National Scholar Updates

Introduction

Increased awareness in social justice causes in Judaism is a most welcome development.  As advocates often point out, social justice is not external to Judaism but is pervasive throughout the laws and ethics of Jewish law.  From the individual perspective we believe that each human was created in the "reflection of the divine" (Bereishit 1:27), and as a people we are charged with being a "light unto the nations" in order to bring God's salvation across the earth (Yeshayahu 49:6).  The latter sages of the Talmud introduced the doctrine of "Tikkun Olam," repairing the world, as a legitimate justification for legal innovations.  From one point of view all the commandments serve to achieve the end of perfecting ourselves and our society.   

But determining which causes or methods represent the Jewish ideal of social justice is a difficult challenge.  Would an issue such as vegetarianism – notably supported by R. Abraham Isaac Kook – be considered a Jewish social justice issue if the Torah not only permits (Devarim 12:20) but occasionally requires eating meat (Shmot 12:8)?   Furthermore even granting a consensus regarding the legitimacy of a cause, there may be valid disagreement on how to implement solutions.  For example, there are several strategies in which people could help the poor.  Welfare or charity offers immediate short-term relief, but are not terribly helpful in the long term and could provide disincentives against self-improvement.  On the other hand, training programs which help individuals become self sufficient will take more time, but for Rambam this sort of charity is the highest level one can give (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Charity, 10:7).  People may share the same goal, but could disagree as to the social justice merits of a particular method.

This discussion is further complicated by the relationship between the religion and politics to the point where political policies and religious ethics become blurred.  In 2005 seven Jewish social justice groups opposed the nomination of Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.  These groups opposed Alito not only for perceived disregard for civil liberties, but also for his positions on interstate commerce and abortion.  These complaints in the name of "social justice" assume a particular social and political outlook, which even if compatible with Judaism, is not necessarily mandated by Torah. 

Finally, imbuing social justice discussions with religious rhetoric may approach fundamentalism.  Policies such as supporting rent control or raising the minimum wage are advocated not on its economic merits, but as a religious mandate – one which is not only representative of the entire faith, but incumbent on all Jews.  Or to put it another way, this is the difference between promoting environmentalism for social grounds or asserting that God demands we purchase hybrid vehicles or change our light bulbs.

Without advocating or critiquing any particular cause, agenda, or policy, I would like to suggest here is that the Torah's general model of social justice is not one of utilitarianism promoting the greatest good for the greatest number of people, nor does it consider the plight of the domain of the destitute or disadvantaged exclusively.  To the contrary, the dual Torah's model of social justice strives for individual judicial equality for all members of its population.  In other words, the test for Torah based social justice would be does the policy adequately account for the rights and needs of everyone effected.

Balance in Jewish Law

One area in which we find such a balance is in the distinction and designations of the ethics of hessed .  Biblical law provides social and economic protection for the most vulnerable and isolated of the Jewish community.  In particular the gerim, orphans, and widows are singled out as groups which one may not oppress (Shmot 22:20-21).  The poor are also considered a protected class of sorts in that Biblical law requires that the poor be supported (Devarim 15:4-9) and mandates specific mechanisms for their support such as leaving a portion of the harvest for them (Vayikra 23:22). 

            But there are limits to hessed, particularly in the area of justice.  The Bible considers it a perversion to favor the poor over the wealthy (Vayikra 19:15), affirms the same civil law for the ger and everyone else (Vayikra 24:22).  In civil matters, maintaining judicial integrity is so important that R. Yonatan states, "any judge who takes from one and gives to the other inappropriately God will take from him his life" (B. Sanhedrin 7a).  Furthermore, there are limits with respect to charity.  Despite the call for hessed and obligations for charity, the Talmud limits how much one is allowed to give to 20% lest the giver become poor himself, creating yet another imbalance in the society (B. Ketuvot 67b). 

            Seeing the complete picture of Jewish law, we find that Judaism expects compassion but it does so recognizing that the functioning society cannot become one-sided, favoring one group over another.  We must provide hessed, but focusing entirely on one group of the population will lead to a different form of social injustice.

The concern for balancing multiple interests is also present in the laws relating to worker's rights.  The Bible demands that employers must pay their workers on time, and failure to do so violates a biblical prohibition (Vayikra 19:13).  The Talmud extends that transgression such that an employer who withholds his worker's wages violates a total of six biblical laws including stealing (B. Bava Metziah 111a).  Furthermore, Jewish law would seemingly mandate employers provide safe working conditions under the general prohibition of negligently causing damage to someone else, even with the intent of compensating afterwards (B. Bava Batra 22b). 

But these laws protecting the worker cannot be taken in isolation of the broader labor legislation.  Just as the dual Torah assumes the employer meet certain obligations to his employees, it also assumes the employees maximize their productive efficiency while on the job.  In fact, the sages were so concerned with the worker that they shorted the birkat hamazon and amida (B. Berachot 16a) to minimize the time taken from their employer's.  In fact some were so careful about wasting their employer's time and money that they would not even greet sages as they passed by (B. Ta'anit 23a, B. Kiddushin 33a). 

The point here is not to equate the suffering of mistreated workers with the financial costs of inefficiency.  The Torah is certainly concerned with the potential exploitation of the weak.  However, this sensitivity in no way precludes similar concern for the other side of the equation.  As such it is inadequate to describe Jewish law as being favorably biased to either the worker or management, but rather towards a mutually beneficial interaction.

The Examples of Tikkun Olam

            This sort of balance is also present in the specific cases where the Sages acted in the interests of Tikkun Olam to address several forms of injustice.  For example, one type of injustice is the direct and unilateral actions of an individual to manipulate the legal system.  In this regard the Sages instituted new laws to prevent such abuse, particularly in the areas of divorce (M. Gittin 4b).  For example, a husband who sends his wife a document of divorce cannot convene an ad hoc court to nullify the document while in transit.  In these instances the concern is only to close legal loopholes to prevent exploitation.

            However where there are two legitimate parties to consider the Sages employed Tikkun Olam to balance both of their respective needs.  Consider the innovation of Hillel's prusbol (M. Gittin 4:3).  The Bible commands that all loans be forgiven with the shemitta year (Devarim 15:2).  Naturally this proved to be a disincentive for lenders to loan money with the increased risk of loss.  Hillel noticed that although the Torah forbids withholding loans on such grounds (Devarim 15:9) people were not lending money because of the shemitta year.  Consequently, Hillel instituted the prusbol, a mechanism by which loans would not be automatically forgiven with the shemitta year, out of Tikkun Olam.           

            At first glance it appears that the beneficiaries of this Tikkun would be the borrowers since lenders would be less reluctant to loan money before shemitta.  But the only way in which this Tikkun could be achieved was to address the fears of the supply side lenders, to protect their interests as well.  In addressing the problem of a tighter money supply, Hillel's did not only focus on the plight of the borrowers by compelling lenders to loan, even though Hillel would have explicit biblical support to do so.  Rather, the Tikkun Hillel enacted benefited both parties of the transaction such that the interests of both borrowers and lenders are protected.

            We also find the balanced nature of Tikkun Olam regarding the tragic instance of a captured Jew.  According to M. Gittin 4:6 it is forbidden to pay excessive sums of money to redeem captives.  From a social justice perspective we can sympathize with the captivity of any human being, and our emotions may dictate that we save anyone regardless of the cost.  Indeed, the Sages consider redeeming captives in particular to be "a great mitzvah" (B. Bava Batra 8a-b).   On the other hand overpaying for hostages provides incentive for hostages to be taken again in the future.  Despite any noble intentions, by saving one life one would actually be jeopardizing the well being of others.  In the balanced model of Tikkun Olam, such an exchange of one injustice for another is unacceptable for we cannot substitute the suffering of one with the suffering of another.  

Conclusions

The Torah's balanced model of social justice provides a useful framework for evaluating the various contemporary social justice issues.  It reminds us that however noble a cause may seem, we need to at least consider the ramifications of a policy and who else might be affected.  Jewish law dictates certain protections for the underprivileged, while simultaneously acknowledging the risks, ramifications, and potential unintended consequences of any solution.  Consequently, social justice policies and causes advocated in the name of Judaism should similarly take an equally thoughtful and balanced approach. 

Furthermore, given the above parameters of social justice, it is less likely to maintain fairness with more ambitious policies.  Simply put the more people whom are affected by a policy, the greater the likelihood that one side will suffer some form of loss.  For example, a policy of universal health care may assist some of the currently uninsured but will most likely result in negative unintended consequences for other patients, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and drug manufacturers.  In contrast, recall that despite the global implications of Tikkun Olam, the Sages invoked the principle for a relatively narrow set of circumstances where fewer individuals are affected such as borrowers or captives, but not for large scale social engineering.  This is not to say that such endeavors should not necessarily be pursued, only that careful thought be used to formulate and justify polices in the name of religious social justice. 

Most social justice causes are motivated through the fundamental concern for human welfare.  But as we approach such issues with compassion for one group of people, where applicable, we cannot withhold compassion from others or ignore negative repercussions which may be caused by our actions.

For nearly two thousand years, the Jewish people experienced powerlessness wandering in exile, often without privileges, land or rights. Following the destruction of the Second Temple, we became the prototypical ger (stranger), perpetually in a state of alienation from our surroundings. During the modern period, Jews won increasing rights in the Western world and began to participate more actively in the societies in which they lived.

In the second half of the twentieth century, Jewish communities in Israel and in North America experienced unprecedented freedom and prosperity. One indicator of this has been the emergence of Jewish organizations that address social justice concerns in America and around the world. Jews have come to see themselves as "global citizens". Organizations like American Jewish World Service, PANIM, Jewish Funds for Justice, and the Religious Action Center reflect the Jewish community's desire to go beyond its own gates. In this hotbed of Jewish social justice development, the Orthodox community has notably been underrepresented. Perhaps for fear of assimilation or dilution of halakhic standards, the Orthodox community allowed the Torah's charge of tzedek tzedek tirdof (justice, justice, you shall pursue) to become the mantra of other movements as it focused inward.

In recent years, young Orthodox Jews have decided to move their efforts beyond their own communities. These young Jewish activists, born and bred on hesed projects, are not satisfied with momentary amelioration of life's difficulties. This younger generation, which grew up with the comforts and trappings of power and prosperity, craves more lasting change and more meaningful ways to better society. Out of this desire for systemic social justice led by the Orthodox community, Uri L'Tzedek was born. This essay will outline Uri L'Tzedek's mission and goals, strategies and tactics, as well as two specific case studies that demonstrate the social justice change that Uri L'Tzedek creates and promotes.

Uri L'Tzedek aims to serve and inspire the American Orthodox Jewish community toward social justice in and beyond our communities. It seeks to develop the growing discourse of social justice among traditional Jewish communities using Jewish texts and the paradigms of halakha to connect God, Torah and social-political issues, ultimately translating that discourse into action. Through its work, Uri L'Tzedek aspires to create a Jewish community of learners and leaders who will seek to improve the world, while simultaneously fulfilling and enriching their religious and ethical lives.

Uri L'Tzedek employs three principal strategies to promote and achieve its mission: (1) to create learning opportunities to allow for the reintegration of social justice issues and traditional Jewish sources; (2) to foster and train new Jewish social justice leadership; and (3) to engage in action and activism toward substantive systemic change.

At the heart of Uri L'Tzedek's success has been its beit midrash (learning) program. Through batei midrash, Uri L'Tzedek began creating an Orthodox community that wrestled with the role of social justice in the Torah, the Talmud and the halakhic literature. Topics have included immigration, healthcare, Tibet and domestic violence. Uri L'Tzedek educators and visiting scholars combined Jewish learning, compelling personal narratives, and the most recent and urgent facts and research on the pressing issues of today. These educational programs are taught in synagogues, schools, and colleges.

To bring the powerful Torah of justice outside the four walls of the beit midrash, Uri L'Tzedek began developing social justice leaders in the Orthodox community. The charge of creating a just society is greater than any single individual or small group can shoulder. With a broad, diverse and committed leadership, Uri L'Tzedek reaches more people, addresses more issues and creates more opportunities for change. Uri L'Tzedek fosters a diverse cohort of leadership through one-on-one meetings, community-driven initiatives, high school and college student mentoring, and individually mentored programs.

Uri L'Tzedek as an organization identifies pressing social justice issues that impact, or are impacted by, our community. By partnering with other organizations, neighborhood councils and community initiatives, Uri L'Tzedek identifies and addresses social justice needs ranging from inter-community race relations to domestic workers' rights.

The gemara in Kiddushin states: "Study is great, for it leads to action." Uri L'Tzedek is committed to translating the learning into real life. Learning about the halakhic mandate to care for the stranger and the oppressed is complemented by work with Jewish-owned businesses to help them treat immigrant workers according to the Torah's standards. Studying the Jewish view of forbidding racism leads to opportunities for people from diverse communities to join together for community service and dialogue. Over the course of the past year, Uri L'Tzedek addressed the challenge of workers' rights in two specific arenas.

The first such example of combining learning with activism was an initiative at Stern College for Women. In February 2008, Shmuly Yanklowitz, Uri L'Tzedek co-founder and director, taught at a social justice shabbaton at Stern College about workers' rights. After the lecture, several inspired students wanted to learn more about the issue and how they could effect change. Yanklowitz directed them to resources in both the halakhic and social justice literature and encouraged them to examine the institutions around them. The students discovered that workers at Stern College did not have a place to eat their lunches due to the restrictions against non-kosher food in the cafeteria. The students learned that there was no separate cafeteria for workers. They were forced to eat outside or in bathrooms. Concerned about this treatment of workers, students organized a petition. They approached the administration of the school asking for a change. The administration answered this request. Within a week, a temporary lunchroom for Stern College workers was made available.

A second example of combining learning with activism was Uri L'Tzedek's joining Domestic Workers United (DWU) in lobbying for a domestic workers bill of rights. While American labor law provides benefits and protection for most industries, domestic workers in homes, as well as farm workers, have been excluded. In the fall of 2007, Uri L'Tzedek identified this topic as a growing social justice concern and held an evening study program, examining this topic from both halakhic and personal perspectives. That following spring, Uri L'Tzedek joined a campaign to pass legislation in the New York State Assembly and State Senate that would guarantee domestic and farm workers the basic labor rights that all other laborers already enjoy. Joining together with a coalition comprised of clergy, advocacy groups, volunteers, academics and domestic workers, Uri L'Tzedek activists journeyed to Albany, NY to lobby for this social justice cause. This effort succeeded on two levels: it created strong new communal bonds where none had previously existed, and it significantly pushed this legislation forward, garnering additional eight multi-sponsoring congressmen and the eventual passing of the first ever domestic workers bill of rights.

For Orthodoxy to remain a relevant and a transformative force, it must speak to the souls of American Jews. Jews, today more than ever, are seeking to make meaning of their contemporary identities and to be engaged in modern society in more complex and nuanced ways. The Torah must be an enabler, not an inhibitor, in guiding a sophisticated and moral discourse and call to action. Uri L'Tzedek seeks to lead a movement wherein Jews will integrate Talmud Torah, community organizing, leadership development, and a passion for tzedek. Uri L'Tzedek maintains that a pursuit for righteousness and justice in all domains of our lives is the most powerful religious force to create social change, build community, and represent the truth of our mesorah (tradition). Rabbi Soloveitchik's Halakhic Man inspired us to answer this call: "When God created the world, He provided an opportunity for the work of His hands - humanity - to participate in His creation. The Creator, as it were, impaired reality in order that mortal humans could repair its flaws and perfect it." Uri L'Tzedek supports and challenges our community to respond to Rav Soloveitchik's charge to repair the world and perfect it.

The directors of Uri L'Tzedek are Ari Hart, Aaron Finkelstein, Tsufit Daniel, and Shmuly Yanklowitz. To learn more about Uri L'Tzedek visit uriltzedek.webnode.com or write to [email protected].

The current conversion crisis that is searing the larger Jewish community in general and the Orthodox community in particular is grounded in politically and ideologically driven doublespeak. Orthodox Judaism teaches that the Jew is sanctified by obeying God's commandments. Honest people may disagree over details. When agendas replace conscience and the halakha is superseded by policy, we are not being honest to God or to each other. The organization that sees itself as the "Eternal Jewish Family"wants the world Jewish community to adopt its own conversion standards that are "universally acceptable." This seemingly innocent idiom makes the immodest claim that unless the standards of the most strict, who by implication are the most fervent, religious and authentic Orthodox, are adopted, the Jewish people will be hopelessly divided. It makes the implicit assumption that the hareidi conscience is inviolable and other Orthodox standards, which are asked to define itself as Judaism lite, must defer to its dictates and dictators.

The hareidi so-called Eternal Jewish Family standards are not the standards of red letter Jewish law. As long as the norms of the plain, simple and logical reading of the Oral Torah canon are observed with regard to conversion, the eternal Jewish standard has been satisfied, and dissenters must be ignored. If Jewish legal standards are observed with regard to conversions, the invalidating of kosher converts without evidence invalidates the invalidators precisely because eternal Jewish standards are superseded by social and political considerations.

Jewish values are based upon laws, not standards. Standards not required by Jewish law may be practiced as personal piety gestures but may not be imposed on all Israel as God's unchanging law. Jewish law actually does allow conversion for the sake of marriage! Consider the fact that the female captive has a month after capture and mourning before she can be taken as an Israelite wife, [Dt 21:10-13]. The Talmudic view of R. Nehemiah, that conversions for marriage are improper, is reported but rejected.[bYevamot 24b]. And consider the narrative of bMenahot 44b that describes a prostitute whose "client," a student of R. Hiyya, was slapped by his tsitsit tassels upon undressing in her presence, reminding him that amongst the Torah's commands is the admonition not to succumb to improper temptations. The student concedes that the woman is beautiful but he loves Judaism more. Taken by her client's poignant piety, she asks for his biographical particulars and confronts the student's mentor, the insightful, knowing, wise, and kindly R. Hiyya, who told her "that very bed that you made for him [her recalcitrant client] illicitly, make that very same bed for him properly, i.e., by becoming a pious Jewess by choice.

Authentic Jewish law allows the presiding rabbi almost unqualified discretion regarding the acceptance of converts. "Standards" not recorded in the Jewish legal canon are not Jewish law. In Responsum Pe'er ha-Dor 132, Maimonides permits a conversion as the better alternative to intermarriage. A rabbinical court of three observant lay people, i.e., non-rabbis, may not be ideal but its conversions are nevertheless kosher once accomplished [Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Relations, 13:17!]. Requiring extra "expertise" for converting rabbis on the part of hareidi Judaism is a disingenuous ploy intended to disqualify those rabbis who disagree with the extra-legal standards of extremists and who believe that Torah law is in no need of reformulation. Since a convert who was accepted by a halakhic rabbinic court consisting of three observant males is kosher, the rejecting of that convert, whom we are required to love, [Dt 10:19, Maimonides, Positive Commandments, 207] we cause
good Jews by choice to be tempted to sin. If we are not really certain that the conversions of non-hareidi rabbis are kosher, we would, it would seem, accept the conversion candidate cautiously in order to assure that these candidates for conversion be properly integrated into the Jewish community. By claiming the right of veto of converts of Orthodox rabbis who obey Jewish law, hareidi Judaism advances the claim that Judaism is based on rulers, not rules, and standard bearers, not standards, and deference to men and not devotion to Jewish law.

Jewish standards are defined in the Talmudic canon, and not councils, conventions, or conclaves of policy makers. Torah is the Judaism of all Israel. The so-called Orthodox Right has here wrongly misrepresented Jewish law. Individual rabbis may suspend the law in emergency situations [Maimonides, Laws of Dissenters, 2:4].This discretion is given not to a self-select rabbinic elite; it is given to the local rabbi, who is authorized to apply humanity, uncommon common sense, and what is deemed to be appropriate in the circumstances as they appear at that moment [bSanhedrin 6b].

The Israeli rabbi, Abraham Sherman, not only invalidated Rabbi Haim Drukman's conversions, he called the latter rabbi a wicked man. Slander is a sin that invalidates Sherman's rabbinic credentials. Yet most Orthodox rabbis hesitate to make this necessary, logical, and undeniable recourse because modern Orthodox rabbis wish to be "accepted" by all Orthodox parties. When fully observant converts, who are even observing the family purity rules, [See Maimonides, Forbidden Relations, 13:8] are being disqualified, the disqualifiers are acting wrongly. When Orthodox Judaism is defined by political standards and not by Jewish law, then God's view is silenced. Rabbi Shelomo Amar invalidated Diaspora Judaism's Orthodox converts without doing research. By not accepting a kosher convert, one tempts a Jew, the kosher convert, to sin. Rabbi Amar is not applying "strict construction" Jewish law; he feels that he is answerable to that block of Orthodoxy that sees itself as the salvation and life of all Israel, and whose intuition trumps what the written and oral Torah actually require.

A local rosh yeshiva in Springfield, New Jersey became very angry with me for supporting the Neeman proposal as advanced by Rabbi Lamm of YU. Rabbi Lamm was denounced by a zealot as a" Hater of God." bQiddushin 79a teaches that whoever invalidates the bona fides of another projects the flaw in oneself. The fact that many within Modern Orthodoxy, including the Rabbinical faculty of Yeshiva University, did not invalidate the bona fides of those who slandered Rabbis Drukman and Lamm, but protested weakly, begs the existential question as to whether this brand of Orthodox Judaism is loyal to God and conscience or compulsion and consensus.

Rabbi Isaac Schmelkes claimed 150 years ago that a kosher conversion is invalid if the person converting is insincere, and if the convert at a subsequent date was not observant, the convert is deemed to be insincere. This view is without precedent in the Jewish legal literature and must be rejected as such. The oral law at bSota 44b requires military service in Israel for both men and women. The very rabbis who impose these "innovative" conversion standards also outlaw military service for yeshiva men and for its women. Jewish law must be enforced consistently and appropriately and not spun sociologically.

I have recently experienced a case where an Orthodox rabbi's conversion was not accepted by another Orthodox rabbi ordained by the same yeshiva. The converting rabbi is modern Orthodox; the rejecting one is hareidi. On one hand, we define ourselves by proclaiming who we are not. The Jewish laws of conversion are rather clear, are not difficult to master, and are in no need of alteration, from either the Left or from the Right.
The quest for "universal conversion standards" de-authorizes Jewish law by misrepresenting Judaism as a religion of standard bearers and not of objective standards.

Authentic Orthodoxy advances principles and not politics. Torah is about rules and not rulers, it is about the law of Torah and not standards of self-selecting elites. There is room for vigorous and public discussion. We undermine our own bona fides when we succumb to incivility and when we put up with put downs. Judaism is about the fear of Heaven and not the fear of people. In order to restore its existential credibility, Orthodox Judaism must affirm Jewish law honestly, because this alone is our eternal Jewish standard.