April 29, 2012 | 7:47 am

Caged and Traumatized: A Closer Look at the Egg Industry

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

Follow JewishJournal.com on

For years, my favorite Sunday morning breakfast was scrambled eggs. Once I learned about what was going on in the egg industry that breakfast lost its innocence, and I found egg alternatives. Do you know where your eggs come from?

In the United States today, close to 300 million hens are suffering inside tiny battery cages that do not allow for any walking or natural movement. A dozen hens can be jammed into a cage that is only 2 feet by 2 feet. The hens are kept in the dark so that they are calmed by the overcrowding and their beaks are sliced off with a searing hot blade to ensure they are less likely to peck a cage-mate to death. The day-old male chicks, worthless to the egg industry, are killed right after birth (usually in a high-speed grinder called a “macerator”). The hens are also killed after only about two years of life when their egg production starts to wane.

To attempt to address this brutal problem of cage size, the egg industry leaders, the United Egg Producers, uniquely joined with the Humane Society to call for better federal standards on hen cages. The improvements would require hens be given a little bit more space (up to 144 square inches each). However this bill (H.R. 3798) would take too many years to be implemented (an 18 year transition period) and it wouldn’t address the most horrific issues in the industry leaving the hens in inhumanely small and cramped cages and treated cruelly. Many animal welfare advocate groups have called it the “rotten egg bill” and argue that we need more.

Dr. Jana Kohl, a Founding Member & the Chief Executive Advisor of The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute, said “The public doesn’t realize that they’ll still be buying eggs from hens who endure a tortured existence. The increase in cage size is so negligible that the hens still won’t be able to walk or open their wings. Other cruel practices will also continue. This is throwing the public crumbs and the egg industry hopes it will suffice to fool consumers into coming back into the egg aisle. The egg industry knows the conditions will still be deplorable and the public should know it too.”

We have always known that hens can feel physical pain, but last month scientists revealed that hens have a very unique capacity for empathy as well. This is a fact the Torah has acknowledged for thousands of years. The Torah has a very special mitzvah to preserve the dignity of hens called shiluach ha’ken (Deuteronomy 22:6). On the technical level of this mitzvah, one is commanded to send away the mother bird before taking eggs. The broader value of ensuring compassion for all animals requires that the hens must be provided cage-less free-range treatment, with respect shown for their emotional experience. 

The laws of kashrut allow for the consumption of regular eggs purchased in any food store without any kosher supervision but today we must transcend the letter of the law to ensure we are on the forefront of creating a more just world. No egg, produced in today’s horrific industry, is fit for consumption.

The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute calls upon all members of the Jewish community to act and urge all congressional leaders to demand more humane treatment for hens (and all animals). Further, as a nation committed to justice and holiness, we should all consider changing our diets to only consume food produced ethically. 

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder & CEO of The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute, the new Jewish vegan movement and the Founder & President of Uri L’Tzedek. Rav Shmuly’s book “Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century” is now available on Amazon. In April 2012, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the most influential rabbis in America.

April 27, 2012 | 6:42 am

The Health Risks of Meat Consumption

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

Do you find yourself digging around for that last drop of beef in the Shabbos cholent pot? Dig this: all the beans you’re passing might be the real Shabbos treats!

Almost daily, new reports are released describing the serious health risks of meat consumption. Harvard and National Cancer Institute researchers have recently added to data showing the link between meat consumption and premature death. One must wonder if based upon the Biblical obligation to guard our health (Deuteronomy 4:15), we must inquire as to whether it is now forbidden to consume meat on the grounds of health alone, not to mention ethics.

Meat was already dangerous for human consumption even prior to the injection of antibiotics into the animals. Red meat consumption has been linked to higher levels of cancer and cardiovascular disease (heart disease, stroke, and atherosclerosis). A landmark 2009 study, the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study, examined more than half a million men and women age 50-71 years over a 10-year period. Results showed conclusively that daily consumption of red meat resulted in a higher risk of overall mortality as well as mortality due to cardiovascular disease and cancer, with higher consumption of red meat correlated with higher risk of earlier death. People with the highest consumption of red meat had the following risk:

• Increased overall mortality: 31 percent for men; 36 percent for women
• Increased cancer mortality: 22 percent for men; 20 percent for women
• Increased cardiovascular disease mortality: 27 percent for men; 50 percent for women

As if this were not enough reason to reduce red meat consumption, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health have now found that there is also an increased risk of type 2 (adult-onset) diabetes. Eating one hot dog a day (50 g of processed meat), for example, produced a 51 percent increase in risk for diabetes. This can further exacerbate risk factors for early death, such as hypertension, high total cholesterol, bad cholesterol, and triglycerides, which are associated with red meat consumption.

Unfortunately, the new tempting in-vitro meat (lab created!) may have serious health concerns as well. However there are plenty of bean, nut, grain, and vegetable alternatives to meat where one can attain all of the necessary protein, iron, and vitamins and nutrients needed for a balanced diet. These options have the added benefit of reducing your risk for early death. For example, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health reported that replacing one serving of red meat with nuts could reduce mortality risk by 19 percent.

To fulfill our life missions as happy and effective individuals, we must proactively embrace the healthiest of lifestyles. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains this mitzvah: “Limiting our presumption against our own body, God’s word calls to us: ‘Do not commit suicide!’ ‘Do not injure yourself!’ ‘Do not ruin yourself!’ ‘Do not weaken yourself!’ ‘Preserve yourself!’…You may not . . . in any way weaken your health or shorten your life. Only if the body is healthy is it an efficient instrument for the spirit’s activity….Therefore you should avoid everything which might possibly injure your health. . . . And the law asks you to be even more circumspect in avoiding danger to life and limb than in the avoidance of other transgressions.”

The prohibition of eating meat with milk may be an attempt to reduce our meat intake. My revered teacher Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the Chief Rabbi of Efrat, explains that “The dietary laws are intended to teach us compassion and lead us gently to vegetarianism.”

Preserving one’s health is one of the highest commandments in Jewish law. If one’s health is in jeopardy, one must eat forbidden foods, violate Shabbat, and even eat on Yom Kippur (Pesachim 25a). Perhaps the reason G-d originally created humans to be immortal, according to the Torah, is linked to the mandate for humans to live off a vegetarian diet. The concession after the flood permitting the consumption of meat is, in the modern world, linked to shorter life spans.

Good tasting protein alternatives are now easily available. There is very little sacrifice to becoming vegan, vegetarian, or to merely reducing one’s meat intake. If not for moral reasons, do it for health.

Anyone can do a “meatless Monday,” but maybe try a “meatless month!” Perhaps it won’t be as challenging as you expect. For the health reasons pulling us toward reducing our meat intake, it’s worth a shot.

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder & CEO of The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute, the new Jewish vegan movement and the Founder & President of Uri L’Tzedek. Rav Shmuly’s book “Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century” is now available on Amazon. In April 2012, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the most influential rabbis in America.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

April 25, 2012 | 4:14 pm

An Obesity Problem in the Orthodox Community?

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

It is beautiful how much emphasis there is on Shabbat and holiday celebration in American Orthodoxy. However, the celebration of the values of health and exercise are sorely lacking in the community. Parents often do not stress health and exercise for their children, and day schools fall short on creating rigorous health programs. Happily, religious celebration need not compromise our commitment to health. 

Obesity is a major problem in the United States, and is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 36 percent of American adults are obese, and the problem is getting worse. As of 2010, every state had at least a 20 percent obesity rate, and twelve had a rate of 30 percent or higher. Even more alarming is that 17 percent of children ages 2-19 are obese, and physicians are now seeing type 2 diabetes (a disease with a normal onset age of 40) in this population. Although today about 7 percent of our population has diabetes (almost all with type 2), the CDC predicts that one in three children born in 2000 will develop diabetes during his or her lifetime—in large part due to obesity.

Although U.S. statistics do not record data based on religion, Israeli data confirm the high risk of obesity in the Orthodox community. The Israel Health Ministry has reported that the ultra-Orthodox (haredi) are seven times more likely to be obese than the rest of Israelis. The Ministry noted, “The haredi lifestyle focuses on the dinner table… At the same time, they don’t engage in any physical exercise.” Other factors included a lack of practical health education in haredi schools and the poverty of many within this community, which leads to consumption of cheaper, simple carbohydrate-based foods (such as potatoes, pasta, rice, and sugar) combined with high-fat meat, rather than more expensive complex carbohydrates and protein-rich foods.

There are many excuses people use to deny the seriousness of this problem, such as the claim that professional athletes are often “obese,” using current BMI charts. However, there are relatively few professional athletes among us, so in the overwhelming majority of cases, obesity is a critical risk factor for many diseases. Others do not think they are obese. Researchers at the University of Illinois found that 80 percent of individuals in the normal weight range correctly reported their weight as normal. However, an alarming 58 percent of overweight individuals incorrectly categorized themselves as of a normal weight. In the overweight category, only 10 percent accurately described their body size.

Judaism addresses this issue—the sages even joke about the correlation between religiosity and health. Reish Lakish was in great shape until he became pious and lost his athletic ability, missing his typical leap over the river. Further, the great sage Hillel explains that we must take care of our bodies, since we are created in the image of G-d (Leviticus Rabbah 34:3). Maimonides, the great Jewish philosopher, went to great lengths to teach the value of health and the importance of taking proper care of our bodies (Hilkhot Deot).

In addition to sustaining our lives we must prepare our bodies to serve. Rav Kook suggests (Orot HaTechiya 33) that exercise is actually a mitzvah:

“We need a healthy body.  We have dealt much in soulfulness; we forgot the holiness of the body.  We neglected physical health and strength; we forgot that we have holy flesh no less than holy spirit…Our return (teshuva) will succeed only if it will be—with all its splendid spirituality—also a physical return, which produces healthy blood, healthy flesh, mighty, solid bodies, a fiery spirit radiating over powerful muscles….The exercise the Jewish youths in the Land of Israel engage in to strengthen their bodies, in order to be powerful children of the nation, enhances the spiritual prowess of the exalted righteous, who engage in mystical unifications of divine names, to increase the accentuation of divine light in the world. And neither revelation of light can stand without the other.”

In addition to the aforementioned neglect of exercise and over-consumption of meat and sugars, we should also be more concerned about the Jewish prohibition of achilah gasah (over-eating). One Orthodox group, Soveya, has started promoting weight loss through healthier lifestyles. By learning moderation, improving our diets, and taking care of our bodies, we not only fulfill the mitzvah of preserving our lives and caring for our loaned bodies created in the “image of G-d,” we also teach our children the importance of living a balanced, holy lifestyle.

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder & President of Uri L’Tzedek, the Founder & CEO of The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute, the Director of Jewish Life & the Senior Jewish Educator at the UCLA Hillel and a 6th year doctoral candidate at Columbia University in Moral Psychology & Epistemology. Rav Shmuly’s book “Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century” is now available on Amazon. In April 2012, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the most influential rabbis in America.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

April 19, 2012 | 6:58 pm

I’m Coming Out of the Closet!

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

Last night I spoke on a campus interfaith leader panel about the subject of LGBT and religion. One of the questions we were asked was, “When did you come out of the closet or when did you come out as an ally?” As the only heterosexual panelist, I announced: “I’m coming out right now!” I’m coming out of the closet right now as an Orthodox rabbi who is a proud ally with those of LGBT orientation. 

The suffering is immense. Interfaith leaders and students on campus shared stories about suicide attempts, being forced into reparative therapy, kicked out of the home, shunned from their faith, and completely alienated from family. Consider these statistics concerning LGBT youth:

• 26 percent who come out to their families are kicked out of their home, and up to a third are beaten
• They comprise between 20 to 40 percent of all homeless and runaway youth
• Those who come from a highly rejecting family are 8 times more likely to commit suicide than those who come from a more supportive family
• They are up to 4 times as likely to attempt suicide as heterosexual youth, and 30 percent of all whose suicide attempt results in death.

I began to wonder if I was failing at making myself accessible enough to students with this struggle. This is more than just a human dignity issue, it’s a life-and-death issue.
Other panelists explained almost as a mantra that “G-d is love and so all forms of love are good.” Judaism is more legally and philosophically complicated on this issue, but it is not so complicated that we should abandon our most basic moral compass. As a rabbi, the possibility of shunning another for not obeying the specific traditional Jewish prohibition against homosexual acts is far trumped by the imperative to value and affirm the sacred dignity of every person.

One of the most crucial roles of faith leaders today is to go beyond our comfort zones and courageously expand the size of the tent of who is included, or at least not harassed, in our communities.

Last night UCLA gay students learned together. Today, UCLA Jewish students commemorated Yom HaShoah (the Holocaust Remembrance Day). Do we only show up for our own? We must fight together against hate wherever it emerges. When anti-Semitism emerges, non-Jews must speak up. When homophobia emerges, heterosexuals must be active. I stand in solidarity with those in struggle since Judaism values struggle and mandates that we support one another in our different struggles. If we truly value the human dignity of all people, then we must put our money where our mouth is and come out as allies. We cannot just be passive or quiet about this commitment. There is no political or theological reconciliation to be done to hold this basic moral commitment. I am an Orthodox rabbi and I am an LGBT ally!

---

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Director of Jewish Life & the Senior Jewish Educator at the UCLA Hillel, the Founder & President of Uri L’Tzedek, and a 6th year doctoral candidate at Columbia University in Moral Psychology & Epistemology. Rav Shmuly’s book “Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century” is now available on Amazon. In April 2012, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the most influential rabbis in America.

6 Comments — Leave your comment

April 19, 2012 | 8:00 am

Actualizing Democracy: Can Change Really Be Bottom-Up?

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

New York Times columnist David Brooks, writing about today’s social reformers, argues that “it’s hard not to feel inspired by all these idealists, but their service religion does have some shortcomings. In the first place, many of these social entrepreneurs think they can evade politics. They have little faith in the political process and believe that real change happens on the ground beneath it.” Is Brooks correct that we can only create bottom-up change if we address the political process?

President Obama won the presidency on the premise that bottom-up change works, yet now that he is in the White House the change he can really make is top-down. Grassroots supporters looked to him to create this top-down change and in their confusion over what seems like paralysis in the political process, they often blame the White House. Did the President’s grassroots mobilization to gain the most powerful position in the world help our society or set us back?

Saul Alinsky, the great organizer and author of Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971), argued that the true democrat is “suspicious of, and antagonistic to, any idea of plans that work from the top down. To engage in democracy for him is to create change from the bottom up” (Reveille, 17). Alinsky appears to suggest that nothing productive can come from playing the political game. Yet, as upstanding citizens, should we not enter the political discourse and engage in politics? Is there not a place to rely upon government and politicians as partners and allies?

Moving from grassroots to political conversations can have great costs. Too often we get lost in intellectual and political abstractions that achieve little. Princeton Professor Jeffrey Stout, in his Blessed Are the Organized: Grassroots Democracy in America, makes the case for bottom-up change, explaining that “Listening closely while ordinary citizens describe their struggles, victories, and setbacks is itself a democratic act. One of its benefits is to bring the ideal of good citizenship down to earth.” True social justice activism is more concerned with human individuals and their personal stories and struggles than about philosophical theories and ideologies, as enticing as they are.

Stout references Alinsky’s Rules to show how grassroots activity emerges – “…ideals become an ideological fog when they are abstracted from the activities of ordinary people. Liberty and justice are made actual in the lives of people who struggle for them.” Stout then quotes Alinsky to show how collective action is the essence of democracy – “If we strip away all the chromium trimmings of high-sounding metaphor and idealism which conceal the motor and gears of a democratic society, one basic element is revealed—the people are the motor, the organization of the people are the gears. The power of the people is transmitted through the gears of their own organizations, and democracy moves forward” (Reveille, 46). Democracy is not a philosophy; it is, rather, a way of life.

Grassroots work is really difficult; so many of us just read op-eds about elections and legislators, and debate them as a sport. Is it possible that elections are merely exercises in mass manipulation leading to top-down change, or no change at all? Politicians may declare their allegiance to democratic ideals, but in an age of powerful lobbies, whose interests are they really advocating?

We begin to fulfill our democratic responsibilities nonviolently by voting, learning the issues, speaking out freely for what we believe in, petitioning against injustice, and building coalitions. But this is only the beginning. We hold politicians accountable through our votes, but this step often comes too little, too late. Rather, we need a culture of accountability to ensure the masses hold enough power to challenge politicians when they stray from the values they committed to. 

Bottom-up change is possible, but it requires a very significant time commitment in building relationships. Organizing was already draining when it was just about relationships in the local neighborhood, but the term “community organizing” has fallen out of favor since the move to building broader bridges across religion, race, class, and location. It is more complicated and time-intensive than ever. How can we all be a part of such a large complicated process of neighborhood walks, 1-to-1 meetings, house meetings, and actions?

The facile answer is that we should just get the right person into office to do all the things we want. Yet inevitably the politician gets caught in concessions, abstractions, and political self-preservation, and we get pulled along. Our grassroots idealism then fades into an abyss of political bureaucracy and deception. Brooks tells us we are naïve if we think we can create change without changing the political landscape, but it is unclear which approach is more delusional. Where do the greatest democratic victories occur?

In an age of political corruption, economic crisis, terrorism, and environmental crisis, we have to ensure that we hold those with power accountable for creating real change. Real change can happen through political endeavors, but we must work to actualize the true democratic process of grassroots change. As citizens, we must not allow ourselves to become disillusioned, alienated, or fearful. We must build coalitions that seek to create grassroots change and hold institutions of power accountable. Relying on a charismatic community organizer in the White House to create top-down change is a delusional dismissal of our democratic responsibilities to create change on the ground.

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder & President of Uri L’Tzedek, the Director of Jewish Life & the Senior Jewish Educator at the UCLA Hillel and a 6th year doctoral candidate at Columbia University in Moral Psychology & Epistemology. Rav Shmuly’s book “Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century” is now available on Amazon. In April 2012, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the most influential rabbis in America.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 18, 2012 | 6:06 pm

Gadamer, Nozick, & The Splitting of the Sea: Choosing How to Interpret the World

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

In one of the most dramatic scenes of Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, Jean Valjean, a former prisoner who has become beloved mayor of his adopted town, is faced with the challenge of throwing away the life he has built for himself to defend an innocent man. Jean Valjean, standing in the courtroom, asks himself:  “Who am I? Can I condemn this man to slavery. Pretend I do not feel his agony. This innocent who bears my face. Who goes to judgment in my place. Who am I?”

Standing before the townspeople, he reveals his true identity, saving the innocent man’s life, only to go immediately into hiding. Aware of his freedom, he realizes he must now interpret this difficult situation before him as an opportunity to build up the courage to stand up and do what is true and just.

This is precisely the question that Bnai Yisrael must now face between Passover and Shavuot, between redemption and revelation. We have left slavery in Egypt physically and ontologically, experienced the miracles from the hand of G-d, and we have crossed the sea and seen our enemies drowned before our eyes. We now stand redeemed at the edge of the sea. In this crucial moment of identity formation, how will we use our freedom? We are faced with the question that is perhaps the most challenging question of our lives: how do we choose to interpret our lives? 

Are we now and forever the victim of Egypt? Are we forsaken and stranded in the desert, and not entitled to more? Or are we the recipients of great miracles beyond anything we could possibly deserve? Are we now responsible in a new way?

Most who left Egypt could still only interpret the world as slaves. This is why we needed 40 years in the desert, to transition from a generation trapped in a slave mentality unfit to autonomously lead our own nation, unable to interpret our own realities. And thus immediately after achieving our freedom, we complain, feeling entitled to food and water.
Volunteering on different occasions in the former Soviet Union, numerous Jewish individuals shared with me that they would rather return to Communist Russia, where paychecks were consistent. Everyday expectations, for many, trump freedom.

What would we rather live with – freedom or consistent pleasure?

The 20th-century American philosopher Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, proposed the thought experiment of a virtual reality machine—if one could have any experience they choose in this machine (and one would forget that they are even hooked up to the machine), Nozick asked, ”would one choose to be hooked up” to it? He concluded, perhaps idealistically, that no one in their right mind would choose to be hooked up to this machine, since such happiness is no happiness at all. It is through our free direct engagement and interpretation of our reality, rather than through a mediated experience, that we truly live. We choose to live with reality, knowing that the life situations before us are often not objectively good or bad. We must interpret not illusion but a real world, our real lives.

Must we, then, choose between harsh reality and the ideal? There is something in between. We actually have a machine within each of us that we can turn on and off. It is the machine that we use to interpret the world. Reality does not impose meaning upon us. Rather, we choose to make meaning of our own reality. We choose how we interpret it.
If we wish to look at our closest family members, we can interpret our intimate experiences with them over the years to show how they may be selfish and flawed. But we also may choose to make the case for their depth and goodness. We may decide how we actually choose to view other people.

Similarly, if we wish to view our Jewish tradition as chauvinistic, racist, sexist, and outdated, we will find plenty of sources and proofs to make the case. If we wish to see the Jewish tradition as a collection of some of the most beautiful and powerful moral and spiritual wisdom that has spoken to hearts and souls for ages, we will find plenty to make the case. Because I believe and wish the Torah to be just and G-d to be good, I choose to interpret texts with charitable interpretations and life events with a lens of faith and devotion. As Hans-Georg Gadamer, the 20th century philosopher, taught, objective truth does not simply emerge from text. We bring our “prejudices,” assumptions, and judgments to the text. All objective human sensory experience passes through the subjective mind to be understood. Do we actively choose our hermeneutic lens and do we defend our tradition? These choices are up to us.

We choose every day, every moment how to interpret the reality before us. This is what the rabbis are teaching when they say, “ain adam lomeid Torah ella m’makom she’lebo chafetz”  (one can only truly learn when the heart is turned on to something). We might say the same about love: One can only truly love another if one actively chooses to love. More important than the realities the world imposes upon us is our response and interpretations of those realities. If we wish to be inspired, we must actually decide that we will open our hearts and allow ourselves to be inspired.

Our inspiration should not arise from allowing others to interpret the world for us. The writers of op-eds and talk show hosts tell us what matters, psychologists tell us what we really feel, friends let us know what we should think, movie critics tell us how to watch movies, parsha emails tell us how we should read the text. We can turn our minds and souls off, since others can think and feel for us. The world seems purely objective, and we just need others to tell us what the real truth is.

Perhaps we do this because on some level, each of us is convinced that we are not smart enough, experienced enough, or competent enough. We feel we must rely upon others to interpret the world for us, as if there actually could be an expert other than ourselves in interpreting our personal realities. When we allow this, or merely react to our life situations without proactively interpreting our life situations, we sacrifice our freedom.

Not everything in life is important, but for those people and things that are important to us, we must actively determine our interpretations. We need to focus on the good in the people and things that we most cherish, even in moments where there is contrary evidence. This is the virtue that the rabbis call “ayin tovah,” the good interpretive lens (Avot 5:22).
This is the biggest question that students on campus are addressing. Now that I have my freedom, how will I choose to interpret the world? Do I wish to view the world as my parents have? Do I choose a Jewish lens? Which books, scholars, and ideologies will inform my interpretation of the universe? But this choice is not just the result of a college-age existential crisis. It is a lifelong endeavor of choosing. Each of us can ask, what is my philosophy of interpretation of the world? What is my life hermeneutic?

Politicians see opportunities in crisis. Entrepreneurs see potential ventures in social needs. Optimists see the good amidst ambivalence. How do we as religious Jews interpret the world? What is the life lens that we cultivate? I would propose that when we encounter ambiguity, the authentic Jewish response is, How do I serve? How do I give? How do I make this situation better?

This is what Hannah Senesh did when she interpreted the risk of the Jews of Hungary being sent to the Nazi death camps as an opportunity to parachute behind enemy lines to attempt their rescue. This is what Rabbi Avi Weiss did on the morning of September 11th when he interpreted the news that others were fleeing from the World Trade Center as an opportunity to take a cab downtown, not uptown. This is what Ruth Messinger does when, as a 71-year-old, she hears about a village addressing poverty somewhere in the world and interprets it as an opportunity to travel there to find out how the Jewish community can help.

Right after Bnai Yisrael achieved their freedom and were rescued from the split sea, the Torah tells us that they were strengthened in their faith and sang a reverential song of worship, but only moments later complained for water and for the food of Egypt. In this first opportunity to interpret our free lives, the response, understandable as it was, was one of slaves feeling entitlement, not of free people looking to give.

Each year at this time, we have the opportunity to make a tikkun (a repair of our first free interpretation). Millions of people every day struggle to make ends meet, to heal a physical or emotional wound, and to overcome despair and sorrow. Miraculously, amidst a difficult world that continues to surprise us and unexpectedly knock us down, the great human spirit perseveres to interpret life situations as opportunities not only to address our infinite personal needs and desires, but also to interpret our life situations as opportunities to serve and to give to others also in need.

Today, and every day, we stand redeemed from Egypt and the split sea amidst new challenges, and must confront this question: “How will I interpret my freedom?”

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder & President of Uri L’Tzedek, the Director of Jewish Life & the Senior Jewish Educator at the UCLA Hillel and a 6th year doctoral candidate at Columbia University in Moral Psychology & Epistemology. Rav Shmuly’s book “Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century” is now available on Amazon. In April 2012, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the most influential rabbis in America.

0 Comments — Leave your comment