Rabbi Jeremy Rosen welcomes you to a growing community of observant Jews seeking to gain deeper knowledge of their heritage. Everything you wanted to ask about Jewish life and didn't know who could possibly answer...

Join the on-going discussion

EXPLORING
THEOLOGICAL
MYTHS
Different ways of looking at traditional beliefs.
RABBI JEREMY ROSEN

WHO IS A GOOD JEW ?

Is it better to be a good person or a good Jew? This is one of the most frequent questions that gets asked whenever Jews get together. One reason is because most Jews do not stick too closely to Jewish laws and customs and so inevitably they feel somewhat uncertain as to where exactly they stand. The second reason is that there is a tendency in the Jewish community to always up the ante. As society in general polarizes, within all religious communities seeking to set themselves apart, standards are rising and getting stricter and conventions are more demanding. We are witnessing a change throughout the world as a reaction against the spiritual aridity of the advanced material and technological world we live in. Standards that were acceptable once no longer seem acceptable now. So where does a person stand ? The problem is made even more confusing by the fact that very often those who profess outward strictness are sometimes seen behaving in an unethical way. So what are the basic standards of Judaism ? Does one have to be strict to be religious ? Does one have to be religious to be a good Jew ? And what is better, to be a good Jew or to be a good person ?

There are plenty of examples of good people described in the Torah who are not Jewish. Malchizedek was a priest to El Elyon . The King Avimelech had standards of ethical behavior and Jethro was considered 'good enough' to become Moses's father in law. The word 'good' is used to mean no more that something approved of, usually by God but also by others. 'Good 'in the eyes of God and in the eyes of Laban . It is used to describe creation, the Tree of Knowledge and gold . ' A good person' can mean a lot of things, depending on who is speaking. A good citizen may not be a good employee. A good Catholic may not be a good Muslim. A good Jew may not be a good rabbi. And a good person may not be a good Jew. What is certain is that a bad person cannot be a good Jew.

The word used in Jewish literature to describe the highest standard of human behavior is 'Tsaddik'. The word is sometimes translated as ' saint', but this is not really accurate because the word 'saint' has very definite Christian connotations. Rather it means an upright person who follows a set of spiritual and civil principles. Noah was an upright and straight man in his generation who 'walked with God' . The word used to describe Noah is ' Tsadik', an upright man. The word is also used more generally in the phrase 'Tsedek Tsedek Tirdof', ' You should pursue that which is right ( justice )' and in the commandment that one should only have ' Fair or just weights and measures' . There is nothing in the use of the word 'good' or the word ' straight' or 'just' that would indicate that it applies to someone simply because he or she carries out certain specific ritual tasks. These words have much wider connotations and apply to the general standard of a person's behavior in regard to other human beings.

There is discussion in the Talmud as to whether some basic moral laws are inherent to humanity or not. But there are different standards that may apply to different people. There are the standards acceptable for a good non-Jew, the seven commands of Noah ( One must not curse God, worship idols, murder, commit adultery, steal or take a limb from a living animal and one must set up Courts of Law ). Adherence to these relatively basic principles enables a non-Jew to be treated as an equal citizen in this world and to be part of the World To Come which is the highest level of spiritual reward a person can achieve as evidenced by the Mishna in Sanhedrin . There are the standards required of a 'Stranger Dwelling amongst you'. Even within Judaism there are different sets of standards. There are rules for a Cohen , rules for a Levite and rules for a Nazirite. Although, interestingly, there are no specific rules which apply to a rabbi that do not apply to everyone else. There is generally the feeling that someone in a high and public position ought to set a good example. The structure of Jewish law is such that in civil matters , matters 'Bein Adam LaChavero', ' between a person and his or her friend or neighbor', everyone is on the same level and has similar obligations. On the other hand, in ritual matters there are indeed different standards.

The Talmud records that at the time of the Temple there were some who could afford bigger and better sacrifices or a bigger and better Lulav or Etrog. In discussing the number of candles one lights for Chanukah, the Gemara says ' The commandment for Chanukah lights is one light for a man and his household and that is for those who are particular, a light for each person is for those who want to be more particular than particular ' . It is clear from this that there were, then too, those who wanted to be stricter than was really necessary. But what was unacceptable to the great prophets of Judaism was that anyone should think himself or herself any better because of it.

There is indeed a principle found in the Midrash that 'One should sanctify oneself through those things that are allowed' and the notion of 'kedusha', holiness, is one that is valued, but this is not to indicate that there is something inadequate in those who choose not to. There is room for everyone to rise as far or as little as they choose. This is why some of the rabbis argued that ' Good deeds need concentration ' . There is still some value in the basic action itself even if it is done out of habit. But no one would disagree that ideally ,Kavvanah, focusing attention and thinking about what one does, is the ideal. So,in effect, there are two levels of performing 'mitzvot', the behavioral and the cerebral.

2

We are tempted to classify laws into major and minor ones. However it is possible to argue that every law is special and every law is Divine.' Be as careful about a minor command as you would about a major one because you do not know the reward for commands' . The issue of reward is secondary here. What is important is the idea that all actions have relevance. After all, if one takes the source for Torah as Divine then it is surely important to carry out everything. If on the other hand one believes that the commandments are part of a national heritage then too, the more of the heritage one keeps, the more one can sustain and pass on. Nevertheless it is possible to say that certain laws were given a great deal more emphasis than others as being crucial for preserving the quality of good social life. So,for example, the rabbis said ' Groundless hatred between people is as bad as the three most serious commands against idolatry, immorality and murder ' . The same thing is said of gossip and more, that is like denying God . Quite often the rabbis use hyperbole to make a point but it is interesting that although some the commandments they use to make these points are ritual,like Shabbat or Tsitsit, the overwhelming majority are what we would call ethical.

The rabbis were particularly sensitive about humiliating others 'Whoever humiliates a person in public has no share of the World To Come' . The famous chapter 19 of Leviticus ( with its command to 'Love your neighbor as yourself') lays down the fundamentals of ethical behavior with rules about gossip, taking advantage of a person's weakness ( whether physical or because of a disadvantage, lacking information or simply through ignorance ), being insensitive to a stranger or an orphan. But the rabbis of the Talmud made a point of emphasizing and underlining these particular issues and seeing them at the very root of Jewish existence and survival. Consider the reason the rabbis gave for the destruction of the Temple, ' Jerusalem was only destroyed because there were no more honest people.'

The well known episode of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza is read on the Ninth Of Av, commemorating the destruction of the two Temples. It is a lesson in how destructive needless antagonism can be. A man whom the host hated was invited by mistake to a banquet and then ejected. His humiliation was made worse because the rabbis present refused to intervene. In his bitterness the victim sets in train a chain of events that lead to the destruction of Jerusalem. The story emphasizes how the rabbis felt that internal divisions were responsible more than anything else, for the destruction of Jerusalem. They did indeed number ritual items amongst the things that they said contributed to the cataclysm but overwhelmingly they were not what we would call a ritual law. They were social ones. This is also why the Day Of Atonement only atones for those sins between man and God. Any thing a person has done to another person has to be put right directly with that person himself or herself.

The rabbis were particularly concerned about how one's behavior is perceived. It was not just the concept of ' Marit Ayin', appearances, and the idea that one should not behave in a manner in which actions might be misconstrued. In addition they stressed the more positive issue of behaving in a manner that would bring positive reactions from others. The Torah already talks about the importance of how others see us. 'This ( the Torah )is what makes you wise and understanding in the eyes of the nations around you '. In the Mishna a repeated theme is what other people think of a person. ' Rebbi said ' What is the right path a person should choose for life ? That which is glorious according to the doer and which brings him glory from others'' . You might have thought that Rebbi, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi , would have simply said that one should follow the Torah. But clearly he is choosing a different level. One can keep the Torah and still be ' An ugly person within the confines of the Law.' Similarly Rabbi Chanina Ben Dosa said ' When the human spirit approves of a person this is a sign that God approves and when people do not approve of a person, this is a sign that God does not approve '. Once again, the way a person relates to and is perceived by, other human beings, always assuming that they too have moral and spiritual standards, is put ahead of ritual correctness. Not that in any way they minimized the importance of ritual. It was just important to have the intangible inter human sensitivities as well. Ritual was still a means to an end, not an end in itself. The end was a better and closer relationship with God and humanity.

Related to this is the important concept of ' Kiddush HaShem', 'Sanctifying God's name ' and its opposite ' Chillul HaShem' ' Desecrating God's name.' This is a tremendously important notion in traditional thinking. The basis of acting in a way that brings respect to God is in Leviticus 19 where we are commanded ' You should be holy because I YHVH your God am holy.' The word ' Holy', ' Kadosh', is, as has been noted in a previous chapter, an unusual word. The same word is used to describe objects and people set aside for special religious use. But it is also used to describe a prostitute, male and female . Literally , the word means 'to set aside'. The person or the object is neutral. What counts is how a person behaves or uses himself. Use that is dedicated to a higher order is holy and use that degrades is prostitution. The concept of 'Kedusha' of holiness, is one that calls on us to raise our standards and try to be a better human being for our own sake but also to increase spirituality ,goodness and the presence of God in the world.

The Talmud gives some fascinating examples of both sides of the coin. A religious or a learned person has to be doubly concerned about what impression he may be giving. The Talmud says that

'Desecrating God's name' is so serious that even the Day of Atonement cannot remove the damage done. What is an example of this ? ' Rav said ' In my case if I were not to pay the butcher on time'' . This sounds rather petty. But Rav is saying that someone like him, a religious person and a leader, has a greater obligation because of the way he is regarded, to make sure that his actions do not give rise to misunderstanding. The Talmud is scathing about a Talmid Chacham with stained or dirty clothes because of the bad impression this creates . One could argue that nowadays, anyone wearing manifestly Jewish religious clothing or claiming to be religious, falls under this category.

The principle of sanctifying the name of God became a very important issue under conditions of oppression and forced conversions. How far was one supposed to go in refusing to make concessions ? Was martyrdom required ? Particularly in the wake of the Spanish Inquisition and expulsion, issues such as whether a Jew who became a Christian under duress had to convert back to Judaism, became pressing . Maimonides is very strict about the necessity for standing up on matters of principle, even to the point of death . At the same time he was equally tolerant of those who were unable to withstand the pressure as his 'Letter to the Jews of Yemen' and his ' Document on Apostasy' attest.

But this is not the matter under discussion. Rather we are concerned with how a person should behave towards others under normal conditions. The rabbis introduced a principle of ' Ways of peace', Darkei Shalom, which was used to require behavior above and beyond the letter of the law both with regard to Jews and to non-Jews as well. The best known example of its use is in requiring landowners and charity committees to provide for non-Jewish poor even though, technically as non-citizens, they were not entitled to community support .

3

Yet there remains the question of who is a Jew and how one defines an active and positive member of the Jewish community. A Jew has always been defined in Jewish Law as someone born of a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism out of conviction. There is no doubt that historically there have been periods of varying severity and others of lenience, nevertheless this has been the defining characteristic for the past two thousand years. So if ' a good Jew' means someone born a citizen, then this is clear enough and no one would argue with this.

A Jew who sins remains a Jew . A Jew who converts to another religion does not need to be converted back to Judaism . But what is the status of a non practicing Jew ? His or her actions count. So for example ritual slaughter or marriage are effective even if carried out by someone not necessarily observant. However according to Jewish Law someone who ignores or rejects Jewish Law cannot be relied upon to give evidence in a Jewish Court Of Law . Similarly Jews whose occupations or reputations are unsavory can also be excluded. However there is a difference in opinion about a Jew who disobeys out of self indulgence and the Jew who disobeys out of conviction that Jewish Law is wrong . The rabbis were more indulgent of the former and more antagonistic against the latter .

It is true that the rabbis extend their negative attitude to a whole range of people whose occupation or behavior they did not like and it is true that the Court of Law had great leeway to exercise discretion. It is very clear that at the time of the Talmud, Jewish society was very much divided between the Am HaAretz, the peasant or ignoramus who did not have an education and on the other hand the student of wisdom and his family, who had studied Torah and kept it more punctiliously. This even led to refusing to eat in an Am HaAretz's home because he might not have taken tithes or observed the laws strictly enough. It also extended to not wanting to intermarry with the children of the Am HaAretz. There is even an opinion that one can kill an ignoramus. Of course this is not meant to be taken literally because it conflicts totally with Jewish Law. But the separation went as far as restricting wives of Talmudic students, 'Eshet Chaver' from preparing food with the wife of an Am Ha'aretz. Although some rabbis allowed it on the rounds we have mentioned earlier of ' Darkei Shalom', to try to maintain good social relations even in the face of religious deficiency.

The antagonism went both ways. Rabbi Akiva comments that when he was an Am HaAretz he said ' If only I could get hold of a Talmid Chacham, I would savage him like an ass'. These quotes illustrate the extent of the enmity that existed between the two 'camps' in those days.

But it was a battle for survival. The rabbis were very firm in their belief then ( as now ) that only with study and knowledge could Judaism survive the onslaught of the great cultures of those days. The rabbis at the time encouraged individuals to accept a higher level of practice . They created the title of ' Chaver' ,a friend , and initiated a formal ceremony in front of witnesses to receive someone onto this higher level. Despite this, nowhere is it suggested that someone who keeps Jewish Law but does not take on a higher level, is in any way inferior. A person is judged by his actions.

4

Within Halacha there are indeed different standards. Within the Jewish community around the world there are a confusing number of different levels of observance and strictness. Isn't there just one law? How do we get to such different and confusing levels of what is kosher and what is not ?

The Talmud defines the Jewish constitution. It expands and explains those laws that derive from the Torah and those which the rabbis instituted themselves. It sets down a framework for dealing with situations that may arise and all this is done against a background of discussion and debate. What sets the Jewish system of law apart from so many others is the fact that the same principles and debates that apply to strictly ritual or spiritual matters also apply to the total spectrum of human activity. So a debate in a legal fashion developed by the rabbis may be about how much damages one has to pay to an injured person and about how to define 'work' on Shabbat. Certain principles of reaching decisions apply. In the general discussion of how to decide legal or ritual issues there is a principle that 'The power to allow is preferable to the power to forbid' . As Rashi, in his commentary puts it ' It is better to hear the opinion of one who allows because he relies on his arguments ( his learning ) and he is not frightened to allow. But the power of those who forbid is no proof because anyone can say something is forbidden even when it is allowed.' Indeed according to the Tosefta ' Whoever wants to be stricter, he has to bring the proof .

This does not prevent a person choosing to be stricter for himself. Often rabbis were lenient for others but strict for themselves. A well known example is that a bridegroom does not have to say the Shema on his wedding night because he will be unlikely to be able concentrate. Rabbi Gamliel did so and replied to his students who questioned him ' I will not listen to you to give up the acceptance of Divine Kingship even for a moment' . And yet the rabbis were not keen on doing more .' Is it not enough with what God has forbidden ( that you want to add things on) ? On the contrary, they emphasized the preference to ' Sanctify yourself with what is allowed '

There has nevertheless, particularly in recent centuries a tendency to increase strictness incrementally . Kashrut is a perfect example. In the Talmud something is either kasher or not. But over the years people have chosen to demand stricter standards. The term 'Glatt' is a Yiddish word meaning 'Smooth or Clear'. It does not appear in halachic sources until recent centuries. Its origin lies in the tendency of animals in a wet European climate to develop tuberculosis. Any defect or illness in an animal that may be life threatening makes it non-kosher. The tradition developed to examine lungs to see if there were any signs of illness. If after checking the animal it was passed it was declared kosher. Some people chose, as they got wealthier and were more discriminating, to choose to eat only from those animals where no examination was necessary at all. But this was no more than those people who decide to avoid certain foods for health reasons. Sadly what has happened is that in a social game of one-upmanship many suggest that ordinary kosher is not really kosher and of course this is absurd. This is only symptomatic of a widespread tendency towards being hyper sensitive. In the notes on the Shulchan Aruch, written by Rabbi Moses Isserles he often uses the expression ' He who is strict on this issue is only to be amazed at'. One example relates to laws of mourning but in general this indicates that being stricter is not always sensible or to be praised.

In his book 'Sephardi and Ashkenazi', Rabbi H. Zimmels comments on the fact that the Sephardi Medieval world was very particular about issues of Business Ethics and less so on matters of Kashrut. While in the Ashkenazi world of Europe it was the reverse. He suggests that the reason was because in Spain Jews and non-Jews intermingled and many more professions and means of earning a livelihood were open to Jews. In Europe the reverse was the case. The struggle to earn a living led to greater leeway and flexibility, even laxity on matters of commerce. On the other hand Jew and non-Jew hardly mixed and therefore the laws and customs regulating eating together were enforced much more strictly. Whether this is true or not, the point he makes, that is well taken, is that there has been a tendency to place much greater emphasis on relatively minor issues of diet than on major issues of business ethics. Of course dietary Laws are from the Torah and therefore strict, but so are a great number of business laws. If one is selecting which laws to keep strictly and which not based on convenience, then one is hardly in a position to cast aspersions on those who likewise make choices, but other ones. After all gossip, is as much forbidden in the Torah as is the list of Kosher animals.

There is indeed the phrase in the Talmud that ' He who is strict will have long days and years ' . However this did not become a feature of Halachic literature until much later . It is possible to find the phrase ' The custom is to be stricter ' in the Shulchan Aruch in the seventeenth century. But it is not until the Mishna Berura in this century that it became common to say ' Whoever is stricter may he be blessed'.

To illustrate the progression, take the period of mourning around Tisha B'Av, the Ninth Day of Av, that commemorates the destruction of both the first and the second Temples. In the Talmud, the only laws restricting eating and imposing mourning apply to the week in which Tisha B'Av falls . Similarly the Shulchan Aruch only mentions this same time frame . However it adds ' There are those who have the custom not to bathe from the New Month of Av and some who fast from the seventeenth of Tammuz.' Another custom is added on as a later addendum ' We have the custom not to get married between the Seventeenth of Tammuz and the Ninth Of Av.' Yet now it has become universal to keep the 'Three Weeks' as a period of mourning. There is no reason why we should not choose to accept this extra degree of mourning, particularly in the light of what has happened to us in Europe this century. But this is different from implying that those who do not keep the strict rules are poor Jews. That implication would sit ill on those, who before the Shulchan Aruch did not have this custom at all.

5

And that in the end is the crux of the matter. No person can judge another. Only God knows what goes on in the inner being of each one of us. The tendency of Jewish communities to judge and to judge hastily and often incorrectly is what is at the root of the problem. It is common to invoke the law to prevent a less religious person from being called up to read from the Torah. But someone who appears outwardly religious may in fact be inwardly breaking far more laws. It is very dangerous to start deciding which selection is a less acceptable one. It is true that we can only judge by appearances. It is true that behavior is some form of test of religious commitment. But the criteria for judgment are often faulty and this why so many people think that being observant excuses a great deal and observance becomes almost the only criterion of commitment.

In fact it may be that a Jew who keeps a great many commandments but disobeys just one, may be qualitatively in an inferior position to a Jew who keeps very few but selects to do one or two very important ones. Judgment is dangerous. Similarly a man may be a good Jew in the sense that he keeps a great deal of the Jewish tradition and still not be as good a person as someone else who keeps less.

There is a difference between a good person and a good Jew . This has nothing to do with being better, just different. A Catholic differs from a Mormon. They are both Christians but I suspect each would say the other is wrong. Can a good Catholic be a good Mormon ? Similarly, within Judaism there are lots of different sects and denominations. A good Satmarer Chassid cannot also be a good Lubavitch Chassid. But then would it matter? To whom? Can a good orthodox Jew be a good Reform Jew? It is arguable! If Reform requires total autonomy and Orthodoxy requires a degree of submission then the two are incompatible. It is irrelevant to get involved in bitter debate as to which sect is more or less likely to guarantee continuity. We are simply discussing passing a value judgment. And value judgments depend entirely on who is making the judgment in the first place !

A Jew to qualify as a Jew has to show a degree of commitment to his Judaism but I do not see how you can be a good Jew if you are not also a good person. Inherent in Jewish law is the obligation to be a caring considerate human being to others. On the other hand a good person cannot automatically be a good Jew because of the specific requirements of living a Jewish life. In the end we make choices as to how we live and in accordance with what standards. Some of us will choose to be stricter and some more lenient. But passing judgment on others under any circumstance is fraught and dangerous given the nature of human error. ' Do not judge your neighbor until you are in his position' said Hillel . But passing judgment based on a pretense of religious superiority is simply not being religious. It is showing all the characteristics that genuine spirituality seeks to avoid.