I want the impossible. It's Wednesday 3:41pm, I want to feel the significance of all I do in my entire life in this moment. I want to work on every detail with the motivation that comes from the entire project.
I want the infinite in the finite.
Fortunately it can be done. In fact, it is the point of all of the Torah. The Torah is all about connecting with Hashem's infinite light trough a specific, limited, detailed Mitzvah.
The Torah is not about being spiritual via connecting to the infinite. It's much more revolutionary; it's about shattering the barrier between finite and infinite.
When Moshe spoke to the Jewish people, at the plains of Moab at the bank of the Jordan, he said: "May the L-rd G-d of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as you are"; a defined blessing, one thousand. "and bless you as he has promised you"; an undefined blessing, for Hashem’s blessing to Abraham was that no man will be able to count his descendants.
Moshe was saying the undefined blessing is not enough; we need defined blessing. Because one thousand is not limiting the infinite blessing, it's bringing the infinite to our finite reality.
(Inspired by Leku"s vol. 19 sicha 4)
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Criminal Justice
The Torah states that "a matter shall be established based on two witnesses". If we were to follow this law in this country, there would be no Criminal Justice prosecution; plain and simple. As an overwhelming majorette of crimes are prosecuted without two witnesses.
The Talmud teaches that the court has the prerogative to prosecute crimes that don't reach the bar of evidence provided by the testimony of two witness, if they feel that doing so is necessary to establish law and order. In other words, although the ideal bar of evidence is two witnesses, in the real world we usually don't have that luxury.
In the final analysis, is there a difference between the Torah system and the secular system, in this regard, or are both systems settling for a compromised burden of evidence?
Perhaps we can propose the following. In the absence of two witnesses, says the Torah, we can't be certain that the accused is guilty. Now, even if, to maintain a law abiding and safe society, we have no choice but to put the accused in jail, we must remember that maybe we got it all wrong; the accused may be innocent.
If the court convicts based on one witness that don't have the luxury of going home and going to sleep peacefully knowing that they can rely on the Torah that their judgement was just, as they can if the conviction is based on two witnesses. If they lock someone up for thirty years, they must look back at the case from time to time, rethink the evidence, question the verdict, be willing to overturn the ruling.
And, anyone accused of a crime without the testimony of two witnesses, unlike the recent Supreme court decision, should definitely have the right to have their case reexamined with DNA testing. And, unlike the American law, sometimes a Jury's verdict must be reexamined.
I know this may be an inconvenient way to run a justice system, but, sorry, we cant rely on the Torah for a conviction with only one witness; we can only rely on ourselves, and yes, we do make mistakes.
The Talmud teaches that the court has the prerogative to prosecute crimes that don't reach the bar of evidence provided by the testimony of two witness, if they feel that doing so is necessary to establish law and order. In other words, although the ideal bar of evidence is two witnesses, in the real world we usually don't have that luxury.
In the final analysis, is there a difference between the Torah system and the secular system, in this regard, or are both systems settling for a compromised burden of evidence?
Perhaps we can propose the following. In the absence of two witnesses, says the Torah, we can't be certain that the accused is guilty. Now, even if, to maintain a law abiding and safe society, we have no choice but to put the accused in jail, we must remember that maybe we got it all wrong; the accused may be innocent.
If the court convicts based on one witness that don't have the luxury of going home and going to sleep peacefully knowing that they can rely on the Torah that their judgement was just, as they can if the conviction is based on two witnesses. If they lock someone up for thirty years, they must look back at the case from time to time, rethink the evidence, question the verdict, be willing to overturn the ruling.
And, anyone accused of a crime without the testimony of two witnesses, unlike the recent Supreme court decision, should definitely have the right to have their case reexamined with DNA testing. And, unlike the American law, sometimes a Jury's verdict must be reexamined.
I know this may be an inconvenient way to run a justice system, but, sorry, we cant rely on the Torah for a conviction with only one witness; we can only rely on ourselves, and yes, we do make mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)