Rabbis (This Rabbi) And Politics

 This was written in, I think, mid-2022, something like that. I'm posting it here as Great Britain enters a General Election cycle.

--

We lost some long-standing members this week. The problem, it seems, was me and my politics. Under my leadership, New London stands accused of being “increasingly politicised” when it came to “domestic issues around identity politics,” “national issues such as immigration” and “issues concerning Israel’s democratic government.” The couple left in search of a synagogue “that does not engage in such agendas and where we can both come and go as members without feeling that our personal views are constantly being questioned and challenged.”

 

Putting aside the question of the value of a religious approach that disdains constant question and challenge, I do have some sympathy. I understand – and deeply value – my faith as a refuge from the febrile world ‘out there.’ I deeply value the range of positions and views that will be taken by any collection of thinking human beings – and we have a lot of thinking human beings at New London. In my mind, I’ve never attempted to muzzle or limit debate on these important issues, if you feel otherwise, please accept my apology. But, but, but, but …

 

It’s another one of those weeks where the news ‘here’ is of the Illegal Immigration Bill and the news ‘there’ is of proposed judicial reforms. I find this week’s Torah portion (containing as it does the tale of the Golden Calf) fascinating, and for what it’s worth deeply political, but I can’t sit down to express a thought for this coming Shabbat without engaging with issues that, while definitely, ‘of the polis’ – political, are profoundly religious.

 

I want to share here how I – as your Rabbi – approach this tightrope walk. I also want to share a brief word about the relationship, as I understand it, of Judaism and matters of the democratic polis.

 

I allow this space, my weekly written messages, to be political than my sermons. If you want to experience New London-style Judaism experientially, as an escape from the pressures of the world, come to Shul; log on to our daily Shacharit services, enjoy our phenomenal new cantorial leadership and prepare to enjoy a newly redecorated and much beautified sanctuary. If you don’t like the message of my weekly-mailing, feel free to delete or scroll down. I don’t mind, really I don’t. If you come to Shul there’s less politics from Bimah – I think that’s correct.

 

I police my own language with great care. In fifteen years as Rabbi of New London, I have used the name of a specific British political party to make a religious point on one occasion only, and only as the result of deep reflection and (for what it’s worth) extensive consultation with the lay leadership. I am deeply committed to keeping my political-party-specific opinions to myself. I have never and can’t see how I would ever, tell anyone who to vote for. I am committed to treating any elected official with the respect due their mandate and their position. “Pray for the government,” taught Rabbi Chanina, “without its due respect a person would eat their fellow alive.” Amen to that. I have never and would never condone use of inflammatory epithets directed against anyone, member, stranger or political leader alike. I’m particularly opposed to epithets of precise historical meaning being used to tar contemporary political positions. If we disagree with a person or their position, I believe we should say so and explain why. But I am wary in the extreme of calling any person or position racist / sexist / homophobic / Apartheid / Nazi / fascist. Certainly, I am far more restrained in how I speak about political leadership today than Chazal – the Rabbis of Talmudic fame – were in the language used in the great tomes of our faith to attack political leaders of eras past.

 

But Judaism can never, in the words of our founder rabbi, Rabbi Louis Jacobs of blessed memory, be allowed to be “insipid” or “remote from the day-to-day concerns” of Jews. Judaism is not wholly or even primarily a spiritual/theological commitment. Judaism is a commitment to be part of a covenant of action. Its real-world commitment is evinced in verse after verse of the Torah and Sugya after Sugya of the Talmud. As I reflect on my own interest in matters of the polis, it’s to the Torah and the Talmud that I go, and from the Torah and the Talmud that I draw the inspiration that drives my teaching. If I’m interested in gender politics, it’s that verse in Genesis that insists the image of divinity is expressed through both male and female forms that underlies my interest. If I advocate for the dispossessed and unvoiced in society, it’s the repeated Biblical insistence to love, care for and not oppress the stranger that inspire me. If I have the temerity to speak against the political leadership of Israel – insignificant as I am - I have Samuel, Isaiah and an entire prophetic tradition to serve as models. That was the piece in the resignation note of our, now, former-members that, forgive me, annoyed me. It was suggested I function like a “see-saw,” “dashing to take up the mantle of causes that are transitory.” That’s certainly not how I experience my 25 years of rabbinic study and commitment. Ho-hum.

 

The point about democracy is this. Democracy is NOT the government by will of the majority. The majority don’t need a constitution to impose their will on the minority. Technically, the name for rule by the masses is ‘ochlocracy.’ And it’s not something I, as a Jew, have ever been excited about.  Democracy IS the CONTROL of the will of the majority. A good democrat reflects not on their own dictatorial power, but on the edges, the limits, the term-times, the checks and balances. Democracies always annoy those who think a mandate should be equated with their ability to do whatever they want. And that’s where religion comes in. Religion is and has always been a voice outside of a human-coming-together to do ‘what is right in their own eyes’ (a phrase used repeatedly in the Bible to demonstrate error is being made). Religion will, of course, make mistakes, and I, when I have the temerity to speak on behalf of our faith and how-much-the-more-so the Divine must model temerity and humility in looking to intervene in the public sphere. But the notion that religion doesn’t insist on an engagement in the political realm is absurd. I’ve shared more about this idea in a sermon here https://rabbionanarrowbridge.blogspot.com/2022/12/why-be-religious-archbishop-rowan.html. And the great lesson of the last century, and indeed the entirety of Rabbinic Jewish history, is that we should be deeply grateful to live in carefully checked and balanced democracy. ‘Ad Kan,’ as the Rabbis of the Talmud were won’t to say, ‘That will have to do for now.’

 

Shabbat Shalom

 

 

Democracy Under Threat

We held an exceptional Salon on Israel and Democracy on Wednesday. You can catch up here. https://fb.watch/iK-WV_tZzQ/

 

One important question came from a member who asked what democratic grounds exist for disputing the will of a government elected, as Israel’s government clearly is, by a clear majority. It’s an important question, if somewhat of a canard.

 

Democracy is indeed, ‘power exercised by the people’ but for that power to be measured, the mechanical structures, the constitutional arrangements, are at the heart of the matter. Even in Judaism – where a perfect God is the assumed source of obligation – an entire Seder of Mishnah is dedicated to the careful balancing of the expression of power. How are courts to be set up, who serves, who holds power over whom? When it comes to the expression of the will of humans - fallible, corruptible and power-hungry as we are – the need for controls become even more important.

 

As a Jew, the phrase ‘power exercised by the people’ evokes a particular and particularly deeply rooted reaction. I’ve struggled to explain this in inter-faith and non-faith settings. Visions of pogrom-ing Cossaks and Nuremberg rallies flash before my eyes. And besides, as a Jew I’m more than at home in being dis-established and a member of a minority. Existentially, I believe in minorities as the source of creativity, progress and the test of ethical decency in society. Of course we are all minorities in one way or another. We should all be far more keen to ensure minorities are protected than lulled into the persuasive power of majorities.

 

The role of a democracy is to limit the unfettered exercise of power by the majority. It is to stop majorities thinking that decency comes merely through number. It is NOT to nod through the claims of the masses as if simply through their number they accrue an existential right to be considered decent. Faith, our faith, has a similar function. I spoke about this in a recent sermon inspired by the Reith Lecture of former Archbishop Rowan Williams. My sermon is here. http://rabbionanarrowbridge.blogspot.com/2022/12/why-be-religious-archbishop-rowan.html

 

I’ve co-authored an op-ed in this week’ Jewish Chronicle on the threat to democracy in Israel, a threat coming from, I’m sad to say, from the duly elected majority. It’s a threat that needs to be pointed out, the democratic claims of the Jewish State are under threat. The article is here https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/the-extremists-in-the-israeli-government-are-undermining-zionism-6BKSiwGbPuSBi2T91ZJcLM. It’s part of a campaign you can sign up to here https://choosedemocracy.org.uk/. I would be particularly keen to hear from members on this issue, particularly as we consider how best, as a community, to stand with and engage with this issue.

 

Shabbat Shalom,

 

Rabbi Jeremy  

Sources on Rabbis Changing Their Minds

I've been interested in this problem - at a time when the British parliament (and society?) is at loggerheads.

The 'standard' Talmudic sugya opens with alternate positions taken by two sages and several pages later preserves the alternate positions as being 'correct' for the disputants. i.e. Talmudic 'success' results in a principled and tolerant disagreement. I get that.

But I've been trying to think of examples of sages changing their opinion, admitting their mistake, being persuaded by argument etc. and ... I'm struggling.

The first two cases aren't really examples. 

But there are examples. And interesting ones at that. And a great joke.

Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 2:8-9

Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?” It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at a certain time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day she’s still heavily pregnant? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.

Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. Rabbi Joshua went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas [who also said Joshua would have to accept the opinion of Rabban Gamliel]. So he took his staff and money and went to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.

Nazir 52b

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Bar Kappara: Do not teach Rabbi Akiva changed his mind about whether a Nazir can be in a room with a quarter-log of blood, as Rabbi Akiva held onto his opinion in this regard. And furthermore, the verse supports his opinion, as it states: “Neither shall [the Nazir] go in to any dead bodies” (Leviticus 21:11).[1] Rabbi Shimon says: “All his days, Rabbi Akiva would deem a quarter-log of blood from two corpses ritually impure. Whether he retracted his opinion after he died, I do not know.” A Sage taught: Rabbi Shimon’s teeth blackened due to his fasts.[2]

Rosh Hashanah 13b

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: How can the Sages possibly discern precisely between produce that reached one-third of its growth and produce that reached less than one-third of its growth!? Rabbi Zeira said to him: Don’t I always tell you must not take yourself out of the bounds of the halakha? All the measures of the Sages are like this; precise and exact. One who immerses himself in a ritual bath containing forty se’a of water is rendered pure, but in forty se’a less the tiny amount cannot immerse and become pure in them. Similarly, an egg-bulk of impure food can render other food ritually impure, but an egg-bulk less even the tiny amount of a sesame seed does not render food ritually impure.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: What I said is nothing.

Baba Batra 23b
Mishnah: If a fledgling bird is found within fifty cubits of a dovecote, it belongs to the owner of the dovecote. If it is found outside the limit of fifty cubits, it belongs to the person who finds it…
Gemara: Rabbi Yeremiah asked: “What if one foot of the bird is within fifty cubits, and one foot is outside it?” It was for this question that Rabbi Yeremiah was thrown out of the Beit Midrash.

Mishnah Eduyot 1:12

These are subjects concerning which Bet Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Bet Shammai:[3]

A woman who came from overseas and said: “My husband died” may be married again; Bet Hillel says: “We have heard so only in the case of one who came from the harvesting grain.” Bet Shammai said to them: “It is the same thing in the case of one who came from harvesting grain, or olives or from overseas; they mentioned harvesting only because that is how it happened in the original case.” Then Bet Hillel changed their mind and taught according to Bet Shammai.

Bet Shammai says: “She may be married again and take her kethubah payment.” But Bet Hillel says: “She may be married again but may not take her kethubah payment.” Bet Shammai said to them: “You have permitted the graver matter of a forbidden marriage, should you not permit the lighter matter of property?” [there is another round of argument]. Then Bet Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Bet Shammai.

Chagigah 2a-b

Everyone should make an appearance in Jerusalem at the festivals apart from [a list including] slaves.

You might say the use of the word ‘everyone’ means even one who is half-slave and half-freeman needs to make an appearance, as the Mishnah (Pesaḥim 88a) teaches: One who is half-slave half-freeman serves his master one day and works for himself one day. This is the statement of Beit Hillel.

Beit Shammai said to them: You have remedied things for his master, but not for him, for he is unable to marry a slave (as half of him is free), and unable to marry a free Jew (as half of him is still a slave). And if you say he should not marry, surely the world was created for the sake of procreation. Rather we force his master to make him wholly free, and he writes a bill to his master accepting his responsibility to pay half his value to him. And Beit Hillel retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai.

Eruvin 13b

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. A Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: “Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.” The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? They were agreeable and forbearing, they would teach their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements.

A Final Thought

In 1920s Soviet Russia, in the middle of the jockeying for power following Lenin’s death, Stalin emerges to address an expectant crowd. “Comrades! I have in my hand a telegram from Comrade Trotsky, which I think will resolve our current differences of opinion. Let me read it to you: ‘You were right and I was wrong. You are the true heir of Lenin. I should apologize. Signed, Leon Trotsky.'”

The crowd goes wild! But wait, there’s one man in the crowd signalling to get Stalin’s attention. “Yes, comrade?” Stalin asks. “Comrade Stalin, I think you know Comrade Trotsky is Jewish.” “Yes, I do.” “Well, I’m Jewish, too, and I thought I might have an extra insight on what Comrade Trotsky was trying to say. May I read the telegram myself?” “Of course, comrade.” The man gets up and starts reading: “You were right and I was wrong? You are the true heir of Lenin? I should apologize? Signed, Leon Trotsky.”

---

[1] The plural form “bodies” understood to include blood, even blood that could have come from more than one body.

[2] Which he undertook for uttering this irreverent comment about Rabbi Akiva.

[3] There follow three examples, of which the second is the same as recorded in Mishnah Chagigah – below.

Democracy and Its Discontents – Trump and ‘Making my Position Difficult’

President Trump has accused American Jews who do not support the Republican Party of ignorance or disloyalty. One, under-reported, aspect of the remark and its aftermath is the notion that American Jews, should care, above all else, about Israel. Back in April, of course, Trump, speaking to the American Republican Jewish Coalition, referred to the Prime Minister of Israel as “your Prime Minister.” It’s a strange twist on an old antisemitic trope. Through history, Jewish citizens of diasporic countries have been accused of disloyalty – as not ‘really’ being true citizens of their diasporic homeland - because of an assumed sense of citizenship felt elsewhere. In this new world, Trump welcomes American Jews as American citizens if they support his party, and calls them disloyal citizens if they don’t. The loyalty of American Jewry is being recast to depend, not on the support of their country, but the support of which party they support within their democracy.

Loyalty proved or disproved based on the support of different political parties WITHIN a democracy is deeply worrying, and not exclusively an American, or Trumpian, concern. Democracy does indeed entail majorities wielding casting votes in complex matters, but that’s not the ideal I care for in the democracies I inhabit. As one person in a father in a family of five, as a Jew in a non-Jewish society and in the vast blend of interests and commitments that make up my values and norms, I’m a minority. We all are, Jew and non-Jew alike. Our minority status should make us more interested in the protection of difference within society than the drawing of ever-more power into the hands of the already powerful. While democracy might mean the majority will exercise control, the most valuable elements of a democratic system are the protections on the wielding of that power – the ability of the people to hold leaders to account, the balance of power delineated between the judiciary, legislative and executive and so on.

In Talmudic terms, there is only one story in our greatest rabbinic text which evokes the dictum ‘power to the majority.’ It ends in global devastation (the ‘Oven of Achnai’). Meanwhile, the careful balancing of checks and balances, the recording and honouring of minority opinion covers thousands of folios.

We have just closed a survey on the role of women at New London. It’s an important and contentious issue for us as a community and I have spoken out strongly in favour of our becoming fully egalitarian. I don’t expect all other members to agree with me. That’s not how I understand Rabbinic leadership or membership of any social grouping. So I was particularly concerned to hear one member share that I was in danger of ‘making my position at the Synagogue difficult’ if the outcome didn’t accord with my own position.

New London always has been a place where difference is considered more valuable than conformity, where minority opinions are honoured, even if not followed, and where questions of loyalty aren’t made dependent on which of differing positions one follows. May we be blessed to be part of broader societies, nations and a world where these values are equally held dear.

Shabbat Shalom,

What's the Point of a Democracy

It’s sometimes hard to value being in a democracy.

Suppose you live in a country that had an election and a referendum and the results didn’t come out the way you wanted. Or maybe the decision in the referendum came out the way you wanted, but not enough MPs were prepared to vote your preferred option through.

Suppose you living in a country where the democratically elected Parliament is stuck. And the democratically elected leaders of society were struggling to … lead.

It’s sometimes hard to value being in a democracy. The political theorist David Runciman coined the phrase, ‘dictator envy.’ It’s very easy to want to have a dictator who can simply get things done without all the messing around having to have a complicated constitution balance of powers.

I think it’s OK to be wary of the importance of living in democracy. After all, to be Jew has to mean not caring too much about being in the majority. I mean, I know there are more Christians than Jews, and more Muslims and Jews and more … well just about everything. But being a Jew means that doesn’t worry me too much. Actually being a Jew means I feel something else about the exercise of the power of the many. You say to me, ‘exercise of the power of the many’ and I start to get a little nervous. My mind’s eye flickers with images of mass-gatherings of fascists all chanting together and murdering my ancestors.

Rabbinic Judaism has a different way of thinking about how society should be run. To the mind of the Rabbis society should be run by wise, compassionate, caring and learned leaders who dedicate their life to leading their community. Yup, Rabbis thought that society should be run by … rabbis. But here’s the problem with this Greek idea of having wise, compassionate, caring and learned leaders running a society – it may well be that they are wise and compassionate when you appoint them, but give ‘em a couple of years in power and there’s a pretty good chance they will become corrupted and despotic and … well we’ve all seen that happen. It can even happen to rabbis. At least, and this is the remarkable thing, the Rabbis were smart enough to mistrust their own belief that rabbis should be in power.

One of the remarkable things about the great Rabbinic collection of law, the Talmud, is how often it records great Rabbinic leaders getting things wrong. There’s a story about the great Rabbinic leader Rabban Gamliel who used his position of power to embarrass Rabbi Yehoshua. He gets deposed. And that story gets carefully recorded and then passed down through almost two thousand years, so we don’t forget how easily power corrupts. The Talmud is much more interested in the control of power, and the prevention of the abuse of power than it is in ensuring that the majority get their way.

Just one other example; elsewhere in the Talmud again recorded 1500 years ago and faithfully handed down through the years is an extended debate on exactly what might count as a bribe, the sort of thing that should make a Rabbi recuse themselves from hearing a legal case. Abba Arika, we learn, refused to hear a case involving the innkeeper of an inn in which he stayed. Mar Shmuel refused to hear a case involving someone who once gave him a hand getting off a ship. The Talmud records Raba asking, "Why is it forbidden to take a bribe to free the innocent?" and he answers the question himself, "As soon as one accepts a bribe, he inclines to favour the donor and considers himself 'one with him'; and no one will find themselves guilty."[1]

I want to suggest this as a way of thinking about democracies; democracies exist to control the reach of those with power, not to ensure that those in the majority get their way.

For me, to care about being part of a democracy means to care about the exercise of power. I want to live in a society where once every so many years you have a chance to vote and kick out people who haven’t delivered on their promises. I want to live in a society where there is a balance of power between the executive and the legislature and the judiciary. So no-one can over-reach, so despotism and fascism can be controlled. I care more about the rule of law than the rule of the majority – just because they are the majority.

And part of the reason I care about the control and the limitations that democracies place on the exercise of power is that I worry about the people who can get crushed underfoot if the powerful get their way just because they are a majority. As the Bible says time and time again, watch out for the orphan, the widow and the stranger – just because they don’t have power, you should not mistreat them. But it’s not just about my being soft-hearted. I care about control the power of the majority because I believe the contributions of the minority are vitally important in our society. I don’t hear enough people saying this. We need minorities in our society if we want to grow and discover.

If the most important thing in a society is being part of the majority, then everyone will tend towards one position. If the most important thing is being part of the majority everyone will wear the same clothes, read the same books, think the same ideas and we’ll stop growing. It takes people to be different to find out new things. It takes different opinions to learn. It takes outsiders to come up with ideas that insiders are never going to find. That, of course, has been the great contribution of the Jewish people to thousands of years of cultures across the world. Like Mordechai who sat at the gates of the city, we’ve specialised in seeing things not everyone else could see and doing things not everyone else could do. We’ve specialised in being different. And we’ve helped. Not that we’ve been the only people doing things differently everyone who has ever done things differently has helped, precisely by their being different.

Because the choice about the kind of society we want to live in comes down to a choice set out by the philosopher Theodore Zeldin in his book The Hidden Pleasures of Life, and it’s something I’ve spoken about before from this pulpit. Do we want to live in a fort or a port.

In a fort we build the tallest walls we can to keep out the outsiders who are a threat, and any breach of these walls is a threat we need to repulse. But in a port we need maximum movement across our borders to bring in what is new, and to send forth that which needs to be shared. And for those of us who want to live in port – and I certainly do – that means having to shoulder the frustrations of not being able to hide big thick walls. And for those of us who care about protecting and celebrating the different insights and different natures of all human beings, that means fighting hard for the values of a democracy, even one that occasionally gets things wrong, and always takes more time than a fascist.

Because the truth about those societies that are built like forts and led by fascists is that despite their surface appeal, those walls will come tumbling down causing more wreckage that anyone could imagine. Meanwhile the open, careful, flexible societies have a chance, just a chance mind you – of surviving and thriving.

Jeremiah’s prophecy was true;

Thus said the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, to the whole community which I exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them, plant gardens and eat their fruit. … And seek the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you and pray to the Lord in its behalf; for in its prosperity you shall prosper.[2]

Or as Rabbi Hananya the Deputy High Priest taught in our oldest Rabbinic collection of teachings, Pirkei Avot, ‘Pray for the welfare of the Kingdom, for were it not for the fear of it, a man would swallow his neighbour alive.’[3]

---

[1] Ketubot 105b

[2] Jeremiah 29:4-7

[3] 3.2

Jewish Democracy

Within hours of the Kenneset passing a deeply divisive 'Jewish Nation State' Act something utterly baffling happened in Israel.

A Rabbi was arrested, in Israel, for the crime of celebrating a marriage between two Jews according to Jewish law. Yes, you did read that correctly.

Rab Dov Haiyun is a Masorti Rabbi, leader of the oldest Masorti congregation in Israel. He was arrested at 5:30am and taken for interrogation for the crime of celebrating a Jewish marriage in Israel - that's another law passed by the Kenesset. Not that it's the police-officers fault. As Rav Haiyun said, “Unfortunately, the nice young policemen serve as tools for the ayatollahs in Israel,” More on this absurdity here.

Now, I love Israel. I recognise Israel’s remarkable accomplishments, achieved under levels of stress I can barely fathom. I even recognise the power of these Israeli ayatollahs comes from the ballot box - in the country in which they live and I don’t. I know that whenever any of us, Jews living outside of Israel, and rabbis even more so, take up a verbal-cudgel to oppose the actions of the Israeli state a little of the love we all have for Israel gets chipped away. But this is unacceptable.

Worse than that, there is a connection between this offensive, frankly antisemitic, abuse of my colleague and the Jewish Nation State Law which formally enshrines the Jewish nature of Israel in language that the non-Jewish minority and its allies feel to be deeply exclusory. The connection cuts to the very heart of the nature of democracy. Etymologically, a democracy is a society where power is exercised by the populace - which is fine. But the true essence of democracy is the management of power; who gets to vote and crucially how the power of elected representatives is constrained. The treasured epithet, ‘being a democrat’ is not awarded simply to those who win elections. Hitler was elected. So was Hamas. So too - without wishing to overplay any similarity - are the current elected leadership of countries stretching from China to Russia, Hungary Turkey...

Democracies are not characterised by the wielding of power by the majority, but by the constraining of the power of the majority. True democracies constrain the powerful because treating difference and disagreement as sacred is the only way to ensure all members of a democracy thrive - not just the ones who agree with the views of today's elected leader. It’s a vital thing to care about not just because times change and wheels spin round, but because no-one is ever, truly, fully in agreement with anyone. We are each unique. We all have our differences and peculiarities. Our uniqueness and peculiarities are the sources of our humanity. No human should ever cheer for any political or communal body that seeks to suppress difference. We might find that our difference is the next to be suppressed. Moreover, it is only through the encounter with difference that growth and development are ever possible. The deepest task of a democracy is to protect difference, not suppress it.

I’m proud to be a Masorti Jew - one who privileges complexity, nuance and disagreement - above uniformity. I’m proud to be Rabbi of this community - which models exactly this behaviour - even if we sometimes take longer to move than a more autocratic community might. I’m honoured by the support of our membership for this approach to communal life. We need to stand ever more firmly, waving a flag for the values of a space created for this truly democratic approach to the common life.

And somewhere in all of this, I’m frustrated that I feel I have to say this, today. It’s the eve of the 9th Av - the marking of our previous destruction caused by ‘Sinat Chinam’ - pointless acts of hatred. I want to respond to our history with a call to acts of ‘Ahavat Chinam’ - but this is, already, too long a missive. If you are still reading. Thank you. Please consider assenting by coming this Saturday evening for our 9th Av commemoration, jointly with Belsize Square Synagogue (at NLS, learning from 9:15pm, service at 10pm). Come to fold these pains, frustrations and the battered hope of our people ever more deeply into our souls.