Religion & Beliefs
Relevant Redemption
By Tamar Fox / July 5, 2007
Jewish liturgy is all about redemption. The number of times we ask to be redeemed in shachrit alone is overwhelming enough that I have a hard time conjuring up what redemption would entail on any practical level. My only real indicator in terms of the realities of redemption comes from an oft-forgotten mitzvah, pidyon shvuyim, ransoming/redeeming the captive. For information about the basis and complexities of pidyon shvuyim I direct you to a great discussion of this positive commandment over at MyJewishLearning. Here’s a brief rundown: Jews are commanded to pay the ransom necessary to free any and all Jewish slaves or prisoners. There doesn’t seem to be many loopholes available, but the Talmud (Gittin 45a) comes in and makes two possible restrictions. We’re not supposed to redeem captives for more than they’re worth, or help them escape, because of Tikkun Olam (repairing the world). The explanations given are that
1) we don’t want to put a financial burden on the community, and
2) we also don’t want to encourage the captors to take more captives in order to get more money. 
All of this has incredibly frustrating and fascinating implications in a world where Israeli soldiers have been captured and held for more than a year by Palestinian groups. The struggle to compromise halacha, the safety of the soldiers, and the safety of Israel is extremely difficult, and rabbis have been grappling with it for decades. The level of frustration, rises, of course, during a week when captives seem tantalizingly close to redemption. I can’t help picturing Gilad Shalit doing the interview circuit the way that Alan Johnston did yesterday. And what about the other two soldiers captured in Lebanon? How much are they worth, and what can we do to free them? It’s nice to think of redeeming captives as a warm fuzzy mitzvah that everyone can get next to, but as we saw this week, sometimes freeing people isn’t helpful or good—it’s corrupt. I’m speaking, of course, of Scooter Libby’s commuted prison sentence. The questions that this kind of situation brings up are important. Are we obligated to free Jewish captives even if they’re imprisoned for really good reason? What if we think they did something wrong, but the punishment is too harsh? That, of course, was Bush’s argument. Where do our loyalties lie, and where SHOULD they lie? Am I supposed to sneak Jack Abramoff out of prison, but leave the West Memphis 3 and Kevin Cooper to rot in jail since they’re not Jewish? What about the millions of actual slaves all around the world? Do I have an obligation to them? Actually, that last question is the only one I don’t struggle with much. I think I do have an obligation to redeem today’s slaves. (And yes, I know that people like to talk about how those of us with cushy lives in the Western hemisphere are slaves to technology and capitalism, but I’m talking about a more literal slavery here. Like, with chains and actual prices on peoples’ heads.) If you want to help, I recommend heading over to the Not For Sale website, where you can donate money, get educated on the problem and how widespread it is, and join the movement of others dedicated to ending human slavery in this generation. In the face of all of the craziness surrounding Shalit, Johnston, Bush, Libby, and everyone else struggling with justice and captivity, it’s nice to have something I can do that will definitely make a difference. Redemption is suddenly real.
POST A COMMENT
“But that leaves me with a real halachic problem, because halacha doesn’t agree with me.”
What does this mean? Near as I can tell, the “halachic problem” is simply that you don’t agree with the halachic prescription in this case. But to what moral compass do you appeal to ground your position? And if that moral compass trumps halachic advice, why bother with halacha at all? Why not just appeal to whatever it is that tells you that, despite halacha, you think Abramoff got what he deserved? I don’t see the problem-you just seem to be saying that you’ll go by halachic notions when they suit you and ignore them when you feel like following another guideline.
“Being a Jew is not contingent on anything other than geneology. Being a good Jew, or a halachic Jew, or an observant Jew are all different things….”
Massive category mistake here. Consider: “Being Asian is not contingent on anything other than geneology. Being a good Asian….etc.” makes no sense. This is because modifiers like “good”, “observant”, “devout” simply don’t apply to genetic categories-they have to do with beliefs, codes, etc.; that is, cultural categories. Whether you like it or not, you can’t play it both ways-if Jewishness is genetic, ideas like “observant” et al don’t apply. If it’s cultural, then geneology isn’t part of the picture.
These are not my rules, by the way. They’re simply epistemological requirements without which our abilities to think and communicate clearly are lost.
Myshkin– I think I'm going to address your comment in greater length at some point, but I just wanted to say–I do know that I can still be a Jew and toss aside some of the repugnant aspects of the tradition. First of all, I think it's clear that that's what I'm doing much of the time. Second of all, not to be anal retentive, but I would be a Jew no matter if I took a bite out of a live pig while having sex with a woman on shabbat with the use of some kind of mechanical apparatus. Being a Jew is not contingent on anything other than geneology. Being a good Jew, or a halachic Jew, or an observant Jew are all different things, but I feel like I should point out that I'm never seeking approval on FaithHacker. If I post something on the blog, I'm at peace with it. I'm very comfortable with my decision to have sex despite the halachic ramifications that might have. And while I struggle with the place of halacha in my life, it doesn't keep me from sleeping. I discuss it here because I think people can benefit from knowing what Jewish law has to say about something, even if what it has to say is upsetting or problematic. So while I appreciate your observation, I don't really need your permission, you know?
Sorry to write so much–but about this whole REDEMPTION business–just look at what Christians did with it when they attributed it to Jesus. Yuck–without “Jesus died for our sins” Christianity might be a teneble religion.
Anonymous- you do have it right that Jewish teachings seem to say that we have more of an obligation to someone with a Jewish mother than to a non-Jew, but I find that really problematic, especially knowing that Libby is Jewish, and Abramoff as well. I hate them, and have no interest in redeeming them in any way. But that leaves me with a real halachic problem, because halacha doesn't agree with me.Â
And I was saying that I find it very problematic that we seem to be commanded to help Jews even if they're getting what they deserve. I certainly don't agree with halacha in that sense (though I'm not positive that halacha would say we should try to free someone who is rightfully imprisoned–I'd have to look that up). Basically, in this post I was stating halacha and then trying to explain why I find it frustrating/upsetting, and don't see myself ever following this halacha in the sense it was intended, but do find myself passionate about the basic idea of freeing contemporary slaves.Â
What a disturbing chunk of prose.
Exhibit A: “Though neither Libby not President are Jewish, the questions that this kind of situation brings up are important.”
The implication (or maybe that’s the wrong word, since you’re being pretty explicit) here is your moral obligations
to individuals differ depending on who their mother is, i.e., some Jewish teaching advises using a different ethical
yardstick for Jews than the one you whip out for gentiles. Do I have that right?
Exhibit B: “Am I supposed to sneak Jack Abramoff out of prison, but leave the West Memphis 3 and Kevin Cooper to rot in jail since they’re not Jewish? What about the millions of actual slaves all around the world? Do I have an obligation to them? Actually, that last question is the only one I don’t struggle with much.”
Are you saying that you actually do struggle with the question of whether or not you ought to spirit the disgusting
Abramoff to freedom, presumably on the sole grounds that you’re both Jewish?
If this is the sort of undemocratic tribalism to which the study of religion leads, I’m with Hitchens on this one
(although in almost all other matters I find that Bushite tippler repellent).
Also, please advise how to distinguish your apparent endorsement of Jews cutting each other moral slack for the
same offenses they’d not close an eye to if a gentile committed them (“Are we obligated to free Jewish captives even
if they’re imprisoned for really good reason?”) from the most vicious anti-Semitic tropes regarding Jewish
exceptionalism, etc.
I really hope I misunderstood you.
PS-Regarding the captured Israeli occupiers, the best way to help hasten their release would be to work towards an
end to the occupation and, while you’re at it, to urge the Israeli government to release at least those vast numbers
of Palestinian prisoners who are children and who have been convicted of nothing, yet who have remained bound
for far longer than the unfortunate Shalit et al.
captivity, slavery and freedom is sort of my field in academia… as well as in my study of judaism.
what 'true freedom' is in the sense of the kind of autonomy and security, sense of belonging and identity that is typical of hunter-gatherer-traditional-"Leaver" peoples around the world, is something the rest of us can only speculate or dream about… when we talk about redemption as Jews, it is with full consciousness of how much was lost when via slavery in Egypt (and exile in Babel, etc.) we were stripped away from our ability to control our own lives, our own bodies, our own minds, our own homeland… we say that we dropped to the 49th out of 50 levels of impurity– any more and we would have been beyond all hope.Â
 Our tikun as Jews in the world, first, is to raise ourselves up, gradually, to restore all that was lost for ourselves; and both by example and by spreading our message and our revolutionary energy and ideas to all corners of the earth, help all the broken, damaged, post-enslaved or colonized peoples of the world achieve that tikun too.
Well that sucks. Now I can't even be sad that he was let off the hook.
Just to clarify, Scooter Libby actually is Jewish, though not particularly openly about it (I remember reading once that some members of the administration weren't even aware of his Jewishnewss). Yes, a Jewish guy named Scooter from Connecticut. Hard to believe, but true.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!