“Is there something unique about Judaism’s approach to social justice? Some critics suggest that the essence of Judaism has been distorted by an overemphasis on social justice. This chapter will explore why social justice is one of Judaism’s core values and not a distortion of it. There will be suggestions for ways to engage in a social justice practice imbued with particular Jewish values and based on Jewish texts.”

TEACHER: The beginning of the Jewish story in the Torah is God telling Abram (Abraham) to go forth to the land that I will show you. (Gen. 12:1-3). The text doesn’t tell us why God chose Abraham or what it means to be a Jew.

“A few chapters later there is an incident that makes this clearer.

Abraham is sitting by the entrance to his tent during the heat of the day when he sees three travelers who he runs to greet. He offers them the hospitality of his tent. The three strangers, actually angels, predict that his wife Sarah, already quite old, will give birth. They then leave to bring destruction upon neighboring Sodom because of its wickedness.”

“God wants to make sure that Abraham understands what is expected of him. In verse 19, we are finally told explicitly what his journey (and all of our journeys) are about. Abraham must understand and teach his children to observe the way of God (derekh Adonai). What does that mean? To do righteousness and justice –tzedakah u-mishpat.”

“On an action level, the contemporary response to social justice can be broadly categorized as volunteering, donating money, and working for political change. These three categories have Jewish equivalents. The first – volunteering – is called gemilut hasadim, acts of lovingkindness or, more simply, hesed-kindness, such as working in a soup kitchen or in a literacy program. Yet, acts of lovingkindness also can include interpersonal interactions with family, friends or strangers. Helping my neighbor with a task is not an act of social justice, but it is an act of kindness. As we shall see, kindness is an attribute to be cultivated. Donating money (tzedakah) and working toward systemic change (tzedek) share the same Hebrew root. The word tzedakah is usually, and misleadingly, translated as charity. The English word (derived from the Latin caritus) connotes giving out of compassion to those who are in need. However, the Hebrew suggests that we help those in need not just out of the goodness of our hearts, but because justice requires it. In Judaism, helping others is something we are required to do. It is not voluntary. This is why the term social justice as a translation of tzedek may better capture Judaism’s attitude than compassion or concern. It is a matter of justice rather than just being nice.” (p.99)

Question: While there is certainly overlap between these three categories, do you agree with the distinction between them? Are you attracted to one mode over the others? How would you rank them?

We will now look at some overarching principles that can be applied to a social justice practice.

Areivut-responsibility

“There is a core expression in Jewish tradition that all Jews are responsible for each other (kol yisrael areivim zeh ba-zeh). Being part of the Jewish people, we need to take care of each other. We should feel some responsibility even when we know we did not contribute directly to the difficult life that someone is leading. This is even more true if we live in proximity to the person in need. This principle of responsibility is demonstrated by a strange ritual found in the book of Deuteronomy (chapter 21). The corpse of someone who has been murdered has been found in an uninhabited area and the murderer is unknown. The Torah instructs us to measure the distance from the body to the nearest town. The elders of the town must then perform a ritual that involves breaking the neck of a heifer by a wadi, followed by the following declaration: 'Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done.' While the purpose of the specific details of the ritual is not clear, the ritual is meant to remove blood guilt for this murder.” (p.101-2)

The Talmud (Sotah 46b) comments on this ritual:

TEACHER: This unusual ritual suggests that not only do the elders of the nearest city have some responsibility for a murder that happens in their "jurisdiction", they also have a responsibility to help travelers passing by. This includes feeding them and accompanying them/levayah. What does this say about our responsibility to the people in our neighborhood and in our city? While helping the traveler and accompanying them might seem like best practices, R. Meir implies it is more than recommended, it must be done--kofin levayah. By the way, the term levayeh is the traditional word for a funeral. The body of the deceased should be accompanied to the cemetery.

QUESTIONS: How could this notion of being accompanied be applied to our society? What would it mean for people on the margins to feel that society is paying attention to their needs (accompanying them) rather than ignoring them. This would suggest we have to convey that we are paying attention even if we can't solve societal issues.

"This remarkable text states that the people living in the courtyard have legitimate needs, such as security and privacy. Everyone living in the courtyard can be compelled to contribute to those needs. However, there is another factor that must be included in the equation – the rights of the needy. The point here is that we cannot ignore those who need our help. They will become invisible or, in the metaphor used here, the walls between us will prevent us from hearing their cry for help. We can’t construct our lives in such a way as to wall ourselves off from the needs of the poor. We don’t have to give up our comforts, but we also must make it possible to hear what is going on all around us. All communities need ways for those outside to have access to those inside. This text resonates with the ideas of Bryan Stevenson, the activist attorney, who suggests that we need to be proximate to those struggling in our society in order to be responsive to their needs." p. 102

"What made the people of Sodom exemplars of evil was their underlying attitude, as described in another midrash. The inhabitants of Sodom said, “We live in peace and plenty – food can be got from our land, gold and silver can be mined from our land. What need have we to look after wayfarers, who come to us only to deprive us? Come, let us see to it that the duty of entertaining travelers be forgotten in our land” (Numbers Rabbah 9:24). It was not scarcity of resources that pushed the inhabitants to discourage travelers. It was greed. The real evil of Sodom was that this uncaring attitude to the needy traveler was ensconced in law. It wasn’t just that a lack of generosity was encouraged in Sodom. Their persecution of travelers wasn’t a momentary passion. In Sodom, it was against the law to help the stranger; anyone caught helping them was putto death (See Malbim, 19th-century commentator, on Gen 19:2). Society itself had been corrupted, not just some individuals. This is why God condemned the city to destruction. p.103

The Talmud discusses a number of cases that define what it means to act like the people of Sodom. In one case, there is a family with two brothers, one of whom had bought a parcel of land adjacent to his father’s property (Bava Batra 12b). When their father died, that brother said to his sibling: When our father’s estate is divided in equal parts, please assign me the land adjacent to my property. The other brother refused to do so. This refusal was considered acting like the people of Sodom. Why? Because all the parcels of land of their father’s estate were of equal value. For obvious reasons, one brother wanted the land to abut his existing property. It was a convenience to him with no loss to his brother. Midat s’dom is being ungenerous for no justifiable reason. It is just being spiteful and mean. Remarkably, the Talmud states that we compel(kofin) the brother to give him the parcel that abuts his land to prevent people from acting like the people of Sodom. Once again, we see an attitude or action that is simply not the ideal way to behave. The tradition states we sometimes need to compel people to act in generous ways. This may help us understand our original text. While it is legally correct that the things I own are mine and your things are yours, when that attitude limits my concern only to my property and well-being, we have a problem. This is particularly true when being generous or helpful comes at no cost to yourself. p. 104-106

TEACHER: The Talmud says that the reason the Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by God was as a punishment for the focus solely on that which was legal (Bava Metzia 30b):

“This striking text suggests that following the law is not enough. It could be that the law had been twisted to benefit one group of people at the expense of another, as in the case of the people of Sodom. Perhaps the courts in Jerusalem ignored extenuating circumstances and other principles, which suggests that real justice is not served by slavishly following the law.

We saw that Ramban, a 13th-century Bible commentator, regarded the commandment “Do what is right and good” as an overarching commandment about how to act in the world. In that commentary, he suggests that the commandment also teaches us to go beyond the letter of the law (lifnim me-shurat ha-din). Judaism was never intended to be only a system of commandments and laws. The purpose of Judaism is to encourage us to act with justice and compassion. The law isn’t the ultimate goal – being a mensch is. The law is the minimum standard – going beyond the letter of the law is meant to be the practice.” p. 104-105

“This final category, kindness, does not contain the word tzedek – justice. If giving money to the poor is seen as required, kindness is seen as voluntary. Yet, the text above suggests that kindness is greater than tzedakah. Why? Because ultimately it is even holier to act out of lovingkindness, to go beyond what is required by justice. To act out of lovingkindness is to empathize with other people and to want to help them or ease their burdens, even if simple justice would not require it. To act out of lovingkindness is to understand we are all lost in a broken world, yet together we can improve the journey of life. Gemilut hesed means to care even when it is “not deserved.” It also means to understand that we all need acts of lovingkindness to be done for us, regardless of our economic status.”

“The Hafetz Hayyim (1839-1933) was a rabbinic scholar who wrote a small book entitled Ahavat Chesed – love of kindness. This title is from a verse in Micah (6:8): “God has told you what is good [tov] and what God asks of you: to act justly and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God”(Micah 6:8).The Hafetz Hayyim wonders why the verse doesn’t say either “act justly and kindly” or “love justice and kindness.” Why vary the verb? He notes that while the prophet says we are obligated to act justly, we must cultivate kindness so that it becomes second nature. The Hafetz Hayyim suggests that too often we feel coerced and respond reluctantly to a request, whether it is from a person who asks for money on the street or a friend who needs help. Instead, you should strive to act kindly with a willing heart. There is a big difference between something you do reluctantly and that which you do with a full heart. The Hafetz Hayyim uses the analogy of a parent with a child. It is not duty but love that motivates a parent’s giving to a child. A parent happily gives even when the child hasn’t asked. The Hafetz Hayyim is suggesting that we anticipate the needs of others, particularly of people we know.” p. 109

We began this chapter with the verse: Justice, justice (tzedek, tzedek) you shall pursue in order to be truly alive. The Talmud posits: “It is written in one verse: In justice you shall judge your neighbor (Lev. 19:15). It is written in another verse: Justice, justice you shall pursue (Dt. 16:20)” (Sanhedrin 32b).The Talmud wonders why the word justice is repeated in the second verse. It implies that judging your neighbor with justice is inadequate.The Talmud replies that the first time the word justice is used it means judgment and law, but the second time it means compromise. The Talmud then gives examples of a conflict where neither party has more of a claim than the other (such as a question of the right of way at a crossroads). The resolution is to arrive at a compromise. We live in a society that is very divided and where many see compromise as a dirty word. I suggest we apply this text to social justice issues. Such issues often have competing claims (consider the debate over immigration, for instance). This text suggests that compromise does not betray our principles, but potentially creates a way to move forward that both sides can feel is progress. This is known as the justice of peace (mishpat shalom)rather than justice imposed by one side on another. Certainly, there are issues that do not lend themselves to compromise, but there are many times where compromise might be a process that benefits everyone. After all, peace – real peace – is the ultimate goal of justice. p. 116

Teacher: Homework for next class is to read the chapter on Holiness pp. 125-136.

Assignment: Think about the meaning of holiness. Also think about the suggestions for a Shabbat practice, based on different understandings of the purpose of Shabbat. Which one or ones resonate with you? Which do not?