Rabbi Ron Stern uses his Daily Kavanah from Oct. 31 to Nov. 3 to discuss the Jewish perspectives on various propositions on California’s midterm ballot. Our participation, as Jews, in our country’s democratic process is essential for the well-being of our own community and the nation. Help make Wise a 100% voting congregation.
Remember: Vote in-person on Nov. 8 (you can find your local polling place HERE) or vote by mail, as long as your ballot is postmarked by Nov. 8.Don’t forget to vote!
Jewish values. It’s a term that is easily and glibly bandied about, yet if we drill down deeply into the concept, we quickly discover that the Jewish voice is by no means monolithic. Wise is a Reform congregation, meaning that your clergy are influenced by their education and identification with the Reform movement. As such, we will often—though not always—reflect values that capture Reform Judaism’s interpretation of the principles that appear in the Torah and subsequent Jewish literature. This will sometimes differ from those perspectives found in more traditional strains of Judaism.
It is important to recognize that each conclusion based on our shared tradition is refracted through the lens of Reform, Conservative, Orthodox (or other) philosophies. Often, those ideas themselves are influenced by the range of other preconceived notions held by those who espouse those views. For this reason, being aware of the source and its biases are critical in the formation of our own opinions. Recognizing a bias doesn’t make a given source’s words, ideas, or opinions meaningless. Rather, it only makes you—the consumer of those ideas—cognizant of where your beliefs might overlap or differ.
Over the next few days, I’ll reflect on some of the ballot initiatives and provide perspectives from Jewish sources. I’m hoping that my writings will provide you with some insights, drawn from Jewish tradition, as you seek to make your own decisions about how to vote on the proposals. It is not my intent to influence your vote in a particular direction, but rather to bring another perspective to your decision making.
Above all, I do believe that as Jews, our tradition can help us continually refine our own values, which can serve as the foundations for the conclusions we reach. At the same time, I hope that capturing the depth and breadth of Jewish tradition helps us achieve a state of open-mindedness as we apply our own Jewish values to the way that we approach vital issues in our world.
By far the most significant proposition for our wives, mothers, and daughters is Prop 1. A ‘yes’ vote supports amending the state constitution to prohibit the state from interfering with or denying an individual’s reproductive freedom, which is defined to include a right to an abortion and contraceptives. A ‘no’ vote opposes this amendment to the constitution.
For a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation of Jewish views on forced pregnancies and the necessity for abortion and prohibitions against, I refer you to this excellent article. It is a balanced, nuanced review of Jewish positions by a knowledgeable and traditionally observant Jew.
The closest analogy to medically- or artificially-induced abortion (a procedure that was exceedingly rare until recent times) found in the Torah clearly indicates that terminating a pregnancy at any stage is not murder. This is inferred because the Biblically-prescribed punishment for one who causes that termination is financial compensation to the husband. Were the action actually murder, under Biblical law, death would be the required penalty. But, of course, the Torah is only the beginning of the discussion, and the matter is discussed at length in subsequent sources.
What is clear is that there are absolutely situations where termination of a pregnancy is not only permitted, but in fact required. Jewish tradition is virtually unanimous in upholding the principle that the mother’s life takes precedence over that of the unborn fetus until the child’s head is visible. This is the time when the pre-modern sages determined that the fetus could be viable. At this point, neither life takes precedence.
Other sages uphold that the soul (i.e. the animating spirit) doesn’t enter the fetus until 40 days after conception and still others suggest that the fetus is not ensouled until it crowns. Few modern sages agree with the latter of those positions. The question of when a soul enters the developing fetus is ultimately a matter of individual belief. My own nephew was born at 26 weeks and he is about to turn 14, so there is proof in my own family of viability outside the womb for fetuses that were never even contemplated as viable in antiquity.
Many Orthodox Jewish institutions are opposed to what they term “abortion-on-demand laws” because they insist that such rulings eliminate the necessity for Jewish women to consult with rabbinic authorities before determining if terminating a pregnancy is Jewishly legal. Of course, even before Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe v. Wade, removing the protections on access to abortion that stood for nearly 50 years there were statutory limits on when it could be performed on demand.
Clearly, the Jewish position on terminating a pregnancy is nuanced and complicated. However, it is evident that for the vast majority of Jewish women, a blanket ban on abortion would violate their religious rights.
Both initiatives seek to legalize sports betting. Prop 26 legalizes it on Tribal lands and horse racing tracks, while Prop 27 legalizes it online and promises revenue for remediating homelessness.
While there are many arguments for and against each of these propositions, I will focus on Jewish views of gambling. Once again, an essential reminder about any Jewish perspective is that it’s complicated and nuanced.
The Mishnah (200 C.E.), in the tractate called Sanhedrin, famously says that someone who plays with dice is prohibited from serving as a witness in a trial, should that person be a professional gambler with no other occupation. The rabbis suggest that because this person makes their living from such games of chance, their reliability as a witness is suspect. They do not, however, condemn all gambling. Gambling is only condemned when it becomes thievery—i.e., when the gambler’s intent is to deceive another. Anyone who’s ever watched the three card monte scam on New York City streets has witnessed such deception. Here again, there are notable disagreements. Gambling against the house in casinos or through the purchase of lottery tickets is not considered theft by some rabbis, while lotteries are considered illegal by others. It is notable that Israel has a publicly-sponsored state lottery.
Having said all of that, compulsive gambling is indeed considered a vice, and known excessive gamblers were denied synagogue honors. Of course, the occasional Hanukkah dreidel game—clearly a form of gambling—was permitted to all! This form of betting, though— either pennies or Hanukkah chocolate—hardly leads to penury. The overwhelming concern expressed by Jewish sources centers on the addictive and potentially destructive capacity of gambling for an individual and their families. In this case, stringent warnings and even prohibitions are voiced.
Clearly, the question of Jewish values here is not about the legality or even permissibility of occasional gambling; it is in the potential for the gambling opportunities being offered to lead to addiction and its destructive results.
Proposition 30 supports increasing the tax on income above $2 million by 1.75% and dedicating that income to zero-emission vehicle subsidies; zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention programs.
There are two issues here. The first is the climate emergency and how California responds to our rapidly changing climate. There is no question that humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels and other greenhouse gasses is causing the climate to change dramatically. Unless action is taken for both mitigation of climate change-induced risks and the reduction of gas emissions, we do face a dire future.
The second is the prudence of subjecting the wealthiest in our state to higher income taxes. It is hard to know how many Californians would be affected by this initiative and what the outcome of its passage would be on their decisions to remain in California. Some suggest it would push them away, others suggest that there is no evidence to support a mass exodus of millionaires despite popular anecdotes.
There is no question that the Jewish view on taxation is—you guessed it—complicated. In Jewish history, there is much antipathy towards the tax collectors.The Jewish revolts against Antiochus Epiphanes (the origin of Hanukkah), as well as that against Rome that led to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. were each partially motivated by perceived excessive taxation. However, it is a long-established principle that Jewish communities must collect tzedakah from all their members and that the wealthy are required to give more than the poor. Should an individual fail to contribute their fair share, various means of coercion are permitted.
While we often see the giving of tzedakah as voluntary, when members of a community are compelled to “donate” (as appears to have been the case in the past) it can be seen as a form of taxation. The Torah even commands that a tithe (10%) be given to support the Temple treasury in addition to donations to the poor. You can go deeper into the question here. Of course, the question as to whether taxes are equivalent to the giving of tzedakah is hotly debated in Jewish circles today.
Here again, the question of one’s personal values ultimately depends on which principle takes precedence. Do environmental concerns weigh more heavily than potential economic impact? Or, would the consequences of increased taxes on California’s wealthiest result in greater injury to our state’s economy?
Over the last week, I have hopefully given you the tools to consider these and other ballot questions from the perspective of our tradition. It is now up to you to your own conclusions.