Author: Rabbi Konigsburg

by

13-5770 Mitzvah N-75

Torah Emet
13-5770 Mitzvah N-75
February 15, 2010

Negative Mitzvah 75 – This is a negative commandment: A court cannot accept testimony from a man of sin.

Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “You shall not set your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness” (Ex. 23:1) – if one unqualified witness knows that the other one is wicked while the judges do not recognize his sinfulness, he is forbidden to give testimony with the other – even true testimony – on account of the prohibition, “You shall not set your hand with the wicked.” There is no need to add that if he knows that the second witness is going to give false testimony, he is forbidden to testify with the other. It applies everywhere, in every time.

Proper courtroom procedure in a Jewish court demands that there must be two witnesses to a crime of any kind in order for the court to proceed with a verdict. Our issues here relate to one of the witnesses to the crime. A court is not allowed to accept testimony from a wicked person. Usually this is defined as someone who is a known criminal, trickster, swindler, perjurer, robber or gambler. A tax collector, who is not paid a salary but gets a percentage of the taxes he collects (perhaps what we might call a bill collector) is also considered untrustworthy. Jewish law does not consider them honest enough to give testimony as they may try and sell their account to one who will pay them for saying what may not be true. Thus if one witness is a known wicked person, then the court just will not accept the testimony and they will have to find a different, more honest witness.

But our case is that of the court which does not know that one of the two witnesses is a wicked man and his testimony is not to be trusted. The other witness, who may be qualified to give testimony, does know the background of the other witness and knows that he is unqualified; if this is the case, the true witness must not testify in court, even if he knows that his own testimony is true. Why? Because if the other witness is found to be lying there could be an assumption that the true witness was lying as well. Or that the lying witness will be believed and the true witness will be considered to be a liar. Our true witness does not want to be associated with the wicked man and therefore must refuse to testify in order that the qualifications of the other witness be examined before testimony is given and the wicked man is exposed. Even if the wicked man may intend to offer true testimony, he is not to be allowed to testify. If the true witness knows that the wicked man intends to give false testimony, then certainly he must not testify with the wicked man.

The laws of witnesses also do not allow the testimony of a woman, since she was considered to be under the influence of her husband or family, or was too easily threatened to testify falsely. In the ancient world, this may have been true. In our day and age, when women are free agents in society, their testimony should be considered generally as trustworthy and this law would not apply to one who refuses to testify

by

I Fought the Law and the Law Won

Parshat Mishpatim – Torah Study

Text:
א וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם.
And these are the rules you shall set before them.

Commentary:
A. Knowledge of the law is to be the privilege and the obligation of the entire people, not the prerogative of specialists or of an elite class. [Etz Hayyim Torah commentary, p. 456 on our verse]

B. Rabbi taught: Be as attentive to a minor mitzvah as to a major one, for you do not know the reward for each of the mitzvot. [Talmud, Mishna Avot 2:1]

C. Our tradition has always understood that “mitzvah” embraces a range of meanings broader than “commandment” alone. This is certainly true of popular Jewish usage of the word mitzvah. In common usage the word is generally understood as “good deed.” JTS renders our key term as “instructions” that were “enjoined upon” the Israelites and not only as “commandments” that they were “commanded.” The range of meanings demanded by our tradition’s use of the word over the centuries and to the present day is broader still. Those meanings include, but are not limited to, actions that we feel obligated to perform, that engage us, that we are responsible for, that we undertake out of love.
We must know what we as Jews are committed to do and why we do it before we tackle the more complex and difficult issues of halakhah. Conservative Jews have long debated, and still do, in what sense we are a “halakhic movement.” Heschel—who liked to speak about the “polarity of halakhah and aggadah”—taught fifty years ago that we cannot begin to think about the matter of halakhah unless we have first gotten clear on mitzvah. Our intention is that this discussion of mitzvah will lead naturally to that one. [JTS Mitzvah Initiative, from the JTSA.edu website]
D. A loving parent does not show genuine love by telling a child, “Do whatever you want.” That would not indicate love, but lack of concern and responsibility. The truly loving parent says, “I care very much about you and although I cannot live your life for you, I want you to have the benefit of my experience.”Judaism is a religion of love because it does not leave people to find the way unaided. [Harold Kushner in “Likrat Shabbat”siddur by Sydney Greenberg]
Questions:
1. What does the word “Mitzvah” mean to you? Is it a command that you “must” do? If not, how do you approach the mitzvot in the Torah? Are they “good deeds”? “laws”? “suggestions”? Are mitzvot the most important part of Judaism? What might be more important?

2. If someone on the street told you that your shirt was ugly would you pay attention to him/her? If your spouse told you it was ugly, what would your reaction be? If a stranger told you not to steal, would you pay attention? If he assured you of a severe punishment would you then pay attention? If your parent told you not to steal would you pay attention? If God tells you not to steal would you pay attention? What role does the punishment play in observing mitzvot?

3. Why do we think that there are some mitzvot more important than others? How do we relate to the mitzvah of honoring parents that is different from shatnez (prohibited clothing made of mixtures of wool and flax)? Honoring parents comes with a reward (long life); does that make a difference? Why or why not?

by

Adon Olam

I recently came across an essay by Rabbi David Hartman, from a few years ago, from a speech he gave in Los Angeles, CA. In speaking about the covenant that God made with the People of Israel, Rabbi Hartman gave three examples of how God views the covenant as one of love and not of authoritarianism. The first example he gave is from the dialogue between God and Abraham just before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is a telling moment that begins with God asking the question (to whom?) if God should share the divine plan for the cities with his servant Abraham. The fact that God even bothers to share the information with a “servant” is telling, but the story goes on. Abraham insists that God not destroy the righteous with the wicked. Abraham is not quoting a Biblical verse, or a halacha from some other source. There is this innate understanding in Abraham, it is his own “moral intuition” that brings him to question God’s actions. Then the bargaining begins. Why doesn’t God tell Abraham to stop his prayers since there are not even ten righteous people in the city? God must love the confrontation with his “partner” who feels morally strong enough to critique God.

The second example is from the Talmud. Rabbi Hartman notes that when God tries to intervene in the deliberations over the oven of Akhnai, Rabbi Joshua rebukes God saying, “Lo bashamayim hi!” “It is not in Heaven”. Halacha is a human invention based on what we know of what God has given us. God decided what would be in the Torah, now we get to decide what will be Halacha. In the Academy we get to tell God to be quiet and not interrupt our deliberations. Outside the Academy, what right do we have to criticize how God runs the world? We silence God in the house of study, God silences us when we confront the incomprehensible in our world.

Rabbi Hartman’s third example is the crossing of the Red Sea. This miracle is the paradigm of all miracles of God acting in history. Since the destruction of the Second Temple, we have been waiting for the next miracle, the arrival of the Messiah. That is why there were so many who opposed Zionism for trying to force God to redeem our exile and bring us back to our land. They thought that Zionism was a rejection of tradition. Instead, Zionism was an act of covenantal empowerment. We chose to learn agriculture, banking, and self defense and bring about our own redemption. We take responsibility for our own history. It was our own initiative that ended Jewish homelessness.


According to Rabbi Hartman, we should not be asking God to solve our problems, we should seek instead that God should be with us. He writes, “Therefore, for me, the spiritual moment in contemporary Jewish history is a covenant of love. Here, reward and punishment cannot work anymore in the modern world, because we have other forms of gratification and other ways of creating obedience to the law. God is now sought not because of a function but because God is God.”

In the struggle to understand what a “Conservative Jew” really is, much of our movement has gone off in a wrong direction. We have struggled with the concept of Halacha and observance, when to me; the real issue is if we have something to offer modern Jews. I can worry about those who are tied to the law and will not vary an inch, and those who are so unattached to Judaism that they don’t care anymore what God or humans have to say. This is what I worry about because I am a pulpit Rabbi and these two poles describe many in my congregation. But when I think about who I am, and what I am looking for in the world, Conservative Judaism teaches that in this covenant of love between God and humanity, we have to be responsible for this world and for what goes on here. God wants and expects us to struggle, argue, and ponder all the messiness of life and then do what we can do with what God has given us, to make this world better: To continue the process of Creation by striving to bring order out of chaos.

The God that many people seek is the God who tells Adam and Eve how to live their life and then punishes them with exile when they disobey. It is the God who destroys the world with a flood, saving Noah, so that humans will be better to each other. It is the God who confounds the languages of the people of Babel, when they decide to build a tower to heaven so they can wage war with God. I think they are looking for the wrong God. The Torah itself seems to teach us that God understands that this kind of a power arrangement does not work. Punishment does not make people obey. Destruction does not induce humanity to be kind to each other. (How else can you interpret Gen. 8:21?) God can confound the languages of the earth but people still seek to “wage war” against God.

So God chooses a different path. Out of the blue, God picks Abraham to begin a covenant that will guide just one nation (There are seventy nations in the Torah, Abraham is promised to be nation seventy-one). A covenant based not on punishment or anger, but on love. God gives us the tools we need and then nudges us from time to time with big ideas that help us move our society along. God does not want us to be perfect. God only wants us to keep trying to make ourselves and our world better. From time to time we silence God for interfering with our struggle (“Mother please, I’d rather do it myself!”) and sometimes God tells us to be silent if we complain that God is not helping us enough. (“You made your bed, now go lie in it.”) We wait for God’s miraculous redemption at our own peril. WE are the redemptive force in the world and through our actions we will tame the chaos and bring order to our messy world. Sometimes the Halacha will not fit into the system we created as well as we would like. But if our innate sense of Justice is anything like our ancestor Abraham’s, Halacha or not, we will keep trying to do the right thing. Maybe we will discover that in spite of our best hopes, things are not as good as we think they should be but we will learn from our mistakes and pick ourselves up and get back to work.

And God will love us anyway,

Forever.

by

12-5770 Mitzvah N-73-74

Torah Emet
12-5770 Mitzvah N-73-74
February 7, 2010

Negative Mitzvah 73 – This is a negative commandment: Testimony can not be established as certain by the word of one witness.

Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “a single witness shall not stand up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin.” (Deut. 19:15) – which means to impose punishment on the word of one witness. It applies everywhere, in every time.

Negative Mitzvah 74 – This is a negative commandment: A court can not accept the testimony of a close relative.

Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “Fathers shall not be put to death through children.” (Deut. 24:16) Which means through the testimony of the children; and the law is the same for other near relatives.

Proper courtroom procedure in a Jewish court demands that there must be two witnesses to a crime of any kind in order for the court to proceed with a verdict. It should also be noted that the minimum number of judges in any case was three. The three judges could not proceed with a trial of any kind unless there were two witnesses who would appear in the court. Judges might be able to try a case with less than three if one of the judges was considered an expert in the area about which the trial would be judged. But one does not rely on only one witness in any case. Testimony must be corroborated by a different witness.

As far as I know, the only case where one witness was accepted was in testimony regarding the death of a person at sea. Without this testimony a wife would have to remain married to a missing person because the man was not present to grant her a divorce. If a witness came along and testified to the satisfaction of the judges, that the person had died at sea (if on land, there would be a grave to visit and others to testify about the death and burial; at sea, there might be no grave and no burial) the court might accept that testimony and the wife would be permitted to move on with her life. This exception proves our rule; to have a trial and to announce a verdict, it must be based on the testimony of no less than two witnesses.

The second Mitzvah in this pair teaches us that relatives cannot testify at a trial. This would restrict relatives of the litigants, relatives of the witnesses and relatives of the judges could not offer testimony in a trial. This rule ran both ways. It prevented relatives from having to testify against close family members against their will and it prevented the relatives from giving false testimony to exonerate their relatives. Having a relative testify in court implies huge conflicts of interest. The Torah only speaks about children testifying on behalf or against their father. The later Sages included a large number of other near relatives who are not permitted to testify on anything in court. These laws help avoid the appearance of injustice in Jewish courts.

by

11-5770 Mitzvah N-72

Torah Emet
11-5770 Mitzvah N-72
February 1, 2010

Negative Mitzvah 72 – This is a negative commandment: A judge should have no fear of any party to a lawsuit.

Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “you shall not be afraid of the presence of any man.” (Deut. 1:17). Even if a man on trial is powerful, he should not be afraid of him that he may harm him. Now, as long as the judge does not know in which direction justice tends in the case, he can remove himself from the judgment, saying, “I am not bound to you [to have to try your case].” But from the time he hears their statements and knows which way the justice tends to lie in the case, he has no right to remove himself because he fears one of them, that he may injure him. Included in this is the rule that if a disciple is sitting before his master (when the master is trying a case) and he sees a point in favor of a poor man and to the disadvantage of a rich man, and he remains silent, he violates this prohibition. It applies everywhere, in every time.

As long as there have been judges, there have been those who seek to pervert justice by intimidating the court. Herod tried it with the Sanhedrin, showing up in court with a company of armed soldiers. Powerful and rich men sometimes try and get all the justice that they can buy. No matter what the cost, it seems that buying a judge, for some, is just part of doing business. It is all too often the case in many corrupt countries where the judges are not honored nor paid a living wage that they resort to taking bribes because the judges think that nobody important will care if they pervert justice.

Our Mitzvah tells us that even if nobody else cares if justice is bought, God cares. God looks out for those who are oppressed and if they are oppressed through corruption of courts, then God will look out for them and see to it that they get justice. If the judge is afraid for his life, then God will defend that judge as long as justice is assured. A judge must be fearless in dispensing justice.

There are times when a judge should not render a verdict. In cases where the judge is related, indebted or invested in one of the litigants, then the judge should recognize that even if they are committed to justice, there is an appearance that justice has been perverted. Therefore the judge should refuse the case from the beginning. If there is any relationship between a judge and one of the litigants, then the judge should refuse the case so there will be no question when the verdict is rendered. According to our Mitzvah, once the trial has begun, and testimony has started, the judge can no longer remove himself from the case since it would appear that he is afraid of the verdict and wishes to avoid the threat from one of the litigants. He would then be in violation of this Mitzvah.

I can see that once testimony begins and the judge realizes that he has a relationship with one of the litigants that the judge was not aware of, that they are both invested in the same partnership or the litigant is a silent partner in some venture in which the judge has a vested interest, as soon as this is discovered, the judge should step down from the case. Otherwise, once the case has started, the judge must see it through to the end.

This Mitzvah would apply if a litigant threatened the judge bodily or financially. Justice must be dispensed fearlessly.

In the final part, the student of a judge is listening to the testimony being given to his master/teacher and realizes that a point of law has not been brought up in the case that would clearly tilt the verdict from favoring a rich man to favoring a poor man. If the student does not speak up on behalf of the poor man, that student is guilty of violating this Mitzvah since we assume that he refuses to speak up because he fears the rich man.

For there to be true justice, then justice must be fearless

by

Don’t’ Stop Thinking About Tomorrow

Sermon Parshat Beshallach

2010–01–26

Shabbat Shalom

The story in this week’s parsha is not only about the epic battle between Pharaoh and Moses, but it is also about Moses leading the people of Israel. Ancient Israelites are not all that different from Jewish communities today. New things made them uncomfortable and they keep looking back, with nostalgia, about how good life was in Egypt.

But let us take a closer look at the story of the crossing of the sea . We all know the script: Pharaoh regrets letting the slaves go. He sends out the Egyptian army in pursuit. The army catches up with Israel and we find them trapped between the approaching army and the sea. The People of Israel are terrified. There is danger in every direction. Moses, Aaron and leadership of the tribes are not sure what they are supposed to do. One brave man, Nachshon ben Aminadav, leader of the tribe of Judah, and the brother in law of Aaron, moves forward and he enters the sea. The people then behold the greatest miracle of them all; the sea parts offering an escape for the Israelites.

But the people are still scared. Do you remember the movie, “The Ten Commandments?” As the waters part in the movie the people are filled with awe, but their faces also show they are very sacred. They start across hesitantly, looking over their shoulders at the advancing Egyptian army. With fear and trembling, they leave Egypt for the other side of the sea. But when they emerge on the other side, there is great relief; there is joy; music, singing and dancing. For that day, there was happiness in being saved and seeing the dreaded army of Egypt suddenly destroyed.

That is not only a story from our past; it is a paradigm for the future. The way into the future often starts with terror about unknowns, with danger in every direction. We are very happy to keep the things in our life the same and we only get up and go when there is no other choice. We get comfortable until we become too scared to stay in one place any longer.

This is true of ancient Israel, it is true right here in the United States of America in this age of Change, and it is true of Temple Emeth. There are challenges facing our congregation, issues that threaten not only our financial health, but the very existence of our community. It has been reported in our local newspapers, not just our congregation, but all senior congregations are in serious trouble. Membership is falling, synagogue membership is aging and younger members live elsewhere and, if they attend synagogue at all, they attend elsewhere. The research today shows that Jews want to live in communities with a mix of young and older families and they want their synagogues to have that same mix of members.

We are comfortable where we are, but we easily see that Egypt is attacking. We cannot survive as a community, as a congregation if we stand still. Look at some of the sister congregations around us. Deerfield Beach has merged with Habad to save itself. Coconut Creek and Margate are shrinking very quickly. There are no new or younger leaders willing to take on the issues. The established leadership has no one to whom to pass the leadership mantle.

We could just give up; we could just let it all fade away as the population of King’s Point slowly becomes less and less Jewish. Our membership continues to slowly decline, and the economy is not helping us either. More and more Jews are asking themselves if membership in a synagogue is worth the expense. Should we just close our doors? Just what do we have to offer new members that they can not get elsewhere, in their community clubhouse, in the local strip malls or on the street?

I was not brought to Delray Beach to oversee the end of Temple Emeth. We have some unique strengths that can help us not only weather this crisis but emerge, in just a few years, stronger and better. We don’t need to change what we are doing, we only need to expand the opportunities in our congregation to welcome those who still long for a Jewish spiritual experience.

Conservative Jews in Delray will need to work together to create a strong community. I am sure you have heard many rumors about merger talks between our congregation and Anshei Shalom. There are plenty of differences between our congregations, big differences, but the reality is that we need each other. Talks between our congregations may be long and difficult at times, but I am hopeful that we can find a way to work together to create a stronger community.

Over the past years, we have fallen behind other Conservative congregations. Everyone who visits us from the north is surprised to find we are using old siddurim and old humashim. These are books that other congregations replaced 30 years ago. The prayers in our siddurim have not changed all that much but the world around us has changed a lot. Since the siddur we used was published, there have been new prayers written about the Holocaust, Israel, and the reunification of Jerusalem. There are even prayers for the secular holidays that we celebrate in this country. Contemporary siddurim include women and those who convert to Judaism in our prayers. Prayers are translated using the same English that we use. Thanks to Shirley and Vernon Leopold, we will be dedicating new siddurim just before Pesach.

The Jewish community is very large and includes all kinds of Jews. That is why we need to make our community and our synagogue a very big tent. We may need to have alternative minyanim meeting here on Shabbat. Some Jews want a smaller egalitarian minyan run entirely by lay leaders. There are others in our community who will want a non-egalitarian minyan because they are not comfortable with full participation by women. Perhaps we need a learners’ minyan where people can go to learn to pray. Our tent has to be big enough to include all who need to express their thanks to God. One size no longer fits all daveners. We need to let people know that all are welcome here. One congregation that embraces all.

Our parties for holidays, our Shabbat dinners and our entertaining shows attract an audience of members and non-members that are very important to what Temple Emeth is all about. These must continue. But we also need new programming that will reach out to those who do not need a congregation for their social life. What do they need? They need programs of social action. The Jews we seek to join us are busy all day long, but not with anything of any substance. Their lives are a mile wide but only an inch deep. I spoke about this on Rosh Hashana and some came up to me and said, “I am too old to do social action anymore, leave that to the younger people.” And that is exactly right. We need to attract younger people by offering them ways to find meaning in their lives through rolling up their sleeves and getting to work. We are organizing two new social action groups now, and with God’s help, we will have more as the year goes by.

It is well documented that over the last ten years, Jews join synagogues for three reasons: to pray, to do meaningful acts of hesed and to learn about their heritage. I happen to love our Adult Education program. It is varied and unique in the community. I would not change any class that we offer. We just need to offer more. Young retirees and empty nesters are looking to find a personal place in Jewish Learning. The local office of the Seminary now offers adult classes in people’s homes. These are serious text classes. Habad also offers them in the conference rooms of downtown law and real estate firms. They can’t open these classes fast enough. We also too need to take our text classes, in Bible, Talmud and Ethics into the homes, offices and conference rooms where Jews are hungry for learning. Just as my daughter Ashira last week taught Torah to this congregation, we need to bring that teaching into the communities that surround us with home study groups and maybe even some business study groups. If we invite our neighbors to join us in the serious study of Jewish texts, it is only a matter of time before they will join us in prayer and social action as well.

The Talmud teaches that the world stands on three things, Torah, Avoda and gemilut hasadim. All the surveys that have studied why some congregations grow and why some die seem to hinge on these three things. The Teaching of Torah, meaningful services and acts of kindness to others. Adult Education, a prayer environment that offers choices to all who search for God and social action projects are what we need to add to our congregational menu to bring in the very people we need so much to move our community forward. It is not about “changing everything we have always done” because what we need is not to “reform” the congregation, nor to “reconstruct” the congregation. What we need is to expand what we are doing to make Jews who are lost and searching, welcome in our community.

We are in a unique position to make all of this a success. We have a community that is more than just condominiums. We have many mixed neighborhoods filled with many Jews who are seeking a spiritual home. When this economy recovers, we will be in a city where there will be plenty of building, both to our west and to our east; west of the turnpike and east into the neighborhoods of downtown and east Delary. From Yamato Road to Woolbright, from the ocean to 441, Temple Emeth can emerge stronger and better over the next five to ten years. Yes there will be some changes, but there will also be much that is the same.

The people of Israel were the same people on the Sinai side of the Red sea as they were on the Egyptian side. The difference was, now they were free from all their fears. The future may always be uncertain, but at that moment, as yesterday’s problems drowned in the sea, they joyfully danced and sang. So too we must leave our fears of the past behind and face what the future holds. There will be plenty of difficult decisions to make and yes, we will probably pine for the “good old days” when we had thousands of members. But our future calls for a community of young and old alike, working to make Judaism and the world a better place.

And that is something to sing and dance about.

Shabbat Shalom

by

10-5770 Mitzvah N-71

Torah Emet
10-5770 Mitzvah N-71
January 24, 2010

Negative Mitzvah 71 – This is a negative commandment: A judge should not accept a bribe.

Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “And you shall take no bribe” (Ex. 23:8). Even to render a true judgment a judge must not accept a bribe. The judge is duty bound to return it. And even a bribe of words (flattery) is forbidden. Whoever gives it violates the prohibition against putting a stumbling block before the blind (see Lev. 19:14; we will cover this in a few weeks) As for payment for being idled, since it is evident that he is interrupted from his work while he is occupied with the judgment, it is permissible for him to take a fee from both litigants equally.

Almost every legal system forbids a judge to accept a bribe. Unfortunately, this is a law that all too often is honored in the breach. The very essence of a corrupt society is that it looks the other way when a judge accepts a bribe. Once justice can be bought, it is only a matter of time before all officials of the government can be bribed and soon all members of society are only looking out for themselves, and getting what they want, to the detriment of those who do not have the money or the clout to buy the correct decision.

There are some interesting extensions of this law as described above. While it notes that a judge must return a bribe, it is also a part of the legal system, should a judge accept the bribe inadvertently. That is, he takes a gift from a friend only to discover the next day or so that the friend is appearing before him in court. In this case the gift must be returned and the judge may recluse himself because there may still be the appearance that he has been tainted by the bribe (or the friendship). This is true even if the judge is being bribed to give the “correct” verdict. If the judge is ready to rule and then there is an attempt by a litigant to “pay” for that same verdict, the judge still cannot accept the bribe since it still gives the appearance that the verdict has been “bought”. This law also applies if the bribe is words of flattery. The judge must not accept anything that could, in any way, affect the verdict of the case.

In a few weeks we will see that the one who attempts to bribe a judge is also guilty of a sin, if for no other reason, he is attempting to make the judge sin. This reflects a cynical view that any person has their “price”, that is, if we give them enough money, they will do whatever we request. This may or may not be true in every case, for there are honest people who will always resist this kind of bribe; but the law does not rely on it. It is a sin to offer the bribe as it is a sin to accept it.

The final clause deals with court costs. Jewish courts really don’t cost the litigants at all. Justice is not only blind, but it must be open to all no matter how much they can pay. The court would meet in the market or at the city gate and the rabbis would sit in judgment and rule on any case that was brought to their location. We do have to remind ourselves that rabbis, in ancient times, were not paid to be rabbis. Jewish law forbids making a crown out of Torah. Rabbis are not to be paid for their services. Rabbis in the ancient world all had jobs; some were landowners and farmers, others had occupations that involved skilled or unskilled labor. This work was their sole means of support. If a case would take along time, the rabbis on the court would be away from their jobs for a long time. This would mean that they would suffer a financial loss. To prevent this potential loss from limiting the ability of a rabbi to adjudicate a case, the litigants could be required to equally pay for the time the rabbis sit in judgment.

Courts of law are crucial to creating a civilized society. Bribes are one of the main ways the law can be subverted; thus it is a serious crime to accept a bribe.

by

9-5770 Mitzvah N-69; 70

Torah Emet
9-5770 Mitzvah N-69; 70
January 18, 2010

Negative Mitzvah 69 – This is a negative commandment: Do not be unjust in rendering justice.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “You shall do no injustice in judgment” (Lev. 19:15). This means not to declare the guilty innocent or the innocent guilty. Included in this prohibition is the rule not to delay the verdict. After it has become evident to the judge where justice lies, if he dwells at length on clear matters in order to cause one of the litigants distress, this is in the general category of injustice.

Negative Mitzvah 70 – This is a negative commandment: Do not show honor to an eminent man in a court judgment.
 Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “nor shall you favor the person of the mighty (Lev. 19:15)” This means that if people come before a judge in a lawsuit, one great and one small (in importance etc.) he is not to honor the great one and is not to treat him cordially. He is not to greet that one to any greater extent than the other one. It applies everywhere and always.

One of the hallmarks of a courtroom is the pageantry and the formal process that are required when court is in session. The judge only enters when all are present in the room. All rise when he or she enters and only sit after the judge sits. The attorneys are always called “counsel” and the litigants are referred to in the third person as plaintiff and defendant. Woe to the person in court that breaks with protocol. There can be swift justice for those who do not follow the rules and then ignore the judge’s instructions to bring “order to the courtroom”.

These two Mitzvot come to teach us that not only do the “visitors” to the courtroom have to follow the rules, so to, the judges must follow proper courtroom etiquette. Since there were no jury trials in Israel, all cases were heard by one, three, twenty-three or seventy-one judges (rabbis), the judges must not “adjust” a verdict in order to accomplish any other objective. This applies all the more to changing a verdict because of any outside influence. Once it is determined who is guilty and who is innocent, there can be no changing the verdict for any reason. This is a most obvious form of injustice. While a judge has great leeway in trying to discover the truth, once the truth is determined, the judge must find according to the law, and not according to any other process.

In addition, once the truth has been determined, the ruling should be given quickly and without long, complicated opinions. A judge should not make the litigants wait a long time to discover their verdict. This applies especially if the judge knows that one of the litigants needs to know the verdict quickly and the judge just wants to make that person wait. This too is injustice since it involves the judge using personal preferences to “afflict” one of the parties to the case.

This leads the Hafetz Hayim to introduce a whole string of Mitzvot that relate to these kinds of injustice based on passages in the Torah. Mitzvah 70 deals with the case when an important person is one of the litigants. The judge must not make obvious or subtle gestures to acknowledge the importance of that person, nor make any comment on the lower status of the other litigant. This would give the appearance that the judge would be favoring the important person, even if he had no intention of favoring anyone. Any action that would acknowledge the importance of one litigant over the other leaves the impression that the judge might favor one over the other.

It may also be true that the judge may intend to do justice, but by acknowledging the important litigant, that judge may then unconsciously favor the testimony or the argument of the one who is more important. There can be no favoritism at all, not even the appearance of favoritism. Procedure is to be followed without respect for the persons in the court. This is hard under the best of circumstances, and when there is acknowledgement of the inequality of the litigants, it points to possible injustices that cannot be tolerated. Both parties to the lawsuit are to be treated the same.

I should also add that this also applies outside the courtroom. If the judge has any connection to the important man outside of the court, he must step out of the case and turn it over to a more impartial judge. There is still the appearance of injustice if at night the judge is buddies with a litigant, and the next day that “buddy” appears in court looking for justice. Judges must be above all doubt.

by

8-5770 Mitzvah N-66; 67; 68

Torah Emet
8-5770 Mitzvah N-66; 67; 68
January 11, 2010

Negative Mitzvah 66 – This is a negative commandment: Do not have pity on a poor man in a court trial.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause.” (Ex. 23:3). And it further states, “You shall not respect the person of the poor (Lev. 19:15) [This means] that the judge should not say, “He is an indigent man, and we have a duty to sustain him. I will declare him right in the court case so that he will be sustained with ease.” It is in force everywhere, at every time.

Negative Mitzvah 67 – This is a negative commandment: Do not pervert justice for a sinner on account of his wickedness.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “you shall not pervert the judgment of your poor in his suit (Ex: 23:6) and the meaning of “your poor” is a person who is poor in Mitzvot. It applies everywhere and always for both men and women.

Negative Mitzvah 68 – This is a negative commandment: Do not pervert justice for a proselyte or an orphan.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “You shall not pervert the judgment of a convert or an orphan” (Deut. 24:17) If a judge transgressed and did deal unjustly with the case of a convert or the case of an orphan, he would violate two prohibitions (you shall do no injustice in judgment – (Lev. 19:15 see next Mitzvah in the next lesson #69) and this prohibition). It applies everywhere and always for both men and women.

I would have thought that all of this would fall under one single prohibition about ruling in a court case based on who the litigants are, rather than on the facts of the case. The Torah, however, lists all of these cases separately so each one is a mitzvah in its own right. We will see next week the general law, but here we have some specifics. These represent cases where one might have a reason to consider who is standing in front of them.

In the first case, one of the litigants is a poor man and the other is more wealthy; (he may or may not be “rich” but he has a lot more than the poor man has). The judge might consider that the wealthy litigant can afford to lose the money and the poor man will not have to beg for his meals for a while. It is a kind of “Robin Hood” idea. Take from the rich and give to the poor. This is not allowed in Jewish Law. If the law says that the rich man is right and the poor man wrong, the judge must rule against the poor man. He can ask the rich man not to oppress the poor man by demanding his payment right away, but if the wealthy man is right, it is not permitted to rule against him.

In the second case, one of the litigants is a wicked man. He may or may not be willing to give up his life of sin. In any case, he is currently “poor in Mitzvot.” A judge may not rule in the case in order to give the sinner what the judge thinks he deserves. If the sinner is right, and the other litigant is in the wrong, a judge must not rule against the sinner. The sinner may later do something that will get him in trouble for his own actions, but justice will have to wait. No matter what the morality of either of the litigants, the judge must rule on the facts of the case and not on the “lifestyle of the litigants.

Finally, the orphan and the convert were always susceptible in court to other litigants. They were usually poor and could not mount a proper defense of their position. They also did not have enough experience in Jewish courts to get justice. It is not the role of the judge to do any social engineering. It does not matter if the orphan or convert is wise to the world of the court, or not. If the facts of the case are that they are guilty, then they must pay what the court decides. A judge can not protect them if they have acted inappropriately. I heard a story where a Rabbi was called to judge between a man and his servant girl. As he left for court, his wife also prepared to go to court as well. “Why are you going to court?” asked the Rabbi, “Why should you bother with this trivial case?” The wife replied, “I am going to make sure that the poor servant girl gets a fair hearing and is not cowed into admitting what may not be true. I am going to defend the servant girl.” It is one thing to make sure that the poor, orphan, convert and sinner do not have an advantage in court due to their position in society. But it is also the community’s obligation to make sure that they do have proper representation in the court.

These Mitzvot all insure that everyone, the poor, the wealthy, the powerful and the weak all get a fair trial and a proper day in court. After that, the ruling of the judges must follow the law. The law must not respect the person of either litigant, for good or for ill.

by

Father and Son

Parshat Shemot
2010
Delivered as a dialogue between Rabbi Konigsburg and Hillel Konigsburg (who participated in creating the dialogue.)

Rabbi: In this week’s parsha, we find Moses standing in front of the burning bush. It is a pivotal moment in Moses’ life and in the history of the Jewish People. For the first time, God speaks directly to a human being in order to create history and it marks the beginning of a relationship that echoes to this very day. It all begins simply enough, with a bush that burns but is not consumed. It is a simple miracle that catches the eye of Moses and brings him into the presence of the divine. The sages ask the question, why a burning bush? Why not in thunder and lightning? But the Rabbis see in this miracle a test. Moses will have to watch the bush burn for some time in order to realize that it is not being consumed. That is the way it often is with miracles, they happen all the time, all around us, but we have to take the time to see them, to realize that we are in the presence of a miracle, that we are in the presence of God. Let me give you a few examples… First of all…

Hillel: Now just wait a moment! So you are suggesting that the burning bush represents the many miracles that surround us every day. What miracles? What are you talking about?!

Rabbi: Hillel, is this so hard to imagine? The whole world is filled with miracles; the grass that grows, the sunset, the impact of a beautiful song in our soul. The idea that helps humanity, the cure for a dread disease, the hero that saves the innocent, all of these are the miracles that we experience almost every day.

Hillel: Wait, wait, wait. These aren’t miracles! Ever hear of these things called Biology, Physics, Harmonics, Psychology? The ability for plants to convert sunlight into nutrients through the Kreb’s Cycle is not a miracle. The reflection of light waves at the corner of our atmosphere is not a miracle. The subjective interpretation of vibrations through air is hardly a miracle. They are part of the scientific reality that shapes us.
– Now, the burning bush on the other hand, that was a miracle! Fire that doesn’t consume a bush?! Now that is a miracle that no physics book can explain.

Rabbi: Do you honestly believe that any good special effects creator couldn’t make a bush burn and not be consumed? The issue is not the science behind it, the issue is really the impact of what we see on what we believe. A falling apple did not cause Sir Isaac Newton to discover gravity, but that apple, at that moment, created in the mind of that man an idea that reverberates through time. He paid attention and the world changed.Reply

Hillel: Now you really don’t make sense. First of all, there is a difference between reality and fiction. A special effects artist can create seeming physical impossibilities, but only a fool would think that such a creation is actual. On the other hand, the real world as we experience through our senses – such is a world that represents truth. When Newton had a run in with that notorious apple, it completed the series of events, thoughts, memories, and experiences that allowed Newton to piece together a larger picture. In a manner of speaking, he was at the right place at the right time – continually throughout his life up to that point.

Rabbi: I am not sure what you are getting at. You could make the same claim concerning Moses. He also was the right man in the right spot. The only Jew who knew what freedom was. The only man who had the experience to lead the Jews to freedom. He just needed to be pushed by God to remember that he was a Jew. That the people enslaved were HIS people. All Moses had to do was take all his experiences up to that point and focus them on freedom for the People of Israel

Hillel: Exactly! Where is the miracle in that? That is just a complex web of experiences.
– The miracle in the burning bush was that the bush burned and was not consumed.

Rabbi: The miracle is in the moment of realization. The moment when rational mind meets the big idea, and suddenly, what is impossible becomes possible; that the world, with all its flaws, suddenly can be repaired. It is in the call that the miracle is found. Even if the bush was consumed, the fire started to burn in the heart of Moses and that lead to the greatest story of redemption in the history of Western Civilization. That is why there is no thunder, lightning or extravagant special effects. It is the connection made between what was seen and what was learned which is where the miracle can be found.

Hillel: So why the burning bush? Why contradict the laws of nature? After all, Newton found enlightenment from the banal experience of gravity.

Rabbi: First of all, I don’t agree that gravity is a banal experience. Just because it has a name does not mean that we understand it. We really don’t know why things fall to the ground. Newton only gave us the formula to describe how things fall, but we really don’t know why they fall. No one has ever seen a “gravity”
– In a similar way, Moses was living a fine life as a shepherd and would have never remembered his life in Egypt unless there was a catalyst, a burning bush, to get him to pause and contemplate what he was seeing and to realize what it would mean in his life. Remember, it not only burned, it also talked!

Hillel: But why a burning and speaking bush?

Rabbi: Because at that moment, it was the right event to catch the eye of Moses and bring him out of his dream into the realization that his life could be more than just another shepherd. How many shepherds passed that bush and didn’t see what Moses saw? It was the contradiction of the bush not being consumed that helped Moses see the contradictions in his own life. He was no shepherd. He was the leader who could do what no one else could do, lead Israel from Slavery to Freedom.

Hillel: So, a miracle then is the moment of realization, not the actual event that served as a catalyst for that moment.
– Then carry out your argument to the extreme. If moments of realization are the miracles, then there are infinite miracles every day. The mere fact that I can remember where I placed my shoes and car keys would be a miracle, along with the fact that I choose to eat eggs instead of cereal and the realization that my kippah is on inside out.

Rabbi: Exactly. All of life is a miracle. It is a miracle that we are alive, that we breathe, that our bodies work; that we see beauty all around us. That we pick the harmony out of the static that surrounds us. The things we call miracles, are the moments and the stimuli that trigger the “divine call” that changes an everyday moment into a moment of clarity and awareness. Reply

Hillel: But then what is the difference between a miracle and simply being?

Rabbi: We go through life as if it were a dream. We don’t pay attention to life as it unfolds. We are distracted by blinking lights, screaming advertisements and a myriad of distractions that keep us from understanding that every moment is a gift from God and all of our actions have the ability to bring us closer to the divine.

Hillel: So then, our disagreement lies in syntax. If one were to argue that miracles are extraordinary events that contradict the natural fabrics of the world, then miracles would be rare occurrences.
– However, if one was to define miracles as you have, then the numerous moments of realization that each of us experience would be classified as miracles and would be quite a common occurrence.

– But why then do all the miracles of the Torah revolve around physical anomalies? The parting of the sea – The 10 plagues – Miriam’s well – Water from the rock

Rabbi: These famous miracles do for us what they did for our ancestors, they get us to stop and contemplate what Moses, Miriam, Aaron and the People of Israel considered. Even if we could explain them scientifically, that it was a low tide, a savvy desert expert who knows where to find water, or red silt in the water that killed the fish, it would not make a difference. I may not know exactly what happened but I do know that what happened changed someone’s thinking and the world has never been the same since.

Hillel: Ok, good point. So if we are to conclude that miracles are not the events themselves, but the reaction to the events, then miracles do indeed happen all the time.

Rabbi: And all we need to do is to wake up to God’s call, a call that goes out every day to anyone who will listen, and then let that call change our lives. All we need to do is to stop and listen, and we will hear God telling us to remove our shoes, because the ground on which we stand is holy.
– May all of us stop to see the wonders of the world around us and may that sense of wonder and amazement, lead us to find God in the world and in our heart. May God bless us with open eyes and open minds as we say Amen and Shabbat Shalom.