Shofetim 5772: Justice, Democracy, and The Observant Life

The Republican National Convention meets this week in Tampa, to be followed a week later by the Democratic convention in Charlotte.  The scent of politics is in the air, and the well-oiled wheels of democracy are turning.

These conventions, I must admit, seem like something of a dinosaur in today’s media climate, with the instant sharing of information and the curve of the 24-hour news cycle.  The presidential candidates have been established for months, and while the recent addition of Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to the Romney ticket added a boost of excitement to an otherwise foregone conclusion, I can’t say that I really have any great interest in watching either of these conventions on television.  If somebody gives a truly wonderful speech, I am certain that it will be available on YouTube before the speaker steps off the podium.

This election season, and in particular the acrimony that has been festering between right and left and lately manifested itself in the barbs that are already being traded by the presidential campaigns, have me thinking quite a bit right now about democracy.  And, as it turns out, Parashat Shofetim gives us some good fodder for discussion on this very topic.

As such, I was quite pleased when an essay on Judaism and democracy was brought to my attention this week.  It appears in the new guide to the Conservative movement’s approach to Jewish law and thought entitled The Observant Life.  The publication of this book represents a sort of watershed moment for the Conservative movement.  It was written and edited by a gaggle of Conservative rabbis, led by Rabbi Martin Cohen of the nearby Shelter Rock Jewish Center.  I would like to point out that I don’t get any commission for pushing it, but nonetheless I think it’s something that we all should own and read.  

Why is this a watershed?  Because a consistent historical weakness in the Conservative movement’s approach to Judaism has been its general unwillingness to commit to one particular position on many issues.  Throughout the golden years of the middle of the 20th century, Conservative Judaism was a big tent, offering space for those who grew up in Orthodoxy and those who were moving towards secularism.  What is striking about this new volume is that it is a kind of unified coalition, a halakhic and meta-halakhic statement on where we stand.

Although meant in some ways to replace the classic Conservative guide to halakhah / Jewish law by Rabbi Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice, The Observant Life is much more than Rabbi Klein’s book.  I might make the case that while Conservative Judaism is still a big tent in some respects, there are some basic things upon which we all agree.  This book reads something like a current dictionary for the movement, and I think it is a reference that no home dedicated to this movement should be without.

So the essay on Judaism and democracy from The Observant Life that caught my eye is called, “Citizenship,” and it was written by Rabbi Jane Kanarek, with whom I worked for a couple of summers at Camp Ramah in New England.  It opens with the observation that there are voices in the Jewish world that suggest that Judaism and democracy are incompatible (a statement that is, I think, most often made when discussing Israeli politics).  Rabbi Kanarek asserts that there is in fact a Jewish democratic current that runs through our history and literature, although it may differ somewhat from Western democracy.  Not surprisingly, the Jewish take on democracy begins with the line that we read this morning right at the beginning of Parashat Shofetim (Deut. 16:20, p. 1088 in Etz Hayim)

צֶדֶק צֶדֶק, תִּרְדֹּף

Tzedeq, tzedeq tirdof.
Justice, justice shall you pursue.

The Torah requires us to live in a just society.  And not just to live there; many commentators have addressed the curious repetition of the word tzedeq; after all, would it not have been enough to say, “Tzedeq tirdof” / “You shall pursue justice”?  The Torah must mean something much stronger: to actively, physically pursue justice, or to pursue justice justly, or perhaps that we should pursue justice and only justice.

Rabbi Kanarek suggests that this verse suggests not only justice in “interpersonal behavior among individuals, but also with the ethical construction of the larger society in which those individuals live.”  The two tzedeqs, therefore, imply two types of justice: the more immediate, daily justice between you and me, between individuals, and the larger picture of justice, that is, between us and them, between governments and peoples or rich and poor and so forth.

Rabbinic tradition also upholds the principle of dina demalkhuta dina, or “the law of the land is the law.”  As such, our obligation to pursue justice is tied to the wider community in which we live.  We cannot merely follow Jewish law and the law of the land, but we must also strive to make sure that the law of the land is just.  Maimonides tells us (Mishneh Torah Hilkhot De’ot 6:1) that if you live in a place where the norms of behavior are evil, you should pick up and move somewhere else.  

Perhaps you have heard about the legal battle over circumcision in Germany.  In June, a regional court in Cologne ruled that circumcision should be prohibited in that city, and just this past week, a German doctor filed charges against a Bavarian rabbi for performing circumcisions; the court has not yet decided to hear the case.  The June ruling, however, has provoked a fresh round of xenophobic anti-circumcision rhetoric in Western Europe, and coupled with recent attempts to ban kosher slaughter reveals a quite troubling trend regarding the free exercise of religion on the continent.  Modern European states are not the kinds of places from which Maimonides would argue that the Jews should flee; they are mostly just societies.  Jews and Muslims in Germany are fighting this decision, of course; from our perspective this situation has put the principles of Tzedeq tzedeq tirdof and dina demalkhuta dina in direct conflict, and we of course should all be arguing for tzedeq in the dina demalkhuta, the law of the land.

Back on this side of the Atlantic, a representative to Congress from Missouri, Todd Akin, made a remark about rape for which he was roundly criticized (there is no need for me to repeat it here).  Thank God, our free press quickly set the record straight that there was no scientific basis upon which to base his remark.  But what I think that this incident brought to the fore, and particularly in the context of some of the other statements that are being made on each side of the presidential campaign, is that political speech has limits.  Nobody is entitled to his or her own facts.  When we consider the current debate over Medicare that the presidential candidates have raised, it is clear to me that each side is spinning the numbers to their own advantage, making it quite difficult for the average citizen to puzzle out who is telling the truth, or if there even can be an objective truth here.

I noticed this week, by the way, that there are multiple ostensibly non-partisan websites dedicated to “fact-checking” politicians.  Some of the best-known are politifact.com and factcheck.org.  This is an age in which trust of big institutions, particularly government, is frightfully low, and I suppose that it is a credit to the strength of our democracy that such sites are there to help us sort out fact from fiction in political speech.  

However, doesn’t the very existence of these sites suggest a problem?  Call me naive if you will, but shouldn’t truth be the same regardless of which side of the aisle you are seated, and not molded to some politically-expedient variant on reality? Once again, thank God for our free press.  

Returning to Rabbi Kanarek and democracy, she points to an argument in the Mishnah for free speech.  We also read this morning that the Torah mandates the death sentence for one who does not follow the ruling of kohanic judges (Deut. 17:12-13, p. 1092).  The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:2-4) follows this by stating that a zaken mamre, a rebellious elder, should be executed ONLY if he teaches people to act contrary to the court’s rulings.  However, if the zaken mamre makes it clear that he is only stating personal opinion in opposition to the court, and does not encourage others to violate the law, then he is not punished.

Hence we can understand the Mishnah as implying that free speech is permitted as long as it does not lead to illegal action, and so while I shudder to think that politicians such as Mr. Akin can say grossly incorrect statements in public, we must defend his right to do so, and take him to task as necessary, and this is precisely what took place this week.

I have brought these items to your attention not only because we need to know about them, but because we need to be vigilant; as Jews, our tradition mandates that we uphold the principles of democracy.  Rabbi Kanarek’s chapter also addresses issues surrounding separation of church and state, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and equal protection under law, all of which can be construed from the Jewish bookshelf.  Democracy, which may be seen as flowing from the principles of justice, requires continual pursuit on multiple levels, and as such we must work hard to protect these principles with zeal.

President George Washington, in his thank-you letter to the Jewish community in Newport, Rhode Island following his visit there in 1790, spoke not only of the freedom and tolerance engendered by American democracy, but perhaps gave a knowing wink at the Jewish role in helping to shape democracy.  He wrote:

“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

Let us hope that such tolerance, as supported by the other principles of democracy and justice indicated by Rabbi Kanarek in her chapter in The Observant Life, continues to flourish here and abroad.  Meanwhile, enjoy the political spectacle of the coming weeks, and buy the book.

Shabbat shalom.

~

Rabbi Seth Adelson

(Originally delivered at Temple Israel of Great Neck, Shabbat morning, August 25, 2012.)

Pinehas 5771: Why Egalitarianism Still Matters

Many of you know by now that I grew up with just a handful of Jews in a small town - so small that we had to bring our own garbage to the municipal landfill because there was no curbside pickup, that local decisions were made at old-fashioned town meetings, and that our yard was bordered by a dairy farm, a horse pasture, and a still-functioning cemetery that dated to the Revolutionary War. We drove 20 miles back and forth to our Conservative synagogue in Pittsfield, Massachusetts several times a week.

By the time I was aware of Jewish life, our synagogue was already egalitarian. (By the way, the rabbi who had overseen the change to egalitarianism in the mid-1970s was Rabbi Arthur Rulnick, who spent a number of years at Woodbury Jewish Center after leaving Pittsfield.) It was completely normal for me to sit with my family, for my mother to get called to the Torah and be in the regular rotation of gabbaim, for my sister to celebrate her bat mitzvah on Shabbat morning, and so forth.

I had heard that in some communities elsewhere, men and women were separated, but that seemed far away and irrelevant to my Jewish experience. I took egalitarianism for granted; it was an integral feature in the fabric of my Jewish life, and anything otherwise would have seemed alien.

Fast forward to the present. I now live in a largely-Jewish New York suburb with no fewer than 18 synagogues and at least two miqva-ot. Of those 18 synagogues, 14 are not egalitarian. This non-egalitarian reality is far more present today than it was 100 years ago in American Judaism. And that is why we need to be clear as to why we embrace equality in Jewish life.

One of the passages that we read in Parashat Pinehas this morning, the one about the daughters of Zelophehad, has some bearing on the relationship between Jewish law and women. To briefly summarize the story, Zelophehad was a member of the tribe of Menasheh who had five daughters and no sons. Although property is handed down from father to son, according to laws set out elsewhere in the Torah, the daughters of Zelophehad plead with Moses and El’azar, the Kohen Gadol (high priest), to allow them to inherit their fathers’ share in what will become their tribal territory. When consulted by Moses, God favors the daughters, and then a new law is introduced whereby women can also inherit, even before the deceased’s brothers. The story is remarkable for several reasons. One might make the case that it contains the seed of egalitarianism. But we’ll come back to that.

First, a little history and a little halakhah.

According to noted historian Dr. Jonathan Sarna of Brandeis University, mixed-gender seating (that is, men and women seated together) is a distinctly American Jewish development. In the 1860s, while Reform Jews in Germany still sat separately in synagogue, like their Lutheran countrymen did in church, American Jews began to adopt mixed seating after the widespread Christian norm in this country. By the middle of the 20th century, mixed-gender seating was prevalent across all the American movements; even many Modern Orthodox congregations sat together as well. (It was not until the 1980s that the Union of Orthodox Congregations began to pressure their mixed-seating congregations to put up mehitzot, to draw a clear distinction between moderate Orthodox and traditional Conservative congregations.)

The Conservative movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) addressed the issue in a teshuvah (rabbinic responsum to a question of Jewish law) in 1941, in which they permitted the practice based on the fact that “the prevailing attitude about the place of woman in modern society is making it increasingly difficult to maintain the traditional policy of isolation towards women in the synagogue.” In other words, this committee of traditional rabbis said, times have changed, and so have social norms. The committee permitted individual rabbis to allow mixed-gender seating according to their own judgment, even though it seems that the members of the committee were personally against it.

Although seating women and men separately is a long-standing minhag / custom, it is not halakhah / law, and it is not found stated clearly in rabbinic sources prior to the 13th century CE; even Maimonides, who details synagogue construction in his Mishneh Torah, does not mention the mehitzah (barrier between men and women found in almost all Orthodox synagogues).

In subsequent decades, the Conservative movement gradually pursued an egalitarian agenda. In 1955 they had passed a teshuvah allowing women to take aliyot (be called to the Torah, although presumably few did at the time), and in 1973 they permitted counting women in a minyan. Finally, after several years of heart-wrenching dispute, 1983 brought the well-known Roth teshuvah allowing for the ordination of female rabbis, and the Jewish Theological Seminary’s faculty voted to admit women to the Rabbinical School.

In each case, the teshuvot examined by the Law Committee found a halakhic basis on which to permit the forward movement. For example, the permissibility of women’s aliyot is indicated in the Talmud, even though it states that “we do not do this because of the honor of the congregation.” In a world where women can hold the highest political offices, be CEOs, doctors, lawyers, judges, and so forth, calling a woman to the Torah can only bring honor to a congregation.

However, the issue would never have been addressed had there not been efforts on the part of the women to bring it to the table. In the case of mixed seating, for example, Sarna cites an anecdote of women at Adas Israel Congregation in Washington, DC who boldly started sitting downstairs with their husbands, against synagogue policy.

Now, back to the daughters of Zelophehad, about whom the midrashic collection Sifrei comments (responding to Numbers 27:1 in today’s parashah):

Vatiqravna benot tzelofehad:
The daughters of Zelophehad approached:
Since the daughters of Zelophehad heard that the land was divided amongst the tribes, but not to the women, they gathered to consult.
They said, “The mercy of God is not like the mercy of flesh and blood [i.e. men]. Men are merciful to men more so than to women, but God is merciful to all, as it is written [here quoting Psalm 145, which we know as Ashrei], “Verahamav al kol ma’asav” (His mercy is extended to all).”

The motivation of Zelophehad’s daughters was to ensure that they were treated properly, that they received that to which they were entitled. And they had to ask for it, to bring their case all the way to the top. Had they not pursued their rights, they would not have received their father’s land.

And their case was a landmark! Immediately after the story, the Torah amends its own law to say that when a man has no sons, his daughters inherit his property.

And this is the way it has always been in Jewish tradition: women who want to participate in Jewish law as men do must pursue it.

Dr. Elisheva Baumgarten, in her visit a few weeks ago for the Lillian Schiowitz Memorial Lecture, presented our congregation with several wonderful lectures about women’s roles throughout Jewish history. If you missed her appearances that weekend, shame on you!

Her best lecture was the one after Shabbat services, when she pointed out that there is evidence that a number of women donned tefillin in the Middle Ages in Europe. Although there is no proof supporting the oft-told legend of Rashi’s daughters’ having done so, nonetheless it was indeed an extant practice, especially in the higher economic strata. Rashi’s grandson and bar plugta, one with whom he often disagreed, Rabbeinu Tam, points out that a woman who puts on tefillin should say the berakhah, just like a man.

As with the case of the daughters of Zelophehad, the women forced the issue by entering an area of law from which they had been excluded. And this is just how egalitarianism unfolded in the Conservative movement.

And, of course, we are still evolving. The need and desire for egalitarianism, especially in this period of rightward movement within Orthodoxy, is still with us. Temple Israel is a haven for equality here in Great Neck, and as such we must continue to revisit and refamiliarize ourselves with the principles that validate the ways in which we express our Judaism. Nothing should be taken for granted.

And that applies to everything that we do here. One message that we learn from today’s parashah is this: we have within our hands the capability to shape our tradition such that it is more meaningful, more powerful, and more helpful to all of us.

In one of the teshuvot from the Law Committee about mixed seating, Rabbi Jacob Agus quoted Ahad Ha-Am:

“Some day perhaps we may feel the need of a new tradition: we may want to understand the natural process of its evolution. We may then have a new Maimonides, who will codify the law from the historical point of view, not on the principles of an artificial logic, but on the basis of the order in which the various laws emerged in the course of an age-long development.”

He is here more or less supporting the Positive Historical School that became the Conservative movement, and then he goes on to criticize secularists, or perhaps even the Reform movement of his day:

“Instead of critics who declare that the Shulhan Arukh [the authoritative 16th-century code of Jewish law] is not our Torah, we may have a new type of exegete, whose aim will be to discover the source of its prescriptions in the psychology of our people, and to show why and how they grew out of the peoples’ material conditions and mentality, or were adopted from the outside, under strength of need or favor of circumstances... But, we shall no longer feel compelled to regard all the minutiae of our inherited tradition as laws and precepts binding on us everywhere and for all time.” (Ahad Ha-Am, Essays, East and West Edition, p. 70.)

His point is this: we have an allegiance to our tradition and its laws. But we are also modern people, with the need to reinterpret for our times in a historical, social, and psychological context.

For me, it could not be any other way.

Shabbat shalom!

(Originally delivered at Temple Israel, Shabbat morning, July 16, 2011.)

Behuqqotai 5771 - The Five Pillars of Judaism

As we approach Shavuot, when we commemorate the giving of the Torah, I have been thinking of the great complexity of Judaism and Jewish life. Ours is the most complicated religion I know. There are so many things to learn and discuss and understand, so many possible points of entry. Think about it for a second:

Shabbat / Holidays
Halakhah / Jewish law / 613 mitzvot
God (a lot of material to talk about there)
Conservative Judaism (the focus of our Tiqqun Leyl Shavuot)
Tefillah / prayer
Tiqqun olam / social action
Torah (shiv’im panim / the 70 faces of Torah: many different ways of reading it)
Hebrew language
Aramaic language(s)
Talmud
Rashi / commentators
Poetry and literature
Home rituals
Synagogue rituals
Ancient philosophy
Medieval philosophy
Modern philosophy
Ancient History (and on and on; you get the idea)

It is all-encompassing, and more than slightly intimidating.

As such, through the ages, there have been various attempts to outline a simple guide to the basic principles of Judaism. Consider the following from Pirqei Avot (1:2), which we studied two Shabbatot ago at se’udah shelishit:

על שלושה דברים העולם עומד--על התורה, ועל העבודה, ועל גמילות החסדים.
Al sheloshah devarim ha-olam omed: al ha-Torah, ve-al ha-avodah, ve-al gemilut hasadim.
“On three things the world stands: on Torah, on service to God, and on deeds of lovingkindness.”

That’s pretty good, but not really enough information.

How about this, from the opening mishnah of Massekhet Peah (1:1):

אלו דברים שאדם אוכל פירותיהן בעולם הזה והקרן קיימת לו לעולם הבא
כיבוד אב ואם וגמילות חסדים והבאת שלום בין אדם לחבירו ותלמוד תורה כנגד כולם
Elu devarim she-adam okhel peiroteihen ba-olam hazeh, veha-qeren qayyemet lo le-olam ha-ba: kibbud av va-em, ugmilut hasadim, vehava’at shalom bein adam lehavero; vetalmud torah keneged kulam.
These are the things for which a person reaps the fruits in this world and his reward is in the world to come: honoring father and mother, acts of lovingkindness, and bringing peace between people, but the study of Torah is equal to them all.

This is better than the piece from Avot, I think. It speaks of the essential duties we have to our fellow people, and the centrality of learning Torah, and points to an incentive (i.e. rewards in this life and what comes after). But there is still more!

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, whom we also refer to as Rambam or Maimonides, lived in Muslim Cairo in the 12th century and, perhaps responding to the Five Pillars of Islam, counted 13 principles of faith. We echo these when we chant the piyyut (liturgical poem) Yigdal at the end of Friday night services here at Temple Israel.

Most of the 13 principles are about God, but they also include statements about the Torah, about divine reward and retribution, and belief in the coming of the mashiah / messiah and the resurrection of the dead that comes with it.

But these are mostly beliefs, not actions. Four of the Five Pillars of Islam are actions; it is clear that Rambam was a heady guy, arguably more interested in thinking than doing.

What do we have that can serve as a simple guideline to us, modern, thinking people, who are looking for a moderate, centrist approach to living a Jewish life in today’s fast-paced, pressurized world? What are the basic things that we should do to be Jewish, and to ensure Judaism’s vitality in the future?

* * *

This morning we read from Parashat Behuqqotai, which features a series of blessings and curses. The theological premise of these is that if we follow God’s words, we will receive the litany of blessings, and if not, we get the curses.

The reality is, of course, not so black-and-white. In reviewing the opening verses of this parashah with my 7th-grade class at the Youth House on Thursday, one of the students asked a great question: what if you miss a few of the mitzvot? Does that mean that you get none of the blessings and all of the curses?

The answer is that nobody can really fulfill all of the mitzvot. We try, and, being human, we inevitably miss the mark. So we aim for getting those blessings. But it’s not all or none.

Our parashah opened this morning with the curious phrase, “Im behuqqotai telekhu.” Literally, “If you walk with My laws...” We do not simply believe in God, or submit to His will (as some other religions suggest); rather, we Jews walk. We walk through life, ideally trying to follow the path that God has laid out for us. The word for Jewish law, halakhah, means “walking.”

What does it mean to walk in God’s way?

I’ve assembled a quick reference guide. Here are what I am boldly calling the “Five Pillars of Judaism,” a fundamental (but not fundamentalist) guide to Jewish living. I’m thinking of having this printed on the back of my Temple Israel business card:

1. Treat others respectfully - derekh eretz, the way of the land

Six out of the “top ten” commandments / mitzvot are about treating others with respect; great swathes of the Torah are about interpersonal relations. And in particular, the laws applied to the “stranger in your midst” are the most important. It is not enough just to treat your family and friends and the other people like you with respect. The Torah teaches us to give dignity to our employees, to take care of those in need, to respect all people regardless of their status or station, to treat both your friendly neighbors and your enemies with a modicum of fairness. Derekh eretz literally means “the way of the land;” as we are walking through life we cannot neglect this path.

Here are the words of Rabban Gamliel from Pirqei Avot 2:2:
יפה תלמוד תורה עם דרך ארץ, שיגיעת שניהם משכחת עוון
Yafeh Talmud Torah im derekh eretz; sheyegi’at sheneihem meshakahat avon.
The study of Torah is commendable when combined with respect for others, for when one toils in both, sin is forgotten.

It is not enough to learn Jewish text, says Rabban Gamliel. You also have to know how to apply it in our interpersonal relations.

2. Treat yourself with respect - na’aseh venishma

Feed your mind with good stuff: Jewish learning, Jewish knowledge. The more we know about and understand our tradition, the more valuable Jewish practice becomes. And commit your physical self to living Jewishly. It’s good for you!

An article crossed my desk this week, forwarded to me from more than one of you, with the provocative title, “Science Confirms What Rabbis Understood: Jewish Practice Makes You Happier and More Fulfilled.” Upon reading the article, I discovered that this title was more than a bit misleading. “Science” has not confirmed any such thing. However, the article cites one or two recent books that suggest that “behavior change often precedes changes in attitudes and feelings." Or, put Jewishly (from Ex. 24:7), na’aseh venishma - “we will do and we will hear.”

This is the response that the Israelites gave, while standing at the foot of Mt. Sinai, when offered the covenant of Torah. It is also the classical Jewish answer to why we should perform mitzvot - i.e. after committing to them and growing accustomed to living a lifestyle in accordance with Shabbat, kashrut, and other Jewish observances, we will eventually understand why. Na’aseh venishma, said our ancestors - “we will do and then we will understand.”

Meanwhile, it’s not enough just to feed your mind. “Im ein qemah, ein Torah.” If there is no bread, there is no Torah. Kashrut is important. But I would argue that just as important than the letter of the law is the spirit; kashrut should also reflect our ethics. We should think carefully about what we eat, about what we put into our bodies. If a food is kosher, but bad for you, should you eat it?

Furthermore, the Conservative movement is finally bringing Magen Tzedek, its ethical-hekhsher initiative, to the market. Look for it next fall. If you want to learn more about Magen Tzedek, I’ll be teaching about it at our Tiqqun Leyl Shavuot on Tuesday night, June 7 here at TI.

3. Treat God’s creation with respect

By now many have you heard me say this many times, so I will be brief: God created this world, and the Torah constantly reminds us that it belongs to God, not us. Just as hikers passing through a forest exercise the standard known as minimum impact, leaving no trace, we should work harder to leave less of a trace of our presence as we walk through life. If that means reducing greenhouse gas emissions or conserving resources, then we should work harder to do so. God wants us to make sure that our grandchildren, and their grandchildren will pass through the same forest and find it still populated with (as one story in the Talmud puts it) carob trees.

4. Express gratitude to God

Come to Temple Israel on Shabbat, or weekdays, for your daily dose of tefillah.
Prayer is powerful stuff. It’s not easy, but it’s really good for you.

But you can also pray alone! Don’t fill all of your empty time by merely playing with your smartphone, or with idle chatter. Make meaning with your words and thoughts, and float them up to God. You’ll come to appreciate that opportunity.

5. Commit Yourself to Israel

We need the State of Israel, and she needs us. Modern political Zionism and Israel represent the youngest stream in Jewish life. We have a diversity of opinions in this room regarding what it means to support Israel, but here is my formula:

a. Go there. Often. I go at least twice a year. If you have not been yet, go now. Even leaving aside the spiritual component of Israel, as a mere vacation destination, Israel rivals the best places in the world. If you’re looking for an opportunity, Rabbi Stecker will be leading a Temple Israel trip to Israel next summer; watch for more info.

b. Buy Israeli products and give to Israeli charities. The least we can do as Diaspora Jews, when Israel puts her own teenagers in the line of fire defending her borders and security, is to give as much economic support as possible.

c. Learn about and become a goodwill ambassador for Israel. Israel is being subjected to more and more negative criticism. Become familiar with the facts and the history, so that you can learn to discern hyperbole from real issues. As we have seen just this week with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s current visit to Washington and President Obama’s speech on the Middle East the other night, there is much spin out there, and the depth of most media presentations is paper-thin.

Israel is not just the Kotel and the Tel Aviv beach, and she is definitely not an apartheid regime. As pressure mounts both here and abroad for Israel to engage with the new Palestinian unity government that includes the Hamas party, equip yourself for those hard conversations. Learn to argue her case amongst your friends and support Israel within our current political landscape.

* * * *

To summarize, the Five Pillars of Judaism are:
1. Respect for others / derekh eretz
2. Respect for yourself
3. Respect for God’s creation
4. Express gratitude to God
5. Commit yourself to Israel

Remember, this is not meant to be all-encompassing; rather, this is merely a guideline.

Im behuqqotai telekhu, if you walk in God’s way, maybe there will be a few more blessings for all of us. Shabbat shalom!


~
Rabbi Seth Adelson
(Originally delivered at Temple Israel of Great Neck, Shabbat morning, 5/21/2011.)

Rabbi David Golinkin refutes a recent Israeli halakhic ruling about rental or sale of property to non-Jews

Below is a teshuvah (literally, "answer," a rabbinic response to a question of Jewish law) by Rabbi David Golinkin, the head of the Schechter Institute for Jewish Studies, the Israeli seminary and teaching institute of the Masorti (Conservative) movement. He wrote this in response to the recent halakhic dustup caused by a group of Israeli Orthodox rabbis who ruled that Jews may not rent or sell property in Israel to non-Jews.

Rabbi Golinkin refers to a wide range of rabbinic sources, many of which will be unknown to those who are not well-versed in halakhic literature, but his point is clear: there is an overwhelming basis on which to permit Jews in Israel (and, of course, everywhere else) to rent or sell to non-Jews.

Enjoy!


* * * *


Is it permissible to sell or rent an apartment to a non-Jew in the Land of Israel? (1)
By Rabbi David Golinkin

Question: On December 7, 2010, The Jerusalem Post reported (Jpost.com) that a group of forty municipal rabbis in Israel published a letter which said that it is forbidden to sell or rent apartments to non-Jews (nokhrim) in Israel.

Amongst the reasons given for the prohibition are the danger of intermarriage and the lowering of real estate prices in areas where non-Jews live. Gentiles' "different lifestyle from Jews" can endanger lives, they wrote.

If a Jew sells or rents property to a gentile, his neighbors must warn him, and if he does not change his ways, the neighbors must avoid the person, and may not conduct business with him, according to the petition. A person who rents or sells to non-Jews also may not get aliyahs in synagogue.

Amongst the municipal rabbis who signed the petition are Rabbi Yaakov Edelstein of Ramat HaSharon, Rabbi Haim Pinto of Ashdod, Rabbi Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba, Rabbi David Abuhazeira of Yavne, Rabbi David Bar-Chen of Sderot, and others.

In addition, one of the best-known National-Religious rabbis, Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, signed the letter, as did [Rabbi Ovadiah] Yosef's son, Rabbi Yaakov Yosef...

Another ten rabbis reportedly plan to sign the letter...


Is this really the standard and only approach to this question in Jewish law?

Responsum:

I) "Lo Tehonem"

These rabbis object to handing over territories to non-Jews on the basis of Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are about to enter and possess, and He dislodges many nations before you... seven nations much larger than you... you must doom them to destruction, grant them no terms and have no mercy upon them (lo tehonem).

The simple meaning of "lo tehonem" is"have no mercy upon them" as translated above,but the Sages explained it to mean "do not give them a hold (hanayah) on the land" (Avodah Zarah 20a). Rabbi Daniel Sperber has shown (Netivot Pesikah, Jerusalem, 2008, pp. 63-71) that in the early, uncensored printings, Tosafot (to Yevamot 23a s.v hahu) and the Ba"H to Tur Hoshen Mishpat 249 interpret this to mean that one may not sell or give parts of Eretz Yisrael to any non-Jew. This was also the opinion of the Netziv in the nineteenth century (Responsa Meishiv Davar, Kuntress Dvar Hashemitah, fol. 58a) andthe Hazon Ish in the twentieth (Shvi'it 24, 3).

However, many authorities rule that this prohibition applies only to idol worshippers such as the seven nations mentioned in the verse, lest they "turn your children away from me to worship other gods" (Deut. 7:4). (Responsa of the Rashba, Part I, No. 8; the Meiri to Avodah Zarah 20a; R. Baruch Halevi Epstein, Torah Temimah to Deut. 7:2; R. Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kuk, Responsa Mishpat Kohen, No. 63 [which is based on the censored versions of the Ba"h]; R. Zvi Pesah Frank, Sefer Kerem Tziyon, Part 3, p. 13; R. Ovadiah Yosef, Torah Shebea'l Peh 15 [5733], pp. 31-32 and again in Tehumin 10 [5749], pp. 37-38; and cf. R. Yaakov Warhaftig, Tehumin 2 [5741], pp. 201-203).

Most of the Arabs in Israel today are Muslims and almost all halakhic authorities agree that Muslims are monotheists and not idol worshippers (Maimonides, Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Asurot 11:7; Responsa of Maimonides, ed. Blau, No. 448, p. 726; and cf. R. Yosef Kapah, Ketavim, Vol. 3, Jerusalem, 2002, pp. 1412-1416; Rashba as quoted by Tur Yoreh Deah 124; Taz to Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 124, subparagraph 4; R. Hayyim David Halevi, Aseh Lekhah Rav, Vol. 9, No. 13; R. Ovadiah Yosef, Responsa Yabia Omer, Vol. 7, Yoreh Deah, No. 12; R. David Frankel, Teshuvot Va'ad Hahalakhah Shel Knesset Harabbanim B'yisrael, Vol. 6 [5755-5758], p. 216).

Therefore, many authorities rule that it is permissible to sell or give parts of Eretz Yisrael to Muslims. (R. Raphael Meyuhass, Mizbah Adamah, Salonika, 1777, fol. 12b; Rabbi Kuk and Rabbi Frank quoted above; R. Yitzhak Isaac Halevi Herzog, Tehumin 2 [5741], pp. 169-179 which was abbreviated in Shanah B'shanah 5746, pp. 136-140; R.Shaul Yisraeli, Amud Hayemini, No. 12, paragraph 3; and R.Ovadiah Yosef, Torah Shebe'al Peh 21 (5740), p. 14) as well as in Torah Shebea'l Peh 15 [5733], pp. 31-32 and in Tehumin 10 [5749], pp. 37-38).

Furthermore, even though many halakhic authorites claim that Christianity is a form of idol worship (see Rabbi David Frankel, ibid., pp. 213-215, 216-219), many others disagree and say that it is not (the Meiri in many places; Rabbi Moshe Isserles, Orah Hayyim 156, Rabbi Moshe Rivkes, Ba'er Hagolah to Hoshen Mishpat 425:5 and many more - see Rabbi David Frankel, ibid., pp. 219-224). Thus, according to many authorities, it is permissible to sell land in Israel to Christians as well.

II) The Approach of Nahmanides
Other opponents of selling land or houses in Israel to non-Jews rely on the opinion of Nahmanides. The book of Numbers (33:53) states: "And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have assigned the land to you to possess". Nahmanides interprets this verse as a positive commandment: "...that we may not leave the land in the hands of other nations ...and the Sages called this a commanded war". (Nahmanides' additions to Sefer Hamitzvot by the Rambam, No. 4 and cf. Nahmanides' commentary to the verse.) In other words, we are commanded to conquer Eretz Yisrael and keep her in Jewish hands regardless of the danger and any loss of Jewish life that might occur in the process.

However, Nahmanides is the only one who considers it a mitzvah to capture and retain the land of Israel. (Maimonides, Sefer Hahinukh and others do not include it in their enumerations of the 613 mitzvot.) Furthermore, many have explained that even according to Nahmanides, this mitzvah only applies in the days of the Messiah (R. Isaac de Leon in Megilat Esther to Sefer Hamitzvot ad. loc. and others).

III) Kiddush Hashem and Hillul Hashem
These two mitzvot relate to all of our relations with our non-Jewish neighbors; Kiddush Hashem is the sanctification of God's name and Hillul Hashem is the desecration of God's name. They stem from the same verse in Leviticus (22:32): "You shall not desecrate My holy name, that I may be sanctified in the midst of the people of Israel - I am the Lord who sanctifies you". This verse means that any good or holy act that a Jew does, sanctifies God's name in the eyes of his Jewish and gentile neighbors, while any bad or profane act that a Jew does, desecrates God's name in the eyes of the public.

Furthermore, Maimonides emphasizes that rabbis in particular must be careful about how they behave because any inappropriate behavior which causes people to criticize them is considered a hillul hashem (Hilkhot Yesodei Hatorah 5:11). There is no question that the letter published by the group of rabbis last week was a hillul hashem, which desecrated God's name in the eyes of the world.

IV) Mishum Eivah
The Sages of the Talmud allowed Jews to do quite a number of activities related to non-Jews which were normally forbidden, mishum eivah - in order to prevent ill will (Entziklopedia Talmudit, Vol. 1, cols. 492-493, s.v. Eivah). Thus, even if one were to claim that it is forbidden to sell or rent property to non-Jews in Israel, it could be permitted mishum eivah. There is no question that such discrimination against non-Jews in Israel could lead to increased attacks against Jews in Israel and the Diaspora and to refusal to rent or sell homes to Jews in the Diaspora.

V) Mipnei Darkei Shalom
In the Tannaitic period (ca. 70-220 c.e), Jews, Christians and idol worshippers lived side by side in many towns and villages in the Land of Israel. A baraita which appears in Gittin 61a and parallels (see my responsum in the Teshuvot Va'ad Hahalakhah Shel Knesset Harabbanim B'yisrael, Vol. 6 [5755-5758], pp. 287-288) lists a series of rabbinic enactments mipnei darkei shalom, because of the ways of peace, including feeding non-Jews, visiting their sick, and burying their dead. The Mishnah (Gittin 5:8-9) also lists a number of similar enactments. These sources do not relate to our specific topic, but renting or selling apartments to non-Jews in the State of Israel today would certainly be in the spirit of mipnei darkei shalom found in the Mishnah and beraitot.

VI) What is hateful to you do not do to others
There is a famous story in the Talmud (Shabbat 31a) about a convert who came to Hillel and asked to convert on condition that Hillel would teach him the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel replied: "Mai d'alakh saney l'haverakh la te'eveid, zo hee kol hatorah kula v'idakh peirushah hu zil gemor" - "what is hateful to you do not do to others, this is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary, go and learn".

For 1900 years, from the Destruction of the Second Temple until the twentieth century, Jews were discriminated against by non-Jews. More specifically, non-Jews frequently refused to sell land or rent houses to them. This is why Jews lived in ghettos for many centuries and this ghettoizing of the Jews reached its climax in Nazi Europe. Even in the United States, there were many cities and neighborhoods which posted signs "no dogs and Jews allowed". Now, after 1900 years, when we have our own sovereign State of Israel where we are the majority, we must follow the dictum of Hillel which he considered "the entire Torah", the most basic commandment in the Torah: "what is hateful unto you to do not do to others".

VII) Love the Stranger
The Torah contains many mitzvot related to the Ger Toshav or resident alien (see David Golinkin, Insight Israel: The View from Schechter, Jerusalem, 2003, pp. 85-89). While there is disagreement among rabbis as to whether these laws apply to non-Jews living in Israel today (see ibid.), the spirit of these Biblical and Rabbinic laws demands that we treat all non-Jews in Israel with respect for "you shall love him [the stranger] as yourself, for you were strangers in the Land of Egypt" (Leviticus 19:33-34).

VIII) The Laws of the State of Israel
Israel is a democracy which guaranties equal rights to all of its citizens and forbids racism or incitement to racism.

As I have shown elsewhere (Responsa in a Moment, Jerusalem, 2000, pp. 90-91), the democratic institutions of the State of Israel are not something to be "tolerated" outside of Jewish law. Rather, they are part and parcel of Jewish law -- and living in accordance with its laws is as important as observing Shabbat and keeping kosher. There are three ways of proving this assertion:
a) The Talmudic sage Samuel, who lived in third-century Babylonia, coined the phrase "dina d'malkhuta dina" - "the law of the land is the law" (Nedarim 28a and parallels), which meant that Jews must obey the laws of the countries in which they reside. But many rabbis state that this applies to a Jewish state as well(Entziklopedia Talmudit, vol. 7, cols. 307-308).If so, Jewish law requires Jews to observe the secular laws of the State of Israel.
b) Throughout Jewish history, every Jewish kahal, or community, was governed democratically on the basis of a passage in the Talmud(Bava Batra 8b; cf. Menahem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, Philadelphia and Jerusalem, 1994, Chapter 19; Ephraim Kanarfogel, Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 58 (1992), pp. 71-106). The State of Israel is the modern equivalent of the kahal, and its democratic institutions must be treated with the same respect and authority as the medieval kahal.
c) Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kuk and Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, two of the foremost religious Zionists of the twentieth century, have explained that, in our day, the democratically elected government and leaders of Israel have taken the place of the king and must be obeyed accordingly (Responsa Mishpat Kohen, Jerusalem, 1984, No. 144, pp. 337-338, and Amud Hayemini, Tel Aviv, 1965, Part I, Nos. 7, 9).

IX) The Fifth Tur
There is a famous dictum which I heard from Rabbi Theodore Friedman z"l many years ago. One of the standard codes of Jewish law is called Arba'ah Turim, The Four Columns, written by Rabbi Jacob Ben Asher in Toledo in the 14th century. However, when a rabbi writes a responsum or makes a ruling in Jewish law he must also rely on the fifth Tur - hasechel hayashar - common sense. This too is lacking in the letter of the rabbis published last week.

X) Conclusion
Thus, according to Jewish law, it is perfectly permissible to sell or rent houses to non-Jews in the Land of Israel for all of the reasons cited.

Finally, if we are concerned that certain areas of the country such as the Galilee need more Jews, we must achieve that by Zionist education, not by discrimination. If there is concern that blocks of apartments are being bought up by Iran and Saudi Arabia, then the government of Israel must deal with this national problem.

David Golinkin
Jerusalem
8 Tevet 5761

Notes
1. This responsum is partially based on my book Responsa in a Moment, Jerusalem, 2000, pp. 32-33, 90-91; and cf. R. Shlomo Brody, "Ask the Rabbi", The Jerusalem Post Magazine, November 19, 2010, p. 43.