need to ask me how I know this. 🙂
David Bernstein has some serious misconceptions about the Judaism of antiquity.
During the Greco-Roman period, there were three separate and distinct populations that practiced Judaism. The Hellenistic Judaism of the Occidental Roman Empire was Greek-language based and used the Septuagint or later Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible for its Holy Scripture. Only descendants of non-Judean converts practiced Greek-language Judaism. This Judaism was also practiced in Alexandria among Greek speakers. European Judaism was Hellenistic, often used a vernacular version of a Greek Bible, and was ignorant of Hebrew or Aramaic until approximately 850 CE when merchants that practiced Mesopotamian Judaism established a seminary in Venosa, Italy. The Mesopotamian merchants were willing to admit Europeans into their trade networks in the role of junior partners but only if the Europeans were willing to use Mesopotamian religious law for the sole Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Palestinian and Phoenician Canaanite/Hebrew-language-based Judaism was practiced among Phoenician and Palestinian Canaanite/Hebrew speakers including those that lived in Alexandria, Carthage, and other Phoenician colonies in N. Africa and elsewhere on the shores of the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas. This version of Judaism was tied to the Jerusalem Temple cult and was mostly shattered by the destruction of the Jerusalem and Leontopolis Temples. (The Casifia/Ctesiphon Temple probably continued to function until about 300 CE.)
The maniac Bar Kochba and his lackey Tannaim (e.g., Rabbi Akiba) completely discredited Biblical and Tannaitic Judaism for the peasantry because Bar Kochba persecuted the peasantry and the Tannaim supported him. The Palestinian population, which practiced Biblical Judaism, converted entirely to Christianity and subsequently mostly to Islam, which is a slight variant of Judean (Jamesian) Christianity in which Jesus is the messiah but not divine. By the beginning of the 3rd century CE most of the Judean peasantry (90% of the population) practiced some form of Judean Christianity.
The Roman Expulsion is a metaphor for the transformation of Judaism from the religion of Judea into a religion that only descendants of non-Judean converts practice. Palestinians descend from Greco-Roman Judeans, who converted first to Christianity and then mostly to Islam.
Aramaic-language-based Judaism was practiced in Mesopotamia/Babylonia. It was initially an Aramaic-language version of Zoroastrianism but adopted the Hebrew Bible in the early Hellenistic period. This community created Rabbinic Judaism.
Judah the Prince and Nathan the Babylonian tried to introduce an early form of this version of Judaism to Palestine during the 3rd century CE in the form of the Mishnah, but their efforts were mostly scorned by the peasantry.
As everyone in Palestine became Christian, the regional distinctions like Judea, Samaria, Idumea, Galilee, Nabatea, etc. became mostly obsolete, and it made sense to refer to the whole region by the territorial name Palestine. The Saints and Church Fathers of Palestine were routinely called Palestinian.
Err, uh…Rome changed the name from Judea to Palestine after it crushed the Bar Kochba revolt. You characterized the name change as something done organically by the people much later because the people found it “made sense.” That ain’t so. And that (plus totally ignoring Rome’s brutal persecution of the Jews after it crushed the Bar Kochba revolt, a key driver of the diminishment of the Jewish population) casts doubt on the rest of your thesis, including both your claim that the founders of contemporary Judaism were illegitimate “maniacs” and “lackeys” with no connection to the Biblical religion, and your claim that contemporary Jews are all descendents of converts (to this illegitimate religion) with no connection to the Biblical Hebrew people.
Your thesis is a bit like claiming that the former Jews of Germany and Eastern Europe all voluntarily rejected the Judaism of those maniac rabbis and their lackeys and converted to Christianity, considered themselves ethnically part of their home nation, and dis-identified as Jews. Jews and Judaism all just sort of organically dissappeared from the area in the mid-20th Century in the natural course of things.
Rome was an elephant in the room so far as the depopulation of Jews from the area was concerned. Its impact on Jewish history was comparable to Hitler’s.
For example, the Greeking-speaking Hellenic Jewish civilization you wrote about indeed existed (Philo was a prominent member), but it largely dissappeared in the aftermath of the Bar Kochba revolt. The Romans slaughtered nearly all of them.
your claim that contemporary Jews are all descendents of converts (to this illegitimate religion) with no connection to the Biblical Hebrew people.
I muted him, but evidently he's still promoting this bullshit.
Conversion of Khazars is part legit and part legend, but the overall thesis has been comprehensively busted since the advent of genetics research. Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi Jews, together, are descended from a Middle-Eastern ancestral population. And the lack of Ashkenazi genetic diversity is both inconsistent with the converson hypothesis and consistent with the elimination of over 99% of Ashkenazi Jews from 1000 ACE to 1350 ACE, almost certainly through murder.
Fidesz got 94% of the vote from Hungarians abroad in the last Hungarian parliamentary election. In the Turkish presidential election, voters abroad voted 60/40 for Erdogan in the run-off. It's always easy for voters/commenters abroad to support the illiberal party. They don't have to suffer the consequences.
Prof. Bernstein,
" And of course, Zionism was itself a dramatic revolt against the authority of the rabbis, insisting that Jews take responsibility for their own fates and restore Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael. Zionists utterly rejected the accepted view of the lawyerocracy that Jews needed to wait for the Messiah to be redeemed, and should obediently obey the law in the meantime."
The notion that Zionism started as a secular movement, a concept promoted ironically by both the secular Jewish left and the strictly religious Chareidi community, each for their own purposes, is historically inaccurate.
Every history of Zionism that I have read traces the beginning of the modern movement to religious Jews. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Shklov, a disciple of the Vilna Gaon, led the first wave of what would be 500 of the Gaon's followers to make aliyah in 1808. They mostly settled in Tzfat/Safed but moved to Jerusalem after a plague hit the Galilee.
R' Zvi Hirsch Kalischer provided a religious basis for Jewish resettlement and published his book advocating such in 1862. He said that the redemption of the Jews will only come through self help, that they should immigrate to the land of Israel, and that they should form militias to protect their colonies there.
Rishon LeTzion, the first modern Jewish settlement in Palestine, was founded in 1882 by religious Jews affiliated with Chovevei Tzion, which formally organized in 1884 with Rabbi Shimon Mohilever as president.
Gedera, founded in 1884, was on land purchased by Rabbi Yechiel Michel Pines.
The first Zionist Congress took place in 1897, more than a decade after religious Jews started establishing towns in Palestine. Pogroms in Russia in the 1880s and 1890s convinced many secular, assimilated Jews that assimilation may not have been the panacea they had hoped for. Theodore Herzl rose to prominence and the movement took on a more secular tone.
Even after the Zionist Congress, Mizrachi, the organization of religious Zionists, was founded in 1902 under R' Yitzchak Yaacov Reines. Relatives of mine lived on Reines street in Givatayim.
While religious Jews were the first to advocated modern political Zionism, secular Jews, particularly the Reform movement, opposed Zionism. Jerusalem had been replaced by Berlin and Cincinnati. It was only under Steven Wise that the Reform movement came around to supporting Zionism in the wake of the events of the 1930s in Europe.
Wishing you and yours a happy and healthy new year,
Very interesting. Thank you. I'd like to see David's reply, but I suspect he may be done tracking these comments.
Some years ago I observed a wedding in the kibbutz I was volunteering for. As a non-Jew I couldn't recognize and understand everything that occurred, but I got the gist of it. They had the chuppah, a handsome couple, the underfoot breaking of a glass, and a rabbi. The ceremonial trappings were all fine with the kibbutzniks, but the rabbi was a problem--this kibbutz was mostly socialist and entirely secular.
In Israel any marriage of two Jews required the presence and participation of a rabbi to be legal. The kibbutzniks would much rather have done it without him, but they couldn't go that way. What they did do was import a local rabbi from outside the kibbutz, provide him with an (unarmed) escort inside the kibbutz, and eject him immediately after the ceremony. So in hindsight it seems to me that the kibbutzniks concerned themselves with any sort of lawyerocracy only when they had no choice.
It’s not just that the presence and participation of “a” rabbi is required. The official state Israeli rabbinate has a monopoly on marriage. Only rabbis from or approved by the official state rabbinate can perform marriages in israel. Until 2013, you had no more choice over what rabbi would perform your wedding than you got, in the United States, over what government clerk will sign your marriage certificate. After 2013 you got some choice, but you have to pick a rabbi on the official approved list.