Meir Ettinger – What's going on?

BS”D

ג' סיון תשע"ח - 09:39 17/05/2018

What's going on?

The set of values ​​that the Supreme Court justices and the leaders of democracy tried to instill in us led us and them to madness, national suicide, and loss of identity

The days of the Sefirat HaOmer of the year have come to an interesting public storm around the "cessation clause" and the status of the High Court of Justice, but for now we have had enough public and media storms, but we can not imagine that this discussion will pass so quickly.

In fact, in this debate over who is growing up? The Knesset or the courts, we are not with any of the parties, or if we say otherwise: we are with both sides - that is, we accept the claims of each party against the second.

Supporters of the court believe that democracy needs balance, following the wishes of the majority can severely undermine minority rights, or other basic values. The masses may sometimes (and as has happened many times in history) trample on moral values, relying on a democracy that expresses only democratic voting and majority rule, a society based on tendencies animalism.

Supporters of the Knesset argue that the values ​​according to which the justices rule and want to intervene in the will of the majority are not agreed upon. That the judges' arrogance to place their values ​​and considerations above the will of the people is not based on social consent or on absolute values, but on a political agenda that expresses the tyranny of a small political camp that has succeeded in controlling the courts.

Without a doubt, most of the debate is not based on striving for truth. There is a struggle between two political groups that might have been replaced by a different political reality if they had been involved in the same debate. To the fundamental question that arises in the public debate between the supporters of the "disengagement clause" and the "Supreme Court defenders" - what prevails over what, the will of the people or the judicial review?

It is clear that both sides are right; following the will of the majority can lead the people to moral decay and intimidation. On the other hand, giving the minority power to set moral standards and cancel the decisions of the majority is an opening for minority domination of the people and political bias.

This question leads us to the path that we are taking in the days of the counting of the Omer, the path from the exodus to freedom, and the liberation from the burden of strangers to receive the Torah and mitzvot at Mount Sinai.

The set of values ​​that the Supreme Court justices and the leaders of democracy tried to instill in us led us and them into madness, national suicide, and loss of identity. It turns out that such values, values ​​determined by human beings, are extremely imbalanced. The world of seven superfluous wars, and narrow nationalism, espoused tolerance and the rights of the individual, and from his narrow point of view he could not balance between identity and openness, loyalty and tolerance. This extremism aroused the wrath and intuition of the people, who wished to limit the artificial domination of this extreme and unnatural approach.

It turns out that this reality was created by the fact that those so-called 'absolute' values ​​were determined by human beings, people who are prevented from past experiences, and are consistently able to see the world in the view of the 'temporal life' of what is right now. On the contrary, they become the users of the power and dignity of that extreme elite, and in effect created a dictatorship of democracy.

The only thing that can prevent a person from concealing him is to accept the yoke of the commandments and laws of God, laws that are above his desires and choices, and are not determined according to his opinion. Faith in the Torah from heaven teaches man that there are absolute values ​​that he can not change. In a truly Jewish state, the Basic Laws express the acceptance of the Torah by the Jewish people, with the understanding that in order to fulfill the purpose of creation, we must accept Divine laws that limit our choices.

In contrast to the laws of flesh and blood, the laws of the Torah not only express our understanding or perception of the world, on the contrary, in the vast majority they express what we have not yet understood, and direct us to new understandings and heights that we could not reach alone.

With the cries of a rift on the verge of democracy heard in the background, it is permissible to think seriously whether democracy has indeed come to an end - the one that was originally chosen only as the least bad option. Progressed the world beautifully, brought freedom, economic well-being, and greatly reduced wars. And now, like many forms of government, and previous worldviews, which were beautiful for the moment, and useful to promote the world in certain areas, and naturally plagued him in other areas.

The opportunity that the majority of the public understands the limits of the form of government today, the fact that after decades more and more people understand that the "democracy" supposedly intended to take care of citizens can become a tool in the hands of arrogant tyrants disguised as compassionate people who take care to impose their visions of the world on the public 'ignorant'.

The Jewish people have a message in this field: no laws of flesh and blood, the Torah that we received on Shavuot, free and free will, the "Basic Laws" of the Jewish people, were given to us to create a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” to a kingdom that not only expresses "the least bad option," but manages to move the nation forward.

The role of the king who does not always stand for the election of the people - in the executive branch, alongside elected officials - is to introduce the world of absolute values, to attach the Torah to its heart, and to listen to the public's heart. As part of the considerations of the executive branch itself. And "to force all of Israel to follow in its path" - as the Lubavitcher Rebbe explained that the intention was to impose coercion on the path of pleasantness and "crying”.

UPDATE: However, the decision to accept the yoke of Torah and mitzvot can be accepted only with full freedom, after the liberation from all the Egyptians who restrict us. In the exodus from Egypt, the Israelites were commanded to "draw and take away" - your hands withdrew from idolatry before they were freed from servitude to prejudice. Only a person and a free people can accept the yoke of the Torah. It is precisely a person who is free to do the right thing for him, understands better than anyone else, why he needs external help and assistance, and for those who set limits and advice from above.

The days of the Sefirat HaOmer are days of marching from the Exodus from Egypt in which we set out for freedom until the holiday of receiving the Torah in which we accept the yoke of the Torah. In the middle there are 49 days of freedom in which the option was given to choose whether we want to receive the Torah or not. The journey of counting the Omer ended with the declaration: "We will do and we will hear" - accepting the yoke of the Torah from love.

These days symbolize a process that begins with freedom from slavery to Egypt, freedom that gave us full democracy - the ability to do whatever we want, and to meet us with our animal instincts, [We] are aware of the defects that we have in the Supreme Sefirot and in all creation, even without notice, when we march without restraint. It is precisely this acquaintance of the person with himself that leads him to accept with joy and free choice the Torah on Pentecost.

These days when the public understands the limitations of a democracy that has come to an end can be the beginning of a revolution in which we will grow up and thank You for the way it brought us to Our freedom, and the possibility of accepting the Torah voluntarily and with love. If we know how to look at our limitations and our humiliation, we will see that instead of overcoming ourselves in order to impose our will, we need an overcoming of the kind of "hero who conquers his will," the heroism of accepting the yoke.