April 5, 2013 | 9:56 am

Strangers, Immigrants and the Eglah Arufah

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

Follow JewishJournal.com on

Responsibility to the Stranger

The Jewish tradition places a strong emphasis on our duties toward the stranger. The Rabbis returned repeatedly to the injunction: “you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:20). Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch elaborated on this teaching, explaining that there are no preconditions for receiving basic rights other than being human:

“You shall not wrong or oppress a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Here it says simply and absolutely, “for you were strangers,” your whole misfortune in Egypt was that you were strangers there. As such, according to the views of other nations, you had no right to be there, had no claim to rights of settlement, home, or property. Accordingly, you had no rights in appeal against unfair or unjust treatment. As aliens you were without any rights in Egypt, out of that grew all of your bondage and oppression, your slavery and wretchedness. Therefore beware, so runs the warning, from making rights in your own State conditional on anything other than on that simple humanity which every human being as such bears within. With any limitation in these human rights the gate is opened to the whole horror of Egyptian mishandling of human beings (Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch: Translated and explained by Samson Raphael Hirsch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy (Gateshead, 1999), ad loc).

Rabbi Hirsch went further, noting the central role of the treatment of strangers to a just society:

Twenty-four times, whenever, and in every case, where the Torah lays down the law concerning rights of persons and things, the "stranger in the land" is placed under the special protection of the law. The degree of justice in a land is measured, not so much by the rights accorded to the native-born inhabitants, to the rich, or people who have, at any rate, representatives or connections that look after their interests, but by what justice is meted out to the completely unprotected "stranger." The absolute equality in the eyes of the law between the native and the foreigner forms the very basic foundation of Jewish jurisdiction (Hirsch, (commentary on Exodus 1:14)).

Sodom, the paradigmatic evil society, is said to have been cruel to guests: “They issued a proclamation in Sodom saying, ‘Everyone who strengthens the hand of the poor and the needy and the stranger with a loaf of bread shall be burnt by fire’” (PirkeiD’RabbiEliezer 25). The main crime of Sodom was that they did not sustain the needs of the stranger passing through their midst.

There does, of course, have to be some responsible protection for citizens and there is precedence for this in Jewish history. Many Jewish communities that needed to protect themselves during the Middle Ages created residence permits (chezkat hayishuv). The Aruch HaShulchan, Rabbi Yechiel Michal Epstein, taught that there wasn’t a basis in Jewish law for doing this: "for in what way did the current residents obtain ownership on dwelling in that town?", yet it was done in certain communities for self-protection: "And the reason is that Jewish settlement then was very precarious, and ruthless nations exiled them from place to place. And the more the settlement of Jews increased, the more anarchy reigned and sorrows abounded” (Choshen Mishpat, 156:12). As these communities did, it is correct to protect one’s people in difficult times with appropriate immigration rules and regulations.

We are all strangers…

We learn that the stranger is not just the other. We are all strangers. “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are foreigners and temporary dwellers with Me” (Leviticus 25:23). Not only were the Jewish people considered strangers; before God, all humans are like strangers: “For we are like foreigners before You, and like temporary dwellers, as were all of our forefathers—our days on earth are like a shadow, and there is no hope” (Chronicles I: 29:15). Further, we learn in the books of Psalms, “Hear my prayer, God, give ear to my outcry, be not mute to my tears; for I am a foreigner with You, a temporary dweller like all my forefathers” (Psalms 39:13).

There is a striking Midrash about how being human means there is no place on Earth that we do not belong:

God gathered the dust [of the first human] from the four corners of the world—red, black, white and green. Red is the blood, black is the innards and green for the body. Why from the four corners of the earth? So that if one comes from the east to the west and arrives at the end of his life as he nears departing from the world, it will not be said to him, “This land is not the dust of your body, it is of mine. Go back to where you were created”. Rather, every place that a person walks, from there he was created and from there she will return (Yalkut Shimoni, Genesis 1:13).

To Feel Like a Stranger

Abraham was the first Jewish hero, willing to journey beyond his home for a higher purpose: “The Lord said to Abraham, ‘Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you’” (Genesis 12:1). Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik explains the nature of the unique heroism of the stranger:

Bondage to man excludes Divine friendship. The beloved must tear down all the social and political barriers that fence in the individual and imprison his initiative and liberty. The charismatic person is anarchic, liberty-loving; he frees himself from all the fixed formulas and rhythms of an urbanized civilization and joins a fluid, careless, roving nomad society. An ancient Egyptian document describes the nomads as follows: ‘Here is the miserable stranger…He does not dwell in the same spot; his feet are always wandering. From times of Horus he battles, he does not conquer, and is not conquered’. The stranger is indomitable; he may lose a battle, yet had never lost a war. He will never reconcile with political subjection. Roaming, wandering, he will escape persecution and oppression. When the need arises, the nomad stands up and fights for his freedom and many a time proves superior in battle to the settled king. Abraham’s heroism on the battlefield is the best illustration (Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Emergence of Ethical Man, ed. Michael S. Berger (New York 2005), 153).

The Rabbis teach, “He who has not made good in one place and fails to move and try his luck in some other place has only himself to complain about” (Babylonian Talmud, BavaMetsia 75b). We should be slow to judge harshly those who leave all they have known to make a better life for themselves and their families, even though we cannot condone breaking the law. “Do not judge your fellow human until you stand in his place” (Avot 2:4).

These words should resonate with us, as we consider the case of undocumented immigrants trying to make their way to and in the United States.

Immigration in America: The Historical Record

At its best, America has recognized that we are all strangers, and has prided itself on being a “Nation of Immigrants.” Our country has prospered as a gathering point for those who dared to leave their settled environments, and who became strangers in a new land to search for liberty and opportunity. In the 1630s, more than 20,000 Puritans left their native England to join the new Massachusetts Bay Colony. After a century of religious persecution from English monarchs, the Puritans welcomed a unique and unprecedented feature of the Massachusetts Charter: the absence of outside control from England. This allowed New England colonists the opportunity to form their own society and to combine monarchical rule with representative government, arguably forming the basis for American democracy.

After America gained independence, immigrants continued to make profound contributions toward the country’s economy. One might even say that America was made by immigrants. Charles Hirschman, a sociologist at the University of Washington, expounds on the benefits of immigration:

During the middle decades of the 19th century, immigrants from Germany and Scandinavia played a major role in settling the frontier. Irish immigrants worked as laborers in cities and were the major source of labor in the construction of transportation networks, including canals, railroads, and roads…immigrants have also played an important role in the transition to an urban industrial economy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Immigrant workers have always been over-represented in skilled trades, mining, and as peddlers, merchants, and laborers in urban areas (Charles Hirschman, “The Impact of Immigration on American Society: Looking Backward to the Future” (Washington, D.C.), http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/charles/pubs/Immigration_and_Future.pdf).
The Shameful History of American Xenophobia

Unfortunately, despite the many contributions of immigrants to American society, they have time and again encountered irrational hostility from existing citizens. Immigrants from German lands were derided by Benjamin Franklin, who regarded them as strangers because they spoke German instead of English: “Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours?” Irish Catholic and Jewish immigrants encountered hostility because of religious differences. One nativist party advocated exclusionary policies against Irish immigrants, in order “to resist the insidious policy of the Church of Rome and all other foreign influence.”

In 1924, nativists helped pass an Immigration Act that made Jewish immigration to America almost impossible. During hearings on the Act, religious Jewish neighborhoods of the Lower East Side were cited as a primary example of “failed” immigration. The main historical legacy of this act is that Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler were barred entry to the United States. We can only imagine how different things might be today if the American government had heeded the maxim of theYalkut Shimoni that “every place that a person walks, from there he was created and from there she will return.”

Contrary to popular perception, President Obama stepped up the detention of undocumented immigrants during his first term. In 2011, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed nearly 400,000 undocumented immigrants from the country, and nearly 55 percent were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors; in 2012, ICE detained 410,000 undocumented immigrants. However, on January 29, 2013, President Obama acknowledged that this situation should not continue. He proposed a legal procedure by which undocumented Americans could register and, once passing a background check, gain provisional legal status, and eventually permanent resident status and citizenship. The one potential hold-up is border security issues: Republican leaders may insist that the borders be absolutely secure before implementing the policy, while the President wants to implement the procedure earlier.

Oddly, this is occurring at a time when immigration to the United States is decreasing. The Pew Hispanic Center announced in April 2012 that the net migration from Mexico to the United States has stopped and possibly even reversed. They note that from 2005 to 2010, about 1.4 million Mexicans emigrated to the United States while the same number of Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children moved from the United States to Mexico. Asians, not Latinos, are now actually the largest group of new arrivals in the United States.

While there is mostly speculation on the effect of undocumented Americans on employment, it has been shown that more than 50 percent of them pay taxes. As with other Americans, they pay sales tax (for a total of more than $8 billion annually). In addition, in 2007 they and their employers were responsible for an estimated $11.2 billion in Social Security and $2.6 billion in Medicare contributions, in addition to other taxes and unemployment insurance payments. Since these workers use fake identification to obtain work, they can never receive unemployment insurance, Social Security, or Medicare, so they actually pay into our system without receiving benefits from it. In 2006, when Texas conducted the first comprehensive economic review of the impact of undocumented Americans, it was discovered that while these Americans produced $1.58 billion of revenue, they only received $1.16 billion in state services, so Texas made $462 million in profit from undocumented Texans.

Critics of immigration reform have used outlandish and false statements to justify their positions, echoing the bigotry against Italian and Jewish immigrants a century ago. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said this in 2010: “The majority of the illegal trespassers that are coming into the state of Arizona are under the direction and control of organized drug cartels and they are bringing drugs in.” On January 29, 2013, the influential conservative radio pundit Rush Limbaugh made this outrageous statement concerning Hispanic immigrants: “I've seen…research data which says that a vast majority of arriving immigrants today come here because they believe that government is the source of prosperity, and that's what they support.”

No one has ever presented credible evidence to back either of these false claims. Most of these undocumented immigrants are from Mexico (59%, 6.8 million) and are fleeing poverty back home, yet most still live in poverty and insecurity here. About 3 million live in California and about 2 million in Texas, close to the border. Their life in the homeland they are fleeing is one of pain and sorrow and they must leave behind their families and all they know to try to survive. Their stories are tragic; at “My Immigration Story,” you can read their stories of anxiety over coming to the United States at an early age, but still subject to being deported to a country they never knew; of trying to comply with, and work within, the legal framework but being stymied by decades of bureaucratic foot-dragging; of relatives separated by a border, of loved ones’ burial places that cannot be visited.

Immigration in America Today

In the current age of globalization, we have opened our borders to international trade and finance, but restricted the entry of immigrants to the United States, especially from Latin America. Between 1970-2000, international financial investment has doubled as a percentage of U.S. output, and merchandise exports have nearly tripled. During this same period, the number of undocumented immigrants increased from fewer than 1 million to 8 million. Many immigrants entered the United States legally and became naturalized citizens.

Immigration has positive and negative effects on the economy. On the one hand, immigrants have expanded the wealth of the typical American. James Smith of the Rand Institute estimates that immigrants have increased total American output by $10 billion a year. On the other hand, immigration can drive down wages, especially for manual workers. Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, two researchers at the Federal Reserve, found that annual wages of low-skilled workers dropped 2.3% due to immigration. While immigrants use social services, they also pay taxes. Multiple studies have found that immigration actually creates jobs for Americans.

However, regardless of the economic effects of economic immigrants, we should recognize that their presence in the United States is a natural consequence of globalization. As George Hansen explains in a Council on Foreign Relations report, rising economic immigration is directly related to globalization: “During the past twenty years, Mexico has experienced several severe economic contractions, with emigration from the country spiking in the aftermath of each downturn. In terms of the economic benefits, this is exactly when one would want workers to move—when their labor productivity in the United States is highest relative to their labor productivity at home” (George Hansen, The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration (New York 2007), 15-16).

If we want to experience the benefits of globalization, we must also be willing to accept the entry of immigrants seeking economic opportunity. Yet American immigration policy allows no way for these economic migrants to enter the country legally, as Hansen explains: “Long queues for U.S. green cards mean there is little way for legal permanent immigration to respond to such changes in international economic conditions” (George Hansen, The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration (New York 2007), 15-16) Because economic migration to the United States is closely connected to international trade and investment flows, restrictive government policies have failed to stop immigration from Latin America. All these policies have done is force economic immigrants to accept an undocumented status, to enter into situations of vulnerability, and, at times, to face mortal danger.

Immigration Raids: Destroying Communities

Immigration raids are a prime example of the dangers faced by undocumented immigrants. Since 2005, federal authorities have conducted large-scale raids of worksites suspected of employing undocumented immigrants. Tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants have been arrested as a result of these raids. These immigrants were not gangsters or criminals; they generally had no prior criminal history, and many had lived peaceably in the country for years. However, because immigration raids have occurred across the country, without warning, they have created a sense of fear among the entire immigrant population.

Sociologist Saskia Sassen has referred to long-term undocumented residents as “unauthorized yet recognized”: “Undocumented immigrants’ daily practices in their community—raising a family, schooling children, holding a job—over time can earn them citizenship claims in just about all developed countries, including the United States. There are dimensions of citizenship, such as strong community ties and participation in civic activities, that are enacted informally through these practices” (Saskia Sassen, Territory, Authority, Rights (Princeton 2006), 294). The recent spate of immigration raids has undermined this informal contract, sending a message that even if immigrants make years of contributions to the community, their good standing can disappear in a moment.
This message, in turn, undermines community, and for evidence we need not look far from home. In 2008, federal authorities conducted an immigration raid on the Agriprocessors meat processing plant in Iowa. The raid served an important purpose, as employees in the plant reported shocking stories of workplace abuse. But this abuse would have been reported sooner if workers had not feared deportation. Further, the raid caused untold damage to the Postville community, where the plant was based. Overnight, businesses closed down and hundreds of homes were abandoned. Many undocumented residents of Postville, who had lived in the town for years, fled in fear of capture, and were replaced by temporary workers who were less invested in the community. Four years later, Postville has yet to fully recover from the loss. The story of Postville has been repeated in towns and establishments across the nation. Undocumented immigrants who are recognized as productive members of the community—parents, talented scholars, and civic activists—are finding their community status erased after one encounter with police, and American society is the poorer for it.

Death at the Border: “Operation Gatekeeper”

The most notorious American immigration policy of recent years is “Operation Gatekeeper,” enacted in 1994 by the Clinton Administration. This ongoing policy has deployed troops, border fences, and surveillance near major population centers in an effort to deter economic migrants from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The policy has failed to slow immigration—between 2000-2008, the estimated undocumented population increased from 8 million to 12 million—but by forcing economic migrants to take more dangerous routes, Operation Gatekeeper has had tragic consequences. Between 1994 and 2009, at least 3,861 immigrants have lost their lives attempting to enter the United States from Mexico. While immigrant deaths occurred before Operation Gatekeeper, the Center for Immigrant Research has noted a marked increase in the number of deaths since 1994.

Some immigration opponents claim that high U.S.-Mexico border surveillance is needed for national security. While we must ensure terrorists do not enter our country, mass migration from Latin America has historically not been a security risk. The Foreign Military Studies Office stated in 2002 that although there is frequent smuggling from Mexico, “no apparent link exists between the international smugglers and any terrorist organization” (Glenn E, Curtis, John N. Gibbs, and Ramon Miro. Nations Hospitable to Organized Crime and Terrorism: A Report Prepared under an Interagency Agreement by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, October 2003. Excerpted in Trends in Organized Crime, 8:1 (Fall 2004), 5-23, 20).

In fact, the Office identified America’s northern neighbor Canada as a more likely base for terrorists to sneak in. We can prevent terrorist infiltration by working together with the Mexican government, just as we work with the Canadian government. There is no need for policies that place immigrants seeking economic opportunity in life-threatening situations.

The immigrant exists in a liminal space similar to what French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan called the nebenmensch, the other who is both different and similar. The immigrant is the post-modern hero who transcends boundaries, defying categorization or clear belonging or labeling, calling upon others to respond to her social ambiguity. What should be the Jewish response to the vulnerability of undocumented immigrants? I suggest that it should incorporate the ethos of the eglah arufah.

 

Eglah Arufah and Collective Responsibility

In some fashion, this ritual can be revived. Modeled off of the eglah arufah ceremony, in February 2012, the Israeli Tzohar Association of Rabbis gathered to pray alongside the highway, on the spot where a female soldier was killed in a hit-and-run. The Torah’s case of the eglah arufah involves a corpse that is discovered between two settlements when no one knows who the murderer is. The priests and the elders of the nearest towns lead a unique ceremony and declare, “Our hands have not spilled this blood” (Deuteronomy 21:7).

The 15th-century Portuguese Jewish philosopher Abravanel explains that the goal of the ritual is to jolt the residents from their normal routines to respond and take responsibility for the heinous crime that occurred. When murder occurs, life cannot go on as usual, as Nechama Leibowitz describes: “responsibility for wrongdoing does not only lie with the perpetrator himself and even with the accessory. Lack of proper care and attention are also criminal. Whoever keeps to his own quiet corner and refuses to have anything to do with the ‘evil world’, who observes oppression and violence and does not stir a finger in protest cannot proclaim with a clear conscience that, ‘Our hands have not shed this blood’” (Nechama Leibowitz, Studies in Devarim (Jerusalem 1980), 207-208).

The Gemara says that the leaders are responsible, since they failed to provide this wanderer with food and escort (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 38b). The16th-century Jewish thinker, the Maharal of Prague, explains that the poor wanderer was hungry and was killed while trying to steal food. Even though the victim died while committing an illegal act, the leaders who failed to feed him are responsible. Even though the town’s leaders did not do any direct harm, they are held responsible for the death.

Just as the wanderer who was commemorated through the eglah arufah broke the law, so too undocumented immigrants today break the law. Nevertheless, the leaders who turn a blind eye to their needs are responsible for their suffering. In the case in Deuteronomy, the individual was guilty of theft, a sin condemned very strongly by Jewish law. Rav Ahron Soloveichik writes: “We assume that the person was starving and attempted an armed robbery in order to obtain food” (Ahron Soloveichik, Logic of the Heart Logic of the Mind  (Jersualem 1991), 175). This is all the more true with someone crossing international borders without documentation which is not an act condemned by Jewish law, and although we are bound by the law of the land, there is no reason why we should take less responsibility than in the case of the eglah arufah.

The idea that leaders are accountable for their generation is prevalent in Jewish thought. “As long as one is but an ordinary scholar, he has no concern with the congregation and is not punished [for its lapses], but as soon as he is appointed head and dons the cloak [of leadership], he must no longer say: ‘I live for my own benefit, I care not about the congregation,’ but the whole burden of the community is on his shoulders. If he sees a man causing suffering to another, or transgressing, and does not prevent him, then he is held punishable” (Shemot Rabba 27:9).

Once we accept the role of moral leadership, we are truly accountable for our community. But the Rabbis teach us that societal accountability is not granted solely to those who have been granted formal authority, but to all those of learning. “If a person of learning participates in public affairs and serves as judge or arbiter, he gives stability to the land...But if he sits in his home and says to himself, ‘What have the affairs of society to do with me? ...Why should I trouble myself with the people’s voices of protest? Let my soul dwell in peace!’—if he does this, he overthrows the world” (Midrash Tanhuma, Mishpatim 2). Responsibility does not just apply to the scholar. The Rabbis confirm that this responsibility is upon all of us. “Everyone who can protest the sin of his household and does not, is responsible for the people of his household; for the people of his city, he is responsible for the people of his city; for the whole world, he is responsible for the whole world” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 54b). There are many different ways to take responsibility and to fulfill the commandment, “You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor!” (Leviticus 19:16). The world continues to exist because humans are responsible agents. When we give up our ability to hear the voices of protest and the cry of the sufferer, we bring the world to ruin.

In modern times, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel explained it well in his 1971 “A Prayer for Peace”: “O Lord, we confess our sins; we are ashamed of the inadequacy of our anguish, of how faint and slight is our mercy. We are a generation that has lost its capacity for outrage. We must continue to remind ourselves that in a free society all are involved in what some are doing. Some are guilty, all are responsible.” We are not culpable for the deaths and the abuses of the immigrants in our country, but we are certainly responsible to change the situation.

The mitzvah of eglah arufah today must go beyond leviyat orhim (a few symbolic courtesy steps to walk our guests out from our homes).Most of us cannot relate to the fear that undocumented workers feel in America today. We have undocumented residents dying alongside the Mexican border, being detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and waiting in vain for adequate healthcare. More than 200 individuals die each year trying to cross the Mexico-United States border, and many of the survivors are sexually assaulted or abused on the way. The blood of these gerim (strangers) within our midst may be on all our hands.

In the spirit of the elders of the community who would “speak up and say: ‘Our hands have not spilled this blood.’” We should work to ensure that undocumented immigrants are treated fairly in our communities, restaurants and neighborhoods. Now is the time for the American Jewish community to speak up, and address the plight of strangers in our midst. Then, even if others are complicit in the neglect and marginalization of undocumented immigrants, we will at least be able to say, “Our hands have not spilled this blood.”

 

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder and President of Uri L'Tzedek, the Senior Rabbi at Kehilath Israel, the Founder and C.E.O. of The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute and is the author of "Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century.” In 2012 and 2013, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the top 50 rabbis in America."

I would like to thank Shlomo Bolts for his significant contribution to this article and Dr. Peter Geidel and Ze’ev Sudry for their support. I am appreciative to Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and the editors of this edition of Milin Havivin where this article appeared in 2013  (Rabbi Nati Helfgot, Dr. Ben Elton, and Rabbi Michael Stein) for their support of this important Torah journal.

April 5, 2013 | 8:37 am

Close Gitmo Now

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

The Lubavitcher Rebbe taught “You see, if there is one place on earth that is most un-G dly, it is prison. In prison a person is stripped of that which makes him uniquely human: his freedom. For this reason there is no punishment of jail in Jewish law.” This is even truer when one never experienced a fair trial yet is subject to isolation and torture.

The Guantánamo Bay prison (sometimes abbreviated as GTMO and known as “Gitmo”) has been in operation since shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. While at first people believed that the prison, which is located in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, would be filled with dangerous terrorists awaiting trial, the increasingly evident reality is that it houses people stuck in a legal loophole that allows them to be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime, under conditions that the International Red Cross has characterized as “tantamount to torture.” Even the United States government admits that 92 percent of the prisoners never fought for al-Qaeda, and that 86 percent were turned over as a result of corrupt and generous bounty offers made by members of the American military to villagers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Statistics compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union reveal an alarming abuse of rights and freedoms, with the overwhelming majority of prisoners not being a threat to national security:

• 779 prisoners have been stationed at Guantánamo
• 532 prisoners were released under the Bush administration, and 72 under the Obama administration; of 166 prisoners remaining, 86 were cleared for release in 2009
• Of 21 children imprisoned at Guantánamo, the youngest was 13; Yasser Talal Al  Zahrani was imprisoned at 16 and became the youngest apparent suicide at age 21
• The oldest prisoner was 98 years old
• The U. S. government acknowledges that there was no evidence against 46 of the prisoners still being held in 2012, but maintained that they should not be released because they “represent a threat”
• More than 200 FBI agents have reported that Guantánamo prisoners were abused; in  addition, at least 26 prisoners were initially tortured at secret overseas jails and then shipped to Guantánamo

Here are three examples showing how there is not even a pretense of legal procedures at Guantánamo.

1) Lakhdar Boumediene, a Bosnian citizen who lived and worked there for the Red Crescent, was arrested but found innocent of being an al-Qaeda operative. After his acquittal, acting on the word of an unnamed informant who was judged even then to be unreliable, the Americans kidnapped Boumediene and transported him to Guantánamo, where he was imprisoned for more than 7 years. He was beaten, kept in uncomfortable positions for hours at a time, exposed to extreme temperatures, and deprived of sleep. He went on a hunger strike and was force-fed for 2 years. After a Supreme Court challenge, a federal court found there was no evidence to hold him, and he was finally released in 2008. He now lives in France with his family.

2) The Road to Guantánamo is a 2006 British docudrama that tells the story of three British citizens who were in Pakistan at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. They were swept up by the Allied forces and sent to Guantánamo, where they were held without charges and under brutal conditions for 2 years before finally being released.

3) The lack of accountability and due legal procedure has even extended to American citizens. James Yee, a West Point graduate whose grandparents came to America from China in the 1920s and later converted to Islam, became a Muslim Army chaplain and volunteered to serve in the Guantánamo prison. On September 10, 2003, when returning to America on leave, he was detained and then arrested, held for 76 days in solitary confinement, and then publicly accused of and charged with a battery of moral and political offenses that included being an al-Qaeda agent and a “Chinese Taliban.” It took Captain Yee until March 19, 2004 to receive a dismissal of his court martial charges, and until April 14, 2004 to successfully appeal and remove the charges from his record. Even so, as he wrote in For G-d and Country: Faith and Patriotism Under Fire, “Since my case was dismissed, nobody has taken responsibility for what happened to me. Nobody has explained what went wrong or why.” He was not even asked to leave the service. After he left voluntarily, Captain Yee did not receive the items taken from him when he was arrested, and later learned that he was still under surveillance.

The continuing history of the infamous Gitmo, the longest operating wartime prison in U. S. history, is a story of political pandering. With enough evidence to warrant a trial for barely two dozen prisoners, President Obama signed an executive order to close the prison in 2009, but since then congressional opposition  has prevented the President from sending any prisoners to American prisons or courts for trial. Even though the Government Accountability Office concluded that transferring these prisoners could be done safely (and 500 terrorism suspects have been tried in federal courts since September 2001), Congressional intransigence continues. Typical of the intensely paranoid rhetoric is the statement from Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who warned against any attempt to “bring these crazy bastards that want to kill us all to the United States." Congress passed legislation in 2009 that prevented the President from bringing any of these prisoners to the United States for trial, or even send them to other countries. Two of the original 48 stuck in a legal no-man’s land (no evidence against, but for other reasons cannot be released) have already died in prison. President Obama has decided that no prisoner will be sent to “unsettled” areas such as Yemen, but the United States has also not allowed arrangements for prisoners to go to other countries until the situation becomes settled. Thus, they are subject to indefinite imprisonment without charges.

Meanwhile, the horrors of Guantánamo continue. During the past several weeks, Guantánamo detainees have gone on a hunger strike to protest conditions and the detention center’s continued existence. Dozens of the 166 prisoners continue to be held despite having been cleared for release. We must continue our efforts to close Guantánamo.

Marine Corps General John Kelly, the head of U.S. military forces in Latin America, said the Guantánamo prisoners began the hunger strike because "they had great optimism that Guantánamo would be closed. They were devastated apparently ... when the president backed off, at least (that's) their perception, of closing the facility."

Lawyers for the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) who represent the detainees said that the detainees have decided to hunger strike because of “the crushing reality that after 11 years in indefinite detention, there is no end in sight to their suffering.”

Here’s what you can do:

• Write to President Obama and the Congress and tell them again that they need to close Guantánamo now.
• Participate in Witness Against Torture fasts and vigils—click here for more information.

We cannot be silent in the face of this ongoing tragedy.

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder and President of Uri L'Tzedek, the Senior Rabbi at Kehilath Israel, the Founder and C.E.O. of The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute and is the author of "Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century.” In 2012 and 2013, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the top 50 rabbis in America." 

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 4, 2013 | 6:35 am

Five Years after the Postville Immigration Raid: Revisiting Immigration Reform

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

It feels like yesterday that Rabbi Ari Hart and I were in Postville, Iowa speaking with workers to learn about their suffering and to offer our solidarity. The tears and pain of the immigrant women and children we encountered will always be with me. But it has been five years since the kosher scandal and the immigration raid shook the Jewish community and the world. What has changed since then? 

On May 12, 2008, the largest immigration raid in U.S. history took place, with 389 workers from the Agriprocessors slaughterhouse and meat packaging plant in Postville, Iowa being arrested. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials raided the plant (the main producer of kosher meat in the United States), handcuffed hundreds of immigrants, and bused them to the National Cattle Congress in Waterloo, Iowa. Most of the detainees were charged with identity theft and were sent to prisons all over the country where they spent five months before being deported out of the country. Postville was severely damaged and hundreds of lives were torn apart. Immigration raids were incredibly destructive to all.

The town of Postville was destroyed, with 20% of its population detained and hundreds of families torn apart. Half the population left within a few months, stores and restaurants formerly owned by Mexican immigrants closed, and business in many other places also dropped by 50%. Ironically, among the few allowed to stay and work were women who had filed sexual harassment charges at the plant, who stayed to be witnesses and were then given U-visas, as they were victims of crime within the United States.

The aftermath exposed several myths about undocumented residents, such as that they are criminals or are taking jobs away from Americans. The military-style raid was an extreme overreaction to the situation: The workers offered no resistance, and American citizens did not flock to fill the open jobs. Instead, the owners had to import workers from locales as diverse and remote as Palau (since its workers can work here legally) and Somalia (undocumented alien refugees). Unfortunately, even Hispanics who have U.S. citizenship find it difficult to work in this field, as plant owners are afraid of further raids. Low wages, long hours, and a high accident rate make the jobs unpalatable to most Americans. The pay may be slightly higher than before, but it is still very low and, because the plant is non-unionized, workers are not able to band together to negotiate protections for themselves.

What is true is that immigrants contribute a great deal more to our nation than they receive. A 2006 analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that a Senate bill promoting immigration reform (similar to current proposals) could raise gross domestic product (GDP) from between 0.8 percent to 1.3 percent from 2012-2016, for an estimated $134 billion a year. In this tight economy, who would not want to implement a policy that could appreciably improve the GDP?

On the other hand, we need not resort to theory to show the beneficial effect of immigration on the economy. A 2012 report by the Partnership for a New American Economy, Open for Business: How Immigrants Are Driving Business Creation in the United States, noted that immigrants now start new businesses at more than double the rate of native-born Americans. Other highlights of the report include:

• 10 percent of American workers are now employed in companies owned by immigrants
• During the past decade, immigrant business income has grown at more than four times the rate of native-owned business income
• Immigrants now start more than a quarter of all businesses in seven of the eight sectors of the U.S. economy that are expected to grow the most over the next decade

Immigrants and their children are also very important in large American corporations, and are an integral part of the Fortune 500:

• Immigrants founded 90 of these companies, and their children founded 114, for a total of 40 percent of all Fortune 500 companies
• If these companies comprised a country, their combined revenues would qualify as the fourth largest in GDP
• Seven of the 10 most valuable brands (including Apple and Google) were founded by immigrants or their children

Today, many of our immigrant workers come from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. This was not always the case. More than a century ago, Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle described an America in nearly all the meatpacking industry workers were European immigrants. In this searing indictment of the ill-treatment of immigrant slaughterhouse workers in Chicago, a Lithuanian family headed by Jurgis Rudkus faces exploitative employers, hazardous work environments for adults and children, miserable housing conditions, and hostility from the authorities. Unfortunately, the American public took interest mostly in the unsanitary conditions of the meat packing factories; ironically, the novel helped spur the first generation of laws ensuring more healthful food and drug processing, but did not immediately improve the lives of immigrant workers. Only during the New Deal did factory workers throughout America unionize and improve their condition, thus achieving the American Dream for many immigrants and their children, who were able to enter and strengthen the growing middle class.

Today, long hours, low pay, high injury rates, and exploitation of child labor are still problems facing undocumented aliens in the meat processing and other industries. We can give in to hatred and ignorance by regarding them as enemies and criminals, or we can understand how valuable immigrants have always been to our society and welcome them. At this time of Pesach, as we remember the days of our slavery in the land of Egypt, we should especially remember the command: “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:20).

Five years ago, we (Uri L’Tzedek) launched a national boycott against Agriprocessors after all of the abuses emerged since it is against Jewish law to buy products that were produced against the mandates of Jewish law. Around 2,000 rabbis and Jewish leaders signed on to the boycott within the first two weeks. After company representatives met with us and agreed to our demands for ethical and legal transparency, we called off the boycott. Since then, the ethical kashrut has blossomed with tens of thousands of followers but we have a long way to go still. The damage done to the reputation of the kosher industry has been immense and we are yet to take full responsibility for the conduct within the industry. The Flaums case also caused a lot of damage but Uri L’Tzedek ultimately partnered to get this scandal resolved. The Tav HaYosher has been one serious response to ethical abuses (worker injustices) in kashrut but segments of the Orthodox community still reject the problem and deny our collective responsibility. Much more needs to be done. We must continue to call for immigration reform and stand in solidarity with all workers and immigrants that encounter abuse.

For those who can join a large coalition in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, at noon on Friday, May 10, there will be a group gathering to commemorate the Fifth Anniversary of the Postville, Iowa Immigration Raid. The group will be calling upon us to remember the stories of the 389 individuals who were arrested on May 12, 2008, to advocate for immigration reform, and to seek reconciliation with those who perpetuated injustices. For more information, please contact Rockne Cole at rocknecole@gmail.com or Sister Mary McCauley at mmccauley@bvmcong.org.

 

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder and President of Uri L'Tzedek, the Senior Rabbi at Kehilath Israel, the Founder and C.E.O. of The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute and is the author of "Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century.” In 2012 and 2013, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the top 50 rabbis in America."

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 3, 2013 | 4:10 pm

The Cost of a Tombstone: Another Approach

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

In preparing to officiate at a funeral yesterday, I met with a family to make the arrangements and prepare the eulogy. I informed the mourning children that they might consider wearing an old garment at the funeral so that we could rip it before the ceremony (“tear keriah”) as is traditionally done. The response I received was the first I had ever received of its kind. The son told me that he would not do it. He said that for his father, he would only tear his nicest new garment. His father deserved it. I was very inspired by his unique commitment and how much this ritual meant to him.

There are many meaningful ways to mourn for loved ones; excessive spending on tombstones, however, is not the best Jewish choice.

The Chofetz Chaim taught that more important than saying kaddish for a deceased parent or buying a nice memorial tombstone is doing chesed, acts of kindness in their honor (Ahavat Chesed 2:15). He suggests that using funds to donate books to a synagogue or establish a loan fund for the poor is more important and useful than purchasing a grand deluxe monument for a cemetery.

While perhaps 40 percent of Americans opt for cremation, most still choose burial, which usually involves a tombstone or some other grave marker. While scant data are available for the cost involved, the “average” cost of a headstone or tombstone is often estimated at $1,500-2,000. A simple grave marker can cost as little as $200, single or double granite monuments in a Jewish cemetery cost anywhere from just under $1,000 to $4,000, while more elaborate inscribed grave markers cost $7,000 or more and upright headstones reach $10,000 or more.

While lower than the costs incurred by Christians (who often require embalming, rental of a funeral home for several days, etc.), a Jewish funeral in the West tends to follow the lead and can still be very expensive: The average cost of a Jewish funeral can be low ($500-$4,000), medium ($4,000-$6,000, as offered by the Jewish Burial Society or similar groups) or high ($10,000-$15,000), mostly depending on the casket chosen. The purchase of a plot (and additional liner or vault) and the fee for opening and closing the grave adds several hundred to several thousand dollars to the fee.

Around the world, there are differing attitudes toward grave markers. In Asia, Hindus and Buddhists customarily cremate their dead, so there are no tombstones. In the West, many cemeteries have become tourist attractions, where people visit the burial places of famous artists, sculptors, composers, performers, and political figures. Paris’s Père Lachaise Cemetery and Vienna’s Zentralfriedhof (Central Cemetery) are two that draw many thousands of tourists annually. The Old Jewish Cemetery in Prague, in which notable Czech Jews like the Maharal are buried, draws a steady stream of tourists who tread the narrow passageways. Some object to the commercialism, as you must pay a fee for a ticket to a number of Jewish historical sites and then join with tourists whose attitudes may not be appropriate. Others defend the practice on the grounds that the money raised helps preserve the old Jewish section of Prague. In the United States, people visit Forest Hills to see the graves of Hollywood actors or Woodlawn cemetery in New York City, among others, to see the elaborately sculpted graves and mausoleums of famous historical figures.

Does an elaborate tombstone, or a cemetery that is a tourist attraction, advance the ideals that our ancestors stood for? Would it not be better for us to use our funds to honor the dead by helping the vulnerable in society or devoting time to bring justice to the world? The Shelah HaKadosh taught that one’s acts of chesed and tzedakah can not only salvage a parent from a harsh judgment in the world to come, but it can move them straight through the gates of the Garden of Eden.

Jewish law forbids speeding up the return of the human body to the earth (through cremation) or slowing it down (through mummification). Rather, we respectfully put the body in the modest shrouds and return it to the Creator through the earth. For many the grief of the mourning experience is compounded by the stress of the accompanying financial burden. We should be sure to change the precedent from being so prohibitively expensive.

The Mishnah teaches that in addition to the behavioral aspects of mourning, that there is a significant emotional component arguing that “grief is only of the heart” (she-ein aninut ela ba-lev; Sanhedrin 6:8). To fulfill the mitzvah of comforting the mourning (nichum aveilim), we should be sure to model modest mourning which focuses more on healing, growth, and kindness and less on grandiose conspicuous consumption to honor the deceased. I've already made the case for overly extravagant celebrations but the same is true for how we mourn.

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder and President of Uri L'Tzedek, the Senior Rabbi at Kehilath Israel, the Founder and C.E.O. of The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute and is the author of "Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century.” In 2012 and 2013, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the top 50 rabbis in America."

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 3, 2013 | 11:05 am

Stealing From Special Needs Children and the Taxpayer: Can It Get Any Lower?

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

Just when we thought Orthodox scandals couldn’t get worse, we learn that millions of taxpayer dollars have been illegally diverted to Jewish institutions by unscrupulous and self-interested parties. Bnos Bais Yaakov, an ultra-Orthodox school in New York, was one of the city’s largest recipients of funding for disability services.

The Island Child Development Center billed New York State more than $27 million over the past 6 years, allegedly for individual instruction for approximately 200 disabled children ages 3 to 5 as part of a state-funded special education pre-kindergarten program. However, on March 18, the office of New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli released the news that the Island Child Development Center, handled the largest misappropriation of funds to the tens of millions of dollars. There is no proof that any student had actually received individual instruction, and there is also an egregious connection in the disbursement of funds between Island Child and its management:

• Island Child gave $2 million to an Orthodox Jewish girls’ school, Bnos Bais Yaakov, which is owned and run by assistant executive director Rabbi Samuel Hiller
• Rabbi Hiller received $330,000 in non-payroll checks from Island Child
• Rabbi Hiller owns two of the summer camps that received part of $877,000 given from Island Child
• Island Child purchased $344,000 in food, much of it from a kosher supermarket owned by chairman of the board Laurence Garber, in direct violation of state rules that prohibit the use of these funds to purchase food
• Island Child paid out upwards of $200,000 to employees and vendors that were nonexistent or unaccounted for

Not only were government funds stolen but thousands of special needs children, who have no way to fight back, have had their services denied in a cynical, cruel manner.

There is another scheme currently going on that benefits a relative few in the Orthodox community while cheating Orthodox students as well as other students in low-income areas of their funding. This involves the government program E-rate, which provides funds (drawn from long-distance service fees) for schools and libraries serving low-income students to improve their Internet/telecommunications capabilities, from which Jewish schools received $30 million in 2011. Paradoxically, Yeshivat Avir Yakov, a haredi boys’ school in which there are no computers in the classrooms (and where the Internet is considered to be evil), has received $3.3 million in E-rate funds since 1998. Often, these funds have gone to small companies that serve the Orthodox community: Some Orthodox groups have listed themselves as libraries in order to be eligible for these funds. In the case of Yeshivat Avir Yakov, their 2012 application proposal included wiring 25 classrooms and more than 40 computers and other devices with Internet access, along with more than 260 cell phones, all for a school whose community opposes the Internet. Bais Ruchel D’Satmar, an all-girls’ Satmar school in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, had its principal plead guilty to fraud in 1999 and even today has no internet, yet it received $1.5 million in E-rate funds in 2011. As for the above-mentioned Bnos Bais Yaakov, it has received $100,000 through the E-rate program since 1998 and has requested over one million dollars this year. (Funding for 2013 has not yet been determined.)

Where is the funding going, if the schools have no computers in the classroom, and because of religious ideology it is not likely to introduce internet into the curriculum? The answer is that much of this corruption is hidden, but at times these activities come to light, as in the recent case of Rabbi Milton Balkany, a member of the Rubashkin family, known as the “Brooklyn Bundler” for his ability to raise and combine large sums of cash for maximum political clout usually steered toward conservative politicians or his yeshiva. He has had several brushes with the law and for a time seemed invulnerable. In 2000, it was reported that Rabbi Balkany was taking money from Orthodox families in exchange for his help in expediting child day care vouchers intended for low-income families. Even though the vouchers going to his particular neighborhood were several times greater than all the vouchers issued in the Bronx and Manhattan, he was never charged with a crime. In 2003, he was accused of misusing a HUD grant to his yeshiva (intended to pay for a mortgage on a building that would house a school for disabled preschool children), in part by siphoning $78,000 for his personal use. Rabbi Balkany acknowledged wrongdoing and agreed to pay the money back and to travel restrictions in exchange for a government promise not to prosecute him. However, in November 2010 his luck ran out when he was convicted of trying to extort hedge fund manager Steven A. Cohen. Rabbi Balkany had threatened to arrange for an inmate to testify that Cohen’s hedge fund had engaged in insider trading unless Cohen gave him $4 million for two yeshivas he led or was affiliated with. The scheme backfired when his conversations with a hedge fund officer were secretly taped. He is now serving a 4-year prison sentence.

Many in the American ultra-Orthodox community believe they do not have to be loyal to American law. If they believe they are furthering the interests of their religious community, then it is justifiable to cheat on taxes or rob the government. Others still think that we should keep quiet about these scandals coming out of our community and stop “airing out our dirty laundry.” This approach is not only an immoral but strategically flawed, and it will only cause more pain for all. We need ultra-Orthodox leadership that is ready to stand up and openly declare that there is a crisis. Instead, the opposite message emerges from the community, claiming that everything is under control. If we look at the issues of child abuse, domestic violence, and financial malfeasance, among others, we would see that the situation is anything but fine.

In his magnum opus, the Ramchal taught:

Most people are not outright thieves, taking their neighbors’ property and putting it in their own premises. However, in their business dealings most of them get a taste of stealing whenever they permit themselves to make an unfair profit at the expense of someone else, claiming that such a profit has nothing to do with stealing. It is not merely the obvious and explicit theft with which we have to concern ourselves, but any unlawful transfer of wealth from one individual to another that may occur in everyday economic activities (Mesillat Yesharim, chapter 21).

We are experiencing over and over again the tragedy of a flawed Jewish ideology which rejects modern society and the laws and orders that come along with it. A Torah education that comes out of a school that is run by thieves has no value, as the Rambam taught:
One may not buy from a thief the goods he has stolen, and to do so is a great transgression because it strengthens the hands of those who violate the law and causes the thief to continue to steal, for if the thief would find no buyer he would not steal, as [Proverbs 2:24] says, “He who shares with a thief is his own enemy” (Hilchot Geneiva 5:1).

We must consider the values that we impart to our students, and remember that we are required to take care of the most vulnerable in society. Can anyone say that the examples cited above are consistent with a true Torah existence? We must take responsibility for our community. The first step is for us to ensure the entire frum community owns up that there is a real problem.
 

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder and President of Uri L'Tzedek, the Senior Rabbi at Kehilath Israel, the Founder and C.E.O. of The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute and is the author of "Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century.” In 2012 and 2013, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the top 50 rabbis in America." 

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 31, 2013 | 5:30 am

Jewish Business Ethics: Proper Marketing and Selling

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

There is a famous business concept called caveat emptor (buyer beware). In secular society, as long as a seller does not blatantly lie or actively conceal a defect, it is the full responsibility of the buyer to exercise due diligence and to inspect what is being purchased. Jewish law takes a totally different approach: It is presumed that no defects or problems exist in a product or property if they are not disclosed explicitly by the seller.

We are well aware of fictional examples in literature and old movies of the quack doctor who promises miracle cures. This goes further back than you might think, and was prevalent in the entire Western world. One of the more famous comic Italian operas is Gaetano Donizetti’s L’Elisir d’Amore (“The Elixir of Love”), in which quack Dr. Dulcamara (“Bittersweet”) touts an elixir that cures everything from apoplexy to diabetes, though it is actually just repackaged Bordeaux wine. In this country, the creation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1906 regulated the drug industry in a helpful way, so that drugs no longer contained dangerous substances like cocaine, heroin, and opium. However, new marketing schemes have continued to emerge and flourish as long as people were unaware of the deception. In the 1920s, for example, numerous “miracle” cures based on radium were sold to the general public in everything from water to bread to suppositories. Today, of course, companies sell radon detectors so homeowners can tell if there is radon gas (and thus a risk for lung cancer) in their basements.

In looking back to these bygone eras, we should not feel smug about how sophisticated we are today, for we still are fooled by deceptive marketing practices. You may think that that bottled water has to come from a pristine spring in the wilderness, that “natural” is just as good as “organic,” or that the FDA has accurately defined and regulated all these terms. If so, you are in error.

For example, many people drink bottled water, unaware that the source of that water is ordinary tap water.  Nestlé’ Waters’ 5-gallon bottles of water come from the municipal tap water of Woodridge, Illinois, while Aquafina (owned by PepsiCo) also bottles its water from municipal tap water. Even worse, a Coca-Cola subsidiary makes “Vitaminwater,” which sounds like healthful, vitamin-fortified water, but at 130 calories and 33 grams of sugar it is quite the opposite. To make matters worse, several government- and privately-sponsored studies have concluded that tap water is more closely regulated than the bottled water industry. (Additional benefits of drinking tap water instead of bottled water include less waste disposal and lower spending.) In our search for healthy food products, we see labels such as “natural” as well as “organic.” The U. S. Department of Agriculture regulates and certifies the production of organic food, and excludes many harmful substances: “Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.” For multi-ingredient food items, a label of “organic” means that at least 95 percent or more of the content must be organic.

What about “natural” food? The FDA has this to say about “natural”: “[The] FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives.” Thus, all those pesticides, genetically modified food, and “sewage sludge” that are excluded from organic food may well be in “natural” food, and these are not required to be listed on the nutrition label. Unfortunately, many large agribusinesses have subsidiary companies that sound small and organic, but which use food that have pesticides and other harmful substances.

Finally, many people are concerned about consuming too much sodium, but will “reduced” or “low” sodium products be a better option? Fortunately, there are definitions here, but you may still take in far too much sodium. Of the two, “low sodium” is often the best option, as it means 140 mg of sodium or less per serving (don’t forget to check the serving size as well). “Reduced sodium” means at least 25 percent less than the regular product. Thus, if a “normal” soup contains a staggering 900 mg of sodium per cup, the reduced sodium version can have 675 mg per cup, which in a 2.5-serving can would still give you nearly 1,700 mg of sodium, already more than the daily suggested serving for children, older adults, and people with diabetes or advanced kidney disease.

In consumer cases, the Federal Trade Commission sometimes catches the more outrageous marketing schemes. In 2012, for example, they successfully ordered Oreck to stop claiming that their vacuum cleaners could reduce the risk of flu, asthma, and other airborne illnesses, and forced Nivea to stop claiming that its skin cream could make people lose weight. However, the FTC also acted against a more insidious trend to mask commercials as news stories.  The FTC forced the cessation of fake news sites such as “News 6 News Alerts” and “Health News Health Alerts” by six companies selling acai berry weight-loss programs. These companies used fake news sites to pretend that major media organizations had aired stories confirming the false claims of weight loss.  

The American concept of caveat emptor is unjust, as it presumes that the consumer has as much power and ability to find good information as huge corporations do to spread the bad kind. We should be smarter consumers but the onus ultimately should be, as in Jewish law, almost completely on the seller to actively reveal any problems. If the owner does not disclose problems or defects, they have violated the prohibition of geneivat da’at, deception (Choshen Mishpat 228:6). If a product has a defect that is not actively disclosed then the buyer has the right to return the item for a full refund (Choshen Mishpat 232:3), since the transaction was a mekach ta’ut, false sale. This disclosure may not be broad but must be very specific to the problem (Choshen Mishpat  232:7). To determine whether or not a certain type of defect needs to be disclosed, we employ minhag hamakom, the customs and norms of the land/region (Choshen Mishpat 232:6). With the marketplace as complex and convoluted as it is, it is only just to shift responsibility for improper marketing to the seller.
 

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder and President of Uri L'Tzedek, the Senior Rabbi at Kehilath Israel, the Founder and C.E.O. of The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute and is the author of "Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century.” In 2012 and 2013, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the top 50 rabbis in America."

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 29, 2013 | 6:08 am

Do You Really Know What You’re Buying? Another Kosher Scandal!

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

The rabbis teach that the paradigmatic case of chillul Hashem (descreation of the Name of G-d) is how we buy and sell meat (Yoma 86a). That's why what seems to be the most recent scandal this week is another major blow to the credibility of American kosher establishments.

The Rabbinical Council of California (RCC) has revoked its kashrut certification from Doheny Glatt Kosher Meats, a Los Angeles-based wholesale supplier of glatt kosher products. Doheny Glatt was caught on film by an investigator and is now suspected of repacking kosher meat boxes with USDA products that were not kosher, while extracting high prices from unwary customers who believe they are buying meat that was subjected to higher standards.

The RCC has allegedly been hearing complaints about Doheny since 2010, but no action was taken until now. While no direct proof of treif products has emerged thus far, a private investigator – who reportedly was not even hired by the RCC – was able to purchase counterfeit labels and tape bearing the name of a glatt kosher supplier from a family member of the owner of Doheny’s. With these supplies, an unscrupulous butcher could package kosher or treif products in reused glatt kosher boxes.

This is not the first time a kosher establishment was caught packaging treif, as the September 2006 Monsey kosher scandal recently taught us. In that episode, a kosher butcher who was apparently in debt to a kosher supplier decided to buy treif chickens and passed them off as kosher. The scandal traumatized the Orthodox community. Around the same time, a glatt kosher-certified take-out restaurant in Brooklyn was found to carry kosher (not glatt kosher) meat; while this is a comparatively minor offense, it does reflect a lack of concern for the strict Orthodox customer.

These are some of the many recent reminders of how important it is to embrace the Tav HaYosher (ethical seal for kosher establishments). The Tav is proof that a restaurant or store not only embraces kashrut but also tzedek for its workers and customers. The Tav is earned, not assumed: Our naïve trust that all kosher establishments are living up to the values of the Torah has been broken. We must transition from a broken, improperly supervised model to one of certainty that our kashrut system has a strong ethical foundation. Kashrut represents not only our ritual food choices, but also our core moral commitments as a people and a light unto the nations. After dozens of kosher scandals, the world is now calling into question whether or not the kosher industry really “answers to a higher authority.”

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, a giant of Jewish law and philosophy in the last century, wrote:

The Halakhah is not hermetically enclosed within the confines of cult sanctuaries but penetrates into every nook and cranny of life. The marketplace, the street, the factory, the house, the meeting place, the banquet hall, all constitute the backdrop for the religious life” (Halakhic Man, 94).

We must stop compartmentalizing Jewish law as relevant only in ritual matters. To be a Jew is to follow the path of Abraham, to act justly in all walks of life, and to recall that God calls this behavior, and not merely ritual punctiliousness, righteousness (Bereshit 15:6). To be a halachic Jew is to ensure that Jewish law matters not only when it is convenient or emotionally moving – on Yom Kippur, for example, or on Shabbat morning – but throughout all of our everyday activities.

Some may say that there are but few examples of kashrut violations. My reply is that if the private investigator in the Doheny scandal did not donate 150 hours of work to uncover this troubling situation, we would not know about this abuse either, and observant Jews throughout southern California would be unwillingly and unwittingly eating treif to this day. It is my hope that kosher consumers will be willing to hold the kosher industry accountable to the ethical and ritual standards we claim to hold most dear. Rabbi Menachem Weiss may have taken over the hashgucha (kosher certification) with pure motives, but we must ensure that we don’t just move on and slide yet another scandal under the carpet. We must take responsibility for the Torah and for our community!

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder and President of Uri L'Tzedek, the Senior Rabbi at Kehilath Israel, the Founder and C.E.O. of The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute and is the author of "Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century.” In 2012 and 2013, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the top 50 rabbis in America."

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 20, 2013 | 1:46 pm

Reclaiming the Morality of Our Torah: A Response to Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

Recently, a scandal emerged within the Orthodox community when Rabbi Hershel Schachter, a halakhic leader and member of the faculty of Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS), made an overtly racist comment that was recorded at a London conference. The greatest objections (including from Yeshiva University) revolve around his reluctance to sanction the reporting of sex crimes directly to the police (mesirah), warning that if a Jewish sex offender were sent to a state prison, he might be killed by the warden, or be put “in a cell with a shvartze, in a cell with a Muslim, a black Muslim who wants to kill all the Jews.”

It is true that we must be cautious to be sure that innocents are not thrown in jail. I recently made the case for how many mistakes our penal system is making in this regard. However, religious leaders are not the judges of who is guilty and who is not. We live in one of the most sophisticated judicial systems in the world, one of the reasons why Rabbi Moshe Feinstein argued that we live in a “medina shel chesed” (a nation of kindness) where on the whole we can trust the judicial system.

Rabbi Schachter admitted that decades ago a Yeshiva University High School student confided that he had been abused by a Yeshiva administrator. While the details are in dispute, Rabbi Schachter did not follow up on the investigation, and the administrator in question continued to abuse students for years afterward. While acknowledging in his talk that there is no violation of the halakhah in allowing mesirah for child sexual abuse and most other crimes, Rabbi Schachter then weakened the argument. He proposed that a board of Torah scholars should first hear the charge to determine if there were raglayim l'davar [a credible charge requiring a report to the police], as a child’s report of abuse could be made up (a “bubbe-mayse”). He also demeaned the student who had reported the initial abuse to him: “So now, 40 years later, the guy’s spilling everything out to the newspaper.” He further stated that it was the student’s responsibility to follow up with the school psychologist, and if he did not he bore the blame for any further abuse that occurred at the high school.

We need Modern Orthodox leadership that represents the sacred moral values of our Torah!

Rabbi Schachter’s prowess as a Torah scholar is extraordinary. At age 22, he became the assistant of the noted Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, z’l, and at age 26 became the youngest Rosh Yeshiva at RIETS. Since then, he has written and taught extensively on Talmud and Jewish law. Even the student who confided in vain about sexual abuse acknowledged that Rabbi Schachter was a “true Gadol B’Yisroel (giant of torah).” Further, Rabbi Schachter’s reputation as a man who is kind, sensitive, and sweet in most of his interpersonal dealings is surely warranted.

A teacher has responsibilities beyond instructing content and disciplinary method. We teachers have a responsibility (second to parents) in molding children – an appreciation for faith, ethics, and other healthful values. When a student confides in us, it is our responsibility to consider what is good for the child and to act upon those considerations.

This case is indicative of an unfortunate tendency of some Modern Orthodox educators who have moved to an ultra-Orthodox position that can obstruct justice. It must be acknowledged that sexual abuse was tolerated at Yeshiva University for years, and that several well-known administrators and faculty, even after their guilt was established, were allowed to resign and move on to other positions in youth education rather than face sexual abuse charges or even social or professional cost. Furthermore, even if Rabbi Schachter’s claim that he told the student to go to the school psychologist is true, he should have realized that many in the Orthodox community considered it shameful (and still consider it so today) to go to a psychologist, and so it was unlikely that a student would go there with a story like this. To establish layers of bureaucracy or throw blame on the victims is to hurt the students who are supposed to be served by institutions of learning.

This trend can also lead to intellectual isolation. I remember I was once at a Friday night tisch when I was a graduate student at Y.U. and a student asked Rabbi Schachter if he was allowed to study English literature. Rabbi Schachter responded that he could, as long as it was for parnassah (supporting his livelihood), but not because there was any value to this learning - this occurred not at Ponevezh or the Mir, but at Yeshiva University, the center of Torah U'Madda (the integration of religious and secular studies)! Y.U. needs to decide if it will be a business professional training program or an intellectual academy that values the open and critical pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.

Rabbi Schachter’s obtuse desire to ignore the world outside of his personal focus may help explain his many notorious statements. In the London speech referred to above, for example, he raised no objection to sending a Jew to a federal prison, since they have kosher food and better conditions (and presumably less menacing clientele than in state prisons). Consider the following examples:

• In 2004, when asked about the question of women reading a ketubbah at a wedding, he replied that a wedding was valid even if “a parrot or a monkey” did the reading, which angered many women’s groups.
• In 2008, he reportedly told a group of yeshiva students that if any Israeli government would “give away Jerusalem,” then the Israeli prime minister responsible should be shot.

• In August 2012, Rabbi Schachter was criticized by the Board of Directors of the Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations  for accusing some Orthodox rabbis in Israel of promoting idolatry (avodah zarah) and conversion from Judaism (shemad) by teaching Gentiles about Judaism, ignoring and perhaps threatening decades of progress in Christian attitudes toward Jews and Israel. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, stated that Rabbi Schachter “seems to know nothing about the different Christian denominations or the current state of Jewish-Christian relations,” and lamented “that a religious figure and university academic who is well respected in the Yeshiva world would publish such a distorted and error-filled text which promotes negative attitudes.”

He also referred to Edah, a Modern Orthodox thinktank that he felt was too liberal, as "a sort of internal Amalek," implying that it was a radical evil that needed to be destroyed from the world as a religious imperative.

While teachers may have areas of concentration in their studies, they should welcome the opportunity of learning something new, and passing it on to their students. Rabbi Schachter, especially due to his prominent position, owes his students the finest education available, without racist vocabulary and trivializing sexual abuse.

The great modern Orthodox thinker and leader Rabbi Saul Berman responded to the defenders of Rav Schachter’s irresponsible teachings and public statements asserting that it is “duplicitous” for them to say he is more comfortable in the beit midrash and doesn’t fully understand the community and yet still seek him out to make vital public policy decisions on sensitive communal issues. “If you assume communal responsibility,” Rav Berman said, “you have to be responsible for yourself.”

We need leaders who have the wisdom to see the bigger picture and the courage to take responsibility for our society. Louis Brandeis was an admirableJewish scholar dealing with justice and society. As the first Jewish associate justice of the Supreme Court, a Zionist, he was a tireless proponent of the social welfare. Brandeis understood that secular institutions such as the courts could help secure the liberty of the people, and that it was incumbent on citizens to guard their liberty. In addition, he established a legal precedent of filing court briefs (called “Brandeis Briefs”) that combined legal, economic, and sociological data to advocate better working conditions and other worthy causes. Consider the wisdom of an intellectual who also acted in the public interest:

• “Neutrality is at times a graver sin than belligerence.”
• “Our government ... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law…”
• “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

Yeshiva University deserves credit for publicly rebuking this rosh yeshiva who has crossed the line of offensive rhetoric once again. The Torah demands that we see the dignity in all humans and that we be honest and forthright in all of our ways. One who uses racist slurs and impedes justice for abuse victims does not represent the Torah community. We honor Torah scholarship and we respect the good intentions of sincere men and women, but the Modern Orthodox community needs moral leadership deeply sensitive to contemporary human needs and responsible in legal and ethical discourse.

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder and President of Uri L'Tzedek, the Senior Rabbi at Kehilath Israel, and is the author of "Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century.” Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the top 50 rabbis in America."

0 Comments — Leave your comment