D. Saperstein on Jewish Social Justice and Political Decisions

David Saperstein speaks to Beth Am on 5/30/2009
on
The Jewish Social Justice Agenda

How the Jewish tradition should be use in contemporary political debates?

What is proper or improper within political debate?

What does our tradition tell us?

Jacob Neusner (the Isaac Asimov of Jewish scholars) books on Jewish scholarship. Prolific writer - bibliography.

Neusner is critical of reform movement’s claim regarding the position on Rowe v Wade ( and other positions on Jewish tradition ) Do not claim that the Jewish tradition justifies the position on abortion. It is okay for it to be your position but don’t claim that the “Jewish tradition” is the basis of that position. Similar relating to the position on gay marriage.

Must study what the texts say about an issue and see if there are any specific commentaries on the issue.
If you can’t find anything relating to the issue then don’t claim it is the “Jewish” position. Don’t claim that it is within the interpretation of Jewish law.

Problematic with what he says because it doesn’t recognize any official evolution of the Jewish position or further interpretation. There are limits to how you interpret the official position of Judaism from the texts.

Jewish tradition can support different views. Minority opinions are recorded and CAN become an official position. Problem in interpretation and varying opinions in religion and in law as well.

Neusner is critical that the reform and conservative movement are making statements that are not based on text.

When leaders claim this do they say it is “the Jewish position” or “a Jewish position”. Using “a” makes it a weaker argument but more accurate. Different positions can be represented by the actual Jewish position so there are really multiple positions on any issue.

When making our mind on an issue want to be able to say that they go to the text to make decisions. Do they really do this? Try to be intellectually open and honest, but it is influenced by experiences. We can’t base opinions strictly on one source. It is based on all range of experiences including our Jewish study and experience. (Can find justification for a wide range of positions within Jewish traditions in different sides of issues.)

“never lie or distort a position in testimony before a congressional office… if you do they will never trust you again…”

Another approach that is sometimes used is to decide what you want and then find the text to back it up. Not suggested as a proper method - totally biased.

Proper method is to go with an open mind (blank slate) and then go to the text and look at the responsa literature and all the interpretations and then make decisions. But it really doesn’t happen this way. “Blank Slate” methodology is very difficult.

Hard not to influence your decisions from all factors of your background and identity, both Jewish and not Jewish.

Important to go to the texts, but you CAN find justification of almost anything in the text.
So it is difficult to use this as a method.

Abortion issues: both sides use the same text to justify their position: “Choose life…”

Right methodology:
Jewish law comes from Torah, from God, a covenant, a contract. A contract binding only when people agree and when it is enforceable. Those Jews at Sinai agreed. Jews are born into the covenant and must reaffirm when they reach majority. (Bnai Mitzvah – they officially accept the commandments) Who wasn’t at Sinai? Everyone else.

What does it mean to become Bar or Bat Mitzvah? That they agree to accept the laws.

Big problem with limiting it to Jewish law:

• No concept that the covenant is binding on non-Jews.
• No universal norms in Torah.
• Noahkite covenant – 7 moral laws binding on all people. What applies to everyone.
• Rule for the sake of “peace in the community” is another law that applies to all people. Community relations – started over 2000 years ago.
• Universal law comes from interpretation –

1. dignity of humans
2. equality of all people
3. belief in perfectibility – we can make it better (not perfect but working toward that)
Normative Christianity vs Normative Judaism - different views - we believe in our obligation as humans to work toward a better world.
4. Trust relation with God. Share God’s love with others. Tzedakkah to all people.
5. Rule of Law – all people are accountable. – Universal Law.
6. Pursuit of Peace
7. Pursuit of Justice
8. Belief in freedom of choice. Freedom of thought. Ability to understand the difference in good and evil in the choices we make.

God is not ordained for the human invention.
Need to evaluate issues by these universal laws that help direct our actions to do the best we can.

Look at Jewish tradition and lift those values up to offer to all people. Not that it is binding on non- Jews, rather that it offers guidelines based on universal laws as well. The Jewish arguments should be heard as an inspiration or as a ‘prophetic voice’ and a ‘moral voice’ to add to and influence the opinions and decisions that are made.