Author: Rabbi Konigsburg

by

6-5769: Mitzvah N-42

Talmidav Shel Aharon
6-5769: Mitzvah N-42
December 9, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 42 – This is a negative commandment: Do not withhold “she’er”, “k’sut”, or “onah” from one’s wife.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “her food, her raiment and her conjugal rights he shall not diminish.” (Exodus. 21:10) The term “she’er” denotes food, “k’sut” denotes clothing and this is the plain meaning of the words; “onah” denotes conjugal intimacy. Whoever withholds one of these three by his own will, in order to distress or pain her, violates this prohibition. By the law of the Sages he bears another seven obligations toward her, and these are: the principal payment of the marriage contract [in case of divorce or death], to cure her [if she becomes sick], to ransom her [if she is taken captive], to bury her [when she dies]; she is to stay in his house the entire time of her widowhood and is to be supported out of his property; her daughters are to be sustained out of his property after his death until they are married; and the right of her sons by him in the marriage contract [is to inherit the principal amount before equally dividing the remainder of the father’s inheritance with brothers of another mother]. By the law of the Sages, he has the right to the fruit of her handiwork, in exchange for her food; and the fruit or income from her property in her lifetime, in exchange for the duty of her redemption[from captivity if necessary]. He gains the right of whatever she finds, for the sake of [avoiding] enmity; and he becomes her heir, in exchange for the duty of providing for her burial. A man also has the duty of sustaining his small sons and daughters. It is in force everywhere and at all times.

Let us make the simple points first. When a man marries a woman, he takes on certain responsibilities. He has to allow her a monetary allowance she can spend on clothing. He can’t insist that she wear certain clothes or give her the clothing; she gets to buy what she desires. He has to also give her enough money to feed herself and the family. He cannot insist on a particular diet, but she has the right to choose what the family (and she herself) will eat. Finally, he cannot deny her sexual satisfaction. This has some far reaching implications. It implies first of all that she has sexual needs that he must fulfill. Since different occupations have different implications of his being home, he cannot change jobs if it will affect his conjugal duties. Businessmen are home every evening. If he decides to become a sailor and only be home once a month or once every six months, she can forbid him from being away so much or force him to pay off her Ketuba (more on this later) and divorce her. There is an assumption that the occupation he has when he marries her is known to her and she cannot force him into a new line of work, but if he wants to change and it will affect her conjugal rights, she can veto the change. The point here is that while Judaism says that a man “acquires” a woman, it is somewhat more complicated than that. She does not become his servant or slave and she has rights in his home that he is forbidden to deny. If, in any of these three areas, he limits her rights and causes her physical pain or mental anguish, he is forced to give her what she needs or pay her Ketuba and divorce her.
The Ketuba is central here. The Ketuba is the contract of marriage. It stipulates that the wife has these rights and that the man does not have to pay the “bride price” required in order to get married. The bride price becomes a primary mortgage on his estate. This means that when he dies, the wife is paid from the estate first, before any and all creditors. If the husband wants to divorce his wife, he can divorce her but the payment of the Ketuba is a heavy monetary debt that must be paid before he can send her away. Today the monetary amounts are symbolic but in ancient times, it could be used to convince angry husbands to fulfill their duties to their wives.
If you think this is a bit hard on husbands and wives, let me remind everyone that, even to this day, marriage is basically a monetary partnership in the eyes of the state. To get a marriage license you don’t have to profess love or devotion, only to let the state know who will be responsible for the family debts. Love and devotion are great, but marriage means responsibilities and the Ketuba spells them out.
The Sages expanded on the duties of a husband to prevent other abuses. He must pay the amount he owes on the Ketuba if he divorces her. If she dies, the debt is inherited by her children. If she gets sick, he must pay for her medical bills. If she is captured by brigands or pirates, he has to pay her ransom before he ransoms anyone else including children or his teacher. He has to pay for her funeral, give her the house to live in if he dies and leaves her a widow (the children can’t throw her out). If she has born him daughters, they are to be supported out of his estate until they are married even if his sons have to go begging to provide for them. The laws of inheritance do not apply to the Ketuba, its principal is paid to her sons that she bore to him (but not to sons from a previous marriage), and only then is the rest of the estate divided among all of his sons.
The Sages also provide the husband with some of her income to make sure that he will perform his duties. If she has a small business on the side he can claim her income as payment for the food he provides. If she owns property, he has the right to the income from that property or from the sale of that property (if sold in her lifetime) in exchange for the duty to ransom her from captivity. If she finds something of value, he can claim it. This is to prevent arguments between the two of them. He becomes her heir for the duty to bury her and if she leaves him with small children, he has to care for them and not treat them shabbily.
I suppose we could argue all day over these duties and whether they are fair to her and to him, but remember, like all laws, this applies only when there is trouble in the family. When couples love each other and are devoted to each other, these monetary issues are not a problem; they are often filled above and beyond the letter of the law. Wives and children are supported openly and lovingly. Only in cases of anger and discord do we find that couples argue over money and here the Sages have tried to spell out a fair way for the couple’s finances to be divided.
I should add here that in monetary cases, Jewish Law gives way to the law of the land. A Ketuba may be symbolic but to pay it out today, one would have to have a civil divorce and pay out all the financial details spelled out by the divorce court, only then could the Ketuba be paid (actually the symbolic amount is waived during the Jewish divorce (Get) process, since the money has already been allotted by civil courts). Judaism says that divorce is possible and sometimes necessary (even a Mitzvah) but it should not be so easy that a man would change wives as often as he changes a home or car.
The Sages did their best with the customs and traditions that were current in their day and age. Before we comment on the equality of the system or not, try and think how you might write this better. It is never as easy as it looks.

by

Welcome to My Nightmare

I have never been to Mumbai. I don’t know the landmarks of the city, the sights to see or the places that make the city unique. I had no interest in visiting Mumbai and while there is a Jewish community in India that is ancient and interesting, I never put India on my list of places I would like to visit. Acts of terror do not make me want to travel there nor does it discourage my visiting. I have never varied my travel plans based on a terrorist attack. I don’t believe that a small band of crazy people should prevent me from altering my plans. There have been terror attacks in Israel and England and I have traveled to both places. I now live in a city that was the site of a horrendous terror attack. To be honest, I fear more the random criminal acts that come with living in a large city than a planned terror attack.
All of this does not change my feelings for the people of Mumbai and my heart extends to all those from all over the world who have lost their loved ones in this terrible act of murder. Muslims and Hindus have attacked each other in India before but every citizen of that country understands that this time was different, so different that the Muslim community in India, the second largest Muslim community in the world, has indicated that they will not provide religious burial space for the terrorists who were killed by Indian security forces. The community has said that Islam is a religion of peace, and these killers violated that religious tenet so dramatically, that they do not deserve sacred burial space.
The Jewish Community was one of the targets of the attack. Five Jews were killed in the invasion of the Chabad House. They were not hostages. They were murdered as the terrorists entered the door. Only the quick thinking and bravery of a nanny saved the infant son of the Rabbi from certain death. Even children were not exempt from the killing.
Habad is not part of the old Jewish community of India. They are relatively newcomers to the small Jewish Community. They serve mostly the needs of visitors to Mumbai offering Jews a place to daven, kosher meals and some Jewish services. Over the years I have had my differences with Chabad, but those differences were not ones deserving death. That Jews were singled out and were killed is a great tragedy. And it is a tragedy that will now take its place in the long sordid list of all those who died because they were Jews. In the early hours of the attack, it was thought that the terrorists were targeting British, American and Jewish residents. It turns out that they killed everyone who crossed their path. But the Jews were targeted. They did not just find Jews in the street, they went looking for the Chabad house to kill the Jews who were inside.
Why does it always have to be open season on Jews? What is it that Jews do that is so radically different from the rest of society that our people have been sorted out for special killing? There is no logical or theological reason for such killing. It seems to be a baseline when it comes to bigotry. Kill the Jews and see if anyone notices or cares. Our people seem to be the canary in the coal mine, for if someone can get away with killing Jews, they will move on to killing other “undesirable” people. It is a situation that makes us Jews paranoid that any little thing that a Jew does wrong will ignite a pogrom, senseless killings and murder of women and children.
As a people, we are not so different from everyone else in society. We have our sinners and saints. We have geniuses and drunks. We have Nobel Prize winners and gangsters. We have our religious Jews and atheists. We are no different than any other people, only that we have a unique system of law and morality that at times sets us apart from those who have neither. Is it our Torah, our Laws or our morality that makes us so often the target of hatred and violence? Is it some curse that we live with? I don’t buy any of that. For too long people in Europe and around the world thought that Jews were vulnerable and unprotected. We could be killed without consequences. Today we are defended by the civilized world and by our own state of Israel. How long will it take before the hatred and bigotry will disappear?
What remains dangerous is the possibility that we might become as angry and bigoted as those who seek our harm. That would be a terrible mistake. We have an obligation to defend ourselves against Muslim extremism and fundamentalism. We need to address directly the implications of Wahhabism, the strict form of Sunni Islam taught in Saudi Arabia and the extreme form or Shia Islam that is being exported by Iran. But Islam is much bigger than these denominations and the largest Islamic nations are not in the Middle East but in Asia. We need to reach out to those who do not support extremism and discover the theology that both our faiths share.
Our world is far from perfect. There remains in this world too much hunger and poverty. There are too many people that are left behind when economies boom; and too much greed and corruption that keep those out of power, out of power. I do not blame those left behind for rising up in anger and seeking to change the odds that seem to be stacked against them. India and Pakistan are slowly moving to resolve the differences between them both in the political realm and in the religious realm. But those who would kill innocent men women and children must not have their concerns addressed until they are ready to give up their arms. Terror must not be rewarded in any way or form. And we who are not terrorists need to work harder at changing the conditions and policies that breed terror.
This is the only true path to peace.

by

5-5769: Mitzvah N-41

Talmidav Shel Aharon
5-5769: Mitzvah N-41
December 2, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 41 – This is a negative commandment: Do not crave in one’s heart something that belongs to one’s fellow-man.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “Neither shall you crave etc.” (Deut. 5:18) This prohibition is separate from the injunction “You shall not covet” (see last lesson: 4-5769). For a person transgresses the prohibition against craving once he thinks in his heart how he can acquire that object, and his heart is persuaded in the matter to follow his plan. Then he violates the injunction, “Neither shall you crave…” since craving is but in the heart alone. If he then acquires that object, having importuned its owner and sent many friends to him, until he gets it, he violates also the injunction, “You shall not covet”. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

This commandment is found as an extra word in Deuteronomy where Moses recalls the law against coveting in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are found twice in the Torah, once in Exodus and repeated in Deuteronomy. The problem is that the two texts are not identical. The most famous difference between them is in the fourth commandment; Exodus says that we should “Guard” (Shamor) the seventh day, and Deuteronomy says that we should “Remember” (Zachor). If we were to look closely at the prayer on Friday night, “Lecha Dodi” we would see it mentions a Midrash that explains that God pronounced on Sinai only one commandment but spoke “Shamor” and “Zachor” at the same moment. Humans could not speak like that but God can and did. In the final commandment there is also a slight difference in the law concerning coveting. In Exodus the commandment states that we cannot covet our neighbor’s house, wife, male or female slave, or anything that is your neighbors. In Deuteronomy, the commandment reads, “do not covet your neighbor’s wife, crave his house, field, male or female slave, ox, ass or anything that is your neighbor’s.” It is the additional word “crave” that makes this prohibition separate from the injunction of coveting.
But the two laws are not really that separate. Craving takes place in your heart, and coveting takes place out in the real world. Craving leads to coveting. When it does, one is guilty of two sins.
We have to understand that neither of these laws can be easily explained in American law. In American law, you have to do something wrong to violate a prohibition. Thinking about something is not illegal until you actually do an illegal act. Americans sort of live by the creed that if you want something badly enough, you can work for it and get it through your own efforts. American advertising tells us that we can have anything we want. It is very unusual to want what another person has and not be able to get something similar or exactly the same without having to resort to nagging that person to give it up. (The possible exception here could be your neighbor’s wife. You can chase after any single woman [or man] who may have a similar physical appearance or be in a similar financial situation, but you cannot covet the person married to your neighbor.)
The war on Terror has led our country to go after those who are planning a terrorist attack before they can actually execute the plan. While it is difficult to prosecute someone for talking or acting like a terrorist, to defend our country, we have to stop the terror before it can begin. Similarly, the Secret Service goes after any person who makes any kind of a threat against the President or any other leader of this country. One does not have to carry out that threat to get the attention of the Secret Service. These two examples are the exceptions to the rule. In most cases, just wanting something in your heart does not trigger any attention by the civil authorities because the police can’t arrest people for what they think. I am not sure that Jewish Law could punish a person who only commits the sin of “craving” but if that person carried out the idea and performed an act of coveting, then Jewish Law would punish for both sins, since one sin implies the other.
We should all remember to pay less attention to what our neighbor has that we lack and be thankful for what we already have. That is an attitude that will keep us far from sin.

by

What I Am Is What I Am. Are You What You Are – Or What? (edie brickell)

Last night, the library at the Jewish Theological Seminary, hosted a lecture by one of my teachers, Rabbi Neil Gillman on the occasion of the publication of his new book, “Doing Jewish Philosophy”. Near the end of the lecture he noted that Conservative Judaism does not have a philosophy as does the other movements at the polar ends of the Jewish spectrum. When he took questions, I asked him, “In your opinion, why doesn’t Conservative Judaism have a philosophy?” Rabbi Gillman replied that he thinks there are a number of reasons. First, we are a pluralistic movement and there are a wide number of philosophies that are included in our movement; and second, when we tried to spell out a philosophy in the now seemingly forgotten book, Emet v’Emunah, after years of discussion, it came out like a menu rather than a single philosophy.

I immediately recalled another book, by one of my other philosophy teachers, Rabbi Elliot Dorff, who wrote about Conservative Judaism and noted that there were at least four different groups within our movement with four different approaches to Jewish Philosophy. They ranged from traditional to Reconstructionist tendencies. Given these assessments, it is a wonder that our movement has not ruptured and fragmented as most movements seem to be doing these days. Young Jews can’t seem to understand what motivates their parents to join Conservative Synagogues and we see them starting their own “minyanim” that operate in a very different style. Rabbis in our movement argue all the time over the issue of whether we follow Halacha or not. Lay leadership of Conservative congregations is begging Rabbis to just tell them what they need to do to be good Jews and all they get is a menu of options. Canadian congregations and communities in Israel don’t think that Conservatives in the United States are traditional enough. Conservative Jews in the United States don’t seem to care what the Canadian or Israeli communities think of them.

So, who are we? What is it that binds us together as a movement? What do we Conservative Jews believe?

As usual, I believe we are looking for faith in all the wrong places. As Rabbi Gillman said, you can ask that question to a Reform or Orthodox Jew and get a coherent, definite answer because they are on the polar ends of the Jewish spectrum. Our movement is in a large grey area that lies between them and thus it defies the kind of definition that comes with the certainty that lies at the ends of a spectrum.

As Conservative Jews, we believe that certainty is the enemy and that questions are the lifeblood of our movement, even if they don’t always have definitive answers.

As Conservative Jews we believe that God is unknowable and beyond our understanding but we feel the divine presence in both the secular and religious aspects of our life.

As Conservative Jews we believe that God is found in the struggle between tradition as received and the world as we experience it.

As Conservative Jews we believe that a good Jew is judged first of all in the way we treat our fellow human beings, Jew and non-Jew alike.

As Conservative Jews we believe that we can grow in our observance and that until the day we die, we can still be struggling to understand the best way for us to live a spiritual life. But our uncertainty does not make us bad Jews.

As Conservative Jews we believe that science informs our understanding of scripture and ritual but the importance of both is not found in scientific accuracy, rather in the moral and ethical lessons that each have to teach us, lessons that are beyond the purview of science.

As Conservative Jews we are always learning about the philosophy, history and legal tradition of Judaism in the constant search for a better understanding of the meaning of our life and the life of all humanity

As Conservative Jews we believe that Jewish Law, Halacha, needs to be understood in a historical context and while it is primary to our faith, it is not the only consideration we have to weigh in our quest to live a faithful Jewish life.

As Conservative Jews we weigh carefully the needs of the community and our individual needs, understanding, as Hillel taught, If I am not for myself, who will be for me and if I am for myself alone, what am I, and if not now, when?

As Conservative Jews we allow that not everyone believes as we do and that does not make them bad Jews; it makes them interesting if we can learn from them something that will inform our own beliefs and practices.

As Conservative Jews we believe in the centrality of Israel in Jewish life and we are committed to improving civic and religious life there as we work to secure Israel’s future.

As Conservative Jews we don’t know what will happen after we die, but we believe that what we do here in this world will have an impact in how we will experience whatever may come next.

As Conservative Jews we understand that a Messianic Age, an age in which good will triumph over evil and life will triumph over death, will only come if we will work for it through the actions we perform every day.

Maybe everyone will not agree with me on every point above, but that is nature of our movement, to weigh, discuss (civilly) and always to grow.

by

4-5769: Mitzvah N-40

Talmidav Shel Aharon
4-5769: Mitzvah N-40
November 20, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 40 – This is a negative commandment: Do not covet anything belonging to another person.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “You shall not covet etc.” (Ex. 20:14) Now coveting denotes that a person invests effort to put his thought into action; he sends many friends to the fellow, and importunes him, until he takes it [the object of desire] from him. Even if he has given him a great price for it, he thus violates the commandment. This often occurs when a son-in-law pressures his father-in-law before the wedding that he should give him this or that object, which they did not stipulate when the t’naiim were written. Even if his father-in-law fulfills his demand, the son-in-law nevertheless violates this prohibition. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

This commandment, another of the famous Ten Commandments, is one that is important for the sake of Peace. It is very hard for a legal system to lead people to do more than what the law allows. This is a prime example of the difference between a pure legal system and Jewish Law. Judaism is not only about the law, but about morality as well. There is a whole category of laws relating to bringing peace between two people, between husband and wife, between brothers, between friends and between business partners. It is not enough to do what is right, we have to do things that will not bring about strife with someone else.
Coveting has the capacity to create strife. When we desire what someone else has, so much that we will do almost anything to secure it, there is a big problem. I have seen people go on a campaign to get what they want from someone else. It does not matter if the person who is the point of this campaign finally gives in. The feelings of hurt and resentment remain.
What is coveting and what is not? It is not coveting if the person has the item for sale and you are negotiating the price. It is not coveting if all agree that this object is payment for some service you are providing. It is not coveting if you ask your neighbor to let you know when she is ready to sell an item as long as you don’t ask, “Are you selling it yet?” It is coveting when you want what belongs to someone else, no matter if it is an object or even a person. You can’t covet a person’s wife, imploring him to divorce her, convincing him that she is no good, and doing all this so you can have her. It applies to movable objects and even real estate. (see the story of King Ahab of Israel and Nabot’s vineyard in the Book of Kings).

I have to admit, when I first saw the Hafetz Hayim’s example of the son-in-law who desires something that belongs to his father-in-law, I first wondered if the Hafetz Hayim was having trouble with his own son-in-law! Weddings today are not done in quite the same way so some explanation is needed. Weddings for centuries in Judaism took over a year to complete. The couple would decide to marry and their families would then get together for a party and to set up the terms of the wedding. They decided at that time who would pay for the different parts of the wedding ceremony, and what each of the families would provide for the couple. The bride’s family might have to bring bedding, pillows and household items; the groom’s family might provide a house, animals, tools and even a job/support for the groom. These terms were spelled out in “te’naiim” a contract that specified when all the terms had to be completed, usually at the same time the families gathered again for the wedding. If one family did not fulfill their obligations, the wedding could be cancelled. To seal the “t’naiim” (agreement) the two families (usually the two mothers) would together, break a plate.
In our case, the son-in-law wants something from his father-in-law that is not part of the t’naiim. This demand by the groom is a problem because he is indirectly threatening that he may decide not to marry the daughter if the man does not give in to his demands. It puts the bride’s father in a very difficult position and even if he gives in to the demand, there is now resentment and anger that may, eventually, disrupt the marriage itself as one family is now angry at the other. (It is assumed that if the son asked his own parents for an object, they would give it to him out of family love.)
The idea here is to be thankful for what we have, rather than envy what someone else has.

by

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

So what does Conservative Judaism stand for? We take positions on egalitarianism, on Shabbat and on Gay Marriage, and then we change our minds. The practices of one congregation do not match the practices of another. We use instruments on Shabbat and we don’t use instruments. We use electricity on Shabbat and we don’t use electricity. We publish papers that take both sides of an issue and don’t tell our members what to do! Every Rabbi has his or her own agenda and do we really ever act as a movement?
The issue to me is not whether or not we are a Movement but are we acting in a way that is consistent with being Jewish? Can we still call ourselves Jews if we are so confused about what is required of a Jew and how we relate to Jewish Law? The Jews, who call themselves Orthodox, think that we Conservatives have severed any connection to Jewish Law. The Jews, who call themselves Reform, think that we attach ourselves unnecessarily to Jewish Law. Even inside our own ranks, we argue if we have lived up to the legal standards that are the foundation of Halacha (the “LAW” or the “way”, the entire corpus of Jewish law). I think that we get confused because we forget the essence of what Judaism is all about and why the law is important.
Judaism is a legal religion. It is more like Islam than Christianity since Christianity sought to disconnect from the Law from early times. Islam has the Koran and we have Torah. There is a rich legal tradition that guides Jews in all that they do, a legal tradition that is over 3000 years old. [I should note that Judaism is different from the “religion of Ancient Israel, in that we do not have a central sanctuary, a high priest who oversees a sacrificial cult and annual pilgrimages to that shrine. Judaism began when the first Temple was destroyed and we had to learn to live without it. The second Temple was built but the changes made in the time of the destruction only grew and changed so that when the second Temple was destroyed, Israelite religion died but the Judaism, that was not dependant on the service there, continues to this very day.]
It also seems to me that the Sages in ancient times, who knew that they were breaking with ancient religious traditions, understood that a faith that cannot change, cannot survive. The Torah was not enough to tell Jews what to do and so they began to find ways to expand and enrich Judaism with larger and larger circles of law. Over the ages these circles have expanded and have shrunk to deal with the issues of their age. Those who claim an unbroken chain of Law from then to now often forget that there are links missing and that there are many strands to the chains that come down to us. Conservative Judaism is born of the Historical school in Europe that taught Jews that we can learn law from the study of how our ancestors approached some of the same problems we encounter today. If we understand what they did and why they did it, we can also learn about how we should act today. Historically, Rabbis have approached the law in many different ways in order to find the solutions to difficult and sticky problems in each day and age. The Rabbis of every country and century looked to the primary and fundamental principles of Judaism and adjusted the Law to meet the new issues without compromising the fundamentals. These fundamentals include: a stubborn insistence that there is one God; that any form of idolatry is evil; justice is an imperative; saving a life is more important than almost anything; trust God; learn proper behavior from the Torah and from how God acts in the world. These are some of the values that form the foundation of our faith. We have tried to codify these ideals in Halacha.
We get into trouble when we get so fixated on the Law and we forget what supports it. It is very important that there is a Law that speaks to people and tells them what is expected from them in terms of their attention and behavior. But it is also important that we not let that same Law use its logic to defy the values that underlie it. From time to time we need to remember that the Law must give way to the values, lest the Law itself become the god. We don’t like to make wholesale changes in the Law. It makes things difficult for those who take it seriously. But we do have to make changes from time to time, not only to make things stricter to prevent legal violations, but to make the Law a living entity that people will follow even if they don’t have to. It does not mean we can do whatever we want, but it does mean that we work to keep it true to its values.
I always look at Halacha as a square; each corner stands for an important consideration. One corner is for the tradition that we have received from our ancestors. The second corner is for the modern problems that we need to address. The third corner is for the needs of individuals, and the fourth corner is for the needs of the community. The lines that connect them are elastic. When we have a problem in any one area, it stretches the square out of shape. Rabbis must then examine the concerns of the other three corners to see how we can return the square to its proper form; what else must give way or adjust to meet the needs of the other corners. All are important and we need to find a way to get it all in balance again.
This means that while well trained modern Rabbis can and do argue the law in our Movement’s “Law and Standards Committee”, we have to understand that there are different ways of bringing everything into balance again and still be true to our values. We also understand that what may work in a general situation, may not be the best answer in various communities around the world who live with different realities. Local Rabbis also need to weigh in on what may work.
This makes our lives a bit harder. We have to learn. We have to consider the reasons why one Rabbi rules one way and why another rules differently. We have to see if we are still being true to our fundamental values. It means we can have tradition and we can have change. It is what keeps us alive as a religion and keeps our faith fresh in every generation.
Perhaps it is as our President-Elect, Barak Obama says, “It is a change we can believe in.”

by

3-5769: Mitzvah N-39

Talmidav Shel Aharon
3-5769: Mitzvah N-39
November 11, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 39 – This is a negative commandment: Do not give false testimony.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “You shall not bear false witness against your fellow.” (Ex. 20:13) If someone give as testimony what he heard from others, even definitely trustworthy people, he likewise violates this prohibition. If a person hires false withesses, or if out suppresses his testimony [and does not go to give it] he is free, not punishable by the laws of man, but punishable by the laws of Heaven.
It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

This commandment, one of the famous Ten Commandments, is one that is important for the sake of Justice. Justice is one of the basic underlying assumptions that Judaism depends upon. Even God is called to justice by Abraham. Monotheism in our faith is important because it leads to justice. If there were more than one god, then we could say that we have not sinned, rather it was a requirement of the “other” god. Judaism insists on one God and one Law. It is the only way Justice can be insured.
False testimony undermines Justice. It is not only about testifying falsely. That is lying under oath. This not only is a breach of Justice but an act of blasphemy against God in whose name an oath was sworn to tell the truth. It is even more important to tell what you know to be the truth from your own experience. If your testimony is based on something someone else told you, it is not your testimony and you need to let the parties know that there is someone who has information that is important to this case. Hearsay testimony is not permitted and if you say it as if it were your own, you have given false testimony.
But what if you don’t lie under oath but hire someone to testify falsely or if you refrain from letting anyone know what you know will help or hurt their case? This is not a case of false testimony, but of subverting Justice. There is no Torah law that prohibits this but it is morally wrong to act in this way.
This underlines a major problem with prohibitions and laws in general. They can only speak to matters that are punishable. There is an entire way to live that goes beyond the letter of the law. Our duties as Jews and as responsible citizens are to do more than what the law can require. If we only fulfill the “letter of the law” then we are a disappointment to God. If you hire witnesses to testify falsely, you have not done anything wrong, the false witnesses have violated this commandment and will be punished. They are the evil ones in this situation. If you refrain from telling what you know or that you know anything, you have not lied, so you are not in violation of the commandment, but you have not helped secure Justice. You can’t expect G-d to be happy with that kind of an attitude.
It is important that we remember that while it is a sin to testify falsely, it is not good if you don’t help, in any way you can, to bring about justice.

by

I Fought the Law and the Law Won.

First of all, I hope you vote on Election Day. The only excuse possible is that you already voted early by absentee ballot or in early voting. It is a mitzvah to vote for the candidate of your choice.

Whenever election time comes around there is always talk of the separation of Church and State. It is one of the fundamentals of our Bill of Rights, is incorporated in the very first amendment to the Constitution and is the subject of much heat by those who are passionate about it one way or the other. Some feel that religious sensibilities would be good to inject into government and others want there to be a complete wall separating the two, a wall that can never be broken.

Those who know me understand that whenever there is a choice between one way or the other, I go for a different path. The impasse between the pro and con sides in this debate over Church and State is due to the intransience on both sides. Each only sees what they want to see and perhaps they don’t understand why the amendment is written as it was.

First of all, I believe that, the founders of this nation were religious men. They may have had issues with the denominations and the formal church as it existed in their day, but they believed in God and they prayed to that God. They had no doubt that their experiment in democracy was blessed by the Divine. They were not trying to eliminate religion from the state, only to temper the role of religion in the political system.

Rabbis are often asked to recite invocations before city council and state legislative sessions. Even Congress opens their sessions with invocations. Many of my colleagues do not like to perform these invocations citing their belief that it violates the Church/State barrier. The invocation needs to be nondenominational since the people present represent many different faiths. Some clergy get this right; others seem not to be able to pray without invoking the name of Jesus, no matter how offensive such a prayer might be to those present.

I never turn down an opportunity to offer an invocation at a government event.

While I feel that it is important that government does not pass laws establishing one religion or making life difficult for another, I also feel that religion has something to say to government. It is not about whether this or that law should be passed, but that there is a need to note that while Congress can say if an action is legal or not legal, only religion is in a place to say if an action is right or wrong. This is why I oppose religions lobbying for passage of laws that promote their world view, but insist that religions speak out about laws that go against their understanding of right and wrong.

Let me take one controversial law: Roe vs. Wade and the right for a woman to have an abortion. In this country, it is legal for a woman to have an abortion. It is her legal right. But it does not make it the right thing to do. The implications for the mother and the fetus are very disturbing. I personally don’t like abortions but Judaism understands that sometimes they are needed. What I teach, therefore, is that abortion may be legal, but is not to be considered a form of birth control. It is my duty to teach that women should not get into a situation where an abortion may be needed. It is my duty to teach men and women the responsibilities that come with sexual activities. Abortion may be legal, but it is not good. It is only a last resort solution to the most dire of circumstances.

In business, there is a similar situation. It is not possible to pass legislation to cover every possibility that a person can think up to defraud a neighbor or a client. Therefore we religious leaders have a responsibility to teach ethical behavior and insist that, while the law may allow certain types of business dealings, these still may not be the right thing to do. Keeping the law is never enough. One has to go beyond the letter of the law to do what is right. The story of Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach teaches this lesson. He bought a donkey and when his students brought it home, they discovered, hidden in the bridle, an expensive pearl. They had bought the bridle and the donkey so, by law, the pearl belonged to the Rabbi, but he returned it to the seller since clearly the price of the donkey did not include the price of the pearl. He was not required to do it, but he did it anyway and received a blessing from the seller for his honesty and ethical behavior. No matter what business laws are passed, we have a religious obligation to go beyond the law.

We think of government with three branches, Legislative, Executive and Judicial. But there is fourth “branch” of government, religion, which must speak to what the other three are doing. Our founding fathers could not imagine a world where faith and religion did not speak to issues of right and wrong. That is the holy work that religious people and clergy perform. Not making laws, but living by a standard that goes beyond what a law can do. Laws are needed to protect us from ourselves. As the Talmud, in Mishnah Avot, 3:2 noted, “Pray for the welfare of the government, for without it, people would eat each other alive.” But government without religious sensibilities can never fully govern the lives of its citizens. Segregation was legal until religious leaders taught that it was not right. Quotas were legal until religious people demanded that they end. All the laws of Congress could not stop discrimination until religious leaders instilled in their congregations the idea that all of us are created in the image of God.

Religion needs government to equally represent the needs of the people. Government needs religion to teach what the law can’t teach: that we all must live to a higher standard.

by

2-5769: Mitzvah N-38

Talmidav Shel Aharon
2-5769: Mitzvah N-38
November 2, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 37 – This is a negative commandment: Do not delay the payment of a hired man’s wages.
Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “The wages of a hired man shall not remain with you [all night] until the morning.” (Lev. 19:13). And it says further “neither shall the sun go down on it.” (Deut. 24:15) For if he was a hired man for the day, he is to collect his wages anytime during the entire night. [Since it says “all night until the morning”] And if he was hired for the night, he is to collect his wages anytime during the day [because it says “neither shall the sun go down upon it”]. A man hired for certain hours during the day can collect anytime during the day and a man hired for certain hours during the night is to collect anytime during the night.
In the case of a craftsman who is hired to repair an object, as long as the object is in the possession of the craftsman , even if the craftsman informed the owner that he completed it, the owner commits no transgression. If he does not demand his payment, from him the owner commits no transgression. And even if he demanded it of him and he did not have what to give him, or if the employer passed him on to another and the other person took it upon himself to pay, he is free of guilt.
If a person delays the wages of a hired man beyond the allotted time, he disobeys the positive commandment (see Mitzvah 66) and he violates this prohibition. If after the time he delays further, he violates a prohibition from the words of the later parts of Scripture “Do not say to your fellow, “Go and come again, etc” (Proverbs 3:28) It is all one whether it is the hire of man or a domestic animal or tools and instruments; these words of Scripture apply to it: “On the same day you shall give him his wage; neither shall the sun go down on it and the wages … shall not remain with you all night. .” If someone wrongfully retains the wages of a hired man, it is as though he takes his life, and he violates the injunctions (Mitzvot N-35 & N-37) “You shall not wrongfully deprive your fellow, nor rob him.
It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

The Hafetz Hayim is so clear here that I almost don’t need to comment at all. The law is simple, if a person does work for you; you have the obligation to pay him right away. A hired man, or a hired woman, or a tradesman or a craftsman, depends on those wages to feed himself and his families. We are talking about day laborers, hired in the morning and to be paid at the end of the day. We may have money in the bank and can wait to be paid until the end of the week or until the end of the next pay period, but these people depend on being paid immediately for the work they have completed. According to the Torah, you are endangering the hired man’s life if you delay payment. If you insist that he keep coming back day after day to collect his wages, you have caused him pain and embarrassment and are also in violation of the law.
It is my custom to pay my bills on time every month. Those who bill me are paid before the deadline printed on the bill. The hired people who do work for me are paid at once. We had a man, Willie Woods, who cut our lawn for many years. If I was home when he cut the grass, I would stop what I was doing and write the check for him so that he could have it as soon as he was finished. I didn’t like to force him to wait for me to write it later. I wanted to have the check ready so he could be free to go on to his next customer. If I was not home I knew Willie would be back at the end of the day and I tried to have the check ready for him when he came back. All Willie had was his lawnmower and his truck. If I did not pay him for the work he did, then how could he feed his family and buy gas for his equipment? In addition, I made it a point to always shake his hand and thank him for a job well done. He often protested that his hands were too dirty to shake my hand but I shook hands with him anyway. He was not “just a hired hand” but a reliable worker and the father of a family. He was not that different from me.
The exceptions to this law are technical in nature. If you give your watch to a craftsman to fix and he finishes it and tells you to come and pick it up, you don’t have to rush to his store. After all, he has the watch, if you default on the payment, he can sell the watch. If the craftsman does not demand his payment, then the owner is not required to pay. If the owner can’t pay because he has no money, then he does not violate the law because the craftsman still has the watch. This clearly does not apply to the hired man since the work is now finished and he must be paid. If the employer does not have the money, he should not have contracted that day to do the work. If someone else has given the hired man his wages for the day, the first employer is free from guilt if he does not pay the same day (but he still owes him money).
The law sides with the day laborer. If he goes to court, the court will demand immediate payment from the employer. It also applies to the man who employs an animal to help on his farm, or if he rents tools or instruments. The person who owns the items depends on the income to feed his family and maintain the animals or the tools. There is no leeway. Even if the man did a bad job and even if he damaged something, he needs to be paid for the day lest he go home and starve. A man deserves payment for a day’s work. It is a sin to withhold his wages

by

I Heard It Through The Grapevine

I will not vote in November.

I have already voted. I sent in my absentee ballot a couple of weeks ago. In my mind, voting is one of the most important things a person can do. I don’t care how long I have to stand in line or how many pieces of identification are required; I have voted in almost every election since I have been old enough to vote. I would like to say I have never missed one but there have been special elections that somehow escaped my notice. I research the candidates and try to make the best decision possible.

This presidential election has had some interesting twists to it. The dive in the economy helped change the tone from that of just one negative ad after another to some real talking about priorities and issues. We finally got an issue that got us beyond the name calling and got us voters to take a look and ask ourselves if we trust this candidate or that candidate to get us out of this mess we are in.

In the Jewish community, it should come as no surprise that there are Jews who back the Democratic candidate Barak Obama and those who back the Republican candidate, John McCain. Each side is as passionate as the other about who would make the best President of the United States. The days in which Jews all voted in a block are long gone. It is a wonder that we can even talk about the “Jewish vote” any more as something different than any other group. We have soccer moms, hockey moms, NASCAR dads, seniors, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Communists, Socialist, East Coast Liberals and Midwestern Conservatives. We have our own religious right and our secular left. The only things I can say about the Jewish vote is that we vote.

People talk about Israel as a concern for the Jewish vote. But again, we are all over the map when it comes to Israel. I don’t think that there are too many Jews who are looking to dissolve the Jewish state, but we certainly don’t agree on how Israel should conduct her domestic or foreign policies and how the United States should or should not deal with Israel as a matter of our own foreign policy. Should Israel negotiate with the PLO? With Hamas? With Hezbollah? Should we divide Jerusalem, give back the West Bank, exchange prisoners to get back Israeli kidnapped soldiers? Who should be negotiating with the Palestinians? What should or should not be on the table? Israelis themselves are split on these issues and the Jewish community in the United States is also split.

There are many who say that Jews should vote for their interests in the United States, and not look at foreign policy to Israel as a lone issue. There are many issues in this country that we have strong opinions about. We discuss in our communities issues like health care, the war in Iraq, taxes and governmental regulations. We are worried about sending our kids to college and if we can afford to keep our homes and if we will be laid off in the months ahead.

If Judaism has any issue with the current campaigns, it is in the area of personal attacks. That people disagree on issues is to be expected, but Judaism insists that we treat each other with respect at all times, even at the end of a very long and difficult election season. A campaign that criticizes the plans of an opponent should not be criticized because that is what this season is all about, what plan do we think is best for this country in the years ahead. If a criticism is followed by a different idea, then we should listen and be aware of the differences. It is another matter when there are personal attacks about things that happened long ago as if they have any bearing on where we are today. Everyone grows and changes and not one of us lives our life without some regrets about our past. Destroying the character of someone else is a serious sin. The politicians tell me that this kind of negative campaigning is what moves people to vote. If this is so, then we need to give the entire country lessons in civic and civil responsibility. If our government is locked up most of the time, it is because everyone is so angry with the way we talk to and about each other and have forgotten that compromise and negotiation are how things are supposed to get done. Forget about whether or not we should be sitting down and talking to our enemies, we need to remember that we need to sit down and negotiate with lawmakers from the other party. This is hard to do in our culture of screaming at each other the most hurtful names we can find.

I have seen people I respect repeat the most derogatory slanders that they have seen but not substantiated over the internet. I have seen good people worry about nonsense that is being passed around as true. The media regularly scolds the candidates and their parties for telling lies and stretching the truth in campaign materials. There is no reason to be passing on such dirt. Even if we get it from a reliable source we should not be repeating it to others. This is very wrong. If we want to convince a friend, a family member or a neighbor to vote for our candidate, then we should speak of policies and platforms. We are guilty of Lashon HaRa, evil speech, if we pass on to others the personal attacks even if we get them from a reliable source. It applies not only to the campaign, but in every aspect of our lives. Sending out slanderous emails to defame someone else is a sin. There is no other word for it. A popular actress in S. Korea committed suicide because of the hateful false things that were being said about her on the internet. That they are written is bad; if we pass it on, we are guilty.

I don’t advise any of the campaigns but let me leave with this one piece of advice. We may not be responsible for all the hate that is out there. But we know, first hand, the dangers of hate speech and ugly rumors. I hope that we will have the sense and the wisdom to know what to do when they arrive in our inbox – we should just press “delete”.

And we will be making the world a better place, one conversation at a time.