Introduction
On January 14, 1963, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel gave the speech “Religion and Race,” at a conference of the same name that assembled in Chicago, Illinois. There he met Dr. Martin Luther King and the two became friends. Rabbi Heschel marched with Dr. King at Selma, Alabama in 1965.
The outcome of that summit meeting has not come to an end. Pharaoh is not ready to capitulate. The exodus began, but is far from having been completed. In fact, it was easier for the children of Israel to cross the Red Sea than for a Negro to cross certain university campuses...
Perhaps this Conference should have been called “Religion or Race.” You cannot worship God and at the same time look at man as if he were a horse...
Prayer and prejudice cannot dwell in the same heart. Worship without compassion is worse than self-deception; it is an abomination.
Foundations:
I. Tzelem Eokim
(א) זֶ֣ה סֵ֔פֶר תּוֹלְדֹ֖ת אָדָ֑ם בְּי֗וֹם בְּרֹ֤א אֱלֹהִים֙ אָדָ֔ם בִּדְמ֥וּת אֱלֹהִ֖ים עָשָׂ֥ה אֹתֽוֹ׃
(1) This is the record of Adam’s line.—When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God;
ספרא קדושים פרשה ב פרק ד
"ואהבת לרעך כמוך" (ויקרא י"ט, יח) - רבי עקיבא אומר: זה כלל גדול בתורה.
בן עזאי אומר: "זה ספר תולדות אדם" (בראשית ה', א) , זה כלל גדול מזה.
Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 2:4
12) "You shall not take revenge and you shall not bear a grudge against the children of your people": You may take revenge of and bear a grudge against others (idolators). "And you shall love your neighbor as yourself": R. Akiva says: This is an all-embracing principle in the Torah. Ben Azzai says: (Bereshith 5:1) "This is the numeration of the generations of Adam" — This is an even greater principle
"ואהבת לרעך כמוך" (ויקרא י"ט, יח) זה כלל גדול בתורה - שכולל תחתיו כל מה שבין אדם לחברו מן המצוות, באומרו "ואהבת לרעך כמוך", דמה דעלך סני לחברך לא תעביד [=שמה ששנוא עליך לא תעשה לחברך].
"זה ספר תולדות אדם" (בראשית ה', א) גדול מזה - דאמר שכולם תולדות אב אחד הם וכולם אחים, ולזה אין להתגדל זה על זה, ולא לשנוא זה את זה. וכונת הכתוב לומר זה ספר התורה הוא מתולדות אדם הראשון, שכולם בני אב אחד הם, והוא כלל גדול, משום דקרא ד"ואהבת לרעך", הוא מחייב האהבה מצד הריעות לבד, אבל "זה ספר" מחייב אותה מצד האחוה, שהוא חיוב יותר גדול. ועוד כי בזה הראה לנו שכולנו בצלם אחד ובחותם אחד, והיא הצורה האלהית שהיא תחייב אותנו להתאחד בכל דברינו, כשם שאנו אחדים בצורה האלהית.
רבי אהרן אבן חיים (1555 - 1632) היה מחכמי מרוקו
...לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי, לְלַמֶּדְךָ, שֶׁכָּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ אִבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וְכָל הַמְקַיֵּם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ קִיֵּם עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ אַבָּא גָדוֹל מֵאָבִיךָ. וְשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִינִין אוֹמְרִים, הַרְבֵּה רָשֻׁיּוֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם. וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדֻלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְכֻלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כָּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּב לוֹמַר, בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ה) וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְגוֹ'.
...Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish , he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again [but a single person was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”... Again [but a single person was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity] (Lev. 5:1).
Religion and race. How can the two be uttered together? To act in the spirit of religion is to unite what lies apart, to remember that humanity as a whole is God’s beloved child. To act in the spirit of race is to sunder, to slash, to dismember the flesh of living humanity. Is this the way to honor a father: to torture his child? How can we hear the word “race” and feel no self reproach?...
The ultimate worth of man is due neither to his virtue nor to his faith. It is due to God’s virtue, to God’s faith. Wherever you see a trace of man, there is the presence of God. From the perspective of eternity our recognition of equality of all men seems as generous an act as the acknowledgment that stars and planets have a right to be.
אשר לא תגלה ערותך. שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַמַּעֲלוֹת אַתָּה צָרִיךְ לְהַרְחִיב פְּסִיעוֹתֶיךָ; וְאַעַ"פִּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ גִּלּוּי עֶרְוָה מַמָּשׁ, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְתִיב וַעֲשֵׂה לָהֶם מִכְנְסֵי בָד, מִכָּל מָקוֹם הַרְחָבַת הַפְּסִיעוֹת קָרוֹב לְגִלּוּי עֶרְוָה הוּא, וְאַתָּה נוֹהֵג בָּם מִנְהַג בִּזָּיוֹן; וַהֲרֵי דְּבָרִים קַ"וָ, וּמָה אֲבָנִים הַלָּלוּ שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם דַּעַת לְהַקְפִּיד עַל בִּזְיוֹנָן, אָמְרָה תוֹרָה הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶם צֹרֶךְ לֹא תִנְהַג בָּהֶם מִנְהַג בִּזָּיוֹן, חֲבֵרְךָ שֶׁהוּא בִדְמוּת יוֹצֶרְךָ, וּמַקְפִּיד עַל בִּזְיוֹנוֹ, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה:
אשר לא תגלה ערותך THAT THY NAKEDNESS BE NOT UNCOVERED — because on account of these steps you will have to take large paces and so spread the legs. Now, although this would not be an actual uncovering of one’s nakedness (of the parts usually kept covered), since it is written, (Exodus 28:42) “And thou shalt make for them (the priests) linen breeches [to cover the flesh of their nakedness]”, still the taking of large paces is near enough to uncovering one’s nakedness that it may be described as such, and you would then be treating them (the stones of the altar) in a manner that implies disrespect. Now the following statement follows logically à fortiori: How is it in the case of stones which have no sense (feeling) to be particular about any disrespect shown to them? Scripture ordains that since they serve some useful purpose you should not treat them in a manner that implies disrespect! Then in the case of your fellow-man who is made in the image of your Creator and who is particular about any disrespect shown to him, how much more certain is it that you should not treat him disrespectfully! (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:23:1)
http://utzedek.org/files/Civil%20Rights%20and%20the%20Dignity%20of%20Man.pdf
The concept of “dignity of Man” is not only a metaphysical concept but it also has a legal counterpart, whose scope is broad enough to include all human beings since all were created in the image of God. This idea is contained in the saying of ben Azai, “Despise not any man” (Avos 4:3). The expression “any man” implies, as the commentaries say, that even pagans must be treated with respect, and it is a sin to despise them. The commandment of “Despise not any man” does not represent a mere extra act of piety but it represents a Torah transgression that emanates from the verse of “Neither shall you go by steps onto My altar, that your nakedness not be exposed on it” (Exodus 20:23). Rashi says that here we have a logical a fortiori: If in regard to the stones of the altar we must beware not to show disrespect, then in the case of other human beings created in the image of the Creator, how much more certain is it that we should not treat them disgracefully. This saying of Chazal is the source for the obligation to mete out respect to everyone created in the image of God. This key concept of k’vod habriyos, the dignity of all human beings, constitutes the basis of human rights. The maxim of “Man was endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights” was not an innovation of the founders of the American republic. These men were impressed with the doctrine of human rights which flows naturally from the concept of “the dignity of Man” and the “image of God in which He created Man,” as they knew from their Biblical background. The concept of k’vod habriyos is the basis of all civilized jurisprudence, as well of all the laws of justice in the Torah. Civil law and the misphatim (rational laws) of the Torah, on the whole, bear a remarkable correspondence for the simple reason that every law in modern jurisprudence is based exclusively upon the doctrine of human rights which the nations of the world adopted from the Scriptures. For example, it is a crime to commit homicide, to commit assault and battery, or to trespass upon another’s property, because every human being has a fundamental right to be secure in person and property against any attack, assault or molestation. Everyone has such a right since everyone was created in the image of God and consequently deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.
And yet there is something in the world that the Bible does regard as a symbol of God. It is not a temple or a tree, it is not a statue or a star. The symbol of God is man, every man. How significant is the fact that the term tselem, which is frequently used in a damnatory sense for a man-made image of God, as well as the term demuth, likeness of which Isaiah claims (40:18), no demuth can be applied to God—are employed in denoting man as an image and likeness of God. Man, every man, must be treated with the honor due to a likeness representing the King of kings.English
II. Mercy, Kindness and Peace
Aren't a;; the halakhot of the entire Torah also given on account of the ways of peace, as it is written: “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17)?
מתני׳ אלו דברים אמרו מפני דרכי שלום...אין ממחין ביד עניי עובדי כוכבים בלקט שכחה ופאה מפני דרכי שלום:
MISHNA: Having mentioned a series of enactments instituted by the Sages for the sake of the betterment of the world, the Gemara continues: These are the matters that the Sages instituted on account of the ways of peace...One does not protest against poor gentiles who come to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace.
רמב״ם משנה תורה הלכות שבת ב:ג
וְאָסוּר לְהִתְמַהְמֵהַּ בְּחִלּוּל שַׁבָּת לְחוֹלֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ה) "אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם" וְלֹא שֶׁיָּמוּת בָּהֶם. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁפְּטֵי הַתּוֹרָה נְקָמָה בָּעוֹלָם אֶלָּא רַחֲמִים וְחֶסֶד וְשָׁלוֹם בָּעוֹלָם. וְאִלּוּ הָאֶפִּיקוֹרוֹסִים שֶׁאוֹמְרִים שֶׁזֶּה חִלּוּל שַׁבָּת וְאָסוּר עֲלֵיהֶן הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (יחזקאל כ כה) "גַּם אֲנִי נָתַתִּי לָהֶם חֻקִּים לֹא טוֹבִים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים לֹא יִחְיוּ בָּהֶם":
Rambam Laws of Shabbat 2:3
“It is forbidden to hesitate before transgressing the Sabbath [laws] on behalf of a person who is dangerously ill,as [reflected in the interpretation in the phrase of Leviticus 18:5,] "which a person shall perform to live through them," as "['to live through them'] and not to die through them."
This teaches that the judgments of the Torah do not [bring] vengeance to the world, but rather bring mercy, kindness, and peace to the world. Concerning those non-believers who say that [administering such treatment] constitutes a violation of the Sabbath and is forbidden, one may apply the verse [Ezekiel 20:25]: [As punishment,] I gave them harmful laws and judgments through which they cannot live."
רמב״ם הלכות מלאכים י:יב
אֲפִלּוּ הָעַכּוּ''ם צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים לְבַקֵּר חוֹלֵיהֶם וְלִקְבֹּר מֵתֵיהֶם עִם מֵתֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּלְפַרְנֵס עֲנִיֵּיהֶם בִּכְלַל עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. הֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר (תהילים קמה, ט) "טוֹב ה' לַכּל וְרַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו". וְנֶאֱמַר (משלי ג, יז) "דְּרָכֶיהָ דַרְכֵי נֹעַם וְכָל נְתִיבוֹתֶיהָ שָׁלוֹם"
Laws of Kings 10:12
Our Sages commanded us to visit the gentiles when ill, to bury their dead in addition to the Jewish dead, and support their poor in addition to the Jewish poor for the sake of peace. Behold, Psalms 145:9 states: 'God is good to all and His mercies extend over all His works' and Proverbs 3:17 states: 'The Torah's ways are pleasant ways and all its paths are peace.'
Ethics of Responsibility: Pg. 50-51 Rabbi Walter Wurzburger
III. Legal Status
בית הבחירה (מאירי) מסכת בבא קמא דף לז עמוד ב
ולפי מה שנאמר בגמרא דוקא בעממים שאינם גדורים בדרכי דתות ונימוסים... הא כל ששבע מצות בידם דינם אצלנו כדיננו אצלם ואין נושאין פנים בדין לעצמנו ומעתה אין צריך לומר שכן באומות הגדורות בדרכי דתות ונימוסים:עברית
All who hold to the seven commandments are treated equally in the law with us and there is no favoritism for us. It goes without saying that this is so for the nations who are disciplined in the ways of religions and civilization.
The Torah's Purpose
מורה נבוכים ג:כח
העולה בידינו מכל מה שהקדמנוהו עתה בזה ענין הוא - שכל 'מצוה' (אין הפרש בין שתהיה מצות עשה או מצות לא תעשה) שיהיה ענינה להסיר העול או להעיר על מדה טובה מביאה לטוב החברה או נתינת דעת אמיתי שראוי להאמינו אם לפי הענין בעצמו או בהיותו הכרחי בהסיר העול או בלימוד מדות טובות
Guide For The Perplexed 3:28
The reason of a commandment, whether positive or negative, is clear, and its usefulness evident, if it directly tends to remove injustice, or to teach good conduct that furthers the well-being of society, or to impart a truth which ought to be believed either on its own merit or as being indispensable for facilitating the removal of injustice or the teaching of good morals.
Action
I. Outrage
And especially when that blood is shed by sheluhei didan, by our agents. The government, the police, they are sheluhei didan (our agents) and we are responsible for their actions...
The gemara in Shabbat (54b) states, “Kol me she-‘efshar limhot ve-lo mihah nitpas `al ‘oto `avon” - anyone who can make a protest and does not do so, is held responsible for that sin. There is a difference between tokhahah (rebuke, Leviticus 19:17) and meha’ah (protest). Tokhahah, the mitzvah of rebuke, is only a mitzvah if it will be effective or at least might be effective. If it stands no chance of succeeding, it’s not a mitzvah and sometimes it’s an aveirah (a sin). But meha’ah is relevant even if it won’t succeed. It is as much for the one who is making the protest as for the target of the protest. To stand by and remain silent makes one an accessory. Thus, when a fellow human being, with a tzelem Elokim (endowed with the image of God) just like ours, is murdered and we witness it with our own eyes, how can we let the moment pass without some reaction? Every act of murder is terrible, and every loss of innocent life is a tragedy. But when it happens at the hands of the organs of justice of our society, and the system of justice fails to recognize what has happened, some kind of meha’ah is in order.
Why do I choose to talk about this here, or, better said, why do I think this message is particularly relevant to us? My job in life is to study and teach Torah; your job is to sit and learn Torah. Many of you, like myself, would be happy if we were left alone to spend our days studying Torah day and night. But there are times when we must stop and make a meha’ah so that they don’t say, “Ho’il ve-havah tatvei rabanan ve-lo mahu bah, shema minah ka niha lehu”, since the rabbis sat and said nothing once can conclude that they assent, that our silence indicates some type of acquiescence. There are many specific reasons why this issue is relevant to us.
1) First, this is not just an ordinary act of retzihah; this is an act, as I said, perpetrated by sheluhei didan (our agents.) And even though the gemara in Kiddushin (42b) tells us ein shaliah le-dvar `aveirah (there is no agency for the commission of sin), nonetheless, the meshaleah (the authorizer) is still culpable be-dinei shamayim (in the court of Heaven.) And I wish to be clear here. I believe that most of our sheluhim in the NYPD are good people who strive to do their jobs sincerely and honestly, and serve the people of this city with distinction, and they are asked to do a really hard job. But sometimes this is not the case.
2) Second: The issue here is not exclusively about race. The destruction of a tzelem elokim and inherent tragedy should shock us regardless of race or creed. But race certainly plays a role in this story. Our history as a people teaches us what it is like to be the oppressed. We suffered for numerous millennia, centuries, at the hands of authorities—official oppressors—from Pharaoh to Antiochus to Hadrian to the medieval Crusaders to Hitler, yemah shemo. And in many corners of the world outside of Medinat Yisrael (Israel) and this country, the specter of anti-Semitism has reared its ugly head again. And sometimes, it is perpetrated or fostered by the authorities. We need to be sensitive to others in the same position. The African-American community, to the extent that one can speak of it as a monolithic entity, faces many difficulties and hardships. Not all of them are the fault of broader society, and many of them cannot be solved by broader society, but make no mistake: a significant part of that misfortune and suffering is the legacy of slavery, segregation, overt discrimination, and even more commonly and often unconsciously, stereotyping and bias. As Jews, we are no strangers to discrimination and stereotyping, some of which still persists in the dark corners in this country. The Torah warns us about ona’at ha-ger (inflicting emotional pain on a convert) - According to R. Eliezer ha-Gadol in the gemara in Bava Metzi’a (59b) - 36 or 46 times. And why does the Torah warn us about ona’at ha-ger? Because “ki gerim heyitem be-eretz Mitzrayim”, “because you were strangers in the Land of Egypt.” We know what it is like because we have been there, and we should act accordingly. The gemara in Shabbat (31a) tells the story of Hillel and the ger (convert), who asks him to teach him the Torah on one foot. The essence, according to Hillel, is de`alakh seni, le-havrakh lo ta`aveid. Whatever is repulsive to you, don’t do to someone else. If we complain—and we do—when the world remains silent in the face of mistreatment of Jews, how dare we remain silent of the suffering of others in our own backyard? Just put yourselves in the shoes of the other person—how would you feel if your yarmulka made you suspect in the eyes of law enforcement?
3) Third and finally, and maybe most importantly, the world of the beit midrash needs to be one of concern and compassion for others, a torat hesed (a torah of kindness). As the Rambam states in hilkhot Shabbat (2:3), the mishpetei ha-Torah (laws of the Torah) are not nekamah ba-olam—they are not vengeful and they are not harsh—but they are rahamim ve-hesed ve-shalom (compassionate, kind and peaceful.) We cannot solve all the problems of the world, and perhaps we shouldn’t try, either. But we must be models of bayshanim, rahmanim, and gomelei hasadim (possessing a sense of shame, compassionate, and performers of acts of kindness). We must not be, nor appear to be, callous or indifferent to the suffering of those outside our dalet amot (four cubits).
II. Step In
Moshe comes to a well where he witnesses another act of injustice. The local shepherds drive away the shepherd daughters of Yisro so that the shepherds can water their flocks first. Here Moshe encounters a dispute between non-Jews, a matter seemingly so unimportant to him that we might have understood had he stood idly by. Hadn’t he learned his bitter lesson already? Did not discretion urge him to “mind his own busiCivil Rights and the Dignity of Man-Rav Ahron Soloveichik (From Logic of the Heart, Logic of the Mind, pages 61-68)ness?”
Chazal say, “Moshe represents tzedek” (Midrash Rabbah, Shmos). The concept of tzedek, as we have begun to develop, is to be pursued in three different realms. Firstly, as Moshe taught us, a Jew must be on guard not to allow injustice in the relationship of a non-Jew with a Jew. Secondly, a Jew must be careful that justice be shown in relationships between Jews. Thirdly, the incident by the well in Midyan teaches us to enact justice between non-Jews when that is within our power. Moshe was bent upon emulating the ways of God, one of which is to defend a victim from an attacker, as the verse says, “God takes the side of the aggrieved and the victim” (Ecclesiastes 3:15). Chazal comment, “Even if a righteous person attacks a wicked person, God still sides with the victim” (Yalkut Shimoni). In Moshe’s mind, the peursuit of righteousness and justice was paramount; no consideration could stand in its way—“And Moshe stood up and helped them and watered their flocks” (Exodus 2:17). A Jew should always identify with the cause of defending the aggrieved, whoever the aggrieved may be, just as the concept of tzedek is to be applied uniformly to all humans regardless of race or creed
III. Be Prophetic
There is an evil which most of us condone and are even guilty of: indifference to evil. We remain neutral, impartial, and not easily moved by the wrongs done unto other people. Indifference to evil is more insidious than evil itself; it is more universal, more contagious, more dangerous. A silent justification, it makes possible an evil erupting as an exception becoming the rule and being in turn accepted.
The prophets’ great contribution to humanity was the discovery of the evil of indifference. One may be decent and sinister, pious and sinful.
The prophet is a person who suffers the harms done to others. Wherever a crime is committed, it is as if the prophet were the victim and the prey. The prophet’s angry words cry. The wrath of God is a lamentation. All prophecy is one great exclamation: God is not indifferent to evil! He is always concerned, He is personally affected by what man does to man. He is a God of pathos.
In contrast to this definition, the prophets passionately proclaim that God himself is concerned with “the transitory social problems,” with the blights of society, with the affairs of the market place.
What is the essence of being a prophet? A prophet is a person who holds God and men in one thought at one time, at all times. Our tragedy begins with the segregation of God, with the bifurcation of the secular and sacred. We worry more about the purity of dogma than about the integrity of love. We think of God in the past tense and refuse to realize that God is always present and never, never past; that God may be more intimately present in slums than in mansions, with those who are smarting under the abuse of the callous.