Voting. Rabbinic Endorsements of Political Candidates. “Dual Loyalties”.

Perhaps we'll try B'ezrat Hashem Bli Neder to discuss one or two halachic perspectives on voting, on elections. I think it's pretty well known that the Rav, the same I think was said beshem Rav Moshe Feinstein, that it's very important to vote. Jews are supposed to vote. We all have a chiyuv to acheinu bnei Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael. We all have a chiyuv to אחינו בני ישראל בכל מקום שהם. And we all have a chiyuv. They're all, not identifying the chiyuvim, but we all have a chiyuv also to be contributing members of society, to contribute to yishuvo shel olam. Since the results of elections impact all of those areas, so we have an obligation to try to bring about the favorable result in each of those areas. So there's a chiyuv to vote. What about the question that obviously the odds are so astronomical that any individual's vote is really going to make the difference as to be totally negligible? So that question actually leads to a very important principle in halacha, which is relevant in many other seemingly very different contexts. When they began with genetic testing before a couple got married, so the main thing they were testing for originally was Tay-Sachs. Now, it was always the case that the odds that any one couple getting married would rachmana litzlan have a Tay-Sachs child were certainly a מיעוט שאינו מצוי לכל הדעות. That point, that this young man and this young lady who were getting married, that they would both be carriers and rachmana litzlan have a Tay-Sachs child, it was a miut she'eino matzui. So for a miut she'eino matzui, you don't have to be choshesh. And אף על פי כן, there was a, I think, a very broad consensus that one is supposed to check, one is supposed to test. And the explanation for that is very simple, that even though on an individual basis it's a miut she'eino matzui, but in terms of the tzibur as a whole, it was guaranteed that without testing there were such cases, and these terrible tragedies did happen. And if, even if one individually can't make a difference, but if the tzibur as a whole can make a difference, so then one is obligated to do it as part of the tzibur. The same was true, let's say, during COVID, when, again, whatever the understanding is today, I'm not implying what it is or what it isn't, but when the understanding was that masking was very important. So even then, I think it was true that any one individual masking didn't make an impact necessarily, but if you had large numbers of... people masking, that would make a difference. So there too, eina hachami maybe betoras yochid if you isolated the person as a yochid, maybe he had no chiyuv, but as a part of the klal, and the klal did have the the the wherewithal and therefore the obligation to make a difference, so then the person has a chiyuv to do it as part of the klal. And the same is true when it comes to voting, that eina hachami, any one individual's vote is not going to make a difference. I don't know that, I don't know that there's ever been an election for in some little town for dogcatcher where the margin of victory was one vote. So the odds of any one individual's vote being, you know, "I'm the one, I'm the one who elected John Adams, you know, you should know I'm the one who did it." So I don't know that anyone can... I am old enough to have done that, but otherwise it's not a too credible a story. So any one individual's vote is not going to do it, but avada whether the tzibbur is a Jewish community or whether the tzibbur is as part of the American citizenry, so avada the the hamon am can and do make the difference, so then mimmela a person has the chiyuv as as as a member of that collective to to vote. I mean how does how does the how does the community as a whole vote? How does the city, how does the state, how does the country as a whole vote? But by every every yochid voting. So that's why it translates halacha lema'aseh that every yochid has to has to vote even though again it certainly is true that the chances of an individual vote really tipping the scales are are entirely negligible. It's so compelling in sevara, you don't need a ra'aya, but you have a it's a קל וחומר בן בנו של קל וחומר from a din in Shulchan Aruch. It says in in Shulchan Aruch by chazaras hashatz that if the shatz is is saying chazaras hashatz and you don't have ten nine people listening, so it's karov lihyos whatever that formulation means, however that should be understood, it's קרוב להיות ברכה לבטלה. And then the Shulchan Aruch says lachen, therefore, even if you're even if you're part of a minyan with far more than ten people, everyone has to make himself, everyone has to make himself as though, as though there's only ten and that his participation is is indispensable. So there, it's again, al pi ha'emes the the mashma'us in Shulchan Aruch is that it's enough to have just just ten to to validate the chazaras hashatz and אף על פי כן the chiyuv is if if there's a hundred people in the minyan, so everyone has to make the cheshbon that that it's my chiyuv to make sure that there's that there's nine people listening to chazaras hashatz. These cases are all, you think about it, they're a קל וחומר בן בנו של קל וחומר from that from that din in Shulchan Aruch. The Rav zecher tzaddik livracha didn't endorse candidates in in elections. He obviously had his opinions, he you know, he went and he he voted, he he had his opinions, but but he he he didn't endorse candidates. The reason as as I understand it, if there's a flaw in the reasoning it's it's it's mine, but but the reason for that as I understand it is is probably twofold. First of all, which candidate a person votes for is never purely a function of halachic priority. Let's say you would have two candidates and they had identical positions on everything other than on economic matters. And one wants to vote based on, which is what one should do, based on Torah values and halachic priorities. So one's going to vote for whoever's economic, whichever candidate is going to help poor people more, is going to advance the causes of tzedek and yosher. So you can have two people who vote and they're both voting based on the same halachic priorities and Torah values and they'll vote for opposing candidates. Because at the end of the day, when you vote for someone, there are two elements that go into the decision. One element are again what you're prioritizing in making your decision. What are you prioritizing in making your decision? Right? As you know, conventional political wisdom is that most Americans prioritize the economy, right? It's the economy, stupid, as the famous phrase. So one element, one component is what a ben Torah prioritizes in terms of deciding, but the other then is the political assessment of which candidate's policies will achieve that result. And even when people agree on the first element of what the halachic values are and what the Torah priorities should be, and that of course a rav can speak to those issues, but there's always the second element, there's always the second element of the political assessment. It's true this year, it's true every year, it's true in every single election. I don't know, כשם שפרצופיהם שונים כך דעותיהם שונות, people see the same situation differently. And in every election you can have people who agree on what the priorities should be, what the overriding values should be, what results you want to see from the election, and they'll vote for opposite candidates. So there's always that element of the political assessment. When it comes to the political assessment, so there's no rabbinic authority there. And it's a misapplication of rabbinic authority to then give a rabbinic endorsement. A rav and the more prominent the rav is, you know, if it's not a, but if it's with the hey hayedi'ah, if it's the rav, so there's no such certainly no such thing as in public expressing an opinion which isn't construed understandably as a rabbinic position. But it doesn't lend itself to rabbinic authority. What the priorities should be in terms of issues and values, that does lend itself to definitive rabbinic halachic pronouncement, but the political assessment of the candidates does not. That's beyond the expertise of even gedolim. משל למה הדבר דומה, the same way in medical matters. So in medical matters, when the rav paskens a shaila in medical matters, he needs the input of the rofeh mumcheh. I think that was the main consideration as to why he would not endorse political candidates. Then, it also for the same reason because the There is a political dimension, ultimately there's always a political dimension to the decision when a rav does take a position on politics, so he becomes partisan, and that undermines him in what he's supposed to be doing in terms of giving people halachic guidance and hadracha and being mashpia and inspiring. The partisanship undermines him in what he is supposed to be doing. It is true that the biggest gedolim are also tremendous pikeach, that certainly is true. And whatever the question is in any discipline, pikchus is part of arriving at the right answer. But there's also an expertise. Eino domeh a doctor who's an expert and a pikeach to a doctor who doesn't have the same level of pikchus. But the pikchus doesn't substitute for the expertise. And it's not true to the same degree in politics, but there is an element of expertise there also, which is why again the pikchus of an adam gadol notwithstanding, it doesn't make his political opinions authoritative or definitive and certainly not in any halachic sense; it's certainly not backed up by his rabbinic authority. And maybe one last comment. It's not uncommon for Jews living outside of Medinas Yisroel to be suspected of, accused of dual loyalties. Now given that we're the only minority group who's suspected of that, it's quite clear where that question and charge comes from and doesn't have any legitimacy. But אף על פי כן, it's still important to know that the reality is because of the convergence of the interests of Medinas Yisroel and of the United States in international affairs in the Middle East, the interests converge and there is no, and it's, if a person is asked the question, so da mah shetashiv. The same forces that don't push back against antisemitism in American society are destroying the fabric of American society in ways that affect the entire society and not only Jews. And those who would abandon Medinat Yisrael do so in a way that imperils the United States national security as well. A nuclear Iran, rachmana litzlan, doesn't only represent a threat to Medinat Yisrael, it certainly represents a threat to the West as well. So again, it's not a legitimate question in the first place because it's quite clear where the question comes from. But we should also know that additionally, there's just no truth and there's no substance to it.