This question is as simple and direct as the increasingly urgent concerns which evoke it are multiple and various. Certain contact sports are themselves, of necessity, physically violent; not only Boxing but also Football and Ice Hockey, for example. In my own suburban area student athlete was rendered paraplegic as a result of an “ordinary”, permissible, incident during an Ice-Hockey game. As a football fan from childhood, I myself have been considering whether, within the requirements and tenets of my own Jewish tradition, I am required to withdraw even as a “fan/spectator” from engagement in that sport even to the extent that this is itself supportive of it.
Reasons for such concerns include permanent maiming of athletes, brain damage, marked deterioration of cognition, early death and even suicide. Then there are the negative influences among spectators of contact sports such as increased aggressive behavior, hooligainism in “the Stands,” even violent riots between supporters of opposing teams. Finally there is the question of “the Money”: exploitation of violence in sports as an “attraction” which spectators are conditioned to expect for their money’s-worth. In Ice Hockey players have been assigned a specifically violent role as a means of intimidating the opponent in order to win. Coaches have even encouraged extra violent behavior.
Sports such as “Show Wrestling” even though the violence is artificial do encourage a blood thirsty taste for greater and greater hurt to the opponent and the rising of the level of increasing permissible violence in our society which can endanger us all.
What then can be said specifically of a Judaic ethical stand on this issue. After all, we remember that among immigrant Jews in North America, and elsewhere, especially sports like boxing in which many Jews excelled, became an attractive way to rise in the world and a demonstration to the wider public that Jews were not “weaklings or cowards”.
To provide a context for our question, we can turn to the extensive work of a remarkably fine Jewish historian, George Eisen, in his essay: “Jewish History in the Ideology of Modern Sports”. (The Journal of sport History) Vol. 25, No. 3, Fall, 1998, pp. 482-531). In remarkable detail, with great thoughtfulness and responsible scholarship, he emphasizes the importance in the Judaic outlook from Antiquity to Present Day of Physical well being and Physicality. At the same time, in the course of many pages of exposition, he repeatedly emphasizes (as do other authorities) that “there has always been a strong aversion in Jewish culture and tradition toward violent or blood sports that were a “hallmark of neighboring tribes, societies and culture” and “marked disdain, bordering on abhorrence, of physical violence. (p. 481; see also pp. 488, 491, 492, 493).”
As to Halachah, normative Jewish law, we must begin with the consideration of acts of violence in general. At certain points, (this will become relevant), Halachah permits and even compels violence, as for example, in the prevention of murderous attack in order to save the life of a victim, (Talmud, San Sanhedrin 72a) or the physical force necessary to separate combatants which can also stop a person from sinning; and for Jewish self defense against murderous attacks on groups or individuals (Shulchan Aruch 329.6). But even in these instances, Jewish tradition requires the minimum of violent behavior necessary to accomplish these permissible goals. For example, even in the case of stopping a murderer, the use of deadly force is prohibited if the goal can be accomplished without it (Tur Choshen Mishpat 425; Maimonides, “Mishnah Torah, “Murder” (1.13; Shulchan Aruh, Choshen Mishpat 421.11).
It is clear that it would follow that in contact sports where a violent act could lead to death or maiming, the danger of violence must be minimized at whatever the expense, through strict rules of the game and other safeguards like required equipment, penalties, whatever the loss of monetary gain or diminished spectator interest. If this cannot be accomplished due to the nature of the sport itself, the sport itself is halachically in question.
The direct use of violence and violent tactics by coaches, or by teams as a strategy, or as an attraction to gain attendance, to increase the “take” of the game is sheer commercially exploitive idolatry and would be forbidden in any respect by Jewish law and teaching. This might include the use of violence by media for commercial interest.
In another approach, Rabbi Asher ben Meir (Aish Torah.org, Hirhurim)) makes a fine point on the subject of contact sports. Judaism recognizes and accepts various kinds of physical urges such as the need for food and physical intimacy but through religious teaching and observance absorbs and guides these urges under the aspect of Kiddush Ha-Chayyim) (“the Sanctification of Life”) towards life enhancing patterns as in sanctified marriage. But if there are violent tendencies or urges in humankind, these are entirely beyond and out of bounds as any such category except, as already noted, when it comes to the saving of life.
He points out as well that in the ideal of life expressed in Judaic vision of a Messianic age, all aspects of ordinary life will go on unchanged. The only difference between the Messianic Age and ours is the end of oppressive government and any aggressive behavior beginning with war. “No one will hurt or destroy on all of God’s holy mountain.”
This leads to further questions. Many videos available on the Internet demonstrate conclusively that children imitate the violent response of adult spectators of contact sports. By extension we must ask whether the encouragement of violent responses, emotionally or physically, in advertising media would also, by derivation, be opposed by Jewish ethical practice.
A remarkable comment on the Exodus story, (Exodus 12.12 and Deuteronomy 6.8) by Rabbi Aaron Samuel Tamares (t) of Mileitchitz is relevant to the sports spectator: “‘for I (God) will go through the Land of Egypt in that night, I and not any intermediary’. Obviously the Holy One Blessed Be He could have given the children of Israel the power to avenge themselves upon the Egyptians. But God did not want to sanction the use of ‘the fist’ even for self defense, even at that time for while at that moment they might merely defend themselves against such evil doers, by means such the way of the fist spreads through the world and in the end defenders become aggressors. Therefore, the Holy One Blessed Be He took great pains to remove Israel completely from any participation in violence upon the evil doers, to such an extent that they were not even permitted even to see or observe those events”.
This passage should be pondered by all of us as spectators of contact sports.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: If a person advanced money for the care of his mother [parent], can he then say that he wants the whole sum returned, and not agree to be part of a 4 way division of the estate to the four siblings? This would effectively mean that he would not contribute at all towards the costs of the care of his mother, because he is charging his siblings for the cash he forwarded to the estate to pay for the care of his mother. Is that money he does not pay considered interest, and would it be excessive usury (25%) and not allowed? What do Jewish values say about this situation?
CLARIFICATION:
This is the fuller scenario: My mother a'h' was hospitalized and then sent to a nursing home where we supplied extra aides for the night shift to watch her. It was very costly. I suggested to my 3 siblings that we should sell my mothers house, or take out a mortgage or an equity loan or a reverse mortgage on her home to cover these costs. My brother said no, he would not do that. I pointed out that our mother had a house, social security, some other money, and a rental income from a lease on the first floor of the home, so no one should be responsible to pay from their pocket for her care because she has income and can afford it herself. He (on his own) decided to shell out the cost of her care from his own pocket, rather than take it out of the value of the property. The total bill for expenditure that he gave out from 2004 till 2008 was $300,000 for aides in the home. Now skip to the present. Mother died in 2008. It turns out that my brother had been given a power of attorney over the property, though he did not tell us this.
We want to settle the estate. We finally sold the house. He wants the whole sum of money he shelled out paid back to him, before we settle. The result would be that he would not pay his one-fourth share of the $300,000 costs ($300,000 divided by 4=$75,000). He refuses to accept anything less than the $300,000 amount because he shelled out the total amount, and now he says he is exempt from paying his share for the care of my mother. In other words, effectively, he is charging the estate $75,000 dollars for the use of his money, or a fee of one-fourth (25%). Is this legitimate per Jewish law (Halachah)?
There is more than one facet to this question: First of all , it has to be made clear that in all three references to the taking of interest in the Torah any taking of interest is forbidden. All taking of any interest on any loan is, in this sense, usury. The putting out of funds as in a bank deposit, through the rabbinic-halachic instrument of Heter Iska (as with bank deposits in the State of Israel) is considered an investment. The sibling who put out the entire sum for the care of his mother is, in fact not asking for any interest on that money at all. He simply wants that sum alone returned. It cannot be considered, halachically, a matter of interest or usury. (He could have used that money profitably). The further division of the estate then becomes an entirely separate matter.
Having said this, if the sibling used his power of attorney for personal gain, we are into another issue. But that does not seem to be in question.
The issue of his not revealing the fact that he was given power of attorney does reveal problems, both of a personal nature and of open communication in sibling relations, and perhaps a background of family dysfunction and problems of Shalom-Bayit (peace in the family), an important value in Jewish ethos. Solving the money problem together amicably may be a way into improvement in this important Jewish respect.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: When buying a new car, I know it is the right thing to do to think of environmental concerns - miles per gallon of gas, CO2, etc...But are there any Jewish directives here? A What Would Moses Do kind of thing?
This question deserves an answer first in terms of a Judaic environmental ideal. In its content and tone the question also requires a “directive,” an actual serious Jewish religious obligation in practice regarding a consumer choice which would reduce one’s own part in environmental damage due to global warming. This is important because an overwhelming scientific concerns tells us that climate change causes widespread destruction of species and the collapse of ecological systems. A two-fold response about outlook and practice corresponds to the environmentalist motto: “Think globally and act locally.”
A traditional Jewish text speaks to the Judaic environmental ideal: “God says to Adam (Humankind), ‘I have made other worlds before this one, but this, the earth is especially dear and beautiful. I put it in your hands. Think on this and do not hurt or desolate My world, for if you do, there will be no one to set it right after you; and further, you will be responsible for the destruction of myriads of my creatures (Kohelet Rabbah 7.28). One might be surprised to learn that this message was not communicated within the last century but no later than 1,000 years ago. It was preached on the biblical texts as read by the preacher “the crooked will not be able to be straightened [or fixed]) (Eccles. 1.15) and on the verse “Who can fix what has been twisted (or made crooked) (7.15)”
It is significant that the root of the indicating word ‘fixing’ or ‘straightening out is’ T-K-N, the letters of the now well known Jewish concept Tikkun Olam, meaning “the repair, harmonization, sustaining of the world.” This implies the Judaic ideal: As we humans are created in the image of God, so, according to a rabbinic conceptualization of the Covenant (B’rit) with God, we are supposed to be “partners with God in the work of creation.” God renews the Creation continuously; we must participate in this sustaining creative process.
Furthermore, this ideal is in accord with the first of the Ten Commandments, against idolatry. For when we search out the causes of environmental destruction and the motive of those who oppose environmental regulation of fossil fuels, we eventually find the motive of greed, the bottom-line profit margin which trumps every other consideration; the worship of the “Golden Calf.”
This brings us to the Jewish directive, the actual religious obligation in practice called, in the Jewish tradition, Bal Tashchit, or “do not waste or destroy.” It is based on the biblical verses (Deuteronomy 20.19-20). “When in your war against a city, you have to besiege it for a long time in order to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the axe against them. You may eat them, but you must not cut them down. Are the trees of the field human to be able to withdraw before you into the besieged city?
During Talmudic times our ancient rabbis greatly widened the scope of this commandment to far more kinds of damage to the environment such as diverting water from trees or deliberate desiccation for human purposes. Our ancient sages reasoned that if the principle of not harming aspects of nature applies even under the severe pressure of war, how much more so does it apply at other times (e.g. Sifrei on Parashat Shofetim). Not only trees but all natural species All God’s Creation were included, and even the killing of animals for our convenience or whim (Hullin 76) and such waste as the wasting of fuel - think miles per gallon! (Shabbat 67b) and even, a minority opinion, the eating of extravagant foods when a simpler meal is available ( Shabbat149b).
Rambam (Maimonides) sets this all in order (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot M’Lachim) including rather severe punishments for Bal Tashchit, and adding the note that the practice of Bal Tashchit is also intended religiously to refine human beings. This idea is elaborated in a later work called Sefer Ha-Chinuch, an authoritative 13th century Jewish text: “….that not even a grain of mustard should be lost to this word, that truly righteous people should regret any loss or destruction that they see, and if possible they would prevent any destruction that they can. Not so are the wicked, they are like demons, who rejoice in destruction of the world, and at the same time are destroying themselves.” (#529) It is important to mention the words on this subject of one of the great orthodox German rabbis of the 19th century Samson Raphael Hirsch. “Do not destroy anything (Bal Tashchit) is the general call of God. If you should destroy that which should be put to good use, not perceiving God who created….instead of using them only in wise human activity, then God’s call proclaims to you ‘Do not destroy anything! Be a Mentsh! (a decent human being)…. If you destroy, if you ruin, at that moment you are not a human being but an animal, you have no right to the things around you. All of this, the resources of the world, I lent to you for wise use only; never forget it was I who lent them you. As soon as you use them unwisely, the greatest or the smallest of God’s creatures, you commit treachery against My will, commit robbery against My property, and sin against me.!’ In truth there is no one nearer to idolatry than the one who can disregard the fact that all these creatures are God’s and he presumes to also have the right, to do as he wishes.” (Horeb #56). The point of this strong language is that we restore our harmony not only with the world around us but with the Divine will when refraining from participating in environmental destruction.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: My 6 year old asked me how it is we have free choice if God knows everything in advance, and while I'm so proud of him for his advanced thinking, I am embarassed that I don't know the answer! Can you help? What does Judaism say?
IF GOD KNOWS ALL AHEAD OF TIME, HOW CAN WE BE CALLED TO ACCOUNT?
A six year old philosopher has asked this thousands of years-old question. And a big one and good one at that! This young person is to be complimented on carrying out a Jewish tradition of asking tough questions about God's ways, a tradition begun by our father Abraham and carried on by great prophets and teachers like Jeremiah, the author of the Book of Job, and the ancient rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah. In a world in which we see a ot of injustice, the Jewish questioning has usually been: If God is Goodness how is it that often good people suffer and bad people prosper. Abraham asked :" should not the Judge of all the earth do Justice?!"
If God is all-knowing (the philosopher's term is omniscient) and knows what we are going to do, how can we be held accountable for what we do since it is all determined ahead of time? If God knows ahead of time, we have no free choice to do good or evil; no free-will.
But Judaism above all, at its roots, does teach free will! Here is the important text of Torah:"... . I have set before you Life and Death, the blessing and the curse! Choose Life!" We CAN choose. Don't we repeat this year after year on the High Holidays and base our Yom Kippur Atonement soul/character improvements on this? We call it T'shuvah. God helps us but it depends on our choice. The prophets and teachers of our people at their best always remind us that we CAN do it. We can choose to do better. It is ,says Maimonides our great philosopher in a tough statement , it is only fools who teach that our acts are pre-determined, we can choose to do what is good and right ;and so we are responsible for what we do.
O K , but how about that understanding about God knowing ahead of time? After all the great Rabbi Akivah himself is recorded as saying(Pirkei Avot 3.19),"All is foreseen ;yet free-will is given."
The first thing we should know is that ideas about God being All-Knowing of what will happen (prescient) come from ancient Greek and Roman thought based on the reasoning that if God is all- perfect and all good , then God must be all-knowing. The ancient rabbis were already influenced or at least challenged by Greek thinking. We find one answer to our question by the sages of the Talmud: "Everything is in the hands of Heaven(God) except our respect(reverence) for Heaven (Berachot 33b)." We can respect the Teachings of God or we can , we have the free will to do so, reject them.
Even more basic. All of Judaism is based on the poetic idea that we have a covenant with God, in Hebrew, a B'rit. Covenant means alliance, pact partnership. God does not know whether we will be faithul to this covenant, whether we will do our part.. God does not have the power to force us to keep the teachings,to do the mitzvot which the Torah teaches. We are always , in fact, everyday in the position of making choices for which we are responsible. God does not ask us to be perfect, but as with anything else we can practice to be better.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I see a lot of my friends posting “status updates” about their parents, kids or spouses – anecdotes that are funny, but at times seem to be bordering on derogatory. Where is the line between sharing things with friends, or insulting your family or friends in public?
In Judaism there is a definite answer to this question with no ambiguity at all:
the very phraseology of ancient Jewish teaching , is very strong , very sensitive, particularly on the issue of the kind of personal hurt involved in insulting anyone in " public" (again, to employ the word which is used in founding rabbinic texts.)
Even when intended in good fun,a form of demeaning which even in private could cause psychic damage, when done in public, is considered to be, in ancient texts, a form of murder, "blood-shed". "The shedding of blood " is used for the act of insulting someone "among many/ in public" to indicate the seriousness of this insensitivity to the emotional wounding it causes. This can be a literal figure of speech because the suffering of such insult often makes a person go pale, the blood flowing from the face. We know that the rise of psychic and physical bullying among children and youth has resulted in actual suicide and yes, murder.
Eliezer Ha- Moadi in the Pirkei Avot (ch.3) teaches that insulting someone in public is of such a level of seriousness that even if the one who perpetrates it has done many good deeds and has studied and learned much Torah, he loses "his share in the world to come."
The ancient rabbis say that because it is the nature of the human condition that each of us inevitably experiences suffering in life (Tza-ar Baalei Chayyim), to do anything that thoughtlessly, gratuitously, needlessly, adds to that suffering rises to the level of sin. From this perspective, getting a laugh or showing ones cleverness at the expense of causing someone --- how much the more so members of our own family! --- inner hurt, a lot of shame, perhaps even permanent damage is an indication of barbarity. Throughout the generations it has been a part of the ethos of Jewish life for adults to teach their children, by precept and example, sensitivity to the "Tza-ar Baalei Chayyim, the first principle of any moral system: not to hurt!
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Copyright 2020 all rights reserved. Jewish Values Online
N O T I C E
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN ANSWERS PROVIDED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL JVO PANEL MEMBERS, AND DO NOT
NECESSARILY REFLECT OR REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE ORTHODOX, CONSERVATIVE OR REFORM MOVEMENTS, RESPECTIVELY.
