Responses to Sexual Abuse and attitudes to the secular - Mishpatim

The suffering inflicted by sexual abuse is horrific. The Jewish religious leadership in Australia has stated that the belief by some that involving secular authorities in situations of child protection is contrary to Torah is wrong. To ostracise or mistreat vulnerable people because of their speaking out in pursuit of justice and healing is both vile and a terrible sin. To protect criminals is to be complicit in their crimes. To say these things is useful, but I think it is not enough! We can’t just wash our hands of the unacceptable viewpoints that were expressed at the royal commission into Institutional Responses to Sexual Abuse. Instead we must reflect on how someone who is part of the same faith community as we are, can come to hold such views. 

One element is in this is the attitude that some religious people have to the secular world. In the Torah reading this week, laws relating to damages and similar matters are introduced with the phrase: “these are the laws you shall put before them” (1).   The words “before them” are interpreted as referring to a Torah court. "Even in cases where secular law (“of idol worshippers”) is identical to the laws of Israel, it is forbidden to use them (2)”.

Let’s look at this Torah reading a little more closely. In the first instance, context is critical. There is some value in monetary disputes (within faith communities) being resolved with the assistance of learned people familiar with the principles held dear to both parties to a dispute. The case of child sexual abuse is completely different, as has been pointed out by many Australian rabbis. The obligation to protect the innocent is paramount and must be handled by those suitably equipped, namely the police and the courts. It is outrageous that anyone could be so attached to religious authority (and mistrustful/disrespectful of secular authority) as to disregard the obvious imperative of child protection by secular authorities.    

As religious people, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge the capabilities of the secular society that we are so fortunate to live in. Our tradition teaches that "while the Torah is to be found among Jewish scholars, wisdom is found among people of all nations" (3). When confronted with allegations of sexual abuse, we must call on those with the expertise to deal with it and the power to lock perpetrators away.

The cries of the abused are heard by God, and the response foreshadowed in the Torah is harsh and merciless. “If he cries out to me, I will surely hear his cries and my anger will flare up, I will kill you with a sword and your wives will be widows and your children orphans (4)”. I feel some sadness for one of the perpetrators, who I know. However, the welfare of survivors (and the protection of potential victims) is far more important than the suffering of the perpetrators. Our sages teach that “those who are merciful to the cruel will ultimately be cruel to the merciful” (5).

Many years ago, Jewish law developed the concept of a “Moser”, which refers to "one who hands over a Jewish person to the authorities". This law developed during a period when governments were extremely corrupt and bigoted against Jews. A Jew could not expect a fair trial. This is not the case in Australia.

My prayer is that with all the problems exposed, my community will enjoy the benefits of a culture that fosters safety for young people, encourages whistle blowers, and fosters appropriate respect for secular wisdom and authority.

(1) Exodus 21:1
(2) Talmud Gittin 88b
(3) Midrash Eicha Rabba 2:13
(4) Exodus 22:22-23
(5) Midrash Tanchuma, Metzora 1, Yalkut Shimoni, 247

Imperfect Anti Racism - Today & Torah Portion Mishpatim

Used under Creative Commons License

My eyes are teary in seat 51C on a Qantas flight. I am reading the lawyers impassioned speech in “To Kill a Mocking Bird” (1). It is a good time for an Australian Jew from New York to shed a few tears about the flawed struggle against racism. This week Martin Luther King Jnr Day was observed in the US. In Australia advocates of Multiculturalism are concerned about the new conservative government’s review of the Curriculum. The review appears to be motivated at least in part by a concern that the current curriculum is insufficiently honouring of our “Judeo- Christian”-“Western”- English heritage. Our Torah reading, Mishpatim, can be read as either emphatically condemning discrimination or even condoning it.

I read about the lawyer Atticus defending Tom, an upstanding member of the local Black Church community, falsely accused of rape by people of questionable character. He argues to the jury that this case is “as simple as black and white”. He declares that the white witnesses against Tom testified with the “cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted, confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption, the evil assumption, that all Negroes lie… that all Negroes cannot be trusted around our women”. He pleads with them; “A jury is only as sound as the people who make it up…in the name of God, do your duty!”

I am moved by what I am reading. Yet, I have been told that the book has been criticized for not being pure enough, itself containing elements of prejudice.  I have not read the critics so I can’t judge the specific criticisms. Still, my first reaction is, “give me a break, this book was published in 1960! I have no doubt it moved people along on the journey, so what if it’s not perfect?!

This leads me back to the Torah, written thousands of years ago, but taken as the timeless word of God by many believers. It discusses slavery laws that are, thank God, no longer practiced. Instead these texts have a more symbolic message for people today.  It states that if a master beats his slave, either male or female, and “the slave dies under his hand then revenge must be prosecuted against the master” (2). This verse which is interpreted as relating to the Canaanite/non Jewish slave (3), teaches that murder of a slave by his master is a capital crime just as the killing of any other person. Beautiful! It teaches us about the equal value of humans, free man/woman or slave.

In the next verse it gets tricky. If the slave “stands” (after the beating) for a day or two days then the master is not punished. This is because “he (the slave) is his property (literally his money)” (4). Yikes! A human being, a non-Jewish slave, is merely someone’s property?!

In the first instance, some Torah scholars of our day have argued that the Torah’s tolerance for slavery was part of a gradual process to move people along a continuum from unrestricted practice of slavery, to one with safeguards and limitations, and ultimately to abandoning the disgusting practice entirely (5). The Torah’s approach is expressed well in the words of Job “"If I have despised the just cause of my slave… then what shall I do when God rises up… what shall I answer Him? Did He who created me in the belly not create him, and was it not the same One who fashioned us in the womb?" (6).

A gradual approach to discrimination is also suggested in To Kill a Mocking Bird.  When the jury declare Tom guilty Atticus is indignant, but he is also pleased that his efforts led the jury to deliberate for many hours rather than the few minutes it would normally take for a white Jury in the American South to convict a black man in the 1930s. Atticus believes in incremental progress, so do I. Perhaps a compromised approach to promoting diversity in the Australian Curriculum will ultimately bear greater fruit, I can only hope.

Returning to our “Slave as property” verse, some commentators understand it as justifying the beating (7). Another view is that being that the master has a financial interest in the slave’s wellbeing. Therefore, if there was some recovery between the beating and the death, there is a presumption that there was a different cause of death (8).  A key message from this section is that God warns the master against cruelty in disciplining his slaves, and that if he persists in violent beating that leads to the death of the slave he himself will be executed. This is because “the mercies of God is for all of those He created, as it is written regarding King David (that he was disqualified from building the house of God because) “much blood you have spilled (9)” and (those that David killed) were not of Israel (10). 

Later in our reading this week, the text is emphatic in prohibiting discrimination against the foreigner. “And you shall not mistreat a foreigner, nor shall you oppress him, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt”. And again: “And you shall not oppress a foreigner, for you know the feelings of the foreigner, since you were foreigner in the land of Egypt” (11). Some commentaries assume that these laws apply to a person from a “foreign” ethnic background who converted to Judaism (12), the word for convert is the same as the one for foreigner. I have found sufficient basis to understand it as applying to any member of a minority (13). These instructions against mistreatment of the foreigner have been explained in terms of “your” power relative to the powerlessness of the newcomer (14). This is one of the key elements of modern racism. 

Some would argue that we must disregard these sacred texts because they don’t articulate a perfect, unambiguous, consistent message of absolute equality. In To Kill a Mocking Bird, Tom, the innocent black man is killed in jail, while waiting for incremental white progress! Going slow has a terrible price that must be considered. Still, I believe we need to work with what we have and both support and challenge people to move along their journey toward full acceptance and valuing of every fellow human in whatever way that will work.    

1.    Lee, H. (1960), To Kill a Mocking Bird
2.    Exodus 21:20
3.    Mechilta, Mechilta D’Rashbi cited in Torah Shlaima, p.109, Rashi and others
4.    Exodus 21:21
5.    I don’t remember the name of the scholar I first read who articulated this approach. However see Samet,  Rabbi E. http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.63/18mishpatim.htm
6.    Job 31:13-15, cited by Samet ibid.
7.    Seforno, Rashbam
8.    Ibn Ezra, Klei Yakar elaborates: “Certainly he (the master) would not have beaten him with cruel beatings that could result in killing the slave, because he is his property! Is there any person who destroys his property with his own hands?!” The term “cruel beatings” made me ask the obvious question: is there another kind of beating? While all violence is abhorrent, there are degrees of violence. Samson Raphael Hirsh argues that “This reason given cannot be taken to mean that he is in some way of a lower degree of humanity that ordinary man. For it only applies to the master, to everybody else the full ordinary laws of murder applies. The reason can only lie in the relationship of the master to his personal property…”
9.    Chronicles I 22:8
10.    Ibn Ezra on Exodus 21:21
11.    Exodus 22:20, and Exodus 23:9
12.    Mechilta, Midrash Aggada, Toras Kohanim Kedoshim 8:2, Chizkuni cited in Torah Shlaima p. 98-99, see notes 366-7.  Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Sefer Hachinuch Mitzva 63. For contemporary argument see http://vbm-torah.org/archive/chavero2/08chavero.htm
13.    One source for the narrow interpretation of the law as relating only to converts is in the Talmud Bava Metzia 59b. It states “Why did the Torah admonish us about the convert in thirty-six…places?  This is because “his turning is bad”.  Many people have understood this to mean that he has a strong inclination towards evil or his old habits regarding idol worship and if he is mistreated he will “turn back to evil and reject Judaism”. However the Beer Mayim Chayim understands the “bad turn” very differently. “it is bad and bitter for him, that he is removed (turned away) from his family”. This way of understanding the Talmud applies just as well to a non-Jewish migrant who left family, friends and colleagues behind as it does to a convert.
The Sefer Hachinuch The Chinnukh (Mitzva 431) expands this prohibition beyond converts: “It is incumbent upon us to learn from this precious commandment to take pity on any person who is in a town or city that is not his native ground and not his ancestral home.  Let us not maltreat him in any way, finding him alone, with those who would aid him quite far from him….
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch states “the rights of humanity and citizenship come not from race, descent, birth, country or property, nor from anything external or due to chance; they emanate simply and purely from the inner spiritual and moral worth of a human being.  This basic principle is further ensured against neglect by the additional motive “for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”…  your whole misfortune in Egypt was that you were foreigners and aliens there.  As such, according to the views of other nations, you had no right to be there, had no claim to rights of settlement, home or property.  Accordingly, you had no equal rights to invoke against unfair or unjust treatment.  As aliens, you were without any rights in Egypt, and out of that grew all your slavery and wretchedness.  Thus, the Torah admonishes us to avoid making rights in our own state conditional on anything other than the simple humanity which every human being, as such, bears within him.  With any limitation of these human rights, the gate is opened to the whole horror of Egyptian human-rights abuses.
14.    Ibn Ezra on Exodus 22:20, he points out the link between the law of the foreigner alongside laws against the mistreatment of the orphan and widow, all of whom appear to lack protectors or networks.  Ramban also makes the link to mistreatment based on the difference of power.

Discrimination and Religious Teachings: An Exploration of One Jewish and One Islamic Tradition

Recently I attended a Muslim event. We were treated to performances of poetry and a combination of storytelling, song and music. One story about the forbearance of the prophet Mohammed included a Jew insulting and falsely accusing the prophet.   On Saturday afternoon I lead a Torah discussion group about the Sidra (reading) of the week and drew attention to the verse and associated commentary about a non-Jewish female slave that I found quite uncomfortable reading. This blog post is an exploration of the way religious leaders or teachers select texts or stories to tell that may lead people to problematic conclusions. Should there never be self- censorship? Is contextualizing enough? This is far from a complete examination of discrimination in either Jewish or Islamic texts or the issue of responsible leadership. Instead, it is an attempt to shed some light on the issues by examining my own experiences over the past few days.

The Story

A young Sheikh named Omar, told a story that essentially went as follows: A Jewish convert to Islam named Abdullah once entered a Mosque and saw another Jewish man named Zaid sitting among Muslims. Zaid explained to Abdullah that "that I knew from reading my scriptures that we expected a Prophet and the characteristics of this prophet. I noticed all the attributes in the Prophet Mohammed except for one: forbearance. I decided to test him”.

Zaid approached the Prophet Mohammed and offered him a loan, which the prophet accepted and agreed to repay the load in dates. Three days before the load was due for repayment Zaid walked up to the prophet as he was surrounded by his companions and many people. He made derogatory statements about the tribe of the prophet, accusing them of being dishonest and stealing the wealth of others and made accusations relating to the failure to repay the loan.

 

Umar, a companion of the prophet was outraged and drew his sword. But the Prophet Mohammed stopped Umar and insisted that Zaid be talked to about dealing with issues using honourable speech and noting that there were still three days left under the terms of the loan. In spite of this the Prophet instructed Umar to immediately give Zaid 1½ times the original amount of dates. This was to compensate Zaid for the trauma of being threatened by Umar.  

Making sense of the story

Listening to the story, I first took it at face value, a story about the virtue of patience. It echoed, for me, a Talmudic story about how the patience of the sage Hillel was tested by a man pestering him with inane questions to win a bet that he could make Hillel angry[i]. Yet, it also struck me that the two Jews in the story both converted to Islam, which made me just a little uncomfortable. In subsequent conversations about the story, some people commented about the portrayal of the Jew in the story as disrespectful to the prophet and money driven or being cast in the role of the villain.

A key strategy for positive inter-group relations is curiosity. Yishai Shaliff taught me the concept of asking from “a place of not knowing[ii]” which is essentially about asking open question without any implicit assumptions. I asked Sheikh Omar to tell me more about this story.  He shared with me that this was the first Hadith he learned as a child. But when he first heard it, it was missing both the beginning and the end and seemed to be just about the loyalty of Umar to the Prophet. On a trip to a small village with many devout descendants of the prophet in Yemen, Omar was thrilled to discover the full story. For him this story is about the importance of non-violence and calm responses to provocation. We also found common ground in discussing the laws against taking interest in both our traditions. I wonder how the prophet was allowed to give Zaid the extra 50%? In Jewish law, even being more social with the lender could be construed as interest[iii]. Sheikh Omar told me that this was the very same question he wondered about when first hearing the story but concluding that the additional 50% was a separate transaction to the loan itself.

I can relate to Sheikh Omar’s excitement about uncovering a fuller understanding of a sacred story or text, especially as this leads to a rich practical message about non-violent responses to provocation.  Still, I wonder about whether young people who attend Sheik Omar’s classes who hear this story, will also get an unintended message that Jews might be worthy of the noble prophet’s patience but are also the ones who might insult the Prophet.

Laws related to Discrimination in the Torah reading

In seeking to understand the other, it is important to reflect on ourselves and our own frame of reference. Returning to my own text, our reading this week is emphatic in the prohibition of discrimination against the stranger[iv]. “And you shall not mistreat a stranger, nor shall you oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. And again: “And you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, since you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. The second verse seems to be an appeal to empathy, you know “how hard it is (for the stranger) when he is mistreated[v]”. These instructions are related to the issue of power and powerlessness[vi] and the moral imperative of treating the powerless newcomer well, never abusing the power imbalance. It also reflects a need for sensitivity to the suffering of dislocation experienced by a stranger far from friends and home[vii]. 

The Non-Jewish Slave Woman’s “Physical relationship[viii]”

One of the most difficult theoretical aspects of Jewish law comes up in the same reading.  I say, theoretical because these laws have not been practiced for some two thousand years. Most of the commentary was written over a thousand years after the practice was abolished. Yet it remains part of our tradition. The Torah tells us something about the treatment of a Non-Jewish Slave Woman, but she is not the subject of the verse but rather one whose fate is secondary. This is a discussion about a Jewish slave, the Torah tells us that “If his master gives him a woman/wife[ix](?), and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone[x]”. The “woman” is a Canaanite (non-Jewish) slave woman, who is “given” to the Jewish slave for a period of six years but when her partner goes free she and their children remain behind as property of their owner.  

The relationship between this slave woman and the Jewish male slave is centred on the production of slave children[xi].  This relationship is only permitted if the Jewish male slave is already married[xii] ‘because his soul is already attached with his love toward his Jewish wife’ but if he is not already married we need to worry that he will become attached to his Cananite slave partner[xiii]”. The quality of their relationship does not seem to matter at all. The master is allowed to compel the union between the slaves if it is against the wishes of the male slave[xiv]  (I have not found anything written that is explicit about requiring her consent[xv]).  There is no requirement for this sexual union to become a marriage between the slaves.  ‘The Jewish slave should not be separated by his master from his Jewish wife to be required to become one with and sleep with the Canaanite slave instead of his Jewish wife, but the Jewish male slave does have discretion in this matter[xvi]’. The only restriction is that this slave woman cannot be “given” to two slaves at a time[xvii]. Perhaps somewhat reassuringly, the Torah text itself, as opposed to the commentary, does envision that the two slaves might come to love each other to the point that in some case the Jewish slave would be prepared to continue to be a slave because he declares “I love my (Canaanite slave) wife and my children[xviii]”.

Conclusion

When I think about this text, I have no neat way to explain it away. It says what it says. While it is convenient that this all theoretical and is no longer practiced and has not been practiced for thousand years, the more important point for me is that the total moral message of Judaism is one of human dignity and embracing all human beings. Yet, there is the danger that other Jews will take these Jewish teachings as legitimising prejudicial attitudes. As a Rabbi and a Jewish educator this is something I am concerned about. Since Saturday, I have been thinking about this a lot, consulting a trusted colleague and asking participants in the Saturday discussion group what their conclusions were. Not one participant got the message that racism is ok. Our youngest participant merely thought “it was weird”. While I despise censorship by religious leaders, deciding what part of the tradition the masses can be trusted with, I am still grappling with the merit of highlighting the most difficult passages. This is one reason I have delayed publishing this article till now.

When it comes to the texts of others there needs to be a genuine curiosity to learn what these mean for those who follow those texts. This is what I did with my conversation with Omar in which I was moved by what this story means to him. I also think it is legitimate for Jews or anyone to be concerned about the ways negative portrayals of minorities in the sacred texts of faiths other than one’s own might be understood and applied. This needs to be handled with care. I am not sure about the best way to approach an Inter-faith discussion with him about this, in which I show respect for the sacredness of this story for him while also exploring possible misuse of the story.  I trust that with good will, a bit of skill, sincerity and openness we can have a fruitful discussion.

---

[i] Talmud Shabbat 31

[ii] Shalif, Y, Liviatan, I, Paran, R. (2007), "Care-full Listening and Conversations", Creating Dialogue between Members of Conflicting Multi-Cultural Groups Publication Department, Israel Ministry of Education

[iii] Maimonides Laws of the Lender and Borrower, 5:12

[iv] Exodus 22:20, and Exodus 23:9, this translation is from chabad.org. There are traditional sources that interpret the Hebrew word Ger, which literally means stranger, as convert and focus their commentary on the particular situation of a convert, the commentary cited above relates as much to a newcomer to a religious community as it would to any marginalised person.  

[v] Rashi

[vi] Ibn Ezra

[vii] Sefer Hachinuch

[viii] This way of describing the relationship is used by Munk, Rabbi E, in the Call of The Torah and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in his commentary to the Torah following earlier sources.  

[ix] The Hebrew word, Isha, means both woman and wife. Which one is the correct translation?

[x] Exodus 21:4

[xi] Maimonides, Laws of Slaves 3:3, Chizkuni, p. 263, Mosad Harav Kook edition, 2006, Jerusalem

[xii] Mechilta Drashbi

[xiii] Klei Yakar, referring to Exodus 21:5 and Chizkuni ibid.

[xiv] Maimonides ibid, Rashi on Talmud Temura 30a,

[xv] There is an implication in Chizkuni, p.264 that her consent was not required

[xvi] Ramban, Mechilta Drashbi

[xvii] Mechilta Drashbi, Maimonides, Laws of Slaves 3:5

[xviii] Exodus 21:5

God's Way -Halacha (Shariah) vs. democracy

Disclaimers: 1) Some people speak from a religious perspective with no authority and limited knowledge. They create false impressions of their faith. 2) Commentary is influenced by historical context, and may not be the prevailing view in another time.

The Match

Last Thursday night I listened to an unrepresentative and unqualified fellow named Ibrahim Conlon, an architect convert to Islam who decided to redesign Australia. He spoke for the affirmative in a debate at a town hall on whether democracy should be replaced by Shariah law[1]. “What basis is there for democracy?!” he asked repeatedly. “What if you had 100 Murderers or Homosexuals? he challenged his opponent (ignoring the difference between the two) “would you still follow the majority?”

The question of the death penalty for apostasy was raised. A young Palestinian-Aussie asked me how Jewish law would respond to some of these explosive issues. Indeed, 1) what is the relationship between God's revealed path[2] and democracy? 2) How does it apply to humanity generally and 3) specifically for adherents of the Torah?

Clash of world views?

It has been argued that the world views of Torah and western are profoundly different[3].  Consider the divergence between Torah’s focus on obligations vs. a society that emphasises rights. This divergence leads to two ways of seeing law.
A) As an intrusion in life that should be tolerated only to the degree that it prevents people’s rights being trampled, so “government is best when it governs least[4]”.
B) If life is about our obligations, than the more laws the better because these laws ennoble and refine us[5] help us achieve our purpose in life[6], to prepare the society of completed people[7] or a home for God on earth[8].

Freedom, while prized in both systems, means different things in each. In Torah it is about the freedom to obey God[9], while in the west it is the freedom to do as we please. Finally, the value of individualism and individual choice in the open society even extends to the approval of civil disobedience to break the law which is not tolerated in the Halacha.  

Compatible or Compartmentalized?

Roth concludes that the divergent approaches can be dealt with by thinking of them as operating within different terms of reference, in different parts of a person’s life. As someone raised is a very different school of thought (Chabad) to that of Rabbi Roth, my subjective and likely very unfair reaction to this resolution is to hear echoes of the idea of a being Jew in the home and a “man” in the street[10].

Synthesis

An attempt at synthesis is made Rabbi David Rosen[11], who argues that if we think of democracy as being about equality and dignity of the individual then it would be seen by Torah as a moral imperative. He points to the fact that in the Torah it is the people who appoint the king[12]. Moses recounts how he consulted the people in his appointment of judges, “bring from among yourselves men of wisdom and understanding, well known to your tribes and I will appoint them[13]”.

When great sages Hillel and Shamai introduced a law that the public did not accept initially, it is not considered valid until a generation later when the community accepted it[14].  In one of our dramatic stories, a sage was asked to violate his own conscience and was humiliated. This was one factor that led to the demotion of the lead scholar of the Jewish people[15]. “If you (despise another person), know whom you despise for in the image of God, He made man[16]” The human being is not seen as little cog in the great wheel of God will, but as one made in the image of God, whose dignity and will deserves great respect. Democracy affirms the dignity of the individuals.

Civil law is binding on believers

Man made law is seen as authoritative and subject to certain conditions is binding on Jews as expressed in the principle of “Dina Dmalchuta Dina”, the law of the kingdom has the status of law[17]. (I cannot speak for Islam, but if I remember correctly, my Muslim colleague had once explained that Shariah would arrive at the same practical conclusion as a matter of implied contract as part of citizenship. He also thinks that Australia is much more of an Islamic state than Iran or Saudi Arabia because of its social policies are consistent in his view with Islam.)

Civil law, fulfilment of Divine Law?

Judaism has a tradition of a set of divine laws for all mankind called the “Seven Noahide laws”, one of these is the requirement to establish of systems of laws and justice. There are two opinions about this commandment a) The content of the laws was also prescribed by God and is essentially the same as the civil laws in the Torah[18]. b) The meaning of a system of “laws” as required by the Noahide code is justice based on national customs and lawmaking[19]. According to the latter view God's law sees the laws of governments as the fulfilment of God's command.

Jew stay out of court?

In spite of this, the courts of law established by non-Jews are not seen as the appropriate venue for Jews to seek justice[20], for various reasons. A) If their law is different to Torah law and money changes hands this would be considered theft[21]. B) The case of an idol-worshippers court even if in a particular law their laws would be identical to Jewish law because of a desecration of Gods name and honours the names of idols to praise them…when our enemies (are our) judges, this is a testimony to the superiority of their (object or religious) fear[22]. This would be the case even with a secular court, which by virtue of it replacing a Torah court would still be seen as denigrating Torah. An exception to this is when a Torah court gives permission to Jewish litigants to attend a civil court. From a legal perspective, my understanding is that in most cases, this should not be an issue if the litigants agree to appoint an arbitrator or mediator out of court.

Death Penalty for Unbelievers?

In practice Jewish law does not have the death penalty in spite of the fact that the law for executing an idol worshipper is still on the books. It is only because of the downgrading of rabbinic authority that we do not have the power to act on this. (Phew, how, very convenient).

Conclusion

Some of our ideals can be better realised in parallel with democracy, rather than within it. Still, democracy is one important and practical way to progress Torah’s vision of a just society. The Lubavitcher Rebbe referred to the United States as a “kingdom of kindness”. If a Jew argued for the destruction of democracy, he would be reminded that in theocracies, Jews were burned at the stake. A ‘Jewish Conlon’ would be told that as a democrat he had the right to say what he pleases, but as Jew he had an obligation to shut up and recognise the Torah case for democracy. Unless we knew for certain that he would not listen because he thinks he knows better, in which case the Mitzvah is to leave him alone. I would assume that in the actual case of Mr. Ibrahim Conlon, Australian Muslim religious leaders will counsel him in a similar way, if they think he is open to guidance. I hope with the additional information about our own tradition, we can respond more appropriately to the type of challenge I faced last Thursday night. 

With much appreciation to the scholars who have come before me, especially Rabbi Dr. Sol Roth and Rabbi David Rosen

---

[1]  http://www.parramattasun.com.au/news/local/news/general/the-great-debate-in-parramatta-sharia-law-for-australia/2053480.aspx

[2] The Hebrew word for Jewish law is Halahca, which relates to the word “going”, or the ‘way to go’, the Muslim word is Shariah, which means the path.

[3] Roth Rabbi Dr. S (1990), http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/704412/Rabbi_Sol_Roth/Judaism_and_Democracy

[4]  John Stuart Mill, cited in Roth

[5]  Mitzvot were not given (for any other reason but) to refine the creations/Israel, Vayikra Rabba 13.3, Beresheet Rabba 44, Midrash Shmuel 84, also central to approach of Sefer Hachinuch

[6]  Based on Pirkey Avot, everything God created, he created only for his glory

[7]  Derech Hashem, Rabbi Moshe Chayim Lutzato in the introduction

[8]  Midrash Tehilim, as explained in Chabad Chasidism  

[9] As expressed in Pirkey Avot 6:2, “there is no one who is free other than one who studies Torah”

[10] Jacobs, L, “As late as the mid­-nineteenth century the Russian maskil, Judah Leib Gordon, could still proclaim as the Haskalah ideal: “Be a Jew in your home and a man outside it,” http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history/Modern_History/17001914/Emancipation_and_Enlightenment/In_the_West/Haskalah_I.shtml,

[11]  Rosen, D, (2001), Democracy: a Moral Imperative in Judaism http://www.rabbidavidrosen.net/articles.htm

[12] Deuteronomy 17:15

[13] Deuteronomy 1:13

[14] Talmud Shabbat 17a and Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat chapter 2, cited in Rosen.

[15]  Mishna, Rosh Hashanah 2:8-9, story of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, where Rabbi Yehoshua calculated a different date for Yom Kippur and he was ordered to appear before Rabban Gamliel with his staff and wallet on the day he believed to be Yom Kippur.

[16] Beresheet Rabba 1:24

[17]  Talmud, Gittin 10a

[18]  Ramban Commentary on Beresheet, 34:13

[19] Rabbenu Yaakov Antoli (whose book has been used by the Orchot Chayim, Kol Bo and Meiri) in Melamed Hatalmidim, brought in Torah Shleima Miluim to Parsha Mishpatim p. 218

[20] Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 26. (Quoted by Ira Yitzchak Kasdan - http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/psharah1.html)

[21] Chidushei R. Akivah Eiger, Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 26:1 "Uv'arkaot shelahem."

[22]  Rashi on Exodus 21:1.