1 day ago
6
ARTICLE AD BOX
A decision made unanimously by a large group and which determines a person’s future is guided by external considerations rather than by the merits of the matter at hand.
By TOVA HERZL APRIL 2, 2025 04:53
A plenum session and a vote on reviving the Ultra Orthodox enlistment bill at the assembly hall of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem on June 11, 2024.
(photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)
According to Jewish sources, unanimous decisions, such as those taken recently by Israel’s government, namely firing the head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and beginning the process of removing the attorney-general, should be overturned. Even in biblical times, it was clear that a decision made unanimously by a large group and which determines a person’s future is guided by external considerations rather than by the merits of the matter at hand.
The Hebrew term for unanimity, peh ehad (one mouth), derives from 1 Kings, chapter 22, and it is not flattering. When king Ahab of Israel, not the nicest person in the book, wanted Jehoshaphat, his Judean counterpart, to join him in battle, he called on some 400 prophets to convince him. In approving, they all used the same phrase “Go up, for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king.”
Jehoshaphat asked if perhaps there was another prophet available, and Ahab mentioned Micaiah, son of Imla. However, Ahab acknowledged that he hated him, since the rogue prophet “never prophesied anything good about me but always bad” – in other words, he did not tell him what he wanted to hear, but spoke the truth. Ahab fell in that battle, and upon his return to Jerusalem, Jehoshaphat acted to restore law and justice in Judea.
The great Medieval biblical commentator Rashi clarified that no two prophets prophesy in identical terms as had the cohort. Therefore they were not prophets and should not be heeded.
The flaws of unanimous judgment
Centuries after Jehoshaphat, when the full Sanhedrin (the legislative and judicial assembly of elders) unanimously convicted someone accused of a capital crime, he was freed – as counterintuitive as that sounds. (There were three levels of Sanhedrin: The lowest was comprised of three elders who dealt with civil matters, such as financial. The next was a reduced Sanhedrin of 23 members that could judge capital crimes. Finally, the full Sanhedrin, comprised of 71 members, dealt with severe capital crimes, such as those regarding false prophets, and decreed laws.
The explanation for the seemingly odd regulation is that if in a large group there is not one member who defends the accused, it is likely that they did not function independently and did not reach their verdicts individually, as a result of thought and consideration, but rather because they acted according to what was expected of them. Who expected? A leader, their colleagues, public opinion, rivals of the accused, or whoever could influence others to follow a particular line. The entire process was hence irregular, and the accused was released.
With the exception of several Likud ministers, all cabinet members are observant, and the coalition directs extraordinary resources to strengthening Torah education. It should therefore be expected that its members would understand that their recent votes indicate nothing about those whom they decided to remove but instead tell us much about themselves, who raise their hands in favor of decisions which counter to good governance.Since we have no prophets today, we require our leaders to think for themselves and not operate as mindless imitators.
The writer was Israel’s first ambassador to the Baltic states after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, ambassador to South Africa, and congressional liaison officer at the embassy in Washington. She is a graduate of the Israel National Defense College.
English (US) ·