December 15, 2012 | 6:16 pm

Levinas: On Ritual and Justice

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

Follow JewishJournal.com on

The great French Jewish philosopher and Talmudist Emmanuel Levinas, in his Difficult Freedom (pp. 176-177), taught about the power of Jewish ritual to inform and inspire our work to make the world more just, which is of paramount importance. He wrote: “The Justice rendered to the Other, my neighbor, gives me an unsurpassable proximity to God… The pious person is the just person....For love itself demands justice and my relation with my neighbor cannot remain outside the lines which this neighbor maintains with various third parties. The third party is also my neighbor.” Thus, when we pursue justice in a Jewish way, we come closer to G-d. This is because “The ritual law constitutes the austere law that strives to achieve justice. Only this law can recognize the face of the Other which has managed to impose an austere role on its true nature…”

This discipline found in religious life through ritual is needed in our daily lives: “The way that leads to God therefore leads … to humankind; and the way that leads to humankind draws us back to ritual discipline and self-education. Its greatness lies in daily regularity…” One cannot rely on an occasional, passive religious service, but on daily ritual. To Levinas, ritual tames man and calms the spirit: “The law is effort. The daily fidelity to the ritual gesture demands a courage that is calmer, nobler and greater than that of the warrior…. The law of the Jew is never a yoke. It carries its own joy…” Far from religion as dour, drudge-like labor, ritual is joyful labor.

We can see this truth in other areas, as well. Social workers have seen the beneficial effects of rituals on youths who have grown up with poverty, domestic violence, sexual abuse, drug addiction, crime, and parents who either abandoned their families or have been incarcerated. Mark Redmond, Executive Director of Spectrum Youth and Family Services, observed: “Rituals, whether religious or not, are vital to family life. Having dinner together every night—without any television, cell phones or e-mail present—is extremely important. Bedtime rituals are also important. And making a big deal about birthdays and anniversaries and holidays—all important.” These rituals, and religious rituals, provide safety, stability, and purpose to children who otherwise would live in a world of anxiety and hopelessness.

In a similar vein, Levinas argues that the human-Divine relationship formed in ritual gives us the strength to fight for justice: “The fact that the relationship with the Divine crosses the relationship with people and coincides with social justice is therefore what epitomizes the entire spirit of the Jewish bible. Moses and the prophets preoccupied themselves not with the immorality of the soul but with the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger.” This human-Divine relationship should not be characterized as “spiritual friendship,” but one “that is manifested, tested and accomplished in a just economy for which each person is fully responsible…” Ritual, therefore, is hopeful, joyful, and necessary to create a just world.

The Jewish sense of slavery, which we return to so frequently in Jewish prayer and ritual, defines our narrative and ethical consciousness. “The traumatic experience of my slavery in Egypt constitutes my very humanity, a fact that immediately allies me to the workers, the wretched and the persecuted peoples of the world. My uniqueness lies in the responsibility I display to the Other…Humankind is called before a form of Judgment and justice that recognizes this responsibility…” Once again, Levinas challenges the view of ritual as insular and passive, recasting it as central in raising our awareness of our commonality with all the poor and vulnerable. 

Rituals are non-utilitarian, symbolic acts that involve and promote the cultivation of mindfulness. The transformative power of ritual is achieved when we take the opportunity to explore ourselves, our hearts, and our ideals. We step out of this world to cultivate a meaningful experience and then to return to life changed. This is why we seek to perform ritual on our own and not by proxy. The greatest power of religious ritual, in my view, is the opportunity to deepen awareness about one’s own moral and spiritual values. In ritual, we slow down, refocus on the big picture, and reaffirm our core values. Sometimes we do this in sacred privacy but more often we do it within the spiritual partnership of community.

Levinas reminded us that when we honor the dignity of the other we are also honoring the Other. And when we embrace the Other we are preparing for our work in social justice for the other. May we return to Jewish ritual with fervor and determination, and may we allow its spiritual power to transform us to be agents of love and justice in emulation of the Divine.

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!"
 

December 12, 2012 | 5:21 pm

What Is Fair Taxation?

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

If one listened only to the avalanche of political ads during the recent election campaign, one might believe that Americans were being crushed under the heaviest federal tax burden ever, and that raising taxes on the wealthy (the “job creators”) was tantamount to national economic suicide. This view, bolstered by much of the record $4-6 billion raised for the Presidential and Congressional campaigns, was heavily supported by a small group of billionaires, perhaps topped by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who reportedly made contributions of a record $150 million himself. In total, billions of dollars were spent by people who claimed that they were forced to spend too much in federal taxes.

In reality, Americans today have the lowest federal tax burden since 1950. Historically, in the 1950s and early 1960s the economy was very healthy, and the top income tax bracket paid around 90 percent. When tax rates were dramatically reduced for the wealthiest Americans, as in the 1920s and over the last decade and a half, brief prosperity resulted, followed by a catastrophic economic crash and the greatest inequality in wealth between the very rich and the rest of the population.

The Jewish tradition has much to say about fairness in taxation, and consistently endorses the principle that those who benefit the most from society have the greatest obligation to pay for the support of the community. For example, Deuteronomy 15:4 states: “And there shall be no needy among you.” In addition, farmers were instructed to go over their fields and vineyards only once, and not to reap the corners of their fields: “Leave them for the poor and the foreigner” (Leviticus 19:9-10). According to the Mishnah, the community was expected to support a communal kitchen, burial society, and other needed infrastructure (Peah 8:7). Later, more defined funds presided over by prominent members of the community were set up to deal with the poor. In order to achieve this, citizens were taxed in proportion to their ability to pay. Thus, Jewish law has consistently upheld the idea that a fair taxation is necessary for the maintenance of the community.

We can see this trend in the 1979-2005 period, which was especially unique for its lower taxes on the wealthy. Congressional Budget Office data indicate that among Americans:

• The top one-hundredth of one percent had an income growth of 384 percent, while their tax burden decreased by 11.4 percent
• Median income increased by 12 percent, and the tax burden for the middle quintile decreased by only 4.4 percent

In addition, from 2000-2007, the top 0.1 percent of American earners saw a 94 percent increase in income, compared with a 4 percent increase in income for the bottom 90 percent of earners. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich observed, citing 2011 data, poverty – especially among the young – is on the rise, and there are deliberate efforts to create even greater economic inequality:
• 21 percent of American school-aged children lived in poor households, a 4 percent increase since 2007.
• Nearly one out of every four children lived in a family that had difficulty obtaining a sufficient food supply at some point during the year
• In spite of this, about 60 percent of all cuts in the proposed 2011 Republican budget targeted child food, nutrition, school programs, food stamps, and Medicaid.

In the past, this trend toward lower taxes for the wealthy and greater inequality of wealth led to a pattern of booms and busts. The worst economic downturn occurred after one such period, culminating in the stock market crash in 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression. The second worst economic downturn came at the end of George W. Bush’s second term in 2007, also following a period of tax cuts for the rich and great economic inequality. During his Presidency, the stock market lost about 25 percent of its value, and the NASDAQ lost nearly half its value. In contrast, President Bill Clinton, who raised income taxes for the highest earners, presided over a booming stock market, with the Dow Jones average climbing more than 7,000 points over his two terms. Thus, raising taxes on the wealthy appears to aid economic growth, while cutting taxes for the rich only exacerbates income inequality and encourages reckless financial schemes that can lead to deep economic recession.

This year has offered stark evidence of how lowering taxes for the wealthy tends to increase economic inequality. In one 3-month period in 2012, ExxonMobil’s profits were $16 billion, the highest ever recorded by an American corporation. In spite of this, the oil industry will receive an average of more than $15 billion of subsidies annually from the federal government. On the other hand, most Americans continued to struggle. For example, the greatest number of jobs created was in retail sales, where the average annual salary was less than $21,000. In addition, the number of those unemployed, working part-time but trying in vain to get full-time work, and those who gave up looking for work reached more than 23 million. In a callous gesture, the extended benefits period (the last 20 weeks) of unemployment insurance was cut off this summer due to congressional failure to renew the program, throwing millions of people off unemployment benefits. If Congress fails to act by the end of 2012, an additional 2 million Americans will lose their unemployment benefits.

The 2012 Presidential election campaign offered Americans the opportunity to choose whether to continue the Bush tax policy or return to Clinton-era policy of a slight increase on the tax rate of income above $250,000. Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney stated that he paid a 14 percent rate on his income tax in the one year for which he released his returns. However, his effective tax rate was around 10 percent—far less than the rate most middle class Americans pay. In November, the American people voted to re-elect President Barack Obama, thus voting to raise taxes on the wealthy. As Americans, as Jews, and as activists for justice, we must continue to press Congress to carry out this policy.'

Bend the Arc, the great Jewish social justice organization, is leading the way on this cause and others can join their fight by signing on to their petition.

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!"
 

21 Comments — Leave your comment

December 12, 2012 | 5:10 pm

Hurricane Sandy, FEMA, and the Need for Big Government

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

The Rabbis teach (Ta’anit 11a) that “At a time when the community is suffering, no one should say, ’I will go home, eat, drink, and be at peace with myself.’” To effectively aid those who are suffering, we need the cooperation and collaboration of each and every individual. We need strong individuals, effective non-profits, and committed states. However, we also need to recognize the most powerful collective body available to address the suffering. In our society, the mechanism that represents the people is the government, and it must be effective. Government does not always have to be big to be effective, but oftentimes it does, especially when responding to disasters on a large scale. 

Hurricane Sandy, which struck the east coast in October 2012, was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record and the second-costliest, behind only Hurricane Katrina. At least 253 people were killed and an estimated $65.6 billion was lost due to damage and business interruption. For weeks, many in this, the wealthiest country in the world, were suddenly lacking the basic necessities of life, such as shelter, heat, power, and water. The most dramatic damage occurred in southern New Jersey and the New York City metropolitan area. In New Jersey, the historic Seaside Heights roller coaster was carried out into the Atlantic Ocean, where its tangled ruins remain today. Video of the famous Jersey shore area revealed miles of destroyed boardwalks and beaches that had virtually disappeared, along with hundreds of demolished houses and boats. To the north, nearly 100 people died within a 65-mile radius of New York City as a result of Hurricane Sandy. Manhattan had never before flooded, but Hurricane Sandy’s waters were nearly 4 feet higher than the city’s 10-foot walls. Scores were killed in their homes on the coasts of Staten Island and Queens. Some ignored mandatory orders to evacuate, others were elderly and infirm, but all were victimized by a flood surge that filled houses with water within minutes, allowing no escape. Others were killed by falling branches and trees. Millions of people were without power, and received little-to-no information from their utility companies about when power might be restored. The catastrophe was reminiscent of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and many feared a repeat of the government’s feeble response to that storm might occur again.

This time, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was ready to act. Within three days, FEMA had deployed about 2,300 disaster-relief personnel across several states; provided shelter to more than 10,000 people; rescued some 700 people; and delivered around 700,000 gallons of water and 1.5 million meals to others in need. Perversely, many in the House of Representatives now propose that we slash the agency’s funding by up to 40 percent, arguing that disaster relief should be handled by the states and private sector, not the federal government. The argument typically goes that the Federal government is overly bureaucratic and slow to act while states can be nimble, understand the needs of the localities and their constituents better, and thus should be charged with more responsibility.

The Federal government must have the capacity to swiftly respond when it comes to disaster relief. Of course, as past mistakes reveal a bigger FEMA does not necessarily mean a better FEMA, nor enhanced relief ability. The agency spent nearly $900 million on prefabricated homes in New Orleans after Katrina, but then was prevented by its own regulations being able to put them to use. People were getting sick because the contractors used too much formaldehyde in the construction of the houses and the fumes were intoxicating. Rather than providing housings for thousands who had lost their homes, they rotted in storage lots. In spite of this, FEMA can only be effective if it is allowed to be a large agency. When the national government can address disasters effectively, it saves everyone money, including the states and the private sector, which limits the damage caused when roads and power lines are not repaired quickly and people cannot return home and rebuild. As Matthew Yglesias wrote in Slate.com: “But that requires financing by an entity capable of rapidly financing expensive projects – i.e., the federal government…and (slashing federal disaster aid) is the height of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking.”

When Hurricane Sandy hit, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who had previously expressed his contempt for government and whose policies led to the dismissal of tens of thousands of government workers, met with President Obama and with FEMA. Governor Christie said: “The federal government's response has been great. I was on the phone at midnight…with the president, personally; he has expedited the designation of New Jersey as a major disaster area.” He later added: “The folks at FEMA…have been excellent.” On December 7, President Obama asked Congress for $60.4 billion in aid for the states most affected by Hurricane Sandy. This will not cover all the estimated losses, as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Governor Christie alone estimated the losses of just their 2 states at nearly $78 billion. The Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, a former Republican turned Independent, added: “We need a full recovery package to be voted on in this session of Congress. Any delay will impede our recovery.” The current session of Congress ends on Jan. 3, 2013, when the next House, with largely the same Republic majority, will take office. California representative Donna Edwards noted that, with global warming looming, the challenge is great, and the need for response greater: “…the importance of investing in this infrastructure now so that we don’t make it more vulnerable later on needs to be high on the priority list, because the damage to us in terms of our long-term economy and competitiveness is really huge.”

Our nation has confronted emergencies before, and the federal government has often been the ultimate solution when the private sector failed. During the Great Depression, the stock market failed, thousands of private banks failed, private charities failed, and when President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in March 1933, the nation was on the precipice of total failure. President Roosevelt closed all the banks for 4 days, and then announced that the federal government would guarantee bank deposits through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The result was that the banking system (and currency) was saved, giving the economy had a chance to recover, as the American people had a renewed confidence in their government and its roles and abilities in helping people. The private sector had no plan; government was the solution.

A profound midrash (Bava Batra 10a) teaches about how humans are not in control over nature.
He [Rabbi Yehuda] used to say: Ten strong things were created in the world—A mountain is strong, but iron cuts through it. Iron is strong, but fire can make it bubble. Fire is strong, but water puts it out. Water is strong, but clouds contain it. Clouds are strong, but the wind can scatter them. Breath is strong, but the body holds it in. The body is strong, but fear breaks it. Fear is strong, but wine dissipates it effects. Wine is strong, but sleep overcomes its power. Death is stronger than all of them. But Tzedakah saves from death, as it is written, “And Tzedakah saves from death.” (Proverbs 10:2)

When nature, death, or other forces overcome us, the best thing we can do is fight back with tzedakah (with love, kindness, and charitable giving). We must all do our part as individuals and we need strong non-profits and state-level responses, but we must also unite to support a stronger federal government that is best equipped to address crises wherever and whenever they strike. This is the essence of America: to be united in both our times of need and times of hopes, our traumas and our triumphs.

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

December 5, 2012 | 8:56 am

Atrocities in Syria:  Standing in Solidarity with the Victims!

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

We are all painfully aware of the genocides of the last two decades in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur, and we have watched the ongoing violence and suffering taking place across the Middle East, but did you know that there is an urgent human rights crisis in Syria right now that demands our attention? 

Since March 2011, when a pro-democracy uprising started in Syria, military forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad have subjected densely populated civilian neighborhoods to months-long sieges, continuous artillery bombardments, and military air raids in an effort to crush the rebellion against the Assad regime. Some areas recaptured by the government – such as Houla, Taftanaz, and Deraya – have seen systematic massacres of peaceful activists, women, and children. So far, 40,000 Syrian civilians have been killed and 4.8 million displaced. However, the worst may be yet to come: Today, there are reports that the Assad government might use poison gas against rebel positions, even up to the Turkish border, which could create the possibility of a much wider war and many thousands of new casualties. The apparent defection of the Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman, who had previously denied Syria was considering the use of poison gas, only adds cause for concern. While warnings by U.S. officials that Syrian use of poison gas would prompt military intervention are helpful, by then, it might already be tens of thousands of deaths too late.

As American Jews, we know all too well the costs of U.S. inaction in the face of mass atrocity. Our sacred texts teach us, "Do not idle while your fellow bleeds." Ever since the Assad regime began continuous artillery bombardments on population centers in the February 2012 siege of Homs, the Syrian people have been pleading for American intervention (provision of heavy weapons and/or a no-fly zone) to stop the bloodshed; they have held numerous mass protests with titles such as "The people want arming of the Free Army" and "America, have we not bled enough?" asking for American help to end the regime-sponsored bloodshed.

The situation in Syria is immensely complex, and there are risks to a stronger American response that should be carefully considered and accounted for. Perhaps individuals hostile to the U.S. will replace the regime; perhaps rebel groups will carry out reprisal attacks and carry on their own genocide; perhaps this is a regional crisis too messy for the U.S. to wade into. Yet these same risks were present during the genocides in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur, and the humanitarian argument won out. When do we decide that the civilian death toll is too high for us to remain on the sidelines? When do we appreciate that the very sanctity of human life, and the Torah's affirmation "B'Tzelem Elokim Bera Otam" -- Hashem created humankind in the Divine image-- demands that we respond to protect civilians from mass slaughter, even if it involves sacrifice on our part? In June, Holocaust survivor and famed author and scholar Elie Wiesel lamented of the Syria crisis, "the so-called civilized world isn't even trying to stop the massacre." Reflecting on American reluctance to engage in another war, he asked, "Should Syrian families suffer because of the help we have given others?"

Judaism teaches that we must go over and above the law (lifnim mishurat hadin) to support those most vulnerable (Bava Metzia 83a). We must be moved toward mercy for those who are suffering, and this must affect how we build society. Numerous Jewish teachings remind us that our primary responsibility is to protect and prioritize the most vulnerable individuals and parties: “G-d takes the side of the aggrieved and the victim” (Ecclesiastes 3:15). The Rabbis teach that “Even if a righteous person attacks a wicked person, G-d still sides with the victim” (Yalkut Shimoni). When there is conflict, G-d simply cannot withhold support for those suffering. Rav Ahron Soloveichik writes: “A Jew should always identify with the cause of defending the aggrieved, whosoever the aggrieved may be, just as the concept of tzedek is to be applied uniformly to all humans regardless of race or creed” (Logic of the Heart, Logic of the Mind, 67). This is what it means to be Jewish, to prioritize the suffering in conflict. All people deserve our love and care, but we must follow the path of G-d and make our allegiances clear: We stand with the destitute, oppressed, alienated, and suffering.

We call upon President Obama and members of the U.S. Congress to act urgently to end the Syrian regime's ongoing killings of civilians, and lead a multilateral intervention that will stop the bloodshed. Such an intervention would not require ground troops, but only measures that prevent the regime from launching aerial attacks, and especially chemical attacks, on population centers. We are also calling upon the U.S. government to support humanitarian assistance to displaced persons, and to work to stop the flow of weapons to the Assad regime in any way possible.

Now is the time to stand with the victims of regime-sponsored atrocities in Syria. Consider signing our petition and asking for U.S. action to end the violence, and joining us at our vigils and rallies to support the victims. May justice prevail!

 

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!"
 

6 Comments — Leave your comment

December 2, 2012 | 7:38 pm

Can Anger Be Constructive? A Reflection on Activism & Life!

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

Anger is universally considered a vice. We are asked to emulate the Divine who is “erech apayim,” slow to anger (Exodus 34:6, Deuteronomy 11:22). The rabbis, in fact, refer to anger as a form of idolatry, where one worships oneself. Thus, the rabbis teach that one must be slow to anger and easy to appease (Avot 5:10). Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav taught: “there is no peace in the world because there is too much anger. You can only make peace with joy.” The rabbis teach us, ‘One who sees an idol that has not been destroyed pronounces the blessing, ‘Blessed is He who is slow to anger”’ (Tosefta, Berakhot 7:2). I would suggest that this wording was chosen because God should be angry at how much evil there is in the world that is unchallenged. Yet God has humbly allowed us to be the ambassadors of truth and the defenders of justice on earth. We can emulate this Divine patience frustrated at an unredeemed world while still feeling a great sense of urgency.

In a brilliant Midrash, we learn that G-d withholds expressing anger not only from the just but also from the wicked. “Rav Shmuel bar Nachman said in the name of Rav Yochanan: It does not say here Erech Af, but rather Erech Apayim (in plural); He delays His anger with the righteous and delays His anger with the wicked” (Yerushalmi Ta’anit 2:1, Eruvin 22a). We are to withhold expressing anger to any person, good or bad.

However, expressing anger can be useful. The Rambam taught that, while one should not get angry, that one should pretend to be angry to educate young children when they’re doing wrong. On the most basic level, this emotion stimulates people to reach a goal, in the short term. Furthermore, it is a factor that can be particularly useful for social justice activists and leaders. Professor Jeff Stout, the great religion scholar at Princeton University, writes in “Blessed are the Organized”:

Anger is one of the most important traits they (organizers) look for in potential leaders. Someone who professes love of justice, but is not angered by its violation, is unlikely to stay with the struggle for justice through thick and thin, to display the passion that will motivate others to join in, or to have enough courage to stand up to the powers that be.

In social justice work, one must be sure to respond quickly to social problems and injustices and yet also be sure not to let anger dominate one’s psyche or persona. Sustained anger takes up an extraordinary amount of energy, and as activists we must preserve our energy as best we can to ensure we are effective. The Hassidic rabbis, therefore, teach that we must not subdue our anger, for that leads to lost potential. Rather, we should channel our anger into more productive and healthy emotions that increase our ability to engage in constructive organizing. Mohandas Gandhi, who led the fight for independence in India, observed that “anger controlled can be transmuted into a power that can move the world.”  To clarify further, Professor Stout describe his concept of “just anger,” that

… stands midway between despairing rage and liberal squeamishness about the vehement passions. A politics of just anger aims to restore the spirit of democracy to democratic culture, a spirit disposed to become angry at right things in the right way and use this passion to motivate the level of political involvement essential to striving for significant social change.

To Stout, “elites” that proclaim their impartiality too often support social injustice by insisting that “victims” remain passive, and view any righteous anger of the oppressed as a violation of “the elite code of decorum.” The proper role of social organizers, Stout notes, is to “oppose that code” and disrupt the deceptive calm of oppression.

Finally, Stout explained that anger can facilitate the creation of a communal feeling of empowerment, which can lead to social justice.

The experience of anger can reveal to us that we do indeed care about being treated as citizens. If we did not think of ourselves as bound together to some extent by mutual respect, then we would not be angered by the behavior and negligence of elites. To feel anger is to have the importance of the relationship and its demands drawn to our attention. Accordingly, the individual who rarely experiences anger in response to injustices…[shows] slavishness and apathy. A central task of a leader … is to help others transform themselves from slavish or apathetic victims into people who behave and feel as citizens do.

To put this differently, as the French existentialist (and French Resistance member) Albert Camus wrote: “I rebel—therefore we exist.”

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, in his “Prayer for Peace,” wrote: “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 must feel outrage, as our prophets once did, when we encounter oppression and injustice. This is what it means to be alive and to be Jewish.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik argued, “Of course, love is a great and noble emotion, fostering the social spirit and elevating man, but not always is the loving person capable of meeting the challenge of harsh realities. In certain situations, a disjunctive emotion, such as anger or indignation may become the motivating force for noble and valuable action” (A Theory of Emotions, 183). The greatest Jewish philosophers of the last century recognized the importance of this truth: Controlled and righteous anger, in defence of social justice and other noble causes, is no vice.

Anger is unhealthy, but it is also human. We should dismiss rage (hema) when it comes from self-righteousness but when anger (af) is experienced in response to the pain of another we should harness the emotion to elevate ourselves by responding to a greater calling.

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

November 28, 2012 | 5:19 pm

Should We Rely Upon Signs?

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

Polls have revealed that about one in eight people admit to believing that bad luck will ensue if they allow a black cat to cross their path, if they walk under a ladder, or if they break a mirror. In addition, while fewer than one in ten acknowledge seeing the number 13 as unlucky, it is rare to find a building with a 13th floor. The irrational belief in the significance of “signs” is prevalent in contemporary society, as it has been since the beginning of time. Jewish thought provides an array of approaches to this phenomenon, but the rational one as articulated by the Rambam is most compelling.

We find this old tendency in the book of Genesis, when Eliezer has a mission to find Yitzchak a wife. He travels, looking for a specific sign to determine who the correct bride will be. Tosafot in Chullin 95b questions Eliezer's methods in selecting a wife for Yitzchak, suggesting that he is violating the prohibition of nichush (found in Vayikra 19:26).The Gemara (Sanhedrin 65b) gives examples of this biblical prohibition against making decisions based on omens and random events, such as food falling from one's mouth or a deer crossing one's path, or on the supposed significance of natural occurrences such as the migratory patterns of fish or birds.

There is an important argument between the Rambam and the Ra'avad on this subject (Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim u-Mazalot 11:5), particularly as it relates to the Eliezer story. The Ra'avad is lenient on Eliezer, arguing that the only prohibited cases of nichush are the examples explicitly enumerated in the Gemara and that the signs validated and followed by Eliezer are actually permitted.  Additionally, the Ra’avad connects the prohibition of nichush with that of kishuf (magic), and argues that since Eliezer is using the value of kindness demonstrated by Rivka, rather than an omen or magic, as a sign, this is not a problem.

In contrast, for the Rambam, nichush is about a lack of faith in G-d, who provides good without resorting to the occult. The Rambam is not lenient on the Eliezer case, and he not only includes the specific omens brought in the Gemara but extends the prohibition to include any and every sign used to predict the future—even one based on a personal experience.  He writes: “One must not say 'if the following occurs I will take a specific action and if not I will refrain.'”  This activity, practiced by Eliezer, is forbidden: “Anything like this is completely prohibited, and one who commits such an action is punished with lashes.” Ra’avad is furious at this approach:  ”How is it possible that he [the Rambam] thought such righteous people would have engaged in such a sin? If I were they, I would send tongues of fire into his nostrils.”

One might thus argue (like the Rambam) that attempts to predict the future trivialize the capacity for rational thought, intellectual deliberation, and thoughtful reflection, and that religious life should not be tolerant of this. On the other hand, we may note that, as some cognitive psychologists have argued, humans are unique in their capacity for planning and looking toward the future: While most of our daily thoughts are involved in memory of the past and tasks in the present, about 12 percent of our thinking is about the future. Thus, planning – setting goals, hopes, and dreams – is part of our being. Since we have this special capacity, we can ask, how do we, as religious people, think about the future, about expectations, and about dreams or desires? How do we use our memory actively to plan for our future?

In our own times, we can see the importance of forward thinking to our happiness and sense of self. The philosopher Robert Nozick imagined the possibility of a virtual reality machine, through which one could have any chosen experience and not have it ruined by the knowledge that he or she is hooked up to the machine. Nozick asked, “Would one choose to be hooked up?” He concluded, perhaps idealistically, that no one in their right mind would choose to be hooked up to this machine, even if it means constant pleasure, since it could not bring happiness at all. Fulfillment of purpose must be real and deliberate, not accidental or virtual. A meaningful life is a contemplated one that involves will, choice, planning, and perhaps struggle.

There are countless “signs” and systems in place in our lives that prompt us to act in a certain way: When I see a red light, I stop; when I hear the baby crying, I go to soothe her. Here I would argue that we are mostly discussing our most meaningful life decisions and roles rather than our way of getting through daily tasks. These signs also are necessary to the task and not arbitrary. Still, there should be moments of reflection before a stimulus produces a result. 

To return to Eliezer’s case, even when his motives seem to be the most pure, as he was looking for positive qualities so as to find a match for Yitzchak, the Rambam teaches that one must not rely upon signs. It is not fitting for one striving to max out one’s human potential as a meaning-making being to trust in omen and superstition. And so I would argue that this is the reason that Eliezer’s name is not mentioned in the parsha. He is the generic “eved,” or “ish.” When one relies upon signs, one gives up one’s uniqueness as a future-looking and thinking person, indeed one gives up one’s very personality. Reliance upon signs transforms a person from being a religious agent into a mere sign checker.

When we use random occurrences and connect this to key decisions, we make mistakes. The fact that I saw a black cat actually has no connection to my stubbing a toe and certainly does not mean that I need to sell off my investments. Superstitions can cause one to make poor decision or poor cause/effect connections.

Finally, what is the source of truth and good that we rely upon in life in making our core decisions? How in touch with our decision-making process are we, and do we reevaluate it from time to time? According to the Rambam, religious life demands not only the commitments of our actions and the commitments of our thoughts and intellectual strivings. It also commands the connection between the two: which thoughts lead us to which actions. The stakes are high but G-d has faith in us. Do we have faith in ourselves?

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

November 24, 2012 | 6:47 pm

Jewish- Hispanic Relations:  Long Overdue!

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

I recall, as a child, overhearing very derogatory and racist remarks about Latino Americans where everyone below the border was referred to as “a Mexican” or as “cheap labor.” Over the last few years, I’ve had the opportunity to do work in Central and South American countries such as Argentina, Guatemala, and El Salvador and  had the chance to spend time in Panama, Mexico, and Belize. I learned a lot about these cultures and gained a much deeper appreciation for Latino Americans in my home American community and where they have come from. I also learned a deeper narrative of why and how so many have immigrated to the U.S.

Jews and Latino Americans live parallel lives, yet do not mingle (according to a recent survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee [AJC]).“Latinos see Jews as part of the white establishment, not as immigrants,” said AJC’s Latino and Latin American Institute director, Dina Siegel Vann. “We need to convey to them that we share a history of immigration.”

Jews and Hispanics should work together, for both communities share many values, such as a desire to maintain their distinctive cultural identity. A recent American Jewish Committee survey indicated that while many Hispanics did not know Jews, many had favorable views toward Jews:

• 78 percent believe Jews have a commitment to family life
• Two-thirds believe that Jews have a strong religious faith
• 61 percent believe that American Jews make a strong cultural contribution
• 53 percent believe that Jews support civil rights

There is a lot of room for growth in our relationship with the Latino community. Another survey conducted in 2001 showed that:

• 36.1% of Latinos believe “there is anti-Semitism in the Latino community”
• 44.6% of Latinos and 39.6% of Jews believed that “the relationship today between Hispanics and Jews in the United States” is not excellent or good but just fair
• 36.1% of Latinos and 20.3% of Jews believe there is an “anti-Latino sentiment in the Jewish community”
• 20.2% of Latinos believe that the Catholic Church did enough during the Holocaust as compared to only 6.2% of Jews
• 20.6% of Latinos believe that the United States is too supportive of Israel as compared to only 6.2% of Jews

On a positive side though, 72.5% of Latinos and 76.5% of Jews believe that it is very important for “Hispanics and Jews to work together in order to strengthen laws to prevent discrimination.” There is so much potential for collaboration, mutual learning, and friendship.

Oddly, Hispanics and Jews may have more than cultural values in common. For example, many Hispanics do not know of the history and cultural legacy of Spanish Jews (the Sephardim, or their Ladino language). In addition, a number of Hispanics would be surprised to know that they carry Jewish DNA, and may be descended from those forcibly converted to Christianity (the “conversos”). A 2003 genetic test of men living in New Mexico, southern Texas, and northern Mexico revealed that about 10 to 15 percent had some extent of Jewish DNA. Many Hispanics named Alvarez, Rivera, Lopez, and Mendez have found that they may have Sephardic Jewish ancestors. In Chicago, the Alliance for Jews and Latinos celebrates these common roots annually.

Of course, there are obstacles. In 2011, a Hispanic Santa Ana Councilwoman, accused a local Jewish businessman of “ethnic cleansing,” and compared him to Hitler. Fortunately, many Hispanics called for her to resign, and she did issue an apology. At the same time, some Jews have forgotten the immigrant legacy. Polls in 2011 revealed that a majority of American Jews approved of the Arizona law designed to combat illegal immigration, which was perceived by many as a racist attack on all Hispanics. Some fringe Jewish factions have taken a hard stance on a group they offensively refer to as “illegal aliens.” They, of course, forget that very significant numbers of Jews have entered America illegally over the last two hundred years. The narrative, that all Jews came to the U.S. legally, has been shown to be completely false. Many Jews facing persecution fudged their passports and many Israelis and Jewish immigrants today are still in the U.S. illegally.

We are overdue in cultivating a strong Jewish-Hispanic relationship. Over the last 50 years, we’ve done a good job at Jewish-black relations and Jewish-Christian relations. Due to tensions in the Middle East, many have begun more Jewish-Muslim relations. But in addition to our neglect of Jewish-Asian relations, we must tend to Jewish-Hispanic relations.

Hispanics comprised 10% of the electorate nationally in 2012, and played a very significant role in key swing states including Florida, Colorado and Nevada, as 71 percent of Hispanics voted for President Obama (versus about 27 percent for Romney), a margin comparable to those of American Jews and Muslims. This rapidly growing group will undoubtedly play an increasingly important role in future elections.

Jews have been very successful change-makers in the world because throughout history we’ve often been outsiders. But today we’re accepted in America. So the new question becomes how can we still play the role of outsiders now that we’re insiders? How can we continue to exist on the periphery, to be a voice for those on the margins, and to be the social agitators for a more just and holy world when we’re fully included on the inside?

We have generally related best to those on the periphery, those minorities on the periphery of society. For this reason, among many others, we should be closer with our Latino American brothers and sisters but we tend to live in different parts of our city.

We should explore, as a community, more opportunities to invite Latino Americans into our community and also to leave our bubbles to meet others in their home communities. Jewish Latinos can play a crucial role in building bridges between Jews and Latinos and we all can do our part as Jewish ambassadors as well. We should stand with all minorities seeking to be treated with basic human decency. This is our covenant. This is the dream: that all people may live freely in the world. May we as the Jewish people continue to act as global and local leaders building bridges and standing in solidarity with all minority partners for a more just, equitable, and free world.

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

November 22, 2012 | 3:36 pm

Book Burning: Prelude to Persecution

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

In July 2012, the Bible Society in Israel [“Messianic Jews”] sent Christian Bibles to all 120 Members of the Knesset. In response, one MK, Michael Ben-Ari, publicly cut his up and threw it in the trash. In December 2001, a teacher in Beit Shemesh led his students in burning a copy of a Hebrew translation of the New Testament that had been given to a student by missionaries. In another episode in 2008, kids burnt hundreds of copies of the New Testaments sent by missionaries, arguing it was a commandment to do so.

While the insensitivity of particular groups of missionaries needs to be addressed seriously, this situation should be handled by the police, and book burning is never appropriate. Those who argue that Christianity is idolatry, and that therefore that it is a mitzvah to destroy copies of the New Testament, are in error. While it is prohibited for Jews to practice Christianity according to Jewish law, it is not "idolatry," and even if another book embraced idolatrous ideas, no one worships the actual book. Even further, destroying things unnecessarily violates the Torah prohibition of baal tashchit (Deuteronomy 20:19, 20, Hilchot Malachim 6:10).

Books should never be burned, as they represent learning. As Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin declared in opposing the action of MK Ben-Ari: “I condemn any disrespect of holy texts of any religion… Every holy book is important to its believers.” Book burning has a terrible history connected with anti-semitism, censorship, small-mindedness, and oppression. The Rambam’s books were burnt, as were Rav Moshe Feinstein’s. Torah scrolls have destuctively been burnt for centuries. These are shameful moments in Jewish history. They are part of a disgraceful tradition of infamous acts, such as the Nazi book burnings, the burning of the books and burying of scholars under China’s Qin Dynasty, the burning of the Library of Baghdad, the destruction of the Aztec codices, and the destruction of the Sarajevo National Library.

America has had its share of book burnings. In 1836, the Quaker abolitionists Angelina and Sarah Grimké, who came from the South, wrote an anti-slavery tract, Appeal to the Christian Women of the Southern States, which was filled with religious references. When copies reached Charleston, the postmaster seized all the copies and publicly burned them. This increasingly fanatical defense of slavery fueled the secessionist movement – South Carolina was the first state to secede and the state where the Civil War started, with the attack on Fort Sumter in 1861. In 1953, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy dispatched his aides Roy Cohn and David Schine to search U.S. Information Service Libraries in Europe and Asia in a paranoid quest to find Communist influence in the United States government. As a result, several “subversive” books from these libraries were literally burned to symbolize that the State Department had been purged of the alleged influence of Communism. This helped spur the banning of books and blacklisting of scholars and performers for a decade, in addition to promoting the mindset that led to the Vietnam War.

In a similar way, the recent Quran burning here in the United States was extremely disturbing. This practice insults the core religious faith and humanity of nearly 2 billion people worldwide. In addition, it carries a warning. In Heinrich Heine’s 1821 play, Almansor, a Moor [Spanish Muslim], commenting on Christians who publicly burned the Quran, says that this burning is but a “prelude,” and adds: “Where men burn books, they will in the end burn people.”

Holy books are sacred even when we disagree with them or with their advocates. We should not only respect other religions and people of other faiths; we should seek to learn from them. While we, as Jews, are committed to being firmly rooted in the Torah and to Judaism, we still must have the humility to open our minds and hearts to the teachings of other faiths.

The Mishnah (Pirke Avot 5:17) teaches: “Every dispute which is for the sake of Heaven in the end will be permanently established. And every dispute which is not for the sake of Heaven in the end will not be permanently established.” When religious people are arguing with good intentions to pursue the truth, they should be listened to. The Rambam taught that we should “accept the truth from wherever it is found.”

The Maharal, the great 16th-century Jewish philosopher in Prague, taught (Baer haGolah, chapter 7):

It is proper, out of love of reason and knowledge, that you do not [summarily] reject anything that opposes your own idea, especially so if [your adversary] does not intend merely to provoke you, but rather to declare his beliefs… And even if such beliefs are opposed to your own faith and religion, do not say to him, “Speak not and keep your words.” Because if so, there will be no clarification of religion. Just the opposite, tell him to speak his mind and all that he wants to say so that he will not be able to claim that you silenced him. Anyone who prevents another from speaking only reveals the weakness of his own religion, and not as many think, that by avoiding discussion about religion you strengthen it. This is not so! Rather, the denial of one who opposes your religion is the negation and weakening of that religion… For the proper way to attain truth is to hear [others’] arguments which they hold sincerely, not out of a desire to provoke you. Thus it is wrong simply to reject an opponent’s ideas; instead, draw him close to you and delve into his words.

We should also remember that attempts to repress other religious beliefs that we disagree with frequently backfire, and that these religious factions grow even stronger as a result. A poignant Midrash teaches:  "Do not be so quick to destroy the altars of non-Jews lest you be forced to rebuild them with your hands" (Midrash Tannaim Devarim Mechilta 4). The Roman Empire, through brutal episodic efforts at suppression, only strengthened the faith of Jews and Christians; similarly, the Roman Catholic Church, through the Inquisition, torture, and executions, only strengthened the faith of Jews and, during the later Reformation, Protestants. On the most self-interested and pragmatic level, we must never be destructive to other religious factions because those people will come to hate us and may seek to harm us (mishum eivah). Rather the halachah is that we must pursue the ways of peace (darchei shalom) in all that we do.

We must draw closer to others with different theologies, to be respectful and to learn. The last thing that should ever happen is a public desecration of the works of another faith. The great majority of Jews and Israelis believe this, and no attention should be paid toward the extremists acting against Jewish values. We must speak out against others who shows intolerance to others and who shame their sacred texts in acts of spite. We can heal the world together when see decency and dignity in all people and show respect to their theologies even when we disagree with them.

Even when we are provoked and our tolerance is tested, we must rise above. The Torah's "ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace," (Proverbs 3:17).

 

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!"
 

1 Comments — Leave your comment