Please explain the prohibition that a Jew should not charge a Jew interest on a loan and the practicality of this prohibition in a modern world.

 

The prohibition is based upon three Biblical texts – Exodus 22; 24 (and a similar text in Leviticus 23):

 

If you lend money to My people, to the poor who are in your power, do not act toward them as a creditor.  Take no interest from them.

 

The third text is Deuteronomy 23; 20

 

You shall deduct no interest from loans to your countryman … You may deduct interest from loans to foreigners but not from loans to your countrymen.

 

These texts in combination have led to a strong prohibition in Jewish law against charging interest (ribbit) to Jews – and in some sources even to non-Jews.  It is worth noting that the level of interest is not relevant -  2% is prohibited no less than 25%.

 

A clear intent can be discerned for the laws in the Torah that in a simple agrarian economy interest could be a prohibitive barrier, and that the Israelite community should provide funds to each other without the punishing burden of interest.

 

As economic structures have grown more sophisticated – from the 2^nd century onwards, the prohibition on interest was a severe deterrent to natural and necessary economic activity.  The rabbis devised a structure known as “heter iska” which provides for the creation of a largely fictitious “partnership” in which the partner providing funding will benefit to an agreed extent from the profits of the business.

 

Those who are punctilious in the observance of Jewish Law make use of this structure, which is widely practiced in Israel – and commended by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative movement.

 

Nevertheless, members of the Jewish community participate widely in the economic activities of the world, and I would say that in most activities – investment, savings, home purchases, that the conventional practices of the wider society may be followed without harm.

 

It is worth noting that the traditional Jewish aversion to charging interest to other Jews has led to the widespread establishment of “Free Loan Societies” within the Jewish community.  Many Jewish businesses have been started by immigrants who received such loans from their community – and to this day many families in severe difficulty, many Jewish immigrants to the USA are being assisted by such funds.  It would be praiseworthy and a great Mitzvah to make donations to such organizations – or to establish such a Society within each community and synagogue.   More information can be found on the website of the Hebrew Free Loan Society of New York: www.hfls.org

This question is welcome and important for a number of reasons.  Most of all this question (and others like it) are a sign that we are turning to Jewish teachings for guidance to “ … do the right thing” – or in the words of the Torah:  “ … la’asot hatov vehayashar be’eynai H’” (“… to do that which is good and upright in the sight of God”  -- Deut. 12; 28).

 

There are nuances in the question, and I will turn to those in a moment.  It is worth taking a moment to note that Jewish tradition has for centuries recognized the concept of intellectual property, and that the owner of intellectual property has many of the same rights and privileges as the owner of more tangible items.  It is forbidden to steal from another person (or entity) whether the stolen property is a book, a DVD, a concept or an electronic copy.

 

The Biblical prohibition against  hassagat g’vul - moving the markers that define the boundaries of real estate has been deemed to apply to intellectual property – so that reproducing a “copyright” text is judged to be “hassagat g’vul” .  There is also the concept of gneivat da’at – stealing intellectual work.

 

I am looking at the title page of a recently republished siddur (prayer book), and it has the following warning:  “… considerable research and expense has gone into the creation of this siddur, and unauthorized copying may be considered gneivat da’at as well as a breach of copyright law …”

 

The question asks if once a digital file is “ … shared and online – is it public property?”

 

The answer, it seems to me, depends on the intention of the owner.  If I have property no longer useful to me, I might put it on the street; it is understood in many urban areas that a books on the sidewalk are “shared” - there for anyone to take.  However if I have many books on my shelf at home – I might be willing to lend them to a friend – but they are by no means there for anyone to walk in and take away.

 

Also – while I might be permitted to copy a few pages of a book that I own for my own private reference – I certainly cannot copy a book that I own – or even a chapter, and give that copy to a friend.  That is prohibited by copyright and hassagat gvul – but I can lend the original book, my property, as I wish.

 

So – if you own an electronic file you can give it away or sell it – provided that you destroy your own copy.  Regard an electronic file as if it were a tangible item and think about the original intent of the owner of the property.

 

It could be that a band, or an author, wants a piece of their work to receive the widest possible circulation and they actively seek to have the file distributed widely.  By all means share such works – they are like “books on the sidewalk” – or pamphlets in the library, freely available to all.  Youtube is a great example of this in practice.

 

Artists, writers, musicians and scholars work hard to create items that are of great value to all humanity.  The world will be enriched if those who work in the “intangible” realm can benefit reasonably from that which they create.

 

I have taught in 3 rabbinical and cantorial programs – and it has been my honor and privilege to participate in the ordination of Jews-by-choice.  Most recently, in January 2011 I participated in the ordination of Shoshana Brown, a convert to Judaism, as a Hazzan and teacher in Israel.

 

In all the non-orthodox steams of Judaism there is no impediment at all for a Jew-by-choice to seek admission to rabbinical and cantorial programs.  The famous letter from Maimonides to Ovadiah the Convert addresses the specific question of whether a convert might recite the words “Our God and God of our ancestors” in the liturgy, as well as the more general standing of converts.  It is worthwhile to include a significant extract from this letter

 

'... Therefore, anyone who converts until the end of all generations, is counted amongst the disciples of Abraham our forefather and they are members of his household, … Thus, Abraham our forefather is the father of all worthy people that follow in his ways, and he is a father to his students, and they include anyone who converts.

Therefore, you should say 'Our God and God of our forefathers' for Abraham is your father. And you should say 'Who has given [the Land] to our forefathers' for the Land was given to Abraham.

As to the words 'that You have taken us out of the land of Egypt' or 'who has worked miracles for our forefathers' 'since you have entered under the protective wing of the Divine Presence and you share company with God therefore there is no difference between us and you, and all miracles worked, can be considered to have been performed for us and for you.' There is no difference whatsoever between us and you for any matter.

And certainly you should pronounce the blessing 'who has chosen us', and 'who has given us', and 'who has separated us', for the Holy One blessed be He has chosen you, and separated you from the nations, and given you the Torah, for the Torah was given to us and to the converts.

 

The spirit of this letter infuses the approach of many contemporary Jewish leaders and institutions who hold every door and opportunity open to Jews by choice.

 

It is worthwhile to note that there might be some 'waiting period' expected between the finalization of conversion and the application to a program that prepares a person for roles of Jewish leadership.  As a convert becomes more engaged in their Jewish life and growth it may appear to them that becoming a rabbi or cantor is a natural next step - and this is not the case.  Judaism has no 'religious orders' and every possible depth of Jewish life, growth, and learning is open to every Jew.  The decision to seek to serve as a rabbi or hazzan is born out of a very specific understanding of personal goals and gifts, and is subject to careful exploration with the Admissions Dean of any Rabbinical or Cantorial School.  It would not be unusual for a period of 5 or more years to elapse between the finalization of conversion and admission to training.

 

There are many Jews by choice who have graduated from the seminaries of the Conservative movement and who serve with great distinction as rabbis and cantors around the world, and this is the case with the other non-orthodox denominational streams, and also from the non-denominational programs such as The Academy for Jewish Religion, ALEPH (Jewish Renewal) and Hebrew College in Boston.

 

It is also important to note that there are some sources within the Halakhah that might be interpreted to preclude converts from serving as Rabbis or holding other leadership positions.  These should best be addressed by my orthodox friends.  It is also important to recall that the term 'rabbi' does not mean what it once did.  According to Talmudic tradition the 'original' line of rabbinic 'ordination' was lost long ago and all contemporary 'rabbis' really hold the title only as a courtesy or modern convention.

 

What is a woman to do if her husband just won't work? He won't seek a job out. What should I do?

 

This provocative question invites different levels of response. 

 

The first response is demanded by the tone of exasperation, perhaps even sorrow, of the question.  This Jewish woman is in misery, perhaps in need of basic necessities of life – and has certainly lost any sense of “shalom bayit” (household harmony) with her husband.

 

There is no Jewish imperative to remain in an intolerable situation, and she can certainly be supported in demanding that her husband becomes again a partner in providing for the needs of the family.  The ketubah (marriage contract) is explicit in expecting that a husband will provide basic needs for his wife – and modern more “egalitarian” documents add a similar expectation upon the wife.

 

Refusal to work is tantamount to a breach of this fundamental contract, and if there is no movement this state of affairs could lead to the break up of the marriage.  I shared this question with several of my congregants who suggested that  “ … she stops feeding him!”.

 

This approach may be effective in communicating to the husband that there’s something deeply wrong, and that there has to be change.

 

Other possibilities have to be considered.  If the husband has in the past been responsible in holding down a job – why has this changed?  Is he suffering from clinical depression – a real illness with debilitating effects?  A person who is clinically depressed may have the greatest difficulty getting out of bed in the morning – even if they have a job!  How much more so if there is no job, and in the current economy he sees little chance of finding employment. 

 

Perhaps the wife can support her husband in seeking out medical attention – perhaps she can engage his family, friends and community to help him seek out treatment; many congregational rabbis would be glad to offer their assistance and expertise.  Jewish Family Services can offer skilled and private counsel and support.

 

Suppose the family is wealthy and that there is no economic need for the husband to work.  It is not clear that there is any positive command to work.  In the 10 commandments the phrase “For six days you shall work and the seventh day is Shabbat for your God” is generally seen as allowing work for 6 days, if there is need for income. 

 

However those in more fortunate economic circumstance might turn to the thoughts of Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof:

    “ … If I were rich I’d have the time that I lack to sit in the synagogue and pray …”

 

If he will engage in prayer, study, or in philanthropic work – this can be seen also as “melakhah” – as valid work. 

 

But idle lethargy is a call for help – or a call for firm action.  Our hope should be that a more healthy relationship will be restored to this family very soon.

Al and Tipper Gore are getting divorced after a 40 year marriage. What is the Jewish view on divorce? Does the length of the marriage or status of children (all of theirs are adults) at all impact the Jewish perspective?

Let me approach this question with a reflection about the method I employ.  It is always hard to distill "the Jewish approach ..." - to almost anything, because there are so many answers, that can be derived from different epochs, different texts, different historical context, and such diverse contempoaray life stories of Jewish men and women.

While there are many aspects to Jewish tradition and teaching, spiritual, mystical, ritual and philosophical - I am drawn to apporach questions from the perspective of our living halakhic (legal) tradition, for this tradition must respond to the varied circumstances that arise in the lives of real people.

 

The law must recognize that circumstances are not always ideal.  In an ideal world property lines and fences are clear, and there are no disputes about ownership - but in sad reality we know that there are many disputes about properts lines and owndership.  In the Anglo-American legal system the ideal is referred to as "ab initio" and the less than ideal reality as "ex post facto".  In halakha we speak of "lechatchilah" and "bedi'eved".

 

So now let me apply this model.  There is certainly great value placed in many classical sources upon abiding marriage as the lechatchilah ("ideal") circumstance, but the Torah speaks directly of the reality of divorce, even describing the necessary ritual.  The extent to which divorce is seen as unfortunate is shown in a saying of Rabbi Eleazar: "One who divorces his wife, even the very altar (in the Temple) sheds tears because of him" (Tractate Gittin 90b in the Babylonian Talmud).

 

However - the Talmudic tractate "Gittin" deals with divorce, and so we see clearly that from the earliest times divorce was seen as a "bedi'eved" (ex post facto) necessity - and sometimes even praisworthy.  We value "Shalom Bayit"  - peacefulness within the home - and sometimes this value is invoked to encourage a couple to remain together - especially if doing so would be in the best interests of young children.

 

But there are many marriages where "shalom bayit" is inconceivable and unattainable.  Sometimes where there are issues of abusive, addictive or destructive behaviours, - and in other cases simply because of deep incompatibility,  In such cases Jewish traditon and teaching sanctions, and even praises an honest and clearcut divorce.

 

The sadness experienced even by famous and prominent people as their relationships disolve are a sign to us all of shared humanity.  I would certainly teach that we should not feel smug or suprior - but upon learning about relationships that end in divorce I would encourage all couples in married (and committed) relationships to draw close to their partners, to invest in strengthening all that is good in their relationships, so that our marriages, commitments and love will be sustained for years to come.