A Mishnah for all seasons? Avot's political guidance in the 21st century

This piece was commissioned for the Judaism Reclaimed Facebook Group, on which it was first posted. 

A notable feature of three parshiyot that conclude Sefer Bereshit is the interaction between the early Israelites and Egyptian officials. Starting with parashat Miketz we encounter Pharaoh, the Head Butler, Joseph’s steward and vice-regal civil servants. Joseph himself operates in a dual capacity: as viceroy of Egypt and a son of Jacob, he is the linchpin around which all the action takes place.

The Torah’s account of court dialogue in these parshiyot is generally polite and formal, as befits any interaction between a group of nomadic immigrants in search of food and favours and a regional superpower which does not appear to have anything to gain by granting Israel’s requests. Even when Yehudah pleads for the release of his captive brother Binyamin—which midrashim portray as a battle royal—he is careful to observe the proprieties of correct etiquette when addressing the viceroy.

Pirkei Avot has a good deal to say about how a Jew should view interactions with officialdom:

Initially, Avot teaches that caution is the watchword when it comes to dealing with public officials and politicians. Shemayah (Avot 1:10) advises us to keep a low profile and remain out of their sight if possible. Rabban Gamliel beRebbi explains why (Avot 2:3): such people are motivated by self-interest and, while they seek our support when they need it, they don’t support us at our time of need. Shemayah adds that one should not seek office oneself, a position supported by Nechunyah ben Hakanah (Avot 3:6) on the basis that it takes us away from learning (and by implication practising) Torah.

Having taken this position, the Tannaim concede that government is a necessary evil. We should therefore pray for its well-being since, without it, humans would swallow one another alive (per Rabbi Chanina segan HaKohanim, Avot 3:2). What’s more, where there is no-one coming forward who is fit to lead, Hillel urges us to stand up and take the initiative (Avot 2:6).

Whether we are in a position of power and responsibility ourselves, or have to deal with such people, we have to bear in mind a potentially relevant teaching of Rabbi Yishmael (Avot 3:16):

הֱוֵי קַל לְרֹאשׁ, וְנֽוֹחַ לְתִשְׁחֽוֹרֶת,

The first part of this teaching is, frustratingly, capable of bearing so many meanings that we have no idea what its author intended. Indeed, the 19th century German scholar Rabbi Marcus Lehmann gives four quite different explanations of it, based on four different but equally justifiable translations, while commentators as diverse as Rashi and the Chida also offer a selection of meanings.

I believe that this can be best explained to mean something along the lines of:

“Be respectfully submissive to someone in a position of authority and be polite to someone junior to yourself”.

 In other words, don’t take liberties with others and abuse your power over them, but don’t be cheeky and uncooperative to those who have authority over you. Both halves of this explanation are broadly supported by rabbinical authority, though I have not yet identified a single rabbi who endorses it specifically.

There is a lot of room for debate and discussion as to the applicability of the advice offered by Avot to relations between citizens and governments in today’s world. Pirkei Avot itself, as well as its classic accompanying commentaries, were largely authored by people living under hostile authoritarian governments, and this is likely to have coloured at least some of their advice.

Readers of this post living in modern Western political systems may relate differently to elected authorities which wield power over us supposedly in our name and for our notional benefit. Not only has the era of democratic government and human rights led to a more positive relationship between the government and the government, but the very nature of our interaction with officials has changed, and is now conducted through the impersonal medium of the internet which diminishes potential for personal conflict or confrontation. All of this leads to the question of how the advice of Pirkei Avot might have been presented had it written in today’s political settings.

Finally, it must be noted that Avot’s advice guiding the interactions between private citizens and the state was authored when the Jews were living at the mercy of an unsympathetic Roman governorship. How might this Mishnah’s advice apply to those living in the modern state of Israel?

The police: defund or defend?

Disputes among humans cannot wait for divine intervention to resolve them: this is why we have rules, those given by God and those created by man, that govern both the machinery for resolving disputes and the justice that should be inherent in their outcome. But setting the machinery of justice in motion and reaching a fair result are two quite different things, and the resolution of any dispute becomes far more difficult when part of the machinery for resolving disputes is itself a part to the dispute.  This has happened in some recent tragic instances in the United States, where the activities of a police force are the focus of contention.

In an ideal world, the function of the police force embraces the identification and, if necessary, the apprehension of people suspected of committing criminal offences, the verification of potential witnesses and the safe delivery into court of those in custody so that potential offenders may be charged and tried. In this ideal world the police have no interest in securing the conviction of the innocent or of doing anything that may reduce the prospect of any potential offender being tried by due process of law.  We do not however live in an ideal world and there is uncontroverted evidence that individual members of the police force, whether motivated by malice or an excess of zeal, overstep the parameters of acceptable behaviour. There is also the constant suspicion, for which there may be supporting evidence, that this behaviour is tolerated or even encouraged at a higher level.

From a distance of several thousand miles, it is easy to take an uninvolved, non-partisan and objective view of the problems faced by others and their possible solutions, without feeling or indeed appreciating the pain and angst, the fear and frustrations experienced on both sides. However, the issue of defunding offending police forces raises issues of principle that are so important that the issue has attracted a lot of attention in places far removed from the epicenter of recent malfeasances.

The police will have to be more cuddly
and user-friendly if they hope to regain
the confidence of the community

Pirkei Avot (3:2) teaches: "Pray for the welfare of the government, for without fear of it, a person would swallow his fellow alive". This teaching, from Rabbi Chanina segan HaKohanim is applicable in every country and every generation, as an op-ed in Hamodia has recently observed. However, the current problem is that many people are in fear that it is the police, as part of the machinery of government, which is swallowing people alive. While we should still pray for the welfare of the government, it should be apparent that this is not enough. Where the police require greater supervision, more moral and ethical training and root-and-branch reform or reorganisation, the proper course is surely to start by working out what is needed for the good of the community. Then calculate how much it costs.  Defunding the police, taken by itself, sounds like a punitive action that is akin to amputating an infected limb in preference to paying for the necessary medical treatement.