הרב אבי גרוסמן Rabbi Avi Grossman

The marriage mashal:

Choosing a partner could very well be the most important decision in life, and it may (hopefully) last for life. Therefore, one should not approach such a decision with the knowledge that, for example, every five years he will have a chance to change his decision, or that, perhaps, even if he chose to stick with her for another five years, after ten years, he must find another, because that will detract from the gravity of all of his life decisions, even if ending the marriage is warranted in extreme cases.

So too with a nation. A democratic and fair process should be employed to ascertain who should rule since such a decision is the most critical in the life of the nation. But it should be infrequent, with the condition in mind that it is meant for the long haul, and not to be regularly re-evaluated and likely changed every few years.

The democratic aspect of the initial election is required by the halacha. The Sages said in B’rachoth:

“אמר רבי יצחק: אין מעמידין פרנס על הצבור אלא אם כן נמלכים בצבור, שנאמר “ראו קרא ה’ בשם בצלאל” (שמות לה, ל). אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה: משה, הגון עליך בצלאל? אמר לו: רבונו של עולם אם לפניך הגון, לפני לא כל שכן? אמר לו: אף על פי כן לך אמור להם. הלך ואמר להם לישראל: הגון עליכם בצלאל? אמרו לו אם לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא ולפניך הוא הגון, לפנינו לא כל שכן?”

And: אין מעמידין מלך אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד, the Sanhedrin being the representative body of the community.

Thus, we find that it was the elders of the people who asked for Saul, and who had to make the decision to accept him as king, and likewise with David, who despite being chosen by God, had to get the support of the elders of the nation in order to actually rule, and this explains why even though the right to rule is hereditary, Rehoboam had to go through a process of election and acceptance by the people when his time came.

This also explains how many times the new king was put in place “by the people.” (E.g., Omri, Jehoash, Amaziah, Josiah, Jehoahaz, etc.)

Rabbi Avi Grossman writes (regarding Rabbi Schachter’s opposition to Jews ascending the Temple Mount):

“But why does the Rabbanut prohibit?”

That is what Rabbi Hershel Schachter should have asked next.

And the answer is that the Rabbanut prohibits because of a combination of politic considerations (i.e. non halachic considerations) and a misguided sense of piety brought about by the exilic mindset: we are not allowed to do anything we haven’t done of late, and that’s the way God wants it.

Both approaches are invalid.

Rabbi Avi Grossman speaks out in a brief (abridged?) class here…

It seems that prophecy did not disappear from Israel suddenly; just like it was an almost-once in a century phenomenon during the times of the Judges (before Samuel), in Second-Temple times the rarity of prophets did not seem to upset the Jewish religious order, and they expected prophets to arise in their own days (see the relevant passages in Ezra-Nehemia and Maccabees). The sages of the Mishna and the Talmud also figured that there were qualified individuals among them, except that apparently God did not see fit to send one of them to rebuke the people. And to be honest, the Jewish people have not really needed any prophets since at least Second-Temple times. A prophet is not supposed to create new halachot or commandments. The prophet is not necessary for deciding the halacha that binds K’lal Yisrael. The prophet’s job is to reprove the people and to remind them of their divine role in the unfolding of history. We already have enough books from the earlier prophets, so what else do we need? Moses himself took a break from being a prophet for 38 years.