May 15, 2012 | 6:19 am

The Role of Jewish Priests: A Matter of Life and Death

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

Follow JewishJournal.com on

Jewish priests (Kohannim) are prohibited from attending funerals or encountering the dead (unless it is a close relative). How can the leaders of society neglect one of the most important aspects of community service? Here we learn a value of humility, empowerment, life, and transparency.

Various explanations have been put forth. The most obvious explanation of this mitzvah is that priests should remain in a state of purity for their holy service, and that impurities come along with death. The Ramban explains that it is a practical matter—the Kohannim were simply too busy tending to the sacrificial order to be burdened with the huge tasks of handling matters of death. That they were too busy, of course, does not necessarily mean they were too good. Others explain that G-d is only served in joy, and death distances one from G-d. The Kohannim must serve G-d in a constant state of joy, and thus cannot be involved with death. There may, however, be important moral lessons here as well:

1) All leaders cannot serve the community in every function. There is humility in stepping back at times to empower others in the community to lead.

2)  There may be a lesson about the Jewish focus on this world rather than on the world-to-come. My esteemed teacher Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the Chief Rabbi of Efrat, explains:

The Kohen was the priest-educator during the Biblical and Temple periods. The very first—and unique—commandment concerning him is that he not defile himself by contact with the dead; this is an especially telling limitation when we remember that the primary responsibility of priests of all religions is to aid their adherents to “get to the other world”—that the Bible of ancient Egypt was called the Book of the Dead. In effect the Torah is teaching us that our religious leadership must deal with the living and not the dead: must spend its time teaching Torah and accessing Jewish experiences, rather than giving eulogies and visiting cemeteries; must be dedicated primarily to this world rather than the world-to-come (Torah Lights, Emor, 176).

3) The Torah goes to great lengths to make the wealth of leadership transparent. Perhaps the reason why so many chapters are spent on listing the details of the temple and the vestments of the priests is to ensure we never become a religion that spends tens of millions on our houses of worship and holy objects. This is a value that our community has not always been successful at following. King Solomon’s temple was apparently inlaid with gold, and certainly put his kingdom into debt. Some of the most impressive European synagogues (especially in Germany, before the Holocaust) were as elaborate as many of the more modern churches. Along with this transparency comes the importance of protecting vulnerable community members from abuse. The priests already had so much power in society as the sole leaders of the Temple. To also handle death and care for the most vulnerable could lead to abuse of that power. Perhaps the community is protecting the vulnerable by distancing the priests from this role. My illustrious teacher Rabbi Saul Berman has explained that in ancient times families looked toward the priests to intercede on behalf of the deceased, hoping that they would receive a better place in the afterlife. Here the priests could feel tempted to accept a payoff for intervening. This would be a scandal of the highest order, and the Torah sought to remove those dealing with Divine intervention from such vulnerable situations.

Today, without a Temple, the priests have a very minimal, though unique, role in Jewish life. They are, however, still prohibited from entering cemeteries. This serves as a reminder that each of us must take responsibility – physically, emotionally, and existentially – for death. We may relegate some roles to a priest, but we must all learn not only to take full ownership of our lives, but also of the deaths that occur in our midst.

---

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

May 13, 2012 | 9:22 am

Religious Freedom: Should the 10 Commandments Be Promoted in Public?

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

One of the great debates in America today is over the role of religion in the public sphere. To what extent is the United States government embracing religion? Are we “one nation under G-d?” Most concretely, should religious teachings such as the Ten Commandments be allowed on the walls of courthouses and classrooms?

The question of separation between church and state has long been an important one in America. In Virginia, the Church of England was the established church, and in Massachusetts it was the (Puritan) Congregationalist Church. In England, this split contributed to a bloody civil war. In the colonies, there was a move to eliminate the concept of an established church. In 1763, for example, Virginia patriot Patrick Henry argued in the “Parson’s Case” that parishioners should not have to pay so much to support the established church. While he technically lost the case, Henry persuaded the jurors to award each parson one penny in damages, thus weakening the established church’s hold.

Another Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, played a pivotal role in clarifying the separation of church and state. As author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson avoided any Christian terminology, and referred to “Divine Providence” rather than a Christian “G-d.” While he opposed the Constitution, Jefferson did contribute to the push for a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution, and the First Amendment begins with an explicit rejection of an established church: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” When he became President, Jefferson emphatically endorsed this separation in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

In the 20th century, many church-state issues have gone to the Supreme Court. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Warren Court tended to have a Jeffersonian view in overturning religious practices in the public sphere. More recently, a more conservative federal judiciary has tended to allow these practices, and a number of Republican politicians have espoused the idea that the United States is (or should be) a Christian nation.  In 2006, the Supreme Court made conflicting split decisions, striking down the posting of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses, but allowing it on the grounds of the Texas Capitol, both by 5-4 decisions. Proponents of the public posting of the Commandments argue that it is needed to avoid moral decadence and that G-d cannot be removed from our culture. But is it true that posting this declaration helps to put G-d in society and raise our moral commitments?

Religion should be in the public square, but in a way that celebrates diversity and, most importantly, in a way that actually works to further our collective goals. Religious values should be modeled for others to emulate, not jammed down people’s throats. Those seeking spiritual homes might be more receptive to growth and change if religious leaders were less forceful with their ideologies. Rather than creating a culture of plaques, we need a culture of action. Values should be lived, not hung on walls.

Further, the celebration of the Ten Commandments is the celebration of one religion’s expression. Christianity may be the most practiced religion in America, but we must be sure to preserve pluralism and prevent the marginalization of minorities. Indeed, there is evidence that America is less Christian than before, and that there is more “mobility” in religion than we suppose. Consider the following:

• While 76% of Americans identified as Christian in 2008, this is a decrease from 86% in 1990. During the same period, those indicating no religion rose to around 15%.
• In 2009, Gallup poll data revealed that only about 45% of American Christians (Protestants and Catholics) attended church regularly.
• 2007 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life data showed that 44% of adults have changed (or dropped) the religious affiliation of their birth.

We should take this into account, and acknowledge that the Ten Commandments require serious theological commitments in addition to moral obligations. In addition to maintaining a pluralism of values, we must strengthen religious pluralism. While the Commandments do appear in the Torah twice, the Rambam (responsa 263) opposes the practice of standing in synagogue for the reading of the Ten Commandments, since one might come to think that these teachings are more important than all of the other values in the Torah. Rav Ovadia Yosef (Shu”t Yechave Daat 1:29) accepts this position. Christianity may prioritize these ten, but Judaism is much broader in its commitments. Our religious values cannot adequately be expressed through statues of the Ten Commandments.

Judaism is a religion of debate, argument, and discussion, not dogma. Putting up statements about commandments flies in the face of celebrating a lived tradition. This is why it was originally prohibited to write down the Oral Torah. It should be spoken about and lived, not put onto the library shelf and archived.

The Ten Commandments debate should not be viewed as a debate between the religious and the secular. Rather, the truly religious should value religious expression that works, values the dignity of human difference, and celebrates learning and discourse over the posting of plaques.

---

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

1 Comments — Leave your comment

May 9, 2012 | 2:57 pm

The Bible and the Los Angeles Riots: Role of Religion in the Public Sphere?

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

In the 21st century, there is one primary role for religion in the public sphere: Radical Spiritual Intervention.

Riots sometimes occur when people within a community become so enraged at authority that they unleash their fury. This often overflows into an indiscriminate attack on anyone in the rioters’ path. It takes enormous courage to face this uncontrolled violence. As Fidel Lopez, an innocent victim, was being viciously beaten, cut, and burnt in the streets during the Los Angeles riots, Reverend Bennie Newton entered the dangerous streets waving a Bible in the air, warning the attackers: “Kill him, and you have to kill me, too.” Risking his life, the holy reverend saved the innocent victim’s life as the attackers backed away.

Local, state, and even national authorities can also be guilty of rioting against their own people. During the height of the civil rights struggle in 1963, nonviolent demonstrators were beaten, sprayed with fire hoses strong enough to strip bark from trees and break ribs, and bitten by attack dogs; some were even murdered. In spite of this, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., fellow members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and allied clergy (including Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel) risked their lives in staying with the movement.

One little-known episode is worth relating. On May 5, 1963, two days after the notorious use of fire hoses and attack dogs at the orders of the notorious sheriff “Bull” Connor, Birmingham civil rights demonstrators, accompanied by their clergy, came out of church dressed in their Sunday clothes. They knelt and prayed in front of the same firemen who had earlier sprayed and injured dozens of demonstrators. While the exact details have been debated, it is apparent that the moral force of the clergy and those praying had an effect on the firemen, who refused to turn their hoses on. There was no violence that day.

Religious leadership has a unique role: to carry the Bible into the streets and to protect the vulnerable. This is what Moses did when he risked his life three times to save others under attack (Exodus 2). There are complicated questions about how religious values can legitimately be appropriated in political discourse, but there is nothing complex about the role of religion in stopping brutal violence. When a woman is being raped, a homeless man beaten in the streets, a child molested, an animal abused, one must grab a Bible and enter the scene. It is not for everyone, as it may be dangerous. But there is no place where the voice of G-d is more necessary.

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

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 8, 2012 | 10:18 am

Torture, War, and bin Laden: A Jewish Perspective

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

For those of us far removed from the torture cell and battlefield, it is all too easy to be misinformed about intelligence gathering and its efficacy and morality. But to maintain our national integrity, we must all gain clarity on this crucial moral and political issue. Torture is ineffective, illegal and immoral, and it makes us less safe. It must be stopped at all levels.   

The Bush Administration argued that torture – or in the words of its officials, “enhanced interrogation techniques,” was an effective weapon in the war on terrorism. Now, one year after the anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, Jose Rodriguez, the former chief of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center during the Bush Administration, has written a book, Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives, about why he believes the United States’ use of torture enabled the capture of bin Laden. However, countless intelligence experts have agreed that torture is not an effective technique for attaining reliable information.

Senator John McCain, who was himself tortured as a prisoner during the Vietnam War, has openly challenged this: “It was not torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden.” Reuters reports that an upcoming Senate Intelligence Committee report is expected to corroborate Senator McCain’s statement. In regards to the “enhanced techniques,” Committee Chair Senator Dianne Feinstein said: “Nothing justifies the kind of procedures that were used.”

Torture is ineffective and is known to produce faulty and false confessions. Further, the U.S.’ use of torture makes us all less safe and more vulnerable, as it can inspire our enemies to commit acts of terror and use torture against our soldiers overseas. Does anyone believe that the Abu Ghraib scandal, in which photographs of American guards torturing and humiliating Iraqi men became public, made Americans safer? Why does Rodriguez, who had torture tapes destroyed supposedly to “protect” the identity of the interrogators, feel so secure in his justifications that he is going around the country and on television revealing his identity while promoting his book?

On January 22, 2009, President Obama issued an Executive Order to end torture, reaffirming that torture is illegal, a point already made by Congress in signing the U.S. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This document defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information.”

Torture inflicts the cruelest punishments, crossing all boundaries of human dignity. It is degrading to all – the perpetrator, victim, and citizens who allow it – and is a violation against God, as humans created in the “Image of God” are broken on the deepest level.

Uri L’Tzedek, the Orthodox social justice organization, has launched a prison reform campaign in the Jewish community, and we stand with the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) in solidarity with other faith leaders across the country united against any use of torture. As American faith leaders, we understand that the role of the prophetic tradition is to remind us of our absolute moral duties to honor the sacredness of human dignity.

The use of torture is against Jewish law and Jewish values. To be sure, according to Jewish law, one is permitted to defend oneself by killing an attacker if one’s life is threatened (Mishneh Torah, Rotzeach 1:6). Judaism does not oppose self-defense. But a captured prisoner is no longer in the category of attacker (rodef), and therefore, extreme measures of what would otherwise be called self-defense may not be inflicted upon a captured individual. We do not inflict cruel pain upon one individual in the hopes that we may help others. One is obligated to save the lives of others (Leviticus 19:16), but one may not do so in reckless, painful and immoral ways contrary to the value of the mitzvah (obligation) itself. Jewish law is committed to the ethics of just war -– and torture crosses the line. Judaism also teaches that humiliating another is like killing him, and that “pain is worse than death.”

Rabbi Aryeh Klapper wrote that “endorsing torture fundamentally desecrates God’s Name. The role of Judaism is to raise moral standards in the world, not to legitimate a lowest moral common denominator.” This is what torture has become, the lowest activity a human or government can engage in. It is the abuse of a helpless, trapped prisoner without quality results. It has been used by tyrannical governments throughout time, and has no place in a 21st-century democracy committed to human rights.

The great philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” We must fight evil in the world with full force, but we must be sure to never lose our souls in the process.

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

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 8, 2012 | 6:20 am

Ari Hart, Maria Corona, & Flaum: A Big Win for Worker Justice!

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

Last month I accidentally bought a barrel of Flaum pickles. My wife Shoshana’s mouth dropped when she saw it in the house, knowing that my organization Uri L’Tzedek was leading the campaign to end Flaum’s labor violations including wage theft, overtime violations, and more. We gave the pickles away to a gentleman working valet. Tonight, I would like to celebrate a massive social justice victory with a Flaum pickle.

After a 2 year campaign, Flaum Appetizing has just accepted a labor settlement that will return over half a million dollars to workers’ pockets!

Uri L’Tzedek, in partnership with the workers’ groups “Focus on the Food Chain” and Brandworkers persuaded over 120 grocery store locations nationwide to stop selling Flaum products due to the company’s wage theft.

This was, of course, not only a big victory for Uri L’Tzedek and the Orthodox Social Justice movement but also for workers around the country. Maria Corona, a Focus on the Food Chain member and Flaum worker who had been illegally fired, said, “More than anything, I want fellow workers in the food factories and warehouses to know that there is real power in coming together and struggling together. We won the respect we deserve, and they can, too.”

This Uri L’Tzedek campaign was primarily led by Rabbi Ari Hart, one of the most important Orthodox rabbis in America and one of the most effective Jewish activists in the world today. He operates like a ninja in the night, fighting for justice under the radar for the long haul. In my Los Angeles office last week, I watched him on the phone working through negotiations between various parties, delicately balancing complex, competing interests. I am deeply inspired by the change Rabbi Hart is leading.

Tonight, I would like to celebrate with a Flaum pickle. Tomorrow, it is time to collectively re-strategize the next worker injustice issue to take on until the end. Together, we can and will change the world.

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

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 4, 2012 | 7:11 pm

Is the Torah political? Thoughts on the Nature of Language

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

One of the most common and polarizing debates in America today is about the relationship between religion and politics. To what extent should church and state be separate? Should our religious values and principles influence the way we participate in civil society, and should our texts and laws inform how we vote? These questions assume that religion and politics are completely separate entities, a notion this article will challenge. Is it, perhaps, that the Torah not only addresses the political but is fundamentally political?

The Language of the Torah

The rabbis of the Talmud explained that the Torah was not revealed in a perfect Divine language but in an imperfect human language, so that it could properly be understood (dibrah Torah k’lashon b’nei adam), (Sanhedrin 64b, Yerushalmi Shabbat 19:2). For the rabbis, the origin of the Torah is Divine, but when revealed in the language of humans it enters the same subjective mind and world as ordinary language. This invariably renders perfect interpretation or textual consistency impossible. This is not a hermeneutical problem unique to Torah. Rather, we understand in modernity that our mystical insights and psychological depth can never adequately be captured in language. Human experience is more profound than human language. Our primary grasp of the Divine, albeit elusive, is experiential and beyond the capacity of language. Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch explains the importance of this concept “dibrah Torah k’lashon b’nei adam:

“Jewish scholarship has never regarded the Bible as a textbook for physical or even abstract doctrines. In its view the main emphasis of the Bible is always on the ethical and social structure and development of life on earth; that is, on the observance of laws through which the momentous events of our nation’s history are converted from abstract truths into concrete convictions. That is why Jewish scholarship regards the Bible as speaking consistently in “human language;” the Bible does not describe things in terms of objective truths known only to God, but in terms of human understanding, which is, after all, the basis for human language and expression.” (Collected Writings vol. 7 p. 57)

A politician knows how to speak to a crowd and engage each different faction with his message. “Come and see how the voice went forth to all of Israel, to each and every one in keeping with his particular capacity to the elderly in keeping with their capacity, to young men in keeping with their capacity, to the little ones in keeping with their capacity, and to the women in keeping with their capacity. As it is said, ‘Moses spoke and G-d answered him with ‘a voice that he would have been able to withstand’” (Exodus Rabbah 5:9). G-d is the ultimate master of language and can speak to each individual’s particular language.

Baruch Spinoza argued that the Torah was political and thus it no longer had authority once the Jews lost political sovereignty. This is not the Jewish approach and we must rediscover what it means to be a religious-political people again both in the homeland and diaspora. 

The Torah was given to be interpreted, to spread debate and argument over interpretation. The rabbis, the great interpreters of the Torah, created factions. Textual interpretation became a politically charged process. Perhaps, given the fragmented nature of the Jewish people in the 21st century, today’s rabbinic establishments are more political than they have ever been.
While the Torah is holy and elevated, the rabbis teach that the language of the Torah is regular human language. Thus, a philosophy of language that is true for secular language can also be true for religious language. So we may ask, what is the relationship between language and politics?

What is politics?

In the narrowest sense, politics is concerned with government. In the broader sense, politics refers to power dynamics in social relationships. When humans interact, their various interests interact. Individuals attempt to influence one another so that their wants and needs will be met. This can be achieved through force, coercion, persuasion, request, or various other means. These power dynamics can be found not only in government but in academia, business, the non-profit world, and everyday social life. Rather than always being “dirty and corrupt,” politics is an inevitable part of our everyday lives. It is not bad that life is political but merely the inevitable nature of existence in a world of complexity.

The Nature of Language: Is Language Political?

Scholars in linguistic anthropology, applied linguistics, and sociolinguistics have maintained that language is political. John E. Joseph has added that language and politics are dependent
upon one another. Joseph states: “It is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal” (Language and Politics, 2). Joseph believes that language originated from the expression of human needs and the desire to create friends and allies to achieve one’s goals. In addition, the birth of language was also the birth of politics:

1) languages themselves are constructed out of practices of speech and writing, and the beliefs (or ‘ideologies’) of those doing the speaking and writing; 2) my language is shaped by who it is that I am speaking to, and by how my relationship with them will be affected by what I say; 3) the politics of identity shapes how we interpret what people say to us, so much so as to be a prime factor in our deciding on the truth value of their utterances.

Joseph explains that politics occurs wherever there is an unequal distribution of power and where human behaviors are altered by the present power dynamics. He suggests that we use language to navigate our social existence within a political world, based on these five dimensions of relationship between language and politics:

•      The politics of different ways of speaking
•      The politics of talking to others
•      The politics of what “the language” is
•      The politics of which language to speak
•      The politics of policing the language

Joseph argues that language is inherently political, as it is linked to identity, standardization, nationhood, and propaganda. Even if a speaker or writer has no political motivations per se, the utterance is still capable of being received as having political intent or meaning. When we observe applied linguistics, we can see the socio-political manifestations of language.
Jean-Louis Dessalles , a French scholar of the evolution of language, also argues that the birth of language was due to the needs of political coalitions.

We humans speak because change profoundly modified the social organization of our ancestors. In order to survive and procreate they found themselves needing to form coalitions of a considerable size. Language then appeared as a means for individuals to display their value as members of a coalition (331–332).

Stephen May explains that for too long, linguistics ” has been preoccupied with idealist, abstracted approaches to the study of language … in isolation from the social and political conditions in which it is used.” This neglect of historic and political factors has also afflicted the field of sociolinguistics, “despite its emphasis on the social, and of many discussions of LP [language policy] as well” (255).

In a hermeneutical act, we choose how we interpret the world, an experience, a person, or a text. This is a willed experience. Since all language is communicative, even a passive observer changes the observed. All language affects a listener and demands an interpretation. Language thus affects society as a whole through the construction of new realities.
Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his earlier years, believed that language had a purely analytical and logical nature. But his views evolved and he later argued that language is always embedded and can only be understood in relation to its context. John Austin and John Searle wrote of “speech acts,” since language cannot be understood outside of its context. Language is not eternally true but contextual.

Friedrich Nietzsche and Michel Foucault taught that we must be a part of a process of genealogy, or analysis, to uncover the historical relationship between knowledge, truth, and power. While truth and knowledge are often presented as being of a universal and eternal nature, they are actually produced through the struggles within and between institutions and disciplines of thought. Foucault explains that we gain “power-knowledge” when we make sense of ourselves and become subjects through the acquisition of knowledge. No individual or group holds power; power is, rather, a complex flow between different groups and relationships throughout society. This dynamic set of relations change with circumstances and time. Foucault, based upon Nietzsche, explains that “the will to power” is the notion that our social rules, discourses, sets of meaning, and truths do not merely emerge naturally but are produced to support particular groups and causes. All truth is political, since it is formed through power struggles.

Whereas Martin Heidegger critiqued “modernity” for forgetting the importance of being, postmodern philosophers have argued that it is language that has been forgotten. “Language” does not refer to English, Spanish, Hebrew, etc., but to the system of differences. The way we think and speak is conditioned by the particular “language” in which we dwell, the pattern of distinctions and connections that makes up our particular human experience. Language is neither objective nor commonly understood, but is subjective and tied to context and experience. In postmodernity, one is aware of the deconstructiveness of all systems of meaning and truth (i.e., the ability to understand language and truth in its context and system of power). Jacques Derrida is concerned with temporality and the effects of time on language, arguing that language is tied up in nets of identities and difference. Language can never describe the transcendental moves related to presence or absence since they are atemporal and outside the bounds of language, and anything outside of language we cannot speak about. Relational dynamics are the constitutive character of language.

In the structuralist tradition of linguistics, thinkers such as Ferdinand de Sassure and Roman Jakobson point out that language is only intelligible as part of an overarching structure. Words are signifiers that do not intrinsically point to the idea or thing being signified but are arbitrary signs that only make sense given the entire web of language.
Still another modern thinker, Noam Chomsky, taught that there is a “Universal Grammar,” the set of innate principles that serve as a foundation for all languages. However, some have misunderstood this to mean that languages are natural objects born out of mind. Chomsky meant this for the linguistic knowledge of individuals, but he has denied that it holds true for languages in general. Rather, languages are historical constructs born out of a political process.

The limitations of language can be exploited. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proposes that the language we speak affects the way we think. Edward Sapir described language as an “art,” and the power to shape language belongs to those most adept at foreseeing which forms will meet with approval. Psychologist Steven Pinker argues that people’s thoughts are determined by the categories available by their language. Further, Quentin Skinner teaches that the human capacity is limited by our language capacity, as our language constrains our thoughts. 

The Choices of “Correct Language”

Who chooses if Ebonics is correct, or if Yiddish is appropriate? Who decides if a new word makes it into the dictionary and how it becomes defined?
Erving Goffman, in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, discusses how everyday social interactions, including spoken dialogues, are “theatrical performances” used to negotiate various stigmas. These “theatrical performances” of language often have direct effects on policy, enabling one faction to win.

All language has political implications. Race was not important ideologically in the 1700s, but within 300 years the discourse had turned to the idea that blacks were born to be slaves. This, of course, has had long-lasting political implications.

Aristotle argues that “man is by nature a political animal” (Politics I, 2)  Rambam, following the reasoning of Aristotle, teaches that man is naturally a political and social being who seeks to form factions, classes, and communities (Guide for the Perplexed 2:40). All of our acts, not only our language, are political! Who determines which word choices are “politically correct” and which are not? It is not insignificant when we choose (or reject) language that our society tells us is not “politically correct.” Whether one refers to an individual as an “illegal alien” or a “domestic worker” is a political choice that represents very different values.

Two examples can illustrate how politics affects language. Russia, from the time of ancient Rus and its communal village land (the “mir,” which also means “peace”) through the Soviet period, has been a collective society. Even today, translators find it almost impossible to adequately express the word “privacy” in Russian. On the other hand, in the United States, where individualism has often been promoted over any obligation toward social welfare, Social Security, which used to be called (accurately) an old-age pensions system, is now referred to as an “entitlement,” which gives the false impression that it is a handout that an austere government has every right to cut.

George Orwell, in his seminal essay “Politics and the English Language,” critiqued the political use of language that seeks to conceal and not express meaning. He explained that we must learn to speak more clearly since this “is a necessary step toward political regeneration.” Aware that all language is political he admits: “Look back through this essay and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against.” We all make word choices that conceal rather than merely express.

The Divine engaged in “politics”

That G-d is referred to in masculine in the Torah has been described as a political choice. Words inevitably have values based upon their historical usage and current connotation.
If a nation is necessarily political, then when G-d names and designates a nation, is G-d creating a political faction? Further, since the choice of an audience is a political decision, is the Torah a message only for the Jews, or for the world? Is G-d the ultimate Divine politician trying to persuade constituents to abandon other candidates and vote exclusively for Him? The Jewish people, through our holy book, are broken up into coalitions, separations, and given unique designations. To deny the political nature to our tradition is to neglect the significance of those Divine value choices.

But Isn’t There an Apolitical Torah Somewhere?

The Torah primarily addresses issues of this world and so its essence is political. However, there is a spiritual and transcendental aspect to Torah as well that should not be overlooked. There are spiritual values that enable human transcendence from earthly concerns and G-d does, of course, have the capacity to use apolitical language. This is the primordial language that was used to create worlds. Human language, however, is a self-interested construct.

Perhaps only the rare apolitical use of human language exists within a space of love where one truly transcends oneself for another. Here, an other-interested language rather than a self-interested language is used, but this must be a very deep love-act. Ethics, justice, and politics are reserved for the public sphere since society is the primary concern of Torah. But love and care are uniquely reserved for intimate relationships. In a relationship of intimate love and care, language can have transcendental moments beyond the laden dimension of politics. This is an important part of the great miracle of human love.

Conclusion

What are the political implications of embracing language and all religion as political? The implication is that we transition from false notions of politics as solely partisan (e.g., Republican or Democrat, for or against a proposal or piece of legislation). We confuse ourselves and deceive others when we claim we are apolitical because we do not reveal our political party. Rather, as humans, our word choices engage a political process of conveying a meaning that attempts to connect with and persuade others. Even altruistic words and actions are persuasive, since politics is not only about intent, but impact. By embracing the Torah and G-d as a political act, we not only learn how to hold ourselves accountable for our language, we also raise the bar on the significance of our word choices. Where there is human difference, there is a need to clarify intentions. Where there is human want, there is a need to fulfill desires. Where there is human interaction, there are the politics of collaboration and competition, solidarity and combat, understanding and confusion. Onkeles claims that it is language that makes a being uniquely human. Embracing the reality that language has a political nature should inspire humility. We can remember our human limitations and how our language is self-interested and value-driven.

The Chofetz Chaim suggests that we must become so careful with our language that we perhaps should not even comment on whether we like the color of an object we observe, since we may offend a listener who owns something with this color. All Language affects others within a complex web of meaning. May we learn to use this capacity wisely in our complex world.
The Torah not only must address the most pressing political issues of our time, the Torah itself is political. When we embrace the Torah’s political choices, we can respond to contemporary political issues with more Jewish integrity.

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

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 29, 2012 | 7:47 am

Caged and Traumatized: A Closer Look at the Egg Industry

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Comments — Leave your comment

April 27, 2012 | 6:42 am

The Health Risks of Meat Consumption

Posted by Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Comments — Leave your comment