Recognizing Labor's Contributions

Ki Tetze

Deuteronomy 21:10 - 25:19

Précis:  The parasha might be subtitled “entering society” because it describes the creation of a just and moral society. It begins with the phrase “when you go forth” (ki tetze) to battle. This parasha, according to Maimonides, contains 72 mitzvot (commandments). Although they seem unrelated, they all deal with the morals and values that God wanted to be deeply implanted in the Israelites' society. They cover a wide variety of topics, from family life, human kindness, respect for property and animals, the safety of others, sexual relationships, escaped slaves, financial loans and charging interest, keeping promises, and remembering to blot out the name of one of Israel's greatest enemies. This assortment of commands included requirements that there be sex-distinct clothing; that mother birds not be separated from their eggs; that roof-tops have parapets; that seeds not be mixed in a field, and that “tzitzit” (fringes) be worn on garments.

Deuteronomy 24:14 “You shall not abuse a needy and destitute laborer, whether a fellow countryman or a stranger in one of the communities of your land.”

             

            This year, we read this verse on the Shabbat immediately prior to Labor Day.  This is a proof text governing the Jewish tradition of treating employees in a respectful and honest way. At a time in American history when the role of organized labor is once again under attack, it may be worth thinking for a moment about the contributions of the Labor Movement to our society.

Perhaps ironically (given the current political stance of the two major parties), more than 100 years ago, a Republican President publicly supported the legalization of unions (which the courts had found to be an unconstitutional limitation on one’s right to contract), as well as a plethora of legislative proposals to limit the number of hours of work in a week, prohibit child labor, enact a minimum wage, and break the power of powerful corporate interests in the political process. This was, of course, Theodore Roosevelt, whose reputation as a “trust buster” and as a big game hunter sometimes obscures his progressive pro-employee agenda.

His progressive nature was confirmed when he left the Republican Party and ran for President on the “Bull Moose” ticket, coming in second to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt left the GOP because his protégé and successor, William Howard Taft, had failed to follow through on TR’s agenda. It would be another 25 years before the Wagner Act was adopted, creating the National Labor Relations Board to protect the rights of employees to engage in concerted action (with or without a union).

            However, during the interim years, most of the elements of the Roosevelt program had been adopted by individual states, lead by New York (following the terrible Triangle Fire in 1911). The remainder of organized labor’s social agenda was eventually adopted over the coming decades: the Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wages), bans on child labor, unemployment compensation statutes, retirement (Social Security and ERISA), workplace safety (OSHA), and health coverage for many Americans (Medicare and Medicaid).

Today, it seems that many of these programs are under attack by at least those who would like to return to a constitutional interpretation which renders these programs an unwarranted and unconstitutional governmental intrusion against the rights of corporations to contract with individual employees. And yet, many of those who so strongly protest against “big government” also say, “keep your hands off my Medicare.”

As I write this commentary in 2012, union membership has fallen to about 7% of the private sector work force. Public sector unions are under attack, based upon a theory that their so-called powerful negotiators and lobbyists provide them with higher pay and better pensions than those in the private sector have. Many workers in the private sector, who have experienced a steady erosion of pay and benefits in recent decades often support this rationale: why should “they” get more than “me?” Perhaps they should be asking why their take home pay and benefits have eroded, and that they should be demanding a restoration of pay levels and pension security which they previously enjoyed!

The coming election offers a stark contrast between, on one hand, those who believe that the decline in middle class income and the decline in union membership rates over the past decades is not a coincidence, and on the other hand, those who believe that organized labor is a threat to the entrepreneurial future of America. Regardless of which side of the argument you find yourself, on Labor Day it is appropriate to tip one’s hat to a movement which has been the source for so much good in our nation’s history, with a social agenda reflecting essential Jewish concern for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger among us. As VP nominee Ryan so aptly reminded us, a country is measured by how it treats the neediest among us.

Considering Capital Punishment

Shoftim

Deuteronomy 16:18-21:9

Précis: The parasha Shoftim (literally, “judges”) is devoted primarily to various themes of justice, and includes warnings against false testimony, idol worship, and the dangers of mortal kings. The parasha includes regulations for rulers, and also warns the people against false prophets, magicians, soothsayers and witches. It establishes requirements for cities of refuge in the Promised Land. In short, the parasha is devoted to ways to create a just society in the Land of Israel

Deut. 17:7 "Let the hands of the witnesses be the first against him to put him to death, and the hands of the rest of the nation thereafter."

The verse in question assumes the legitimacy of capital punishment, as do many other verses in the Bible.  We read in Deut. 19:21 that we take a “life for life.” The rabbis tried to limit the circumstances under which the penalty could be imposed, but never were able to declare the concept invalid. (There is a similarity here to the U.S. Supreme Court’s capital punishment cases, where the how and the when of capital punishment have been circumscribed, but a majority has never considered the concept to be unconstitutional.)

            This week’s reading presents a complex view of the matter. This verse, after all, states that the witnesses to the act must throw the first stones, and thus directly take responsibility for the punishment. When they are joined by the rest of the community, there can be no cause for a blood feud; all of the community bear responsibility for the death. As mentioned, rabbinic authority circumscribed the penalties, and as is noted in the Mishnah (Makkot 7a) "A Sanhedrin that executes once in seven years is destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says, 'Every 70 years.' Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiba say, ‘If we were in a Sanhedrin, no man would ever be executed.’"

The great commentator of medieval times, Maimonides, opined (Sefer Hamitzvot, negative commandment no. 290) "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." Recent developments in DNA matching have demonstrated how often innocent individuals are sentenced to death, adding weight to the teachings of Maimonides. We should understand that all human systems of justice are at best imperfect, and that so long as capital punishment is imposed, some innocent will die.

Proponents of capital punishment suggest that while such erroneous deaths are unfortunate, they are somehow balanced by the necessity of exacting justice (or revenge) from those who are sentenced to the ultimate recourse. Our Jewish tradition appears to side with those who would eliminate capital punishment. That the State of Israel has executed a single individual in its history (Adolf Eichman) shows us that it is in fact conceivable within current Jewish legal thought to support the death penalty in extraordinary circumstances. But how do we define “extraordinary?”