 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Ask the Rabbi Q4. What Does Jewish Law Say About the Death Penalty? Q5. What Does Jewish Law Say About Smoking?
Is it better to have a leader of high moral character and lesser ability, or a leader who has greater ability but perhaps some moral shortcomings? The Torah is quite clear that when appointing leaders, character is a primary consideration. When Moshe is advised by Yitro (Jethro), his father-in-law, to delegate authority to judges, he is told to choose men of ³valor, God-fearing individuals, people of truth who despise corruption.² Furthermore, when told by God to choose representatives of each tribe to investigate the Promised Land, he is told to send Anashim [lit., people]. Rashi tells us that the word Anashim refers to individuals of high moral and spiritual stature, the kind we would today call a ³mentsch² -- a decent human being. Jewish leaders in the time of the Bible were chosen for their righteousness, which is not to say that they never veered from the straight and narrow. The Tanakh (Bible) is highly outspoken concerning the leaders of our people, painting honest pictures -- warts and all. Thus we meet Shimshon/Samson, whose physical strength did not protect him from being overcome by temptation, and who paid dearly for his errors. Similarly, we bear witness to the tragic ethical and political mistakes of King Saul, which cost him his kingdom. Most prominent of all, perhaps, is King David, who is confronted by Nathan the Prophet, regarding his sin with BathSheba, a sin whose consequences he suffered from for the rest of his life, as detailed so poignantly in the many beautiful Psalms that he composed. It is interesting to note that the Kings of Israel who ruled politically, always had prophets at their side, to provide moral and spiritual counseling. The earlier Kings accepted this relationship, just as they accepted the advice and - as circumstances dictated - the rebuke, of the prophets. As the Kings - both the descendants of the Davidic dynasty and those who ascended the throne of the Kingdom of Israel - grew more corrupt, they relied less and less on the religious advice of the prophets and began more and more to form political alliances to secure their kingdoms, alliances that drew the people closer to the local idolatrous nations, exposing and seducing them to the idolatrous practices. As a result of the moral weakness of their leaders, both the Kingdom of Israel, and eventually the Kingdom of Judah as well, were lost .Clearly, a Jewish leader is expected to uphold high moral standards. The question of whether there is a double standard is never far from the surface. Does Judaism have one standard for Jewish kings who rule in a theocratic Kingdom of Israel, and another for leaders who are not necessarily Jewish, and governments wherein church and state are separated? In a government based on allegiance to God, one has every right to expect a leader to function as a religious role model. However, this is hardly the case in secular governments such as ours in the United States. Can a leader¹s professional performance be evaluated separately and distinctly from his/her character? As with so many questions, rather than provide a simple yes or no response, we must view the answer as part of a continuum. Since it is impossible to come to a definitive answer, we will have to weigh circumstances in each instance. After all, all individuals are flawed, and the extent to which their flaws interfere with their professionalism can only be decided on a case by case basis. In our hypothetical example, we are asked to choose between an individual whose character is ³questionable,² but whose leadership abilities are exceptional, and another whose character is above reproach, but whose leadership ability is less than ³stellar.² Our terms are very vague. We must first define ³questionable,² and we must define ³less than stellar.² If the latter candidate¹s leadership ability is only slightly inferior to that of the former, then it would seem appropriate to choose the individual of character, since he/she is more worthy of the people¹s trust, and we can expect him/her to compensate for his/her inadequacies by carefully choosing his/her advisors. If, on the other hand, the latter candidate were a totally inadequate leader, it would not be wise to put him/her in a position of great responsibility for which he/she is not well suited. Let us not forget that, when listing the qualities of a worthy leader, Yitro mentioned first that the individual be a person of ³valor.² Judaism does not ask us to follow a party line - no pun intended. The moral and practical issues are laid out before us, and we are expected to exercise the gift of reason with which each of us has been endowed, and choose the proper venue.
Can an atheist be a Jew? Traditional Jewish law states that a person born of a Jewish mother is Jewish. Even Jews who renounce their faith are still Jews; however, while they still retain their Jewish obligations, they lose their Jewish privileges. Thus, if an atheist is born of a Jewish mother, that person remains a Jew, whatever his personal beliefs or behavior. However, there is much more to being a Jew than just being born of a Jewish mother. There is also a rich history of spiritual, ethical and moral imperatives that define us. The more significant question deals not with birth, but with behavior. Anybody can be born a Jew, but it is questionable whether an atheist can behave like a Jew. Behaving like a Jew means accepting moral absolutes defined by an authority higher than human authority. Unlike many religions, Judaism regards deeds to be more important than faith. If G-d wanted our faith to be absolute, then G-d would have arranged matters so that there would be no doubt. As it is, some doubt is inevitable. (Having seen the fanaticism absolute faith has lead to over the ages, one can understand why some doubt and humility regarding faith is desirable.) However, despite one's doubts, a Jew must always act in accordance with Jewish law, even when doubting G-d's existence. It is therefore assumed that a person who does not follow G-d's law cannot really behave like a Jew, even if that person is born a Jew or professes a belief in G-d. The Talmud states that G-d said of the Jewish people, "Better that they abandon Me, but follow my laws." Why, then, is it questionable whether an atheist can behave like a Jew? Because, while it is possible for a Jew to doubt G-d's existence and still remain a Jew, it is impossible for a Jew to deny G-d's existence and continue to act in accordance with His law. By denying G-d's existence, an atheist rejects the moral absolutes set forth by G-d. If there is no G-d, then all moral decisions are based on personal preference or reason. To make moral decisions that are purely subjective can only lead to moral anarchy. As Bertrand Russell said, "I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it." And yet, ultimately, this is exactly what moral relativism boils down to. As Dostoevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamazov, "where there is no G-d, all is permitted." Atheists often argue that logic or pragmatism will ensure moral behavior. For example, logic dictates that we should not kill because then others will kill us. Logically, if you take this argument one step further, it might make sense to kill before the other party has a chance to kill you. As sophists have so often demonstrated, anything can be proved by logical reasoning. For these reasons, it is impossible for a person to deny G-d's existence and behave like a Jew. This is true, even if a person appears to be leading a moral life. To deny G-d's existence is to rely on humans for moral law. A Jew can only accept G-d's standards of morality. To do otherwise, must eventually lead a person down the slippery slope of immorality and anarchy.
What is the traditional Jewish belief regarding charity and taxes and can this view be applied to American society? Taxes and welfare have become an extremely divisive issue in our culture. It is interesting to compare the traditional Jewish view of "welfare" with the prevailing trends and views in America. Jews and non-Jews often comment on the fact that "Jews give a great deal to charity". What compels Jews to "give a great deal to charity"? What is the mainspring of this belief, and does it have a place in our larger society? In ancient Israel, the amount given to sustain the poor was dictated by G-d. There are major discussions in the Bible detailing how much of the "gross national product" of the community was to be put aside for the maintenance of the priests and the poor. Today Jewish law states that a minimum of 10% of an individual's income and profits must be set aside to maintain the poor. Because the land and all of its fruits are a gift from G-d, and thus belong to Him, it must be understood that this dictate is not "charity", but an obligation.. In fact, there is no Hebrew word for charity. The closest approximation and the one that is used is "tzedaka" which means "justice". G-d warns Israel against parsimony towards the poor. "... if there be among you a poor man, one of thy brethren within any of the gates in thy land which the Lord thy God gives thee, thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy hand from thy poor brother; but thou shalt open thy hand wide to him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he lacks. Beware that there be not an unworthy thought in thy heart ... and thy eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou give him nothing; ... for it shall be reckoned to you as sin. Thou shalt surely give him, and thy heart shall not be grieved when thou givest to him ... For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command thee, saying. Thou shalt open thy hand wide to thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land." (Deut. 15:7-12) While America is overwhelmingly a Christian country and Christians as well as Jews believe in the Bible, we have traveled far from G-d's commandments regarding the maintenance of the poor. Is the traditional Jewish view regarding the poor as set forth by G-d and further codified in the Talmud no longer applicable to today's culture? America today spends about much less than 10% of its taxable income maintaining the poor and most Americans feel that the amount is still too high. In addition, we tend to blame the poor for their plight and treat them with contempt rather than compassion.
What Does Jewish Law Say About the Death Penalty? Most western countries have abolished the death penalty. The U.S. is one of the few exceptions. The advocates of the death penalty often cite the Bible as their source for justifying its use. Of course, non-Jews are free to interpret the Bible as they wish, but it will probably come as a surprise to many Jews that, under Jewish Law, the death penalty is virtually impossible to impose. That is because, in addition to the five books of Moses (the Written Law), Jewish Law also consists of Oral Law, which explains and interprets the Written Law. While the Bible gives us a list of capital crimes, the Talmud (Oral Law) establishes the requirements necessary to prove guilt. Before guilt can be established and an execution carried out numerous legal requirements must be met: 1. Two actual witnesses to the crime are necessary. Circumstantial evidence is completely disregarded in capital cases. The case of Shimon Ben Shetah (Sanhedrin 37b) illustrates this law. He swore that he had seen a man chase his friend into some ruins. He ran after him and found his friend dead and the pursuer holding a sword dripping with blood. Ben Shetah said to him: "Wicked one, who killed this man? -- It is either me or you. But what can I do -- your blood was not given into my hands because the Torah says, 'On the basis of two witnesses, he shall be put to death'." In other words, although the man was found holding the bloody knife and he was the only one who could have committed the crime, under Jewish law he cannot be found guilty of the crime because the actual act of murder was not witnessed. No amount of circumstantial evidence could alter the verdict, not DNA testing, not motive, not possession of the weapon, not means. Capital cases require absolute certainty, the minimum of which is the presence of two witnesses to the actual crime. 2. The law also requires that the witnesses be "kosher"(1). For example, the witnesses must be male, Orthodox and may not be related to each other or anyone else involved in the crime. In addition, the Talmud lists a wide range of reasons which disqualify a witness, based on character, occupation, etc. For example, a professional gambler is disqualified as a witness. 3. The criminal must be given proper warning that he/she is about to commit a capital crime. This means that the two witnesses to the crime must yell out to the potential perpetrator informing him/her that he/she is about to commit a capital crime. This warning must include the biblical text prohibiting the crime and the punishment for the crime. In addition, this warning must be given no more than four seconds before the crime is committed. If more than four seconds have elapsed between the warning and the commission of the crime, capital punishment may not be imposed. 4. Finally, for any of the above requirements to have any validity, the potential criminal must verbally acknowledge within the hearing of the same two witnesses, and within the same four seconds, that he/she has heard the warning and chooses to commit the crime anyway. Without this acknowledgment on the part of the criminal, a capital sentence may not be imposed. Given the above restrictions, it is understandable that Rabbi Elazar Ben Azaryah said that a court of law that pronounces a death sentence once every seventy years is a murderous court. What then does the Bible mean by the oft-repeated phrase "he shall surely be put to death"? How can the Written Law mandate a sentence that the Oral Law makes impossible to impose? How can this contradiction be resolved? There is a major distinction between Jewish Law and most other legal systems. While other legal systems focus on the situation after the crime has been committed, Jewish Law tries to prevent the crime from being committed. Despite claims by proponents of heavy punitive measures, statistics indicate that criminals are not often deterred by the threat of a severe sentence. At most, severe sentences remove the criminals from society for a period of time. With regard to capital crime, and indeed all forms of crime, the goal of Jewish law is to prevent the crime. In Exodus, the legal system of Judaism is introduced with the following verse: "And these are the ordinances which you shall set before them" (Exodus 21:1). This is the only place where the phrase "before them" is used. Elsewhere in the Bible, ordinances are given "to them". Why then does the Bible use the words "before them" when presenting the legal system? The essence of Jewish law is preventative. These ordinances are set "before them" because they are intended to deal with crime "before" not after the act. Jewish Law is meant to be studied by everyone, not only lawyers. Judaism maintains that when a child is raised with a knowledge of G-d's law and with a love of Torah, that child is not likely to transgress. The statement that a malefactor "shall surely be put to death," is not meant as a punishment to be carried out after the crime has been committed, but as an educational doctrine, to be learned by everyone, that in G-d's eyes this is a heinous crime. How often has a parent screamed out to a child doing something dangerous "stop that or I will kill you". Obviously, the parent is not going to kill the child; he is yelling out of concern for the child's safety. When G-d set these laws before the people of Israel, He was, in effect, interceding in a similar language of love and concern. When G-d says "he shall surely die,(2) He is saying that if a person commits this crime, he deserves to die, not that He really wants him executed. To further impress this, these words are followed by G-d's command to the courts, "And the court shall judge and the court shall save" (Numbers 35:25), commanding the judges to do everything in their power to reach a "not guilty" verdict. Recognizing that there will always be people who do not follow G-d's laws, and that there will always be criminals who will "get away with it if they can", there is a loophole to the laws of capital punishment, the law of emergency measures. In extreme situations the Sanhedrin was given the authority to override the leniencies of the laws of capital punishment and impose a death sentence despite the lack of full warning and unimpeachable evidence. One wonders how the Sanhedrin would deal with today's society. Have we reached the point where the law of emergency measures would be considered applicable? It would be nice to feel that we have not gone so far astray that our society cannot be brought back to G-d's law. However, one thing is very clear in Jewish Law. Before the courts could override the laws of capital punishment, every effort would first have to be made to be sure that all of society understood from a very young age what it is that G-d wants of us. 1. Kosher means "Halachically acceptable". It does not only relate to matters regarding food or the laws of Kashrut. 2. The actual Hebrew words are mot yumat, which is more accurately translated as "he should die, not "he shall surely die".
What Does Jewish Law Say About Smoking? Smoking has recently become a rather incendiary issue. Although the dangers of smoking have long been known, many Jews, both observant and non-observant, have chosen to ignore the evidence and continue smoking, regardless of the harm they are inflicting upon themselves. Many use the excuse that their bodies belong to them, and that they are free to do what they please with their bodies, even if it inflicts harm upon themselves. According to Jewish law this argument is invalid. Numerous citations can be found in Jewish law prohibiting the harming of one's body, even if nobody else is affected (although it is difficult to see how a person could harm oneself without affecting someone else). In Deuteronomy 4:16 we are told: "Be extremely protective of your lives," and in Deuteronomy 4:9 we are warned "Guard your life." The Talmud and later Rabbinic authorities further elaborate on this theme. Maimonides particularly emphasizes this in his Mishneh Torah. In the volume on the laws pertaining to "Murder and Protection of Life," he devotes an entire chapter to the prohibition of doing harm to one's own health and body. In Rabbi Joseph Karo's Code of Jewish Law, an entire chapter is devoted to the commandment to remove any object or obstacle which constitutes a danger to life. Given what we know about the dangers of smoking and the clear prohibition in Jewish law regarding harming one's health, how can so many Jews, including rabbis and teachers who otherwise live according to the Torah, continue to smoke? In fact it is difficult to find an excuse for their behavior. They not only violate the Torah by harming their own bodies, but they violate another, possibly even more important prohibition. By setting a bad example for their students and other young people, who may feel that if their parent, teacher or rabbi smokes, it is permissible for them to smoke, such people are encouraging others to violate Jewish law and cause harm to themselves. Smokers might very well be considered among "those who sin and cause others to sin," and, according to the Talmud, thereby fall into the category of those who have no share in the World to Come. In the past, such arguments as "we must not impose a restrictive decree upon the community unless the majority of the community will be able to endure it," and "it is better that they should transgress inadvertently rather than be deliberate sinners," and "God protects fools," were used to excuse smoking. In the face of the prohibition against harming one's body, these arguments are invalid. The fact that millions of people have stopped smoking, indicates that it is possible to do so. It may not be easy, but the prohibition against harming oneself is a binding Torah law, not open to interpretation or dispensation. It is unthinkable (under Jewish law) to flagrantly disregard a prohibition set forth in the Torah simply because it is difficult or inconvenient to observe the law. In addition, smoking is not an "inadvertent" act, but a deliberate practice which causes harm and possibly death. One cannot fall back on such statements as "God protects fools." Perhaps God does protect fools, but this statement is more in keeping with metaphysical situations, not the flagrant disregard of God's laws. Jewish law here is referring to sinners, not fools. The above arguments do not even take into account the dangers of second-hand smoke. To deliberately harm another individual by exposing them to the dangers of second-hand smoke clearly is a violation of Jewish Law (and virtually every other form of civilized law). However, even if one smokes in an area that is sealed off from others, that smoker is still in transgression of Jewish law. Smoking is a major issue in modern Jewish life and law. It is perhaps one of the most significant issues facing Jews and non-Jews alike, because it leads to illness and death and causes an entire community to suffer. Jewish law does not agree with the unacceptable assertion by tobacco companies and some politicians, that a person has the right to smoke because smokers only harm themselves. According to the Bible, our bodies are a gift from God, and there are strings attached to this gift. It is unthinkable under Jewish law to treat this gift with carelessness and disdain.
|