National Scholar Updates

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].

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.

Question: A person is an essential member of a United States governmental committee to resolve the current economic crisis.Of concern, Is whether the crisis is deemed a form of Pikuach Nefesh(a danger to life) This classification grants one permission to violate the Shabbat in order to extricate oneself (or a group of people)from this dangerous status.
Response:The following actual case took place.
In a dialogue between Rabbi Asher Lopatin and the Religion News Service pertaining to the religious sensitivity of Rahm Emanuel, President -elect Barack Obama's White House Chief of Staff', the following was reported. The Rabbi recalled that Rahm Emanuel informed him that he was requested to be part of a very important conference call on Rosh HaShana dealing with the financial bailout bill.Mr. Emanuel was concerned whether being part of such a conference call was a violation of Rosh HaShana."He wanted to know what I thought. I asked him,is the crisis as serious as they portray it.And he said , that according to the information that he had there was a potential for financial meltdown.I said that under those circumstances we have a law of "pikuach nefesh" , of saving lives and almost any ritual law may be pushed off for the sake of saving a life.I wouldn't say this with every piece of legislation, but if this bailout did not happen, it could lead to a question of life and death for certain people,"
The above was e-mailed to me with the following halachic question:- "Can a financial emergency rise to the level of Pekuach Nefesh to be docheh (overrule/annul)Shabbat?"
Though the Rabbi did not provide any rabbinic source for his decision, it may be shown that his position has merit and is supported by Chazal.
The Talmud states(Yoma 82a) R. Eliezer says (in reference to the verse: and you shall love Hashem your God with all your soul and with all your resources[D'varim 6:5] if it is stated with all your soul why was it necessary to state with all your resources?-and if it is stated with all your resources, why was it necessary to state with all your soul?Rather the explanation is that if you have a person whose body is more precious to him than his money,for this reason it is stated with all your soul,so that he be prepared to give up that which is most precious to him.And if you have a person whose money is more precious to him than his body,for this reason it is stated with all your resources, so that he be prepared to give up that which is precious to him.(Artscroll translation)
HaRav Moshe ibn Chaviv, in his classic commentary on Mesechet Yoma, titled "Tosafot Yom HaKippurim" posed the following question. It is a well known fact that the overwhelming number of people would deem life more important than monetary resources. Very few , if any, would consider monetary resources more precious than life. Accordingly, the behavior of such a minute minority should not be of concern to the Torah. Would not the rare person who values money more than life be so insignificant and abnormal that no one would even reckon with this person at all? HaRav Chaviv's response is that the Torah is not dealing with the view of a minute minority. It, rather, relates to different stages of life. A young, healthy person generally would value life more precious than resources. As long as a person was alive and well he could once again through effort regain the resources he lost. An older person, especially one who is ill,lacks the ability to in any way regain his financial assets. Such a person would value his funds more than his life; for any loss of his resources would signify his inability to sustain his life. The Torah, therefore, relates to two distinctly different classes of people; those who have the ability to recoup resources and those without such ability.
Accordingly, an economic meltdown to the infirm and elderly may truly generate a realistic Pikuach Nefesh.
In a discussion of the decision of the Rabbinate in Israel to sell the land to a gentile prior to Shmitta so that its produce may be marketed, HaRav Herzog, former Chief Rabbi of Israel contended that in contemporary times the nature of the prohibition was merely rabbinic, not biblical.In addition, he noted that the issue may be a form of "pikuach nefesh" [ karov l'pikuach nefesh] to sustain the Jewish population in Israel.( "Kuntras:Al D'var HaShmitta", p.51-52, by HaRav Issac HaLevi Herzog,in a memorial volume dedicated to HaRav Dr.Shaol Weingart titled Yad Shaol)
Thus a communal economic crises may be classified as a case of pikuach nefesh.
The prophet rebukes King David for his behavior with Batsheva.He tells a tale of a wealthy man with countless flocks of sheep who steals and slaughters the one calf and beloved pet of his neighbor rather than use any of his own flocks.The king was horrified by the immoral act and cries out "Ben Mavet ha'eesh haoseh zot"[the person who did this deserves to be killed](2 Shmuel 12:5) Of concern is why such a theft deserves the penalty of death. It was merely a monetary sin. Rashi says that stealing from a poor person is comparable to killing him. The meaning must be that if you take away the last resource of a person it is deemed as if one killed him.
The above sources appear to sustain the view that an economic meltdown crises is a form of pikuach nefesh.Accordingly, coupled to this would be the general approach to manifest a kilacher yad activity.Namely, any Shabbat violation is to be performed in an irregular manner.
It is vital to note that though a total loss of resources is a form of pikuach nefesh there are major Halachic distinctions between cases of life threatening circumstances and cases of loss of resources.
1. In life threatening situations, one may violate Shabbat observances even if the pikuach nefesh is not certain but merely a doubt. (Yoma 84b)There is no such leniency recorded in matters of a loss of resources. Also, there must be a total loss of resources, not a partial loss.
2. In life threatening situations even biblical restrictions of Shabbat may be violated to save lives.(ibid.,)In a loss of resources there is no source sustaining violation of biblical rules.(Note Harav Herzog utilizes the concern for pikuach nefesh of the Jewish community only after he rules that Shmitta is only a rabbinic observance in modern times.)
3. In life threatening situations, an individual may violate Shabbat to save one Jew's life.In a total loss of resources the status of pikuach nefesh,perhaps, is only utilized to prevent an economic meltdown that impacts a large number of Jewish households. Accordingly, no individual Jew may violate Shabbat to prevent personal loss of resources.As such, the pikuach nefesh of a loss of resources is a means of sustaining the viability of the Jewish community.It, therefore is an Halachic decision that may require a rabbinic P'sak and may not be unilaterally assumed
4. Custom has it that the non Jewish poor were required to be sustained by the Jewish community.(Gittin 61a) This appears to suggest that a Jewish governmental leader may be mandated to act in behalf of a gentile community to prevent an economic meltdown just as he would to prevent such a drastic crises to Jews.

(Logic would indicate that action on Shabbat would include all of the above factors.)

People familiar with the Sabbath laws know that the Torah does not list the activities prohibited on the Sabbath. However, rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 49a, state that the Torah hints at the activities that are banned.
These hints are based on two rabbinical teachings that are applied by the rabbis at times: (1) When facts or incidents are placed near one another in the Bible, one can derive a lesson from the juxtaposition. (2) A halakhah can be learned from such things as counting the number of times an item appears in the Torah.
Thus the rabbis stated:
• Because the Sabbath is mentioned near the laws of the building of the Tabernacle, we are informed that those labors necessary to construct the Tabernacle are forbidden on the Sabbath.
• Since the term melakhah is found in the discussion of the Sabbath and appears thirty-nine times in the Bible, Scripture is teaching that there are thirty-nine categories of proscribed work on this holy day.
Some scholars who attempt to find reasons for the commandments, such as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, suggest that the thirty-nine categories are comprised of melekhet machshevet, a phrase found in Exodus 35:33 which they translate as "creative acts." Creative acts, they say, are forbidden on the Sabbath to remind Jews that God created the world, ceasing to perform acts of creation on the first Sabbath.
Critics of these views point out that no hint of the thirty-nine labors exists in the Torah itself, and that the register of prohibitions is clearly rabbinical in origin. If the Torah wanted to teach that work performed in the Tabernacle or creative acts should not be done on the Sabbath, it would have stated this clearly. Furthermore, the claim that the word melakhah appears only thirty-nine times in the Bible is incorrect. The word appears more than thirty-nine times - it is present in 166 verses throughout the entire Bible, including sixty-five in the Pentateuch alone.
Additionally, hundreds of jobs were performed by Tabernacle workers but were not included in the thirty-nine categories listed by the rabbis, such as carrying work instruments and other items in the Tabernacle structure, washing before and after work and before and after eating, setting the table to eat, using utensils in eating and drinking, cleaning the table after the meal, and clearing work areas when work were completed. Why were these activities not listed as acts prohibited on the Sabbath?
Many "creative acts" in the building of the Tabernacle are also not on the list of forbidden Sabbath activities, such as measuring boards and cloths and placing them in their proper places in the Tabernacle based on the measurements, as well as counting, reading, studying, giving directions to subordinates, and other activities for which a specialist is generally consulted.
Even rabbis who contend that the list of prohibited Sabbath labors was derived from the Torah recognize that there are more than thirty-nine categories of work that are disallowed on the Sabbath. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, for example, adds, in its concluding paragraph, acts unbecoming the tone of the Sabbath day, as well as buying, selling, loaning, placing an article in deposit, legal judgments, legal claims, appeals, other court activities, marriage, divorce, and accounting - eleven more. The Midrash cites what it considers to be scriptural proof for each of these items.
Why, then, if the sages themselves recognized that more than thirty-nine activities were prohibited on the Sabbath, were thirty-nine banned behaviors chosen and not another number? Also, why did the rabbis (in such places as Mishnah Shabbat 73a and the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 49b) call the number arba'im chaser achat, "forty minus one"? Why did they not simply say thirty-nine?
The Significance of the Number Forty
The number forty is a symbolic figure associated in Jewish thought with a long period or large number of difficulties. It reminds Jews, for example, of the forty years of struggle, exertion and challenges faced by the Israelites as punishment for accepting the wrong-headed assessment of the ten spies sent to evaluate the land of Canaan and for the Israelites' refusal to rely on the divine assurances and advance in armed battle to conquer the land.
The number also recalls the forty days and nights when the flood raged and destroyed all earthly inhabitants; only Noah, his family and the animals he sequestered on the ark were saved.
The number forty brings to mind the forty days and nights that Moses spent on Mount Sinai, with no one but God, without food and drink. This was a period of deep mental and physical exertion, in which he obtained the Decalogue from God, learned its meaning and brought it to the Israelites.
The Meaning of the Words "Forty Minus One"
The unusual phrase "forty minus one" appears to have special meaning, for if it did not, the number thirty-nine would have been used. Aside from being employed in reference to the Sabbath in Mishnah Shabbat 7:2, "forty minus one" is also utilized as the count for the lashes inflicted as punishment upon certain criminals for certain crimes in Mishnah Makkot 3:1-10.
The rabbis were conscious of the severity of the thirty-nine lashes and the enormous strain and bodily destruction it produced, as they stated in Mishnah Makkot 3:10. Only a few rather strong men, undoubtedly, could endure so many harsh beatings. It is, therefore, more than likely that they rarely inflicted the full count of thirty-nine lashes. Indeed, the rabbis required that a doctor examine and evaluate a prisoner's physical condition before lashes were inflicted, and, if the doctor determined that the criminal could not stand the large number of whippings, the amount was reduced. Thus, it should be clear that the number "forty minus one" is more symbolic than real. Why, then, did the rabbis choose the phrase "forty minus one"?
It seems that the rabbis wanted to say two things. First, as indicated by the symbolism of the number forty, the criminal deserved a harsh and unpleasant punishment because of his misdeed. Second, by reducing the number and making it clear that they were decreasing it by using the phrase "forty minus one," they were teaching that people must not act ruthlessly without sensitivity and consideration - even with criminals.
Applying This Concept to Shabbat
Consistent with the usage of the phrase with corporal punishment, it appears that the rabbis were teaching two lessons. First, by mentioning forty, which denotes difficulty, they made it clear that Shabbat should be a day when Jews scrupulously abstain from creative acts. The abstention should be more than symbolic; it must be noticeable, clear, obvious, unambiguous - an unmistakable demonstration of a fundamental Jewish idea, that Jews are thinking of God and recalling that He created the world and ceased creative acts on the Shabbat. This demonstration can only occur when a significant number of acts are noticeably disallowed on the Shabbat.
But the rabbis also stressed a second lesson. The Sabbath is not a sad negative day devoted to abstentions and ascetic behaviors, a time, as the ancient Sadducees insisted, when Jews sequester themselves in their homes, set themselves apart from company, and sit in the dark and cold without light and fire. The rabbis insisted that the Sabbath is a day of pleasures.
Beside thirty-nine seemingly negative certainly restrictive melakhot, the rabbis instituted sabbatical laws that emphasize the enjoyment and spiritual elevation of the holy day, such as eating delicious foods, imbibing tasty drinks, beginning meals with a blessing and wine, wearing one's best clothes, devoting time to study and self improvement, and starting the Sabbath with the lighting of candles, symbolizing the light, warmth and joy that mark the anti-Sadducean quality of the Sabbath.
Thus, the Sabbath labors are "forty minus one," marking a day in which Jews understand both the rigorous duty to remember God and the delightful duty to do so with joy.
Summary
The rule banning "forty minus one" types of activities on the Sabbath raises many questions, including why the rabbis selected thirty-nine labors and used the term "forty minus one" to describe this count when there are clearly more than thirty-nine prohibited categories of labor on the Sabbath.
Since many ancient arduous activities were associated with forty, the number came to symbolize difficulties and work performed with rigor. The rabbis may have used the word forty with the Sabbath as a symbol to challenge Jews to demonstrate the meaning of the Sabbath; the Sabbath reminds Jews that God created the world, and they mark it by abstaining from a list of creative activities, just as God ceased performing acts of creation on the original seventh day.
By reducing forty by one and phrasing the number of restricted Sabbath activities as "forty minus one" rather than thirty-nine, the rabbis were symbolically reducing the difficulties. They were emphasizing that despite the need to remember and demonstrate the fundamental lesson of the Sabbath, the Jew must also understand that the Sabbath is not a gloomy time, but a day of delights, joy and self improvement.