Rosh Hodesh Elul 5769 August 23, 2009
1. Why do you think this text emphasizes that God is with the Israelites as they enter battle?
2. What might this text teach us about how to engage with a social justice struggle where the odds are stacked against you?
עֹשֶׂה מִשְׁפַּט יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה וְאֹהֵב גֵּר לָתֶת לוֹ לֶחֶם וְשִׂמְלָה: וַאֲהַבְתֶּם אֶת הַגֵּר כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:
1. In what ways does this text suggest that we mimic G-d?
2. What is G-d's responsibility to us and what is our responsibility to others? What are the different sources of these responsibilities?
3. This text reminds the reader of Israelite slavery. In what ways is a history of slavery connected to doing justice and loving the stranger?
1. Who is speaking in this text? What is the significance of "and all the people shall say amen"?
2. What is assumed about the blind person, the stranger, the fatherless and the widow?
3. What effect does the curse have? Is it a deterrent or a punishment or both?
1. Who are the players in this text – seen and unseen?
2. What power dynamics are at play?
3. What social justice themes emerge from this text?
1. Who are the players in this text – seen and unseen?
2. In what ways can we, as individuals, follow this more in our daily lives?
3. In what ways can we, as a society, follow this more in our policies - both foreign and domestic?
1. Who are the players in this text – seen and unseen?
2. What does the "for the sake of peace" mean?
3. How do we reconcile this text with the common tenancy to care for our own first?
| Translation | Original |
|---|---|
| In relation to the obligation to pay the costs of saving the life of a sick person who is in danger of dying: From the straightforward reading of Sanhedrin 73a , we see that one is obligated to do everything to save him, and if not, one transgresses the negative commandment: “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.” (According to my humble opinion, it’s clear that the sick person is obligated afterwards to repay the expenses.) And if we say that the commandment is directed at action, and therefore one is not under an obligation to spend all his money, nevertheless 10 or 20% of his property surely is required. It is more logical that this prohibition is far more stringent and that he is obligated to spend all his property. But regretfully, we encounter this all of the time and nobody does it. I heard that the Gaon Israel Salanter was very uncertain about this issue. As to what to do in our case: it looks to me certain that in a case such as this, where one sees his friend drowning in the river and there is no one to save him, he has to spend all his resources to save him. But when the matter is publicly known to everyone, there are those who rely on the lenient opinion, and one is not obligated to give more than his fair share. But in any event, this doesn’t make sense to me, because how can he absolve himself from such a stringent negative commandment simply because others are not concerned with it and violate it? This matter requires great study. [AJWS translation] |
בענין החיוב לממן את ההוצאות להצלת חייו של חולה מסוכן מפשטות הגמרא בסנהדרין ע"ג ע"א רואים דחייב לעשות הכל להצלתו ואם לאו הוא עובר בלאו של לא תעמוד על דם רעך (לענ"ד פשוט שהחולה עצמו שפיר חייב אח"כ לפרוע לו), ואם נאמר דעל לאו שחיובו מעשה ליכא חיוב לבזבז כל ממונו, מ"מ מעשר או חומש מיהא חייב, ובפרט דמסתבר יותר שלאו זה הרבה יותר חמור ושפיר חייב לבזבז כל ממונו. אך לצערנו נתקלים בזה תמיד ולא עושים כך, ושמעתי שהגאון ר' ישראל מסאלאנט זצ"ל הסתפק הרבה בענין זה. ולמעשה ודאי נראה דבכה"ג שרואה את חברו טובע בנהר ואין מי שיציל אותו שפיר חייב לבזבז כל ממונו, אולם כשהענין ידוע ומפורסם לרבים סומכים להקל שאינו חייב ליתן יותר מהחלק שמוטל עליו. ומ"מ אין זה מתקבל על דעתי כי מהיכ"ת יפטור עצמו מלאו חמור זה מפני זה שאחרים לא חוששים ועוברים על זה, והדבר צריך עיון רב.
|
1. The author is struggling here with the diffusion of responsibility when many are aware of the danger. How can make ourselves accountable even when others also know about lives being lost and are not acting?
2. What makes the author hesitant to say flat out that we are obligated to spend all our money?
3. What do you think the author would say if the person in mortal danger has no money and will not be able to repay the saver?
| Original |
|---|
|
So far as we feel sympathy, we feel we are not accomplices to what caused the suffering. Our sympathy proclaims our innocence as well as our impotence. To that extent, it can be (for all our good intentions) an impertinent — if not an inappropriate — response. To set aside the sympathy we extend to others beset by war and murderous politics for a consideration of how our privileges are located on the same map as their suffering, and may — in ways that we prefer not to imagine — be linked to their suffering, as the wealth of some may imply the destitution of others, is a task for which the painful, stirring images supply only the initial spark.
|
1. In what way is our affluence on the same map as the destitution of others?
2. We did not create this system, nor are we at fault for it. Nonetheless, it exists. How can we best respond to it?
| Translation | Original |
|---|---|
| I heard the following in the name of my teacher, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, "the Rav," of blessed memory: The Torah relates (Numbers 13) that God commanded Moses to send twelve men, each the prince of his tribe, to spy out the land of Canaan which He had promised to give to the Children of Israel. Two of them, Joshua and Caleb, came back with a positive report, affirming the promise of God to Israel and asserting that the campaign would succeed. Ten of the princes, however, were thoroughly discouraging and, in defiance of the divine promise, maintained that any effort to conquer the Land would fail. This report caused untold grief for generations thereafter. Remarkable: a whole nation witnessed so many obvious miracles--from the Ten Plagues to the splitting of the Red Sea, from the manna to the well of Miriam, etc.--and, despite all this, their faith in God was so thin, so fragile, that ten people out of a total population of probably more than 2,000,000 were able to sway them to doubt the divine promise. What demonic powers the ten must have possessed to cause such a tragic upheaval! But, the Rav adds, there is one more place in the Torah where we find the possibility of ten people to change the destiny of so many others: the plea of Abraham to save the sin-city of Sodom if at least ten tzaddikim (righteous people) would be found therein. So, ten people can overwhelm a vast number and lead them to physical and spiritual perdition, and ten people can save an entire populous city from utter devastation. To which I humbly add this explanation: Why ten? What properties does that specific number possess such that it can wield such enormous power both for good and for evil? The answer, I suggest, comes from the Halakha, where ten is considered the minimum number to constitute an edah (congregation) or tzibbur (community). If the ten are cohesive, if they are mutually dedicated to one overarching cause, they can overpower hundreds and thousands and even millions of individuals. A community of ten is almost omnipotent compared with far larger numbers of individuals who are unrelated and indifferent. |
|
1. What is Lamm trying to inspire here?
2. How does it happen that ten people can create so much change in people's attitudes? What has brought about changes in your own attitudes?
3. How can we utilize the power instilled by this text to bring others with us in our work for social justice?
| Original |
|---|
|
O Lord, we confess our sins, we are ashamed of the inadequacy of our anguish, of how faint and slight is our mercy. We are a generation that has lost its capacity for outrage. We must continue to remind ourselves that in a free society all are involved in what some are doing. Some are guilty, all are responsible.
|
1. In what ways have we lost our capacity for outrage?
2. How are we responsible, as Heschel asserts?
3. What kind of mercy would Heschel like to see?