misphat vs. tzedek-resource file

8/17/2019 Misphat vs. Tzedek-Resource File

1/12

www.justaction.org

> > > > > 3

>> Justice only hasvalue when it is livedout in daily life.


2/12

SECTION I • Torah /S tudy 29

Framing E X E R C I S E> Ask the participants to dene justice.> Is it a system of laws? A way of behaving? An attitude? All of the above?> Who is responsible for justice? Preserving it? Dening it? Enforcing it?> Ask the participants to talk about the last time they were involved in an act

of justice.You may get answers which anticipate the paragraph below, indicating the twodifferent forms of justice:tzedek and mishpat . If not, acknowledge the answersyou get, and then ask the participants to keep their minds open for an addi--tional way to understand the concept of justice.

Text ExplorationTEXT 1 • Betrothal

A traditional siddur (prayerbook) provides an interesting passage from thebook of Hosea that is supposed to be recited when a Jew puts on a setof tellin. The Jew who says these words does so while tying the bands ofthe tellin around his or her ngers, transforming the bands intoa celestial wedding ring. In the passage, it is God who speaks these wordsto the Jews. In the prayer book, it is the Jews who speak these words backto God.

ב -כ : כ ק ב ר ע פ ש ו הם. י מִ חֲ ברַ ד וּ סֶ בחֶ ט, וּ ָ פּ שׁ במִ ק וּ דֶ י בצֶ ך לִ י שתִ רַ ם; ואֵ ולָ י, לע ך לִ י שתִ רַ ואֵ

ה. וָ ת-יה , אֶ ת עַ דַ ה; ויָ נָ וּ אמ י, ּבֶ ך לִ י שתִ רַ ואֵI betroth you to me forever; I betroth you to me intzedek (righteousness)and inmishpat (justice) and inchesed (kindness) and inrachamim (mercy).I betroth you to me withemunah (faith); and you shall know God.Hosea 2:21-22

t Why, of all the concepts and sentiments and values that could claim aplace in this pledge of Jewish commitment, do you think our traditionplaces the concept of “justice” at the center?

3 M i s h p a t / Tz e d e k


3/12

www.justaction.org30

t What is the common thread among the ve characteristics listed?Why do you think they were chosen? Are there others that you wouldadd if you were rewriting the text?

What the Text Means to Mes Many Jews recite this passage daily. What could be the impact of

saying these words every morning?

s Do you have anything that you say daily or as part of a routine? Whatis it? Why do you say it so often, so regularly? What does it do for

you? If the recitation is said by others at the same time, how doesthat affect the group?Participants can imagine the pledge of allegiance, singing the nationalanthem before ball games, a team cheer or chant, an honor pledge beforea test, ha-motzi (the blessing before eating bread) and the like. Explorewith them the impact of saying something by rote in a prescribed moment.What impact might such an afrmation have on a person when regularlyrecited? While participants’ answers will vary, you may want to teaseout the idea that this type of ritual can serve as a behavioral compass,reminding individuals of the core values which they would like their lives torepresent. Regular afrmation of an idea is likely to have that idea becomepart of a person’s internal belief structure. Whereas individuals may agreewith a statement on an intellectual level, the idea takes on deeper sig--nicance if it is regularly expressed, especially if done in a public forum.Be prepared for a student to offer the legitamate challenge that makingsomething “routine” or reciting something by rote actually strips it of mean--ing. You may choose to address this type of response by probing further,exploring how routine actions and deep intentionality can coexist.

TEXT 2 • These are the Mishpatim Let’s look at an idea called mishpat. The word ”mishpat” is drawn from thesame root as the word “to judge” [ט פ The following text, found in the .[שbook of Exodus, is from the rst body of legislation presented in the Torah.

ד -כ ג , כ ט -י ח ד, י , י ק כ ר ת פ ו מ שת. מָ וּ ות י ת, מ מֵ ׁש וָ י ה אִ כֵ ם...מַ הֶ י פנֵ ם, לִ י ֹ שִ ר תָ ֶ שׁ ם, אֲ י טִ ָ פּ שׁ ּמִ ה, הַ לֶ ואֵ

ה. ּמָ ָ ס שׁ וּ נ יָ ר שֶ ום, אֲ ק מּתי לָך מָ --ושַ ו ד ה ליָ נָ ם אִ י הִ אל ה, והָ דָ א צָ ר ל שׁ אֲ וַת... וּ מ ו לָ נּ חֶ י, ּתקָ חִ זבּ ם מִ עִ --מֵ ה רמָ ו בעָ רג , להָ ּו ה עֵ ל-רֵ ׁש עַ י ד אִ זִ יָ י- וכִ

ת, וּ מ יָ א ף; ול גרֹ ו באֶ ן א בֶ אֶ , בּ ּו ה עֵ ת-רֵ ׁש אֶ י ה-אִ כָ -- והִ ם י ִ שׁ נָ ן אֲ בֻ י ירִ י וכִ

ק ה: רַ כֵ ּמַ ה הַ קָ --ונִ נּתו עַ שׁ ל-מִ ץ, עַ וּ ח ּ ך בַ לֵ תהַ ם והִ וּ ק ם-יָ ב. אִ כָ שׁ ל למִ פַ ונָא... פּ ירַ א ֹ פּ ן, ורַ תֵ יִ בּתו ִ שׁ

ן, ֵ ת שׁ חַ ן תַ ֵ ן, שׁ יִ ת עַ חַ ן תַ יִ . עַ שׁ פֶ ת נָ חַ , תַ שׁ פֶ ה נֶ תַ תַ --ונָ ה היֶ יִ ון, ס ם-אָ ואִה, רָ וּ בּ ע, חַ צַ ת פּ חַ ע תַ צַ ה, פּ ת כויִ חַ ה תַ יָ ל. כוִ גֶ ת רָ חַ ל תַ גֶ ד, רֶ יָ ת חַ ד תַ יָ

ה. רָ וּ בּ ת חַ ּתחַ


4/12


Tese are the mishpatim that you shall set before them… He who fatallystrikes a man shall be put to death. If he did not do it by design, but itcame about by an act of God, I will assign you a place to which he canee. When a man schemes against another and kills him treacherously,you shall take him from My very altar to be put to death…

When men quarrel and one strikes the other with stone or st, and hedoes not die but has to take to his bed—if he then gets up and walksoutdoors upon his staff, the assailant shall go unpunished, except that hemust pay for his idleness and his cure…If damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth fortooth, hand for hand, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.Exodus, 21:1, 12-14, 18-19, 23-24

t Leaving aside your personal opinions about capital punishment, whatdistinction do you think the Torah is making between premeditatedand accidental killing?

t How does the text understand an individual’s responsibility for anydamages caused?

t Based on your reading of this text, what is your understanding of theterm mishpatim ? What principle of law or social value is expressedthrough the Torah’s instructions?The Torah here indicates that there is an important distinction betweena premeditated murder and an accidental killing. At rst glance, the out--come of one’s actions do not appear as signicant a factor in determining

punishment as does the motivation behind those actions. If one kills unin--tentionally, then the system provides a form of protection—a designatedarea of refuge. In contrast, a planned murder is severely punished.

The text expresses the idea that a person is responsible for the outcomeof his or her actions—an eye for an eye—regardless of motive or any othercircumstances.

Mishpatim then can be understood as powerful principles of law whichapply uniformly for all individuals to uphold a standard of justice and fair--ness in the world. A person’s personal circumstances or socio-economicstatus does not give them any special consideration. Mishpatim representthe idea of retributive justice or “equal justice under the law.”

What the Text Means to Me

s Do you agree with this approach to justice?s Do you think it reects an enlightened ideal or a primitive

perspective?



5/12


s What might alternative approaches look like?s Is there a place for mishpat in the way contemporary society is

organized?

TEXT3 • LiabilityThe rabbis of the Mishna, relate their own understanding of the value of

mishpat :ק ח: ר , פ מ ב ק ת ב כ ס מ

י, וּ פּ י ר, ברִ עַ צַ ק, בּ זֶ נֶ ם: בּ י רִ ה דבָ ּ שׁ מִ ם חֲ וּ שׁ ו מִ י לָ ב עָ י יָ - חַ ו ר י בֵ חֲ ּ ל בַ ובֵ ח הַ

ן י ואִ ו, ר גל ת רַ ר אֶ בֵ י ו, שׁ ד יָ ת ע אֶ טַ ו, קָ נ י ת עֵ א אֶ ּמֵ י ד? סִ צַ י ק כּ זֶ ת. בנֶ ֶ ּ שׁ וֹ ב ת, וּ בֶ ֶ ּ בשׁ

ה. פֶ יָ א וּ ּמה ה ה וכַ פֶ יָ ה יָ ה הָ ּמָ ן כַ י מִ ּ ק, ושׁ וּ שׁ ר בַ מכָ ד נִ בֶ א עֶ וּ ּלּו ה י ו כאִ ות א

ה ושֶ ו ע נ י אֵ ֶ ום שׁ ק ו מָ ורנ פּ י ל צִ ּלּו עַ י פִ אֲ ר, וַ סמֵ ו במַ ד א וּ פּ ֹו( בׁשַ )א ו א - כוָ ר עַ צַ

- י וּ יּפּ . רִ ך ר כָ ּעֵ צטָ ות מִ הי ול לִ טּ י ה לִ וצֶ ה ר זֶ א בָ ּיוצֵ ם כַ דָ ּמה אָ ן כַ י ומדִ ה, א רָ וּ בּ חַ

ת מַ חֲ ּלא מֵ ֶ ּ ב, שׁ י יָ - חַ ה כָ ּמַ ת הַ מַ חֲ ם מֵ ם, אִ י חִ ו צמָ ה בּ לָ ו; עָ ות א פּ ב לרַ י יָ ּו חַ ה כָ הִ

ל ה כָ תָ יי ו, חָ ות א פּ ב לרַ י יָ - חַ ה סּתרָ ה ונִ תָ יי ה חָ סּתרָ ה ונִ תָ יי ר; חָ וּ ט ָ - פּ ה כָ ּמַ הַן, י אִ וּ שׁ י ר קִ ומֵ א ש וּ ּלּו ה י ו כאִ ות ן א י ואִ - ר ת בֶ ֶ ו. שׁ ות א פּ ב לרַ י יָ ו חַ נ י - אֵ ּה ורכָ צ

. שׁ י יֵ תבַ ּמִ ׁש והַ י יֵ ּמבַ י הַ ל לפִ ֹ כּ - הַ ת ֶ ושׁ ו. בּ גל י רַ דמֵ ׁו וּ ד יָ י ו דמֵ ן ל תַ ר נָ כבָ ֶ שׁ

Whoever wounds his fellow is liable for ve things: for damage, for pain, forhealing, for loss of time, and for shame.For damage, how? If one blinded another’s eye, cut off his hand, brokehis foot, we consider him as if he were a slave sold in the market, and weappraise how much he was worth [before the injury], and how much he isnow worth [after he was injured].Pain? If someone burned him with a spit, or with a [white-hot] nail, even

on his ngernail, a place where it produces no wound, we assess how mucha person in his situation would be willing to accept to undergo such pain[Alternatively, how much would someone pay to avoid this type of pain as apunishment].Healing? If one struck another, he is obligated to heal him. If swellingappeared on it from a result of the blow, he is liable; [if swelling appeared]not as a result of the blow, he is exempt. If [the wound] healed and openedagain, he is obligated to cure him [a second time].Loss of time? We consider him as if he [had an easy job, like] the caretakerof a cucumber eld, since he has already paid him compensation for hishand and compensation for his foot.

Shame? Everything is in accordance with the person causing the indignityand the insulted party. If one insults a naked person, if one insults a blindperson, or if one insults a sleeping person, he is liable, and if a sleeping per--son caused the indignity, he is exempt. If one fell from a roof and injured andshamed [someone], he is liable for the injury and is exempt for the shame, asit is written, “And she puts forth her hand, and takes him by the secret part”(Deuteronomy 25:11) he is not liable for shame unless he intended.Mishna, Bava Kama 8:1


6/12


t What, if anything, surprised you about this text? Why?t According to this Mishna, how do you think the rabbis understood

the concept of mishpat ?

t Do you think their interpretation is true to the values expressed in thebook of Exodus?

t How is compensation for “shame” treated differently than physicaland monetary damages?

t What is the benet of having the laws determine how a wrong canbe righted?The rabbis of the Mishna refuse to read Exodus 21 literally: they choose tounderstand, “an eye for an eye,” as a formula for monetary compensation.The rabbis realized that a law which enforces a literal interpretation of “mea--sure for measure” does nothing to improve society or increase the amountof good in the world. They also boldly articulate ve dimensions of injury forwhich one must be compensated—extending the scope of one’s responsi--bility far beyond what is evident from a simple reading of the biblical text.


s Did you ever make a mistake or do something wrong and try to makeup for it? What did you do? What did you do to make things right?How was it received?

s Did someone ever wrong you and then try to make up for it? Did youfeel satised at the end?

s What difference do you think it would make in the situations youhave reected upon if your behavior and the behavior of others wasstrictly governed by these principles? Is this ideal? Is it realistic?

TEXT 4 • When Breaking the Law is Keeping the Lawו, ( ף מ )ד ק ו ר ן פ י ר ד ה נ ת ס כ ס - מ י ל ב ד ב ו מ ל ת

ה ּתורָ ן הַ ּלא מִ ּ ן שׁ י ִ ּ ונשׁ ן וע י כִ ן מַ י ת דִ י בֵ י ּשׁ עתִ מַ ָ ר: שׁ ומֵ ב א קֹ עֲ יַ ן ר בֶ זֶ עֶ י י אלִ בִ רַה.” ּתורָ ג לַ י ות סיָ שׂ עֲ י לַ א כדֵ לָ ה, אֶ ורָ י ת ברֵ ל דִ ור עַ ב עֲ א לַ ול

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said: “I have heard that the court may pro--nounce sentences even where not [warranted] by the orah; yet not withthe intention of disregarding the orah but [on the contrary] in order tosafeguard it.”Babylonian Talmud,Sanhedrin 46a



7/12


t What is the difference between the “letter of the law” and the “spiritof the law?”

t Can you describe a situation in which breaking the law or ignoringthe law is, in fact, the best way to keep the law?

t Can you imagine a legal system which does not allow such lenien- -cies? What would that be like?


s Did you ever have to do something that seemed “wrong” but none- -theless was the right thing to do?

s How do you know when the “spirit of the law” should override the“letter of the law?”

s Is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov talking about mishpat or another form of justice? Explain.

TEXT5 • Beyond the Letter of the LawConsider the following text which explores the practical application of takingliberties with respect to specic social regulations in order to live accordingto society’s core values.

ג, ( ף פ )ד ע י צ ב מ ת ב כ ס - מ י ל ב ד ב ו מ ל תל קַ א. שׁ מרָ א דחַ תָ י בִ י חָ אֵ לָ וּ ק ּו שׁ נה ּה הָ י ּו לֵ ר ן תבָ נָ ר חָ ר בַ ה בַ בּ רַ

א נָ י : דִ יּה ר לֵ מַ . -אֲ ּו ה יי מַ י ּו גלִ ב לה : הַ ּה י ר לֵ מַ ב. אֲ ּו לרַ ר מַ ּו אֲ ת , אָ ּו ה יי מַ י גלִ לִּו ר מַ ּו. אֲ ה יי מַ י ּו גלִ ב לה י הֵ יָ ם”. י ובִ ך ט רֶ ך בדֶ לֵ ן תֵ עַ , “למַ ן י : א ּה י ר לֵ מַ ? -אֲ י כִ הָ

ב ל הַ י : זִ ּה י ר לֵ מַ י. אֲ דֵ י ן מִ ת לָ י ן, ולֵ נַ י פֵ א, וכָ ומָ ּה י לָ וּ ן כּ נַ י רחִ ן, וטָ נַ י אֲ יֵ נִ הּ: עֲ י לֵר”. ׁשמֹ ּקים תִ י ּ דִ ות צַ רח , “ואָ ן י : אִ ּה י ר לֵ מַ ? - אֲ י כִ א הָ נָ י : דִ ּה י ר לֵ מַ . - אֲ ּו ה יי גרַ אַ

Some porters broke a barrel of wine belonging to Rabbah Bar BarHanna. Rabbah seized the porters garments [in payment for his lossincurred by them]. Te porters went and complained to Rav. Rav toldRabbah: “Return their garments.” Rabbah said: “Is that the law?” Ravresponded: “No. But ‘follow the good way’” (Proverbs 2:20). Te gar--ments were returned, but the porters observed, “We are poor men. We

worked all day and we were not paid. Are we to get nothing for ourlabors?” Rav ordered Rabbah to pay the porters. Rabbah asked: “Is thatthe law?” Rav replied, “No. But be sure to walk on the paths of righteous--ness.” (Proverbs 2:20b)Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 83a


8/12


t Who is “right?”t Why does Rav rule the way he does? Upon what basis?t Who is on the side of mishpat here, and who is on the side of tzedek ?t Do the porters “deserve” the kindness of Rav? Is that important?t Is Rav referring to two different standards when he instructs Rabbah?

Why? Which one do you nd more compelling?


s Who do you support: Rabbah or Rav? Why?s What would you have done if you were Rabbah?

TEXT6 • Right of Way, ב( ב ף ל )ד ק ד ר - פ ן י ר ד ה נ ת ס כ ס - מ י ל ב ד ב ו מ ל ת

ות ובר ות ע נ י י ספִ תֵ ד? ג שׁ צַ י ה. כּ רָ פשׁ ד לִ חָ ן ואֶ י ד לדִ חָ ף”: אֶ רדֹ ק תִ דֶ ק צֶ דֶ “צֶר חַ ה אַ ות, בזֶ ובע ן ט הֶ י - ׁשתֵ ן הֶ י תֵ ות שׁ ובר ם ע ה, אִ זֶ ה בָ ּו זֶ גע פָ ר וּ הָ נָ בַ

ּו גע פָ ון וּ ור ת ח י ות בֵ ל עֲ ם במַ י ולִ ּו ע י הָ ֶ ם שׁ י לִ י גמַ נֵ ן שׁ ות. וכֵ ובר ן ע הֶ י תֵ ה- שׁ זֶא ן. הָ י ולִ ן ע הֶ י נֵ - שׁ ה ר זֶ חַ ה אַ ן, בזֶ יִ ופל ן נ הֶ י נֵ - שׁ ן הֶ י נֵ ּו שׁ ל ם עָ ה, אִ זֶ ה בָ זֶ

ה ובָ ה. קר נָ וּ י טע נֵ פּ ה מִ נָ וּ ּה טע נָ י אֵ ֶ ּ ה שׁ חֶ דָ י - תִ ה נָ וּ ּה טע נָ י אֵ ה ושׁ נָ וּ ד? טע צַ י כֵות, וב ן קר הֶ י תֵ ּ ּו שׁ י ה. הָ ובָ ּה קר נָ י אֵ י ׁשֶ נֵ פּ ה מִ ובָ ה קר חֶ דָ י - תִ ה ובָ ּה קר נָ י אֵ ושֶ

ו. ז ו לָ ר ז כָ ות שָ ל עֲ מַ ן, וּ הֶ י נֵ י ה בֵ רָ ָ שׁ ל פּ טֵ - הַ ות וק ן רח הֶ י תֵ ּ שׁ

Rav Ashi expounded upon the verse, “Tzedek, tzedek you shall pursue”(Deuteronomy 16:20): Te rst [mention of tzedek ] refers to a decisionbased on strict law; the second, to a compromise. How so? For example:Where two boats sailing on a river meet, if both attempt to pass simul--taneously, both will sink; whereas, if one makes way for the other, bothcan pass [without mishap]. Likewise, if two camels meet each other whileon the ascent to Beth-Horon; if they both ascend [at the same time]both may tumble down [into the valley]; but if [they ascend] after eachother, both can go up [safely]. How then should they act? If one is ladenand the other unladen, the latter should give way to the former. If one is

nearer [to its destination] than the other, the former should give way tothe latter. If both are [equally] near or far [from their destination], makea compromise between them, the one [which is to go forward] compen--sating the other [which has to give way].Babylonian Talmud,Sanhedrin 32b



9/12


t What is the “right” thing to do in these situations? Who has the rightof way?

t Why should the one boat or camel cede to the other if they have thesame right as the other?

t What do they gain?


s Who do you think is better? The one who yields his right of way (andgoes second) or the one who claims his (and goes rst)?

s What would you do if you were the camel driver?


10/12

SECTION I • Torah /S tudy

C a s e S t u

d y

1

The Cost of LivingAn organization’s budget must be cut by 5% and the management

team is exploring ways to do so. Jobs and salaries will almost surely beaffected.

This organization almost awarded cost of living increases but has decidedit can’t do that for the year ahead. One person suggests that everyone begiven a 2% raise that year, half of the 4% standard federal-recommendedcost of living increase (COLA). That seems the right way to go—treatingeveryone the same.

Another person said that is not fair: management will be the winners, for2% of their salaries is much larger than 2% of maintenance staff andsecretary salaries. The person who proposed the 2% raise argued thatnonetheless, each household has its share of on-going expenses. Thatis, those with larger incomes have lifestyles that incur larger expensesand those with smaller incomes have lifestyles that accommodate lesserexpenses. A 2% increase in relation to each household is therefore a fairand just way to go.

Opponents to this position argued that maintenance, blue collar andsecretarial staff often live much closer to the economic brink, often withlittle savings. They have fewer discretionary expenses that can be cut, andlittle capacity to get loans to tide them over. Therefore, the organizationshould offer a full 4% cost of living increase for the lower-echelon staffand a 2% increase for the higher. (Even with this formula, the total COLAfor the higher staff is 5 times as great as the COLA for the lower staff.)

As a group, outline the arguments on both sides and debate the issue.

• How do the concepts of tzedek and mishpat help us understand thecompeting approaches to this issue?

• What do you think the organization should do?• Is there a right answer to this? Is there a Jewish answer?

37

Consider the following case studies:



11/12

www.justaction.org

C a s e S t u

d y

2

Fairness in School FundingIn many states today, local schools are funded by local property taxes.(That is, each home owner pays a tax based on the value of his or herproperty. That money gets funneled back into the local school district.)

This means each household can choose the quality of education that thechildren receive by choosing where to live. It also means that the moreprosperous the neighborhood, the better funded is its school. School dis-tricts in wealthier neighborhoods often spend thousands of dollars moreper child than school districts in economically depressed neighborhoods.

Is this a fair system? Why or why not? Would you dene “fairness”differently if you lived in a wealthy neighborhood than if you lived in apoor one?

In the past twenty-ve years, at least 2/3 of the states in this countryhave determined that this system is unfair, and have struggled to x it.One solution was to pool all the state’s property taxes in one pot and

dole out an equal amount of dollars per student throughout the state.That sounds good because it makes everyone equal.

Is this mishpat, tzedek or neither?

Read the following paragraph:

“I am not convinced that spending the same amount on each child is thefairest approach to school funding. The truth is that parents spend consid-erably different amounts on their children’s education—whether in publicor private schools—depending on income. Providing the same amountof state and local aid to the child of wealthy parents as to poor parentssimply exacerbates the gaps and ignores the fact that one child is likely

to have more unmet needs than the other. I am more in favor of provid-ing whatever level of funding is adequate for each child to meet his orher needs and to attain high standards than I am to providing the sameamount to each child, rich or poor.”

(Mr. Michael Casserly of the Council of Great City Schools)

Is this mishpat, tzedek or neither?

38


12/12

SECTION I • Torah /S tudy

>> Although it isoften translated as‘charity’, tzedakah isnot equivalent tocharity. > > > >4

i n t r o d u c t i o n

We explored two kinds of justice in a previous section. Mishpat iseven-handed or retributive justice, that is, justice by the book.Tzedek is situational or distributive justice, that is, justice that is tailored torespond to the particular circumstances of a particular situation, espe-cially those that lead to social, economic and political inequities.

Mishpat is generally about assessing behavior and determining howto treat the aggrieved and the offender equally. Tzedek is more aboutcreating a system for the fair distribution of goods, services andopportunity on this earth. In this section we will furtherexplore the idea of tzedek as we compare it to the morepopular concept of tzedakah . The two terms share thesame root, tz.d.k., meaning the right thing to do.

Although it is often translated as “charity,”tzedakah is not equivalent to charity. Charity comes from theLatin wordcaritas, which means “love.” The conceptof charity in English is considered voluntary because itcomes from the heart. Christianity teaches that char-

ity is something which people should give when theirhearts move them to do so.

Thus, even though we emphasize in this chapter the distinc-tion between tzedek and tzedakah, we should not lose sight ofthe signicance of their semantic connection. These two concepts aredistinct but they are also closely related in thattzedek and tzedakah bothrepresent modes of responding to injustice in the world.

The framing exercise and ve texts presented below expand our under-standing of justice and examine Jewish perspectives on responding toinjustice in our world.

TEXT 1: Eight Levels of Tzedakah (Maimonides, “Laws of Gifts to the Poor” 10:7-14)presents a classic formulation of the hierarchy of giving and makes the claimthat certain types of giving are valued over others.

Our conversation continues with an examination of the concept ofchesed which similarly describes a response to human needs. Chesed , however, is not

misphat vs. tzedek-resource file

Documents