Magen Tzedek

In keeping with the new "Torn from the Headlines" for discussion, concept;
I offer the following for your considerations:

__your Host and Moderator (oy)

Magen Tzedek: Model of the Jewish Future or Show without an Audience?

The Polymath

By Jay Michaelson

Find it Published November 18, 2009, in the November 27, 2009. issue of the Forward newspaper

The problem seems not to have changed. Back when I was at college, the egalitarian services couldn’t get a minyan, and so, while I didn’t like Orthodox liturgy, and didn’t approve of the mechitza (prayer barrier), I still schlepped up the extra flight of stairs to the traditional minyan, week after week. Whatever my personal preferences, it seemed that only Orthodox Jews cared enough to make the system work.

Today, I feel like the challenge remains the same — only writ much larger. Historically, progressive Jews have had trouble mustering the same degree of zeal as traditional Jews, whether regarding synagogue affiliation, in-marriage (and affiliation post-intermarriage) or any number of other values. This, the Orthodox often say with a degree of deserved smugness, just goes to show you.

Now, along come the Conservative movement’s efforts to create a Magen Tzedek, a seal for food products that would certify conformity not to the ritual particulars of kashrut, but to the deeper and more profound requirements of Jewish social justice law.

I think the Magen Tzedek is a fantastic idea — if it works. It makes a strong case for Judaism’s ethical relevance, a 21st-century update of the old Hebrew National advertisements — “We answer to a higher authority.” In fact, the Magen Tzedek is even better than the original, which, after all, was a ritual “authority” only tangentially related to contemporary health or sanitary concerns, It is a “higher authority” on values that really matter, to religious Jews, secular Jews and non-Jews alike.

Imagine if Jews were known in America to be the super-ethical people instead of the super-ritual ones. We’re the people who won’t eat a hamburger unless the workers at the restaurant are paid a fair wage. We’re the ones who consider environmentalism to be a matter of religious concern. Because doing the right thing matters to God.

This is good P.R., to put it mildly, both “outwardly,” in terms of the wider population, and “inwardly,” in terms of the Jewish community. This is a Judaism that stands for something meaningful, something more compelling than Jewish survival, or the ritual purity of cloven-foot animals. (Full disclosure: I keep kosher myself.) I’m not saying that the Magen Tzedek would end antisemitism and assimilation, but it would be a potent weapon against them.

And, contrary to the objections of some, it’s grounded in authentic, ancient Jewish values. Of course, the specific details of living wages and green production are new, just like the details of how to kasher a microwave. These will, and should, be debated: Many current Magen Tzedek requirements do seem to be needlessly obscure and overly strict. But the basic principles are indubitable. And I would suggest that in the Age of Madoff, making our ethical reasoning as current, comprehensive and mandatory as our ritual reasoning is, itself, a Jewish obligation. As many Orthodox rabbis said this past Yom Kippur, we need to be glatt yosher (ethically ‘straight’) even more than glatt kosher.

But it’s that pesky adjective — mandatory — that will be the biggest obstacle to the Magen Tzedek’s success. Practicing Orthodox Jews simply will not eat food whose preparation wasn’t properly supervised, even if they’re really hungry and there is no alternative. Will practicing progressive Jews be similarly strict? Or will this be yet another optional practice that, like my egalitarian minyan at school, has the right values but no followers?

There are some positive signs. I know people who will not eat non-eco-kosher food (for example, factory-farmed meat or eggs, over-fished species of fish) and will not use environmentally unsound disposable plates, even if it means missing out on treats, snacks or full meals. And of course, there are increasing numbers of Americans who will not feed their children pesticide-laden vegetables or processed McFood made mostly out of corn. Some of this is motivated by health concerns, but some of it is value based, and much of it is every bit as strict as Orthodox kashrut. But such behaviors are still on the fringes. Will they ever become mainstream enough to make obtaining a Magen Tzedek worth the financial and administrative costs of doing so? Will progressive Jews care as much about progressive values as traditional Jews care about traditional ones?

I am both despairing and hopeful.

Within the Jewish community, I have my doubts. Conservative Judaism probably has the largest gap between ideology and practice, and it’s not clear how the Magen Tzedek will be any different from the 100 other Conservative rules and regulations that most laypeople ignore. Orthodox Jews have already, by and large, rejected it, although some have created their own version, which I’m not sure helps or hurts. And Reform Jews may not care about a specifically Jewish certification. That doesn’t leave much of a Jewish constituency.

But if the Magen Tzedek proceeds in its current direction, it will be of value far beyond the Jewish community. According to sources quoted in the Forward, the Magen Tzedek has the potential to be the most comprehensive “green seal” in America, and such seals matter economically. If the Magen Tzedek were to capture a share of this market — though, to be sure, there is already plenty of competition — it could indeed reach critical mass.

The dirty little secret of kashrut certification is that it works the same way. The kosher food industry has boomed in recent years: a 15% annual growth rate (compared with 4% for the food industry in general), and a $9 billion market. But according to a 2007 survey, 55% of kosher food consumers buy kosher because they believe it is healthier. And the majority of them are not Jewish.

This has to be the model for the Magen Tzedek — although not on the half-truth that kosher food is healthier, but on the whole truth that Tzedek food is more just. The takeaway is clear. If the Magen Tzedek gains traction among non-Jews who care about how their food is produced, it is sustainable. If it relies on Jewish observance patterns, it isn’t.

In a way, this is an unfortunate result — that a Jewish seal is of more value to gentiles than to Jews. But maybe it’s not so unfortunate at all.

In the coming century, sociologists tell us, Judaism will become less like an all-or-nothing proposition — ethnicity, identity, culture, nation and religion, all wrapped up in one — and more like one source of values, identity, spirituality and culture among many. We should get used to someone practicing Jewish dietary laws, Buddhist meditation and secular ethical values, whether that someone is born of a Jewish mother or not. Jewish culture and religion are going to survive not because of endogamy, but because they remain relevant to people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds who find them to be meaningful. Like it or not, the Kabbalah Centre, Matisyahu and the Magen Tzedek are the future of Judaism; they thrive not because the Jewish tribe maintains them, but because they appeal to a wide range of people.

This is a meaningful transition in the way Jewishness is understood. For some, it is terrifying. But for me, it represents a compelling model of how particularism can survive without ethnocentrism and despite assimilation — not quite a Judaism without Jews, but Judaism beyond the confines of the Jewish population. Yes, there will always be things that only Jews do: I don’t see the lulav and etrog suddenly holding universal appeal. But in the 21st century, progressive Judaism’s survival depends on its relevance to the other 99.9% of the world.

Thus, rather than seeing the Magen Tzedek’s dependence on non-Jews as a liability, I see it as an asset. Imagine an evening in which you enjoy African-American music, a Japanese-American car and Chinese-American food, and it’s all certified according to American Jewish ethical values. Could be worse.

here are just a few of the "feed-back" comments that you will find on the Forward's website
I hope to find your comments posted below:

Joe Feld Wed. Nov 18, 2009

There is no need to limit the stamp of approval to narrowly Jewish products. The OU appears on many major national brands, so why not also the Magen Tzedek ?

JMK Wed. Nov 18, 2009

There is no industry like the food and restaurant business is so corrupt, that employs more illegal immigrants, every establishment has two sets of books, pays cash to its workers, avoids all kinds of taxes for most of their income, ethical? how about stop the fantasizing.

kishkeman Wed. Nov 18, 2009

Magen Tzedek = Do as we say and not as we do Judaism. Hey Conservative Judaism: Provide pre-school teacher's with health insurance. Then preach to me about ethics.

Jon Thu. Nov 19, 2009

The major factual error the underpins this article is the categories it puts people into: the idea that all Jews are either Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative; the idea that Jews are either strictly kosher or not.

In fact, all of the data from population studies and other surveys shows that kashrut practice varies along a broad spectrum, and that, depending on the survey, either a plurality or majority of Jews do not affiliate with a synagogue of any movement.

And if the orthodox are the only ones that make it work, why are they so vastly outnumbered, if not outvoiced? The other movements are strong and vital, but just because they don't do it the same way, the are said not to be. Also, the "100" ways in which Conservative teaching differs from how it's practice—so, what do you suggest? They all just decide either to be Reform or Orthodox?

Other than these overbroad generalizations and condescension towards other kinds of Jews, I'm glad to see that this article is in favor of Magen Tzedek. It's a way that we might get more of these people that aren't good enough for the author to make it work in their not good enough Conservative and Reform synagogues, or maybe just a little bit at a time in their own private lives, as our rabbis taught us.

The MaHaRal's Philosophy

We have previously discussed the MaHaRaL and who he was; to recapitulate- Moreinu HaRav Yehudah Loew (of Prague) lived from 1512 to 1609 CE, making him a contemporary of both Rav Yosef karo (author of the Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Yitchok Luria, Ari’zal). The Maharal’s teachings draw upon the Zohar and makes use of Midrashic homiletics. They provided a framework for authentic Jewish philosophy down to our own generation. Maharal considers the relationships between the various mishnah writings and the themes that evolve from them collectively. Briefly put, the Maharal explains the various Rabbis’ statements in relationship to history and the spiritual universe that we inhabit.

Maharal’s commentaries, built as it is on thoughts found in the Zohar, have Kabbalistic principles – even though there are no direct allusions to Kabbalah (or are very rare in his teachings). So we should not approach his teachings with trepidation and fear of that “K” word.

I am indebted to Rabbi Tuvia Brassler in his own commentary (Maharal of Prague Pirkei Avos), based on selections of Maharal’s Derech Chaim. His is an enlightening book and I recommend it to the student of, and those interested in the life and teachings of, the Maharal of Prague.

(An ArtScroll Classics publication)

We now look at the philosophy of Rabbi Yehuda ben Betzalel Loew. This is but an outline but it expresses the implication for our human conduct in relation to The Creator.

> G-d in perfect (Shaleim) [whole, complete, needing nothing] and one of the aspects of perfection is the ability to create (to mix in Latin terms: ex Nihilo). There is a story currently making the “rounds” on the internet; a Scientist approaches G-d and tells Him that “We don’t need you any more. We scientists can now create life on our own.” “Is that so?” says G-d, “Go ahead and show me how you do it.” The scientist then proceeds to stoop down and begins to gather dirt together in the form of a man… when G-d stops him and says, “No, no, no… go get your own dirt.” To remain, as we do, potentially only able to create falls short of perfection. Therefore only G-d creates.

> G-d’s greatness as Creator is manifested by creating human beings. Yet we are, in a sense, also creators when we practice Tikkun Olam. In addition we do have self-determination in that He gave us the freedom to accept or reject Him. (See the 9^th item below in this regard!)

> He created two worlds for mankind to inhabit: a (predominantly) spiritual world and a predominantly physical world. People have the native intelligence to succeed in the physical world; however, only the wisdom of Torah opens the doors to prosper in the spiritual world.

> Only the spiritual world reflects properly His perfection; that world, from our current perspective, is called the World to Come. In that world G-d’s Presence is manifest and it endows the human soul with consummate serenity. (See the final item below in this regard)

> Because the World to Come is an eternal and unchanging existence G-d also created this physical world so that humans can develop and prepare for (the) eternal life. Compare this to Shabbos; we can only prepare for Shabbos on a weekday, because on Shabbos, we rest and that precludes our shopping and cooking (and the other 37 prohibited items). So similarly we can only prepare for the World to Come as we develop our spiritual substance in this world (we cannot do a mitzvah in the grave – they are physical activities that the soul cannot perform) for our essence in the World to Come is our spirituality. Because physical things (can) change, the greatness of the human comes out only in this physical world; however, a world of change is inherently temporal and must end – eventually.

> A world devoid of G-d and G-d’s Presence would not have been worth creating; it would have been a sterile, pointless creation, rather than a vehicle for spiritual growth as intended. Rather, G-d associates His Presence with this world, and by doing so, He reveals specific Divine qualities.

> The world serves and reveals the Holy One, and that fact is the essence of the giving of the Torah. Torah directs mankind to know the Hold One and what He desires of him (man). It [1] enlightens him in the pursuit of increasing holiness in the conduct of his life (as: what is the difference between Ethics and Morality? Answer below…) and [2] further enlightens him to the truth of all being, so that he recognizes the Holy One in all existence. The fires level is incumbent on all. The second level varies according to the level of holiness one has attained in the pursuit of the Holy One. At the height of this knowledge are the (dare we utter it?) Kabbalistic teachings. Esoteric in nature, they are really intended for the b’nei aliyah (those who are eminently righteous and immersed in the pursuit of understanding the Creator and His ways!) Maharal’s uniqueness is found in his presentation of Torah thought, his profound knowledge, or intellect, and his holiness, in a language which is unique to him.

> The human, we see, lives at the focal point of the link(s) between G-d and the physical world. At the personal level, these appear in our relationship with G-d, with other people and within ourselves. At the social level, the connections between G-d and man are implemented through the institutions of the Rabbinic Court [remember the time of Maharal’s writing] the Monarchy and the Priesthood. Indeed, there are three fundamental links that appear in many realms and dimensions of religious human life, as we will find discussed in Maharal’s commentary on Avos 1:2 [The world depends on three things… Torah Study, the service to G-d, and “good deeds”]. Humans bind the spiritual and physical planes together by following the mandates of the Torah, and they undermine creation by violating the Torah.

> Although we have the ability to choose good or evil, we do not have the right to choose evil. (see above) If we contravene the dictates of Torah, we ultimately destroy G-d’s creation and are held accountable! Conversely, if we support the dictates of Torah, we maintain – and fortify – His creation and we are (therefore) deserving of reward.

> We perceive G-d as He appears through such Divine qualities as kindness and might. Maharal takes the (“K-word”) position that G-d’s “knowledge” is another of the Divine qualities. Here, he disagrees with Rambam’s opinion that G-d and His knowledge are one. The ramifications of this (debate_ are discussed, among other places, in Maharal’s commentary to Avos 5:8 [really 5:6 – see the book for explanation], although you do not find them in the English adaptation due to the detailed learnings inherent to the advanced scholar. [Rabbi Basser]

> Our relationship with G-d is frequently illustrated through the metaphor of a King. Everything is His. He sets laws and He judges; His reward compliance with the law and decrees consequences* for noncompliance. He supports the world with material and spiritual sustenance. As King, He is distinct from the nation, yet intimately concerned with the people’s welfare.

> He is the Source of (all) existence and we are totally dependent on Him, for there is no existence other than His creation. The recognition of His munificence is the source for our love of G-d. The recognition of how utterly dependent we are on Him is the essence of our reverence of G-d, generally referred to in literal translation as the: “fear” of G-d”.

* “Consequences”; this is, perhaps, a better word than saying: punishment?

Yisrael Betzalel ben Avraham

Tu B’Shevat 577Ø

BO Come or Go?

To begin with, we have a fundamental challenge. Every last one of us. We have to ask ourselves: What am I living for? Is my goal merely self-gratification, or am I living for some higher purpose? I am assuming that, since you are here today in Shul at the STSG gathering, that you have some kind of sense that we have this challenge before us.

Well “Chassidus” [teaching of the Chassidic rabbis] explains that we actually have two souls. One is an animal soul, concerned only with its own needs and drives. That is not necessarily bad, but it cannot see beyond itself. Our other soul is “an actual part of G-d” (that “spark” that we speak of) and its fulfillment comes through service, encouraging the expression of this G-dly nature and revealing the G-dliness invested in the world at large.

The appearance of conflict between these souls reflects the challenge which (all) mankind faces: to break through his self-concern and to reveal his G-dly core. When this is accomplished, the first task that I mentioned is making positive use of the potentials and the opportunities that we are granted, and can be achieved with far greater ease.

"Go to Pharaoh..." This week’s parshat tells us that HaShem speaks to Moses and say GO (or does He say “COME”? And if He does; why does He say “Come to Pharaoh”?) Man is called adam to show that even though he comes from the earth, he can use his mind to act righteously. So this all leads to the questioning of why Pharaoh keeps changing his mind. “Sure you can go… no. Stop. Come back. Stay here. Take the men only. No. Stay here. etc.”

The verse continues with “…but one who hardens his heart will fall into evil…” – just as Pharaoh did. He set his heart against G-d and later G-d hardened his heart so that he (Pharaoh) would prolong his (own) punishment. G-d leads men along the path which they themselves choose! If (a) man wants to be good, G-d leads him toward goodness; if he wants to travel an evil road, G-d helps him to do that too!

What is that saying? We can certainly say that Hitler and Stalin wanted to do evil and G-d helped them along their ways… and look where it finally took them. So they were ‘justified’ in the end – their ends. (We assume that they went to hell) But think about what that is saying about us. Do we have some dark little secret that we really don’t like but it has become habitual and perhaps G-d is helping us along that path? And is that path where we really want to go? Don’t we really want to return (teshuvah) to the direction that we believe is the correct path… the “true” path… the right path?

Okay, let’s think about this parshat and look at the four different levels on which we can read it.

There is the Pshat or simple, obvious, literal reading which is a reading of history.

We have the Remez – “Hint” or the Implied content that we read.

There is the Drash (that Jerry will give us later) – the searching into the allegorical content of the reading.

And there is the Sod or the Hidden, the Esoteric meaning which we need to search to discover.

And on whatever level you wish to understand it at this particular time in you life will show you, again, the eternality of the Torah.

The idea this week is to stimulate your thinking of the various plagues which were visited upon Pharaoh and the Egyptian people. Why did they suffer because of Pharaoh and his great ego? What was their problem with the Hebrews (we were not yet Jews)? What is the symbolic meaning (beyond Pshat) of smearing blood on the doorposts and the lintel? We always need to question – we don’t need to question so much “who wrote this” as “what does it mean” and “how can I apply this to my live in 2010”?

Happy Hunting.

Gud’t Shabbos.

The Brits are at it again

I'm sorry it you cannot read this. You can try to "click" on the image above and it may enlarge it enough for you to read.
In any case it is from the [Los Angeles] Jewish Journal for Nov. 13~19, 2009.
(yah, way back then...)
I would suggest that you look this up on their web-site, if you are unable to enlarge it here.
It is a remarkable read. We were "thrown out of the UK once" (and brought back by the man whose ONLY claim to fame can be that we welcomed the Jews back into [what was then: Britain] on to the isles. Now (with the pressure by the Muslims) they are trying to do it again.
Go read about it - find it in the archives of http://www.jewishjournal.com
It is worth the effort.
Let me - and all the readers - know how you feel about this.
Thanx
Shalom

A Shtikl Kabbalah; A Shtikl Pirkei Avos… A Shtikl Maharal of Prague.

Maharal makes an introduction to learning the mishnah of Prikei Avos with the following:”For a lamp is the commandment and Torah is light, and the way to life is admonitions of corrections.” (Mishlei 6:23) Light being the Biblical and the rabbinic metaphor for intellect, as in; light reveals our surroundings; horizons and pathways, so light can illuminate a goal and the steps necessary to obtain that goal.

The Maharal [Moreinu HaRav Yehudah Loew (b Betzalel) of Progue] lived from 1512 to 1609 CE. He was a contemporary of R. Yosef Karo and R. Yitchok Luria. He taught a metaphysical system that draws upon the Zohar and other Kabbalistic works. He is known, in the tradition, as the creator of the Golem [Goilem, in the neighboring Yiddish speaking communities]. And he used the word “Torah” in many different connotations. The most common being as a system of values and relationships (to) determine positive actions by which we can elevate ourselves to eternal life…

The Torah could also refer to:

§ The Ten Commandments

§ The 613 commandments

§ All commandments, including rabbinical ordinances

§ The study of Torah

§ The Talmud (reasons and principles underlying the Mishnah)

§ The definition of all existence and relationships.

Thus, Torah is a system that regulates human life (Jewish life). Torah is pure intellect, sechel. Unlike human intellect, it is completely independent, nidval (separate) of physical existence, chomer.

Now, let’s go back to the opening statement. “For a lamp is the commandment”; where the practice (physical) of mitzvot is likened to a “lamp”; where the metaphor being that a wick, oil and container form a physical base for an ethereal flame. Likewise, our physical practice of the mitzvoth is the basis of a Divine light to settle upon us.

“…and Torah is light”. As light is intangible, so too Torah is entirely free of physical limitations. Unlike the mitzvots, which are physical actions and fixed in time and limited in effect. Torah is no limit in time or impact.

“…and the way to life is admonitions of correction.” “The way to life” refers to the eternal life of the world to come. Further; the light of Torah and (our) performance of the mitzvoth may not be enough for us to attain reaching the World to Come… we need the ‘admonitions of correction” of parents, teachers and others who have gained wisdom through experience, study and guidance from their own teachers!

The way to life (or) Derech Chaim in this verse refers to and means “the way to the Tree of Life”, Scripture’s metaphor for the essence of Torah, which originates in the highest spiritual realm.

To summarize, the practice of mitzvoth, and the study of the divine wisdom of Torah are vehicles that bring us to eternal life. Mussar, admonition, keeps us away from the death that lurks behind the distractions of physical desire. The tractate of Pirkei Avos, small is size and immense in value, is a compleat manual of sage guidance to keep us focused on Torah and the mitzvot.

This is only an introduction the Maharal’s line of thinking and teaching. From a giant of Judaism, we can continue and learn A Shtikl Kabbalah and A Shtikl Pirkei Avos. But hopefully, we would learn more than a mere shtikl - for what good is it to try to learn Torah to change our lives by using college Cliff Notes or Torah for Dummys! Learning Torah is not like learning calculus or British Lit 101 for learning Torah is a life long learning process and one which we [L’Dor v’Dor] are obligated to pass on to the generations of Jews yet unborn – for whatever the media tells us about the ascendancy of the Muslims, we need to remember HaShem’s compact with us and that we have survived the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Romans the Russian pogroms and the Nazi efforts and six great Arab states to destroy us, no one has done so yet. Go. Learn your Torah. And teach Torah to our children and children’s children.

Shalom,

Midrash Medrish Schmidrash

ontent="Word.Document">

Midrash… or as we sometimes say: ‘Medrish’

Medrish, we are told, deals with discontinuity. What does that mean? Well, the Torah in particular and the Hebrew Bible all together is written in a pretty laconic style. For example, we read in the narrative of Cain and Abel; “Cain said to Abel, his brother. And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him.” (Gen. 4:8) Nu? What was said? This is the discontinuity with which Medrish deals.

Fine. So. What is Medrish? And who says that what is in the Medrish is what was? These are questions that are asked frequently around here and they deserve and answer. But certainly this is a topic which could involve study for months… or years. Maybe to be continued in another lifetime.

So we will simply look at a couple of examples and they will, perhaps, help us to understand just what a Midrash is and on what basis is has “validity”. The Temple has been destroyed now for the second time. Our forefathers are in distress. They are experiencing discontinuity first hand – and we in the third person. These dramatic events found response in Medrish. In this instance it is rather in the form of Aggadah (story, if you will) – but also in a Halakhic form also.

After the Temple was torn asunder, the Jews turned to the rabbis for hope and for consolation. From this we received Lamentations Rabbah. Here is an example:

“This I recall to mind, therefore I have hope.” __Lam. 3:21

R. Abba ben Kahana said; this may be likened to a king who married a lady and wrote her a large ketubah: “so many state-apartments I am preparing for you, so many jewels I am preparing for you, and so much silver and gold I give you.”

The king (then) left her and went to a distant land for many years. Her neighbots used to vex her saying, “Your husband has deserted you. Come and be married to another man.” She wept and sighed, but when she went into her room and read her ketubah she would be consoled. After many years the king returned to her and said; “I am astonished that you waited for me…” She replied, “My lord king, if it hadnot been for the ketubah you wrote… surely my neighbors would have won me over.”

So the nations of the world taunt Israel and say, “Your G-d has no need of you; He has deserted you… com to us and we shall appoint commanders and leaders of every sort for you.” Israel enters the synagogues and houses of study and reads the Torah, “I will look with favor upon you… and I shall not spurn you.” (Lev. 26:9~11) and they are consoled.

And so, in the future the Holy One, blessed be He will say to Israel, “I am astonished that you waited for me all these years.” And Israel will say, “If it had not been for the Torah which you gave us… the nations of the world would have led us astray.” Therefore it is stated, “This do I recall and therefore I have hope.” (Lam. 3:21)

This then is an example of a medrashic text that the rabbis spun in response to the calamity of the Temple’s destruction. G-d seems to have deserted Israel, but when He returns, G-d will be astonished by our adherence to His teachings. Here the rabbis attempt to bridge the chasm between faith and despair through the Medrish. The stories attempt to make sense out of history. Is there a Medrish to deal with the Shoah? Yes. Several. Not all written by rabbis. Not all successful. But we need to ask: successful to whom? Israel? The author? Select individuals? And they are still being written.

The Medrish then provides-

Y Motivations

Y Meanings

Y Resolving confusions

Y New ideas… [without getting ahead of ourselves: we read the Torah each time with different eyes, needs, desires, hopes]

You ask; how did they do it?

We can never be certain if the rabbis were aware that they were “changing” Torah with their medrish. (Or not)

It is certain that they say that laws were being reformulated and, perhaps, they knew that ideas and values were being changed as well, but the assumption in rabbinic thought is always that new interpretations is implied by Torah itself! The rabbis’ idea is that they were uncovering what is already there!

Here is, perhaps, the key point: to the rabbis the torah was (is) an eternally relevant book because it was written (dictated, inspired – it does not matter) by a perfect Author, an Author who intended it to be eternal!

Surely, it is said, that G-d could foresee the need for new interpretations (all interpretations therefore) already in the Torah’s text. Therefore when HaShem gave us the Written Torah at Mount Sinai, He also gave us Oral Torah – the interpretations of Jews down through time. You might say that Medrish was already in His mind when Torah was conceived. “Turn it and turn it again, for everything is contained therein.” [Or: “There is nothing new under the sun.”]

Let me then posit a question for you. What is a sermon? Is it not a form of Medrash? Do we not lean on those who have taught us and the words that we have read, to develop our own ideas (new!! ideas) about the parshat? Of course. We have Homiletical Medrish and Exegetical Medrishim and Narrative Medrish. All fodder for sermons. In a sense, we continue to develop new (!!) Medrish every time we deliver a sermon, discuss a portion of Torah text, give a d’var, or in any other way discuss our understandings of what Torah means to us today.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. Go study, study; Isaac Heinemann’s “Creative Historiography” and “Creative Philology”. Happy hunting.

Based on “Back to the Sources”, by Barry W. Holtz Summit Books, NY, NY 1984

Ripped from the Headlines...

“Is Parole a ‘Right’ or a ‘Privilege’?”

The current economic recession has forced some states to consider reducing prison personnel, but that then requires the states to reduce the number of inmates that they can then accommodate. In order that the number of inmates who are being released, prison officials, parole boards and the governor of the state(s) must make decisions which impact the community-at-large.


“Killers who are eligible for early release can’t be denied just because of their crimes, some judges have ruled.” (emphasis added) This is the ‘sub-heading’ according to a story in a recent Los Angeles Times newspaper. Before we consider a recapitulation of this story, which has many ramifications for society as well as the individuals concerned, we should probably consider the basis upon which the United States of America has been built.


We frequently hear how this country was established using “Judeo-Christian” Ethics. And, again, without discussing how the “Christian” ethics came out of the Jewish Torah; we should consider just what it is that the Torah [the Five Books of Moses] and the Tanach [the entire Jewish Bible] teaches us that would have an impact and relevance on this matter. [Do not become concerned with the famous “eye-for-an-eye” discussion, for - unless you are grounded in Talmudic literature and discussions – you will be led to make wrong assumptions!]



Now, let’s look at some of the items touched on in this [(©) Sunday 13 December 2009] article:
A convict, James Alexander, has spent 26 years in prison for killing a (fellow) drug dealer but has maintained a “spotless behavior” and has helped other inmates to shake addictions. He has been recommended, on three occasions, for parole by the parole commissioners and Gov. Schwarzenegger has over-ruled them. He, Alexander, is one of the many so-called ‘lifers’ deemed rehabilitated but have not been released as their crime was murder.
In recent years some judges (we are not told how many) have sided with the ‘lifers’ – see the comment above! The judges claim that there must be ‘some evidence’ that they would pose a threat to public safety if released. This legal notion that puts the onus on corrections officials is being challenges in the U.S, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In California there are about 23,000 prisoners serving life sentences that are ‘technically’ eligible for parole. Another 4,000 serving life without parole and 685 on death row who can never be considered for release under these conditions. In the state of California the 1980’s had a succession of ‘tough-on-crime’ governors. In 1983 Gov. George Deukejian invoked a rarely used 1913 law to over-rule the parole board to free murderer William Archie Fain after an angry outcry from the community where Fain’s victims had lived. Since then successive governors more frequently reversed parole grants.\

Despite a federal court order to reduce prison over-crowding (in CA), neither Schwarzenegger nor corrections officials have suggested (even) considering violent offenders for early release. Victims’ rights organizations defend the governor’s power (and responsibility) to keep murders off the streets [especially with the current economic crisis which has cut funding for law enforcement and parole supervision]! “For the sake of public safety – that’s what we have life sentences for,” said the head of Crime Victims United of California; “That should be a deterrent to crime: that you won’t ever get out if you get a life sentence.” ("Don't talk the talk, if you can't walk the walk.")

Meanwhile, Bill Schmidt, an attorney who specializes in representing lifers, says that, “The question of whether reformed prisoners should get parole is often clouded by the horrific nature of their crime.” He sites Charles Manson who has shown little remorse or rehabilitation (for his 1969 cult slayings), while some of his accomplices have maintained unblemished records for almost four decades. Still, he claims, that they have systematically been denied parole.

Popular opinion supports keeping the most notorious killers locked up forever. Schmidt (attempts to make his case by saying): “Where does the law give the subjective authority to say ‘No, your crime was so horrendous that we’re not ever going to let you out’?” In a recent case before a three-judge panel, the judges stated that the parole board’s decision (against a murderer) in 2008, that the prisoner’s constitutional right (?) to due process had been violated [because the Gov. failed to cite evidence that the prisoner was still dangerous]. The judges ruled that a parole board’s decision “deprives a prisoner of due process with respect to this [liberty] interest” if the decision is “not supported by some evidence in the record or is otherwise arbitrary.” [Please note that] the judges’ decision was suspended four months later by the court’s vote to reconsider the case by a full 11-judge panel.

A Supervising Deputy Atty. General has urged the appeals court to reconsider whether prisoners have a liberty interest in parole decisions, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t recognized a right to parole barring evidence that a prisoner remains dangerous. It was argues that life prisoners have no right to a term less than life (and) so denial of parole “merely means that the inmate will have to serve out his sentence as expected.”

Last year two decisions by the CA Supreme court reiterated the need to show “some evidence” that the prisoner poses a risk and in one case, the state high court held that the heinousness (of the 1971 crime) was not enough to justify continued incarceration. [What? Does this mean that a jury and a court’s decision can be overturned at another time by another court without regard to the people’s decision? Or a retrial based on new evidence? ed.]. The same court, on the same day, also referred to the “some evidence” standard but (also) ruled that gov. Schwarzenegger had identified grounds for denying parole when he said that (that prisoner) suffered a “lack of insight” into how he came to… kill his wife.


Now we come to a court of appeals that has been appointed by differing political Presidents and the determination, apparently, now is one which will be influenced by politics and different agendas rather than on a purely objective bench of judges. How much political beliefs will have an influence remains to be seen, but the public – society at large – is in danger of losing comfort at the expense of murderers and hardened criminals further educated in the closed environment of jails and prisons. On the other hand the court could establish the governor’s exclusive control over parole which, again, enters the realm of politics.


“They scared me to death,” said a paralegal regarding questions from the bench following oral arguments in the case last year, “It seemed clear to me that the judges are wanting to reverse this decision.” This is the statement by a man who spent 33 years in prison, studied law (at taxpayers expense) and secured his own court-ordered release in 2003, marking a turning point in the battle between state officials and courts over parole.


Legal scholars now say that this case now going before the full 11-judge court may provide a decision which will depend on how federal judges interpret the intent of laws on sentencing. And, “It goes back to the question of whether we want sentences to be punitive and how to weigh rehabilitation verses punishment”



We are now left to consider: what do we understand, what do we learn from Torah study and what do we (as a society) want from our courts, our judges and our over-all “Judeo-Christian” based ethical legal system. How do we, individually, consider the ramifications of the criminal mind seeking freedom and society’s need for peace of mind?


Not too long ago, it was considered that an inmate (a prisoner – one incarcerated for having murdered) had foregone his ‘rights’ and his ‘privileges’ as a member of society and as such did not enjoy the freedoms that legally observant citizens did. When did this concept change? Should those convicted and sentenced to life in prison for murder – no matter the “rehabilitation” or not – expect to find his rights and privileges restored by parole boards and judges who are influenced by au courant concepts of ‘liberty for all’, which would, following that line of thought, include non-citizens who would fly planes into buildings or murder another person in any manner? Should we consider inmates in prisons as living in a "city of sanctuary"? If so, would it follow that if they were ‘freed’ by parole boards and judges, that they would be placing themselves in a position whereby their victim’s relatives could then murder them in retaliation without fear of retribution according to the law?


If the economy made a 180° turn and we no longer had to reduce prison staff, would all of these questions be moot? What is our obligation to our fellow who finds himself incarcerated for acts for which he truly regrets?

___Yisrael Betzalel ben Avraham

I have used the masculine form here, even though we find many women in prisons because they too have murdered, simply because it is easier than to continue to say: “him or her”; “he or she”, or the strange construction- “s/he”.

* Los Angeles Times – California Section, pp A41 & A51; Sunday 13 December 2009 with editorial license taken in paraphrasing the article by Carol J. Williams as well as inserting my own questions, note and comment. Please consider this situation with the concern that it requires. Thank you.