The social justice worldview vs. the Israel worldview
Jewschool is co-sponsoring Love, Hate and the Jewish State: A Conversation on Social Justice and Israel, with Makom, the New Israel Fund, and 16 other minyanim, arts & culture, and social justice orgs (see below).
This is the internal conflict that is already defining our generation of Jews. Two worldviews that are deeply Jewishly informed and yet at odds with each other: social justice vs. Israel.
Social justice is a worldview of “all helping all” and more specifically the stronger helping the disadvantaged, the weak helping the weak, the weak helping each other. It’s about fighting against entrenched power which resists giving up unfair advantage. The most concise definition of “social justice” was told to me by a Catholic youth minister: “a state of right relationships.” Rightness in conduct and healthy relations between employer/employee, government/citizen, Jew/gentile, and state-to-state.
The Israel worldview, regardless of whether you are right or left, is one defined by “Jews helping Jews,” each ethnicity looking out for themselves, and the weak nation becoming strong (and maintaining deterance). It’s about apportioning power by nationality, ethnicity or religion — and a heirachy of their comparative greivances. Israel becomes important as the national liberation project of the Jewish people. It defines success as the safety of one group among others (even if other groups happen to benefit, theirs can be secondary).
The conflict becomes:
Many people who support peace in the Middle East will not engender to spend time on Israel — and why should they? There are worse conflicts in the world, like genocide in Darfur. Even if you are left wing, paying special attention to one’s own ethnicity is still a parochial, inward-focused conversation. These people might feel more comfortable helping all people, regardless of ethnicity in ways that cut across socioeconomic status: health care for all, ending racism against all, collective bargaining rights for all, housing rights for all, international rights for all, et al.
Many people who see a relevance for Israel’s existance (of one version or another) are uncomfortable christening underdogs and painting all holders of power with the same brush. A worldview that doesn’t validate the historical travails of the Jewish people or seeks to pave away nationalisms or ethnic prides entirely is also uncomfortable. Anti-Semitism is subsumed into just another racism, where many might feel it has special, and specially personal, perils.
This conflict cuts many other directions: Some who do both social justice activism and Israel activism must compartmentalize their value systems, keeping them separated, balanced. A rare few manage to integrate them fully. And plenty — tragically a great many — do neither.
It has serious effects on our Jewish communities:
While it aims to benefit all peoples through its work, the Anti-Defamation League created permanent schisms by opposing Congressional recognition of the Armenian genocide — leading to staff quitting in protest, the loss of Armenian partners in anti-racism projects, and accusations of hypocrisy.
Social justice organizations like Jewish FundS for Justice and American Jewish World Service must keep their distance from Israel matters to avoid the pitfalls of how their differing supporters proportion “justice” between Israel and Palestine. They are lambasted unfairly for not having a stance on an issue thousands of miles away, tangental to their core missions. Their distance can prevent their involvement in many worthwhile projects in which Israel, however briefly, is addressed.
The New Israel Fund is one of the few organizations that manage to integrate Israel and social justice via social justice for all members (not just citizens) of Israeli society. The Progressive Jewish Alliance takes local, global and Israel justice stances. Both lose the valuable support of constituents who have an Israel (pro or con) litmus test.
Our minyanim and shuls have “Israel committees” and “social action committees” — but who ever has seen an “Israel and social justice committee”? Or who has seen an Israel committee take up the issue of gay rights in Israel? Or a social justice committee tackle anti-Semitism on the left?
Can we integrate the two? Are they neccesarily exclusive? Are those of us who feel this way really so many? Can we envision Jewish communities that manage to blend them without rancor?
Next Thursday’s event proposes no answers, but offers a chance to explore this topic in a safe space, guided by experienced facilitators, and designed by activists who seek also a healthier conversation. Please join Jewscool for Love, Hate and the Jewish State: A Conversation on Social Justice and Israel on Thursday, June 18th at 7 pm – 10 pm, at the JCC in Manhattan. And hey, Yisrael Campbell emcees and afterwards there’s alcohol and JDub DJ Joro Boro too.
This event is brought to you by Makom and New Israel Fund, in partnership with AVODAH: The Jewish Service Corps, Encounter, Foundation for Jewish Culture, The JCC in Manhattan, Jewcy.com, The Skirball Center for Adult Jewish Learning, The Union of Progressive Zionists, and the following co-sponsors: Bnai Jeshurun’s Tze’irim, Brooklyn Jews, JDub Records, Jewschool.com, Just Vision, Kehillat Hadar, Kol Zimrah, Rabbis for Human Rights-North America, Romemu, and Zeek.
I’m a little surprised, given the huge list of co-sponsors, and the venue, that there isn’t a bit more hype around this event. Or maybe a week prior is about the right schedule for such hype. Will there be stuff in the national Jewish press? I wish I could be there.
This really strikes me as a straw-man argument.
Our lives partake in the individual, the particular, and the universal. If you exclude one or exclusively follow only one, you are denying an essential part of your humanity.
So how does opposing antisemitism ever come in conflict with opposing social justice?
I support universal human rights because I’m a believer in the Enlightenment principles of liberté, egalité, et fraternité. If I make it a personal mission to be confrontational with regards to antisemitism, it’s because I have direct experience of the phenomenon, and I can’t always flag down a righteous gentile to rescue me. What am I supposed to do? wait?
One thing consistently damning about Israel’s enemies is how much time they spend violating the human rights of the very people they claim to represent. (If you count the bodies, it would seem Hamas hates Palestinians more than they hate Israelis.)
And there’s absolutely no conflict when one gets involved in Darfur activism, since most of the defenders of the Bashir regime are vocal anti-Semites.
Ian,
Well said, I am inspired. As a teenager, this idea would occupy a lot of my time, there is no conflict, in fact there is no distinction to begin with, we are in a seamless relationship with all three but sometimes the simplest truths take experience, and deep soul-searching to reach. Alone at night wondering “Should I help my tribe or help my world? maybe I’ll just help myself to this bag of chips”
To its credit, although the post begins with “This is the internal conflict that is already defining our generation of Jews.” possibly implying that there is some sort of internal argument that needs to be resolved, and will be at this gathering. Ultimately it is more of a rhetorical gesture, for the post concludes “Can we integrate the two? Are they neccesarily exclusive? Are those of us who feel this way really so many? Can we envision Jewish communities that manage to blend them without rancor?…” and of course “Next Thursday’s event proposes no answers…” The key phrase in there is “are those of use who feel this way really so many?” Us, meaning the writer and you – It’s settled we feel this way. Let’s get together and see what happens 🙂
A valiant effort to reify the two concepts, but I don’t buy the summary of either.
“Social justice is a worldview of “all helping all” and more specifically the stronger helping the disadvantaged, the weak helping the weak, the weak helping each other.”
I don’t believe in any movement that starts from identifying who is the weakest / poorest / most powerless in a society and running to help them. Social justice can only really come from redefining social norms about everyone’s place in society and seeing both the powerful and the powerless as needing to change.
“The Israel worldview, regardless of whether you are right or left, is one defined by “Jews helping Jews,” each ethnicity looking out for themselves, and the weak nation becoming strong”
It’s true that the majority of Zionists hold that wrong opinion, but it’s silly to claim that is the only kind of Zionism ‘whether you are right or left’. My own work and that of many friends here contradicts this every day.
Of course the real work is to demand that the two go hand in hand, but you have to start with real definitions of what is the core of each.
I don’t buy this at all. You are making up a situation that supports your theory, not a theory that supports our situation. I am member of my Temple’s social action committee and a vast majority of our programs are co-sponsored by our Israel committee. These include movie nights, discussion of issue –like Gay right, minority rights, denominational rights, environmental protection, hunger– in Israel and even just getting together to eat some food. There is always conversation and work to combat those who call us out for awful things as we all fight against was is truly awful in our world.
A very wise teacher told me once that there is no black, nor white, but only gray. He holds a PhD in Math and Science, taught in a Reform high school exchange program in Israel, was an ordained Orthodox Rabbi, served as a munitions specialist in the Vietnam War and has taken at least two tours in Iraq as a Jewish Chaplin in Mosul. So I dismiss your premises; it is not one or the other. You have taken to heart the fact that a vast majority of the Jewish world truly believe our generation to be lost, but we are not. We have strong grounding in our Judaism. We have strong grounding in our beliefs and we also know how to see the world a gray and complex place. There is more than one answer to this question; none of them are simply bifurcated in order to make for a catchy program.
Well said Kung Fu (though I too take some issue with the specifics).
As for all the prior posters claiming there is no conflict, I would ask you to look at two particular areas. One is the organizational politics that KFJ mentioned. Broad based Jewish social justice organizations (Jewish FundS and AJWS come to mind as the biggest) must assiduously avoid bringing their message of universal social justice (which we could define here as striving for equality in law and material circumstance) in order to maintain their relationships with the organized Jewish community. This leads to a significant lacuna when the largest Jewish social justice organizations cannot speak out for human and civil rights for Palestinians (both inside and outside of the green line).
The second area is a deeper rift, but one that is papered over by exactly the kind of cosponsorship that dcc describes at his synagogue, and exactly the kind of programing NIF does. The rub of the problem is precisely in Ian’s description of his core values; liberté, egalité, et fraternité. If one is committed to those values, as I would venture most American Jews are (I mean, who can oppose freedom, equality and brotherhood, right?) then supporting the state of Israel becomes rather difficult. As KFJ attempted to lay out, Zionism places “the Jewish good” prior to liberty and equality.
What would it mean to have a “Jewish” state that in no way privileged Jews or Judaism, but was committed to equality? Well, it would mean no law of return. It would mean affirmative action for Arab Israelis to address civil and material inequality. It would mean a cessation to the discourse about the “demographic threat” as there could be no inherent commitment to Jewish majority. It would mean either giving civil rights (most importantly voting rights) to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, or alternatively pulling out totally from those areas. The former choice would mean Israel no longer has Jewish majority now (or would not ten years), that latter would forestal that for perhaps 50 years, but would lead to the same ends. So a “Jewish” state that was committed to enlightenment values would not longer be a Jewish state.
The bottom line is that liberté, egalité, et fraternité, the values that support much of the social justice agenda, if consistently applied, would lead to Jewish social justice organizations taking the post-Zionist position that Israel should be a state for all its citizens. The fact that you neither see that happening at the level of national organizations nor within synagogue social action groups is testament to exactly the kind of bifurcation that KFJ is describing.
The question is, what do we want to do with this state of affairs. Do we want to consistently apply our values to all people, or do we want to say that Jews are a special exception. Choosing the former would mean major upheaval in the Jewish community, choosing the latter (the choice American Jews have implicitly made till this point) would mean that we could never make consistent principled arguments or take any principled stands (We recently saw one outcome of this in the ADL-Armenian genocide issue KFJ mentioned). I know this kind of interests based realism is appealing to certain folks, but I for one am not willing to abdicate my moral stand just so me and mine can get ahead. Rather, I want to consistently fight for my values so that everyone (including Jews) has a fair deal.
I’ll come in on the other side – thank you for writing this and putting a lot of whats been churning in my head into words. I’ve worked in the Jewish community for a few years, and I do find myself pulled in directions that I can’t always agree with. I’ve been told by funders that the only important thing about my work is defending Israel against even the faintest whiff of criticism and that everything else (education, social justice, social events) is just “nice” but not important. I’ve been told by my students that our social justice work is the most meaningful for them. Israel is nice, but it’s not necessarily their main focus, and many of them are very conflicted about Israel and justice.
This is one of the things that has burned me out about Jewish work. I’m glad I’m leaving, at least for a little while.
Wish I could make the discussion, though.
I like to see that our first three commentors declare they’re in the rare third group that manages to see their two halves coincide nicely. I daresay also *older* readers of this article have said the same thing.
And yet, that’s not what the research seems to say, and the anecdotal evidence in my life swings far more towards Chorus of Apes and AlephReish.
In fact, I’ve recruited friends into Jewish and/or Israel projects because of their exceptional activist and Jewish credentials who tell me a version of “I used to do a lot of Jewish stuff, but I don’t want to do it anymore, because it’s important to help the whole world, not just Jews.” It’s the largest barrier I have to getting people involved.
I know they’re reading. I hope they comment.
Kung Fu-
The problem I find is that while I do believe in the principle of Fraternité (there’s a reason I use the French, and not the English, since it was a stated principle of the French Revolution and not the American) I note that when I do engage the larger world, mes frères will sometimes refuse to see me as one of them unless I completely disavow my tribe– and if I were willing to do that, I wouldn’t be posting here, now would I?
So I do what I can do for the world because the commandment is to love the stranger, but that commandment is not one to abandon ones fellow Jews– and there’s no commandment to “please wait for the next available righteous gentile [BEEP!].”
I love fraternité as a guiding principle, but sometimes your brother is a putz and a genuine threat to your well-being.
It’s all a really simple issue to spell out when done in strictly ideological terms, for the purpose of promoting an event.
It’s a very different story when looking at the actual issues on the ground. Since genocide was mentioned, let’s look at that. With my definition of genocide being the Geneva Convention (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html), we can conclude from record that there is ongoing genocide in both Israel/Palestine and Darfur.
Although it might be the tendency with the pairing above, one cannot acknowledge genocide in one case without acknowledging it in the other. If one cannot acknowledge the genocide of any possible group of people, one cannot in good faith acknowledge genocide. Further, if one cannot imagine genocide in the very group that they believe seeks its destruction, or even just detest, then one cannot claim to work against genocide.
Have fun at your mainstream Jewish-sponsored “discussion” and open bar. To me, it stinks of a feel-good event intended to gloss over the inherently conflicted position of U.S. Jews: I wonder how much alcohol it will take.
KFJ,
Why are Jewish projects important to you, at the disproportionate opportunity cost of helping the “whole world, not just Jews”?
In other words, how do you claim the mantle of humanism, and the values of universal social justice and fraternité it encapsulates, and still identify, practice and advocate as a Jew?
“The Israel worldview, regardless of whether you are right or left, is one defined by “Jews helping Jews,” each ethnicity looking out for themselves”
So when are the Arab countries going to take in Darfur refugees?
I agree with Claude’s questions. I think there are some broader questions you are touching on beyond just the “Israel” vs “social justice” one, like “why should I go to shul for 2 hours when I could spend those 2 hours volunteering” or “why should I buy high holiday tickets when I could give the money to charity?” For my part, I’ve not yet been able to resolve these questions, which is one reason that I’m not currently involved in the Jewish community.
“why should I go to shul for 2 hours when I could spend those 2 hours volunteering”
I think I could find a better place to take my two hours off of. (blog forums…)
I heard a story about a Rebbe who was asked by a student “I only have 8 minutes a day to study, should I study Bible or Mysticism?” his answer was “mysticism, because it will show you that you’ve got more than 8 minutes to study.” but I agree – DON’T spend money on High Holiday tickets, spend it on real charity.
With my definition of genocide being the Geneva Convention (www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html), we can conclude from record that there is ongoing genocide in both Israel/Palestine and Darfur.
What’s going on in Darfur seems to fit the definitions.
You can’t in the Palestinian situation since Article 2 requires “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Even ignoring the clause about “intent”, and counting civilian deaths during Israeli counter-terrorism operations as applicable, subarticles 2.c.,d., and e. are simply not occurring.
Now Hamas, has the stated intent mentioned in Article 2, and however inept, certainly attempt to fulfill subarticles 2.a., and b. whenever the opportunity arises.
Thanks for trolling, Dividend.
Here goes some sharing: I have often felt that we must simply help everything. Everything is one – people or dolphins, air quality or vegetation, the human race or my tribe. They should all be treated equally I cannot play favorites with whatever happens to be closest to me – like choosing my friends, family, or community. With that in mind, when it is time to actually help – the ones closest are always instantly available by virtue of them happening to be close – it would simply be wrong to turn them down, for they are equally eligible for whatever small help I may be able to offer. But it is more than just that – since they are closer I have a strong chance of my help being effective. With people from another family, or community, or country I run a greater and greater risk of not properly understanding the situation because I don’t live it. I will end up helping the abuser, or chastising the victim. Like sending aid to despotic African regimes that use it to oppress and further impoverish their people, or sending military aid to two countries involved in a war. Even attempting to fix our environment; we end up botching things up worse than when we started, i.e. trying to stop forest fires for years and then realizing forest fires are natural for forest life – and that some pine cones can only be activated with fire and beyond just weakening the forest they are now so filled with dry fiber that massive unhealthy forest fires are poised to erupt at anytime. I think we need to try not to hurt anything but when it comes to fixing things, attempting a change, closer is better
If it adds anything to the discussion, when I attended a class on Maimonides for Tikkun this past Shavuot. Maimonides makes a point that Jews are commanded to direct their love in two directions, towards God, and towards the stranger.
So again, I don’t see where the dichotomy is between strongly identifying with the tribe, and caring for the world outside the tribe. It’s not either/or.
Jews are commanded to direct their love in two directions, towards God, and towards the stranger
Please post the source. It is possible you misunderstood, or were not explained this properly. A stranger, “ger”, refers to a convert, not to a non-Jew. There are many halachas about loving the convert, treating him with respect, not cheating him in business, not reminding him of his past, not insulting or embarrassing him, etc.
In general, if you’re coming to it from a blank slate, it’s easy to get your head twisted around. The language of Talmud is written from a Jewish perspective. For example, “neighbor”, as in “you should love your neighbor as yourself”, refers to a fellow Jew, not to a non-Jew, and the reason to love them is not based in Greek humanism and treating everyone equally – but because they literally ARE you, as every Jewish person shares one soul that is refracted in different physical bodies, like the sunlight entering a home through different windows. By feeding them, you are feeding yourself, by teaching them, you are teaching yourself, you are expressing your true oneness.
If you value human rights, and you believe Israel is committing human rights violations and that it is wrong for them to do so, how do you support Israel? Are Jews all over the world responsible for the policies of the Israeli government? If the Orthodox in Israel do not recognize your Jewishness, do you still owe Israel your support?
If you value human rights, and you believe Israel is committing human rights violations and that it is wrong for them to do so, how do you support Israel?
Supporting or refusing to support Israel based on whether it is committing “human rights violations” is a simplistic, uneducated approach to human rights. The fact that “human rights violations” exist is not a solitary fact that can be removed from the context in which those violations are made, much less be extrapolated into a movement to correct those violations, in obstinate blindness to that same stubborn context.
We cannot reason as children – if someone is cold, give them a sweater. Maybe they’re cold because they are in shock after murdering their entire family with a butcher knife. Context matters.
If you don’t understand the context under which Israel restricts freedom of movement, curtails the flow of goods, detains, tries, imprisons, and conducts military operations in dense urban areas, perhaps it is time to stop reasoning as a child.
“If you value human rights, and you believe Israel is committing human rights violations and that it is wrong for them to do so, how do you support Israel?”
Support what you think they do right, try to change what you think they do wrong. But as Ian and Anonymouse’s pointed out, context and definition of “Genocide” and “Human Rights Violations.”
Will make what you think, a lot more useful.
“Are Jews all over the world responsible for the policies of the Israeli government?”
I hope thats rhetorical. But I will fall for it anyway – no they are not.
If the Orthodox in Israel do not recognize your Jewishness, do you still owe Israel your support?
If you don’t care about their acceptance than lead your life according to your definition of Jewishness. If for some reason you care for their acceptance, than live your life in according to the definition of Jewishness that they require. They are not fundamentalists, they are not forcing you to do anything, and will accept anyone who meets their definition of Jewishness. But what does their recognition of your Jewishness have to do with your support of Israel? I support scientists although they do not recognize me as a scientist, I do it cause I love science. The same applies to Israel even if they don’t recognize me as an Israeli.
“If you don’t understand the context under which Israel restricts freedom of movement, curtails the flow of goods, detains, tries, imprisons, and conducts military operations in dense urban areas, perhaps it is time to stop reasoning as a child.”
and perhaps it is simply time to stop making excuses for a brutal military occupation, the extent of which most of us have no clue of. we “reason” and we spin “logic” and run around in circles avoiding a very plain and simple reality. Israel’s policies are wrong, they reflect poorly on the Jewish people as long as they insist on enacting said policies in the name of the entire Jewish people. Just as anonymouse demands that we understand the context of Israel’s offensive policies, we, too, must understand the context of the Palestinian resistance.
Claude,
I love you! We are one! but i have to disagree with your exclusion of the “stranger”. Since you did not quote a source, I will just say that in general when the Tanakh writes “ger” it is probably referring to a “stranger” in your land who is not at all Jewish. In VaYikra 19:34 the Torah says “As a citizen among you shall be the ger (the stranger) who lives among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were gerim in the land of Egypt—I am the Lord your God.” “As Jews were not converts in Egypt, but rather strangers, the verse is an indication that the meaning of ger is “stranger”.- from “Choosing to be Jewish” Ktav Publishing. Throughout all of Jewish History; Biblical, Mishnaic, Talmudic, Medieval, and Modern times Jews have dwelt alongside Non-Jewish neighbors, their is no Jewish perspective which excludes them. In earlier times, such as during roman occupation, there where 3 sections to a synagogue Men, Women, and Non-Jews referred to as “Yerei Hashem” often times this section was larger than the Jewish Section. The Torah is loud and clear about the love of the neighbor, the guest, the stranger, the outsider … the rest is commentary. Extend love outside your self, to your family, your community and yes even outside your community. Denying that is just… well… the opposite of Jewishness.
saki,
claude is totally correct.
according to rabbinic interpretation, a ‘ger’ is a ‘ger tzedek,’ or what we would call a convert. always. for sources, refer to most offensively, gezel ha’goy–the rabbinic permission to steal from gentiles. what you’re doing is reading torah literally, what claude is doing is repeating the rabbinic interpretation. we cannot cheat a convert, we can cheat a gentile. i’m not saying it’s right or just, but it is halakhic. this, it seems, is what claude is getting at.
Justin,
Claude is not totally correct.
The Rabbinic tradition doesn’t reinterpret the Tanakh’s usage of “ger.” The “ger” in the Tanakh means “stranger” that is why I quoted the reasoning from the Tanakh verse itself. For that reason alone I was very careful to quote a source book written by an orthodox rabbi “Choosing to be Jewish” Ktav Publishing. So to paraphrase, what I am doing is reading the Torah both literally and Rabbinically, while Claude is misreading the Torah, albeit enthusiastically. The confusion here is that the Talmud uses the words “ger tzedek” (convert to Judaism) and “ger tushuv”(Non-jewish co-religionist) but again these are separate terms, they are not a reinterpretation of Tanakh. Im glad I could clear that up, but it seems you have the view that the Rabbi’s halachah is an unright, unjust, offensive reinterpretation of the literal Torah. Halachah is a religious system of law, but its not a religion. It ain’t pretty but its not trying to be, its Law. I don’t want to go into the Gezel Hagoy thing because its really unrelated, you just brought it as an example – but suffice it to say that I don’t think the Jews in the men and women section of the synagogue where meant to be stealing from the Yerei Hashem section. Even Rabbinically.
I think you missed my point. all you have to do is look into the gemara (bava kama ch 4, 5), the Rif (same), the Rambam (hilkhot nizkei mamon ch 8, hilkhot gezilah v’avidah ch 5 and 7, hilkhot mlakhim ch10, the Rosh (kitsur piskei ch 10), the Tur the Beit Yosef and the Shulhan Arukh (hoshen mishpat 183, 266, 348) to see that gentiles have no rights in the Jewish system of legal jurisprudence. gezel ha’goy is not unrelated at all, it is exactly the point. if the rabbinic interpretation of the term ‘ger’ in the Torah is as you claim it is it would have been impermissible to charge interest, which is allowed, and more importantly, to steal. heck, halakhah forbids, FORBIDS, a Jew from turning in a Jew to the authorities who killed a non-Jew and admits it. This is not the ‘ger’ you’re talking about. Yirei HaShem are gentiles who are observant of the 7 Noahide commandments, and it is repeatedly written in the talmud, in the rishonim and in the aharonim until this day that there is no such thing as a gentile who observes their 7 commandments, therefor there is no such thing as Yirei HaShem according to the halakhic tradition. If you’d like sources for psak halakhah from the middle ages until today, I have those too. If you look closely into the literature, you’ll see that ger tshuv was done away with as a legal category, that ger becomes ger tzedek and just stam ger goes away, in terms of legal protection. this is just the way it is.
The reason I asked about Israel is because those are questions I hear from other people. I was curious to know how others might answer them.
As for gaining acceptance from the Orthodox by becoming Orthodox, children of converts may find themselves having their Jewishness revoked. I’m not sure acceptance can easily or reliably be accomplished by conversion.
Saki,
When we speak of ger, in my experience, we are usually referring to a convert. There is such a thing as ger toshav, as you wrote, referring to gentiles that adopt the 7 Noahide laws and accept Jewish authority. Justin seems to think all goyem have no rights under Jewish law. This is absurd. Ger Toshav have substantial rights. They are not Jews, and we do not pretend they are Jews, but we are commanded to secure their well being (Mishnei Torah, Ch. 10, Halacha 3), even providing medical treatment to them at no cost.
We need to remember context, as Anonymouse wrote. When the Talmud was codified, the Jews were living amidst idolaters. All the harsh Torah laws related to gentiles are specifically directed to idolaters, not to ger toshavs. For example, we are not allowed to establish peace with idolaters unless they discard their beliefs – this only applies to 7 Caaninite nations. We are not allowed to push them into a well or river to drown, but if they are drowning, we may not assist them – this only applies to 7 Caaninite nations. We are not allowed to extend them special kindness or mercy, or give them loans without interest. We cannot sell them property in the Land, or rent them property permanently – so that they won’t stay in the Land and desecrate it with their idols.
The laws related to ger toshav, or righteous gentiles in general – who accept the G-d of Israel as the One G-d – and abide by the 7 Noahide laws (even to various degrees), are not considered idolaters. For example, Rambam does not consider Muslims idolaters.
I don’t know where you’re getting that we’re allowed to steal from goyem. We definitely, absolutely may not steal from ger toshav. I also know that multiple strict commandments pertain to keeping accurate and honest weights and measures (such in the market), and not cheating in business.
At the very extreme, there may have been those who said that we don’t need to show kindness to idolaters, but to steal from them? I’ve never seen this. Today, however, it would be a challenge for us to find true idolaters in the world. Even the Budhists now talk about one source animating all.
claude, i guarantee you if you look into the sources i provided above you will see we are absolutely permitted to steal from gentiles. throughout the history of halakhic discourse there is just one posek, the Meiri, who disagrees with this. From the gemara through to the modern era, Jews can steal from gentiles. You are right, ger toshav has rights, but as i mentioned, the rabbinic tradition has gone to extreme lengths to undermine the institution and holds that there are no gerei toshav. these are not your hebrew school halakhos, but they’re there my friend, they’re there.
and another thing, regarding Yirei HaShem in shul in the Roman era, we can’t ignore Reish Lakish’s statement that “goy she’shabbat hayav mitah” a gentile who observes shabbat deserves the death penalty.
claude, i guarantee you if you look into the sources i provided above you will see we are absolutely permitted to steal from gentiles.
“Permitted”, or this simply isn’t within Jewish courts’ jurisdiction (in the same way that if I commit a crime in another state, I can’t be prosecuted by my state)?
bz, that is correct, however it is also halakhically forbidden to turn jews into the non-jewish courts. we can explain these laws away all we want, or we can acknowledge that they’re there and recognize that the “protect the stranger” values we all learned in hebrew school are not always backed up by the halakhah.
“protect the stranger” values we all learned in hebrew school are not always backed up by the halakhah
What does that say about those who twisted the meaning of halakha to impost a universalist, humanist face on Jewish tradition?
You bring up some interesting points. No time right now, but I’d like to revisit them later.
Can’t resist. Regarding the case of murder, as you mentioned, where we are not allowed to turn a Jew over to a non-Jewish court, even if the Jew confesses to murder…
This only highlights the differences between Jewish and Western law. Under Jewish law, a person is not allowed to incriminate himself in court – confessions have no meaning. Anything he says that is self-incriminatory is not accepted. Furthermore, a Jewish court requires two witnesses to testify that a Jew broke a law. And even then, he cannot be punished unless he was specifically warned beforehand that he was breaking the law. There is a whole section of law – which I’m learning now – about false witnesses, zomemim.
I have to say, I’m a bit troubled by those who take a severe, absolutist tone to relate Jewish law. Anyone who has studied how difficult it actually is to execute someone in a Jewish court should know how many caveats and considerations must be made. An opportunist who wishes to defame Jewish law, however, can just claim – those barbarian Jews murder people – without explaining that “it was considered a severe court that sentenced a Jew to death once in 70 years”.
Let’s chill out. More later.
So, what I meant, forgot to say… is that the reason we don’t turn a Jew over to a non-Jewish court is not to spite the goyem, but to protect Jewish rights. The flip side of this is that it is also a commandment to obey the law of the land.
You have to remember context, again. It was not so long ago that any Jew passing past any village in Poland, or for that matter Assyria, could be accused of murdering a missing goyish boy, given a mock trial and executed on the spot.
Also remember that Jewish law has a unique component – divine retribution. Just because someone is acquitted in a Jewish court due to lack of witnesses, for example, does not mean they are free and clear. Bridges can suddenly collapse. People accidentally fall off cliffs, or drown in rivers, or get gored by oxen.
In that sense, Jewish law is very progressive, in that it puts the onus on the prosecution to prove beyond any doubt that a crime was committed. It is not at all “eye for an eye” that we hear about being common in Middle East.
Justin writes:
we can explain these laws away all we want, or we can acknowledge that they’re there and recognize that the “protect the stranger” values we all learned in hebrew school are not always backed up by the halakhah.
What’s your point? Are you speaking out in favor of stealing from non-Jews (etc.), or against halakhah? For those of us who see halakhah as dynamic, the classical sources don’t have the final word on what becomes “the halakhah”, so yes, we can and should acknowledge what the sources say, but then it is absolutely essential that we “explain these laws away” (e.g. by understanding their context) so as to determine the appropriate halakhah for our time and place.
Well, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that, in fact, Justin is not in favor of stealing from people. But I think that this discussion raises some important questions about what we mean when we talk about halakhah and how we see the classical sources as related to that, both of which I think are pretty complicated questions. So, you know, we should talk some more about it.
Justin writes:
it is also halakhically forbidden to turn jews into the non-jewish courts
Claude responds:
the reason we don’t turn a Jew over to a non-Jewish court is not to spite the goyem, but to protect Jewish rights.
I’m in no position to weigh in on the halakhah, but I want to point out that in our own day and age, most countries that do not have the death penalty won’t extradite their citizens to the United States to face murder charges, nor will the United States extradite its citizens to countries whose legal systems we don’t consider valid. That’s pretty much the same thing as Jews not being allowed to turn Jews over to non-Jewish authorities in the context of the times.
So if the reasoning behind it is as Claude says it is (and maybe it’s not, like I said, I’m not in a position to debate that part of it), it’s reasoning that is alive and well today and enshrined in the civil legal code of dozens of countries.
And this is really interesting, btw. Please, talk some more about it.
claude, makos ch 1 is a great series of sugyos, enjoy learning it. I want to clarify I’m not saying I’m for stealing from gentiles, nor am I against halakhah. But BZ, be clear, this law has been upheld through the generations straight through to today. We just don’t talk about it. I read a teshuva written in 2005 that upholds it. claude, this is not about testimony. if you’re able to learn and understand makos you should take a look at the sources i provided above. you might get a kick out of it. this is about business dealings, primarily. and, it should be noted that dina d’malkhusa dina, the law of the land, does not mean exactly what it sounds like. for example, a non-jewish tax collector or even a jewish tax collector on behalf of a non-jewish nation is considered a thief and therefore a jew does not need to pay those taxes according to halakhah. all I’m trying to point out is that we can quote the Torah all day long about protecting geirim, but according to rabbinic interpretation it doesn’t mean what it seems to, like many things in the Torah. you brought up a great example, eye for an eye. it doesn’t mean that, it means the monetary value of the eye according to the rabbis. BZ, when i say we shouldn’t explain them away, what i mean is that we should not ignore them or drash them into something palatable for 21st century progressive democratic values we know of as Jewish in America. If you’re into the halakhic process and can use halakhah to undo them, great! but good luck considering Rambam, Tur and Shulkhan Arukh have all kept them. back to claude (sorry this is so disorganized) i’m glad you brought up gored by an ox. that’s the basis for all of this in the gemara. if a non-jewish owned ox gores a jewish owned ox we try the gentile in a jewish court, if a jewish owned ox gores a non-jewish owned ox, we try the jew in whatever court is most beneficial to him. that is point and case, jews and non-jews are not viewed as equals in jewish law. there’s so much more to say but i’m really tired and probably won’t make much sense. check out the sources i showed you, i’d love your response once you have read at least some of the material.
i’d love your response once you have read at least some of the material
At the rate I’m going, I’ll get back to you in a year 😉
Justin,
I’m reading Hilchot Melachim. The commentary for Ch. 6, Halacha 6 states:
[First Rambam, then commentary]
Rambam: Though the Torah states [Deuteronomy 23:17]: “He must be allowed to live alongside you, in your midst.” Commentary: This verse applies to a fugitive slave and, by extension, to any gentile who is willing to accept the Seven Mitzvot.
Mishneh Torah, Moznaim
That supports what Saki was saying, although the partial quote here is: “imcha yeshev bkirbcha… batov lo, lo tonenu”. I don’t have a Chumash handy, so I don’t know if there is a “ger” somewhere before or after.
claude,
a) letting them live with you does not exempt you from stealing from them. no one said apartheid is built into jewish law. b)even if it did mean treat them well, we can’t read one halakhah out of context
Can you list an example where the halacha you site was followed?
BTW, your choice of language is interesting, “letting them live with you does not exempt you from stealing from them”. You’re saying that Jews have an obligation to steal from goyem? Even under halacha you site, that seems to be a highly militant interpretation.
oy vey, didn’t we cover this before? no one is obligated to steal! you are simply patur (exempt) from punishment! I have read a teshuva written by an Av Beis Din from a major New Jersey yeshiva from as recent as 2007 upholding these halakhos (if you really want the rabbi’s name I can dig up the teshuva) declaring it assur, forbidden, to turn in Jews who murder gentiles from the authorities, and permitting Jews to steal from gentiles.
the point is that ‘love your neighbor as you love yourself’ refers to other Jews, the ‘stranger in your midst’ refers to a ‘ger toshav’, which the Rabbis all but did away with as a viable institution and the ‘ger’ in the Torah is a ‘ger tzedek’ according to Rabbinic interpretation. Jewish law as interpreted from the Talmud through to the 21st century does not view gentiles as equal to Jews. No one is saying that Jews are obligated to steal from gentiles. I’m simply saying that our law is not as nice as we teach our children it is and to presume that gentiles are protected under Jewish law is simply incorrect. I’m not advocating or encouraging any theft or the continuance of these laws, simply pointing out that they’re there and they aren’t going anywhere.