The Translation:

In response to the query of many, we respond that is forbidden, by Torah-law, to sell a house or a field in the land of Israel to a non-Jew. As Maimonedes wrote: “as it is written (Deuteronomy 7:2) ‘thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them’ which means you shall give them no title to land. For if you do not give them title, their staying shall be temporary.” (laws: 77; 10, 4). And on that topic, the Torah warned in numerous places, that it causes evil and make the many sin in intermarriage, as it is said “For they will turn your sons away from following Me” (Deuteronomy 7:4), which is blasphemy (Maimonedes, 12:6). And it also causes the many to otherwise transgress, as the Torah has warned: “They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me” (Exodus 23: 33). And the sin of he who sells, and he who profits from it, is upon the heads of those who sell, God shall have mercy.

And evil upon evil, that he who sells or lets them rent an apartment in an area in which Jews are living, causes great damage to his neighbors, and for them it is said “and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell.” (Numbers 33: 55). For their way of life is different from that of Jews, and some of them harass us and make our life hard, to the point of danger to our very lives, as has become well known on several occasions. And even outside of Israel they have forbidden to sell them in Jewish neighborhoods for this very reason, and all the more so in the land of Israel, as it is elucidated in the [Jewish book of law] Shulhan Aruch (Yoreh Deah, 151) that it is a prohibition that pertains both to the realm of actions between man and God and that between man and his fellow man.

And it is well known that renting or selling even one apartment causes all of the neighbors’ apartments’ prices to go down, even when initially the renters or buyers seem nice. And he who rents or sells first thus causes his neighbors great loss, and his sin is too great to bear. And who let him do such a thing? And he causes others to sell their property after him, to take flight from the place. And those who follow him in selling to non-Jews, they compound the grave sin that is the responsibility of all.

And if this foreigner is violent and harasses his neighbors, then it was already elucidated in the Shulhan Aruch that all who sell to him should be excommunicated!! And that until the seller undoes this evil, even if that costs him much money. (Yoreh Deah 344: 43). And in our days, as it is well known, we do not excommunicate, as excommunication is of grave consequence.  However, his neighbors must talk to him and warn him, first in private, and if that doesn’t work, they are then allowed to make his name public. And to stay away from him socially, and to avoid having any business relations with him, and not to give him any honors in reading the Torah in synagogue, and other such measures. And that until he changes his decision on this issue that causes great harm to the many. And those who listen to us shall dwell in peace. Amen, may it be God’s will.

Reflections

You may ask why it is important to know exactly what the rabbis wrote. We know the gist of it already. However, there are a couple of things that I think could be noted if you actually do pay attention to it:

The letter begins in ordinary rabbinic fashion, with quotes from the Bible and from Maimonedes (and later from the “Shulhan Aruch,” which is a compilation of laws based on major interpretations of the Talmud). As many have opined based on this, the fact that these rabbis decreed that it is “prohibited” to sell to a non-Jew is not that surprising. There are plenty of sources they could use. Indeed, there was actually a short letter written a few years ago, that somehow did not make it to the news, that said basically the same, signed by 5-6 major rabbis. This does not make it less racist of course.

But now note the third paragraph. Here, suddenly, the rhetoric slightly changes to talk about real-estate prices, and the dangers of Jewish-flight (seems like this could be written by any white supremacist, just change “non-Jew” to Black, and “Jew” to White). Interesting that the rabbis’ letter so seamlessly articulate the presumably religious with the patently racist.

Last, and perhaps most troubling, the rabbis note that though official excommunication does not exist anymore in the Orthodox world, they recommend that people basically cut all social ties with those who sell or rent to Arabs. This, from people who receive their salary from the state (though not hired directly by the state, but through the rabbinate).

There are other things in the letter that deserve attention, but I leave the readers with the following: a week after the publication of this letter the following text appeared on posters all over Bat-Yam, a city adjacent to Tel-Aviv:

They will not hit on my sister!!!

What would you do if an Arab would hit on your sister?

We Make an End to it!

We became aware that of late there is a rise in a saddening phenomenon:hundreds of girls from Bat-Yam and the center are seeing Arabs. They assimilate into us, and their confidence is rising.

Let’s make an end to it!

Let’s shatter their confidence!

Jews, let us win!

Even as we are bombarded by crazy assertions that the American President is not an American citizen and that he is a secret Muslim, we need to recall that this sort of paranoia is reactionary.  It’s a response to an American triumph, the American people elected an African American, Barack Hussein Obama, to be President of the United States.  Even as his popularity waxes and wanes, he is our President.  We elected him by not succumbing to fears and hatreds, revealing our better selves.  This triumph goes beyond our evaluation of President Obama’s job performance.  It stands as a challenge to those who work to revive a politics of fear of the different.  It challenges those who speak about “taking their country back.”

I came to know the dimensions of the triumph, along with my fellow citizens, on the night of the Iowa Caucuses and the day after.  Obama won in an overwhelmingly white state.  The previously excluded was chosen, and the seriousness of Obama’s candidacy was clearly revealed.

The next day when I went for a swim at the Theodore Young Community Center (link), I saw how my African American friends, the whole gang, but especially the center of the social circle, Beverly McCoy, finally came to believe that I wasn’t crazy in thinking that Obama had a chance.  In our community center, we started thinking differently about our country.  I stopped being the naïve Jewish Professor.  Perhaps, I was instead a realist.  Together, we realized that we may live in a better country than we had imagined the day before.   I think that we started looking at each other differently.  We more openly spoke about race, about our fears and hopes, about being black and white, Jewish and Christian, in America.  During the past two years, we have talked about lots of troubling developments, but we talked about it in ways that were not possible before Americans revealed that they could act beyond fear and hatred.

I realized the breadth and depth of the achievement when talking to my mother by phone on the night of the caucuses.  She was very happy, as was all of my extended family.  And then she said to me in tears: “You know Jeffrey, maybe a Jewish person can become President.”  This may seem strange if you think about America exclusively in black and white.  But what my mother perceived was that the election of Obama was a triumph of the previously excluded, of all who were not “typical Americans,” a victory of understanding over suspicion. Suddenly she sensed that we were more fully American citizens, more insiders than outsiders, we, along with blacks and browns, Asians and Latinos, women as well as men, gays as well as straights.

My mother is not a person particularly engaged in politics and political analysis, not even a news junky, but she understood that the paranoia of race was defeated in Iowa, and later in the general election.  A different America appeared, or at least the potential of a different America.  A significant battle was won, that night and the night of Obama’s election.  Now the crazies are fighting back. But I don’t think that they will get to take the country back.

Thoughts on Sotomayor:

A significant portion of the population in the United States is not comfortable with an African American President.  This very seriously has shaped official public debate, clearly in the confirmation hearings of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  The New York Times reported about Sotomayor’s leading critic in the Senate before the confirmation hearings:
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the highest-ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said the fairness issue was “the core of the American system” and was central to Republicans’ qualms.

“Every judge must be committed every day to not let their personal politics, their ethnic background, their biases, sympathies influence the nature of their decision-making process,” Mr. Sessions said Sunday on the CBS program “Face the Nation.”

Mr. Sessions pointed to what he called Judge Sotomayor’s advocacy positions and to her widely publicized remark that a “wise Latina woman” would make better judicial decisions than a white man.

“I am really flabbergasted by the depth and consistency of her philosophical critique of the ideal of impartial justice,” Mr. Sessions said. “I think that’s a real expression of hers.” (link)

The underlying theme of the Republican questioning of Sotomayor was revealed in Sessions’ statement.  There was the proposition that because she thought that the special insights and experiences of people with different identities could improve the quality of justice, she somehow was less committed to the ideals of impartial justice.  Over and over, the Republican Senators returned to one quotation from her public speeches, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” (link)

The principle reason given for opposing Sotomayor was that she didn’t believe in equal justice.  Could it be that this was serious?  What she meant is really not complicated.  Bringing in new perspectives improves the pursuit of justice.  People who have been excluded add something important, and they can be proud of it.  Of course, if one wants to be suspicious one could read more sinister meaning into her words.  If one is uncomfortable with the changing attitudes towards diversity, in which it is understood as a societal strength most clearly represented in the words, deeds and person of President Barack Obama, a Supreme Court Justice who works with this strength is indeed most threatening. Sessions understanding of Sotomayor is more a consequence of his suspicion and fear than of her words.  It fuels conservative politics, has little to do with impartial justice, which is indeed a fundamental ideal.

He said: “I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry. No. 2, the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And No. 3, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by police disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”

Obama admitted that he did not know all the facts in the case and he explicitly did not accuse anyone of racial bias, but the implication was there for all to comment on, and they did.

The debate intensified.  It started with the arrest and was a continuation of an ongoing theme: dealing with the problems of race in America, including the very different perceptions of the problem across the population.  Those with clear positions presented them forcefully, and they were joined by the beltway pundits who commented on the practical implications of the response, without much reference to the normative issues involved. (link) Obama backtracked recognizing that he had inflamed the situation by calling the Cambridge police actions stupid, and he invited Crowley and Gates for a beer at the White House to diffuse the situation, which it did.

Another moment in the continuing struggle to talk about the problems of race and American democracy passed.  But this one was different, having to do with the fundamental issue of political culture: the relationship between culture and power.  Things were turned around, a revolution of sorts was apparent. This was the first time that such an issue occurred with a black President.

Commentators noted that Obama made a big mistake by offering his opinion on the matter, as one put it, speaking more as a person than as a President.  Among these observers, there seemed to be a general consensus that Obama’s statement was a mistake.  His intervention undermined his attempts to enact healthcare reform.  He was getting involved with a local issue, best left alone by the head of state.  He got involved even as he admitted to not having all the facts at his disposal.  Obama and his advisors did have second thoughts about what he said.

He appeared unannounced at a White House press briefing indicating regret for “ratcheting it up” the controversy.

Yet, President Obama had no choice but to get involved.  He was asked a direct question at a press conference.  Not to respond with a direct answer would have appeared as overly calculating, open to a range of undesirable interpretations.  Perhaps political pundits, the professional insiders and the commentators, would have approved of the pragmatism, applauding his decision to stay on the central message of the conference, the need for healthcare reform.  But in the long run, beyond such media commentary, there would be the real danger that Obama would have been criticized for compromising fundamental principle.

Much was made of the forcefulness of Obama’s statement, but in fact it was circumspect.  He indicated a suspicion that the event was part of the long story of racism, but he did not criticize it as such.  He called the action stupid, but he did not condemn it as a moral outrage.  A President who was not African American would not have been asked about the Gates Affair.  An African American President once asked about the affair had to answer.  Staying within his fundamental project of expanding the American Dream by addressing the American dilemma, a fundamental theme of his election, the President had to be open and clear about his position, while recognizing the complexities.

This was the voice of official power, a fundamental change in the political culture.  Those who dissented from his vision attacked his intervention.  Those focused on the politics of the news cycle questioned its wisdom.  But racial politics have been thus transformed.  The terrain has been reordered.   At the time, just about no commentator thought Obama did the right thing when he spoke up.  Now, in retrospect, a year after the fact, it seems to me it is clear.  He did the right thing.

Part 1: a local affair, in Cambridge, Massachusetts: Henry Louis Gates Jr. returned from a trip to China, ironically working on a television documentary on the heterogeneous racial, ethnic and national genealogy of Americans. When he and his driver were trying to open his front door, finding that it was jammed, a neighbor thinking that they might be burglars called the police.  The police investigation led to the arrest of Gates in his own home, with Gates asserting racial profiling, with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, charging Gates with disorderly conduct.  The charges were subsequently dropped.

The characters in the affair are noteworthy.  Gates is a distinguished professor at Harvard, a renown scholar and public intellectual.  As a student of African American culture, he is careful and sober, not a flaming radical.  Crowley, ironically, is a police academy expert on racial profiling, teaching a course on the subject at the Lowell Police Academy.  And in many ways the two are on the same side of the cultural wars.  Both Gates and Crowley have cooperated with the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Crowley having participated in a 3- day workshop on Racial Profiling at the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles in 2007, Gates delivering the Center’s Third Annual “State of Antisemitism” Lecture in New York in 1994.  These were odd antagonists in what turned out to be a major national affair.

Part 2: the local becomes national. The event was first covered by The Harvard Crimson, but given Gates’ prominence, and the irony that he was apparently arrested for breaking into his own home, it became a national story, covered by the national media.  As such affairs go, it followed the conventional black and white script.  There were those who clearly saw the ugly face of racism pure and simple, and there were those who sided with the cop and stressed the importance of maintaining and respecting law and order.  The usual suspects played starring roles in the performance: Reverend Al Sharpton, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. And then many others chimed in, with more and less insights.  Professional observers of the problem of racial profiling noted that bias is often not conscious.  It emerges from psychological perceptions of the other, and in a society with a long history of racism, these perceptions do not change quickly or easily.  Accepted prevailing practices may be fashioned to overcome this problem, but they do not necessarily succeed. (link) It was observed that “a proud cop” met “an arrogant professor,” but if the professor were white, an arrest would not have resulted. (link)

Further, a close look at the case as it developed in its details revealed both that race mattered in its classic form (link), and that the real problems are political correctness and reverse racism.  The case followed the conventional script of the cultural wars about race and class.  But this was different.  Barack Obama is President, and Gates is the President’s friend.  Part Three reveals how much things have changed.

These events may not be at the core of the problem of racism.  That is manifested more in the daily struggles and interactions of ordinary people, beyond the public eye, as they get on with their lives.  But the events, “media race events,” permit the symbolic enactment of American moral codes about race.

Blacks and whites perceived the OJ trial and acquittal differently.  In and of itself this would appear to be a trivial matter.  It took on great significance because it revealed how separately and differently blacks and whites live and perceive themselves and each other in America.  Distinctions, differences and commonalities about race were revealed. With an African American President, such a case, which inevitably appears periodically in American life, has taken on a new dimension.  The head of state, the central symbol of authority in the society, is now black, and this necessarily has meaning.  The first case in point in the course of the Obama Presidency is “Gates-gate,” a socio-political drama in three parts.  The case suggests both how racisms persists and has not much changed even with the election of a African American President, but also how the election has changed everything.

As Obama was elected to the United States Senate and with talk about his Presidential prospects going beyond our family circle, my wife, Naomi, and I became early and enthusiastic supporters.  He made us believe that there was an alternative, another, better America which he could represent and lead, and in which we wanted to be active.  We made early modest financial contributions to his campaign, and in turn the campaign identified us, and recruited Naomi in December of 2007to go to the city of White Plains, New York, near our home, to collect signatures to put Obama’s name on the ballot for New York Democratic Primary.  She spent an afternoon and collected around 20 signatures.  It was hard work.  A cold afternoon, people were not yet focused on the election, and those who were did not think that Obama had a chance, nor was he their choice.

Remember Hillary Clinton was our popular Senator.  Naomi particularly remembers one African American man who practically laughed in her face that she thought Obama had any chance.  Although she did good hard work, I thought I could more easily get as good results at a nearby community center where I swim, and I did.

Our county, Westchester, is a residentially segregated.  Renown for wealth, it is actually quite diverse (40% of the population is non white), with significant immigrant neighborhoods and concentrated African American sections, one of which is served by the Theodore Young Community Center.  Most of the staff and the patrons of the center are African American, but many other people, Latino, Asian and white, also use the Center, for many different activities.  For years, I went to swim.  I didn’t socialize.  I would put in my mile or two, two or three times a week, without making friends and barely having acquaintances.  I worked out and went home, that is, until I decided to try to match Naomi’s collection of signatures, doing so in less than an hour before and after a mid day swim.

In a way, it wasn’t as easy as I had expected.  Many of the staff had their doubts. Before the primary, Clinton had visited the center as our Senator.  As the Primary season opened, Hillary was polling significantly ahead of Obama among African Americans, and if anything at the Center this was especially the case.  A number of people refused to sign.  Most signed right away, particularly when I explained that the issue was getting him on the ballot and not choosing him over Hillary.  But they did not think that Obama had a realistic chance and were uncertain about him.  To make a long story short, this initiated a series of discussions and activities, and friendships, some of them deep.   The community came to support Obama with great passion and I was a welcomed as the one who first exhibited that passion when others had their doubts.

We have followed the campaign and Obama’s Presidency together, with increasing enthusiasm.  I made what became a locally famous bet with a lifeguard, Preston Brown, after he teased me about my believing that Obama would win the primary campaign.  Later when it was not certain whether Clinton or Obama would prevail in the democratic contest, we made a second bet.  I bet that the Democratic candidate, either Obama or Clinton, would beat McCain.  As an experienced black man in his forties, he was sure that Americans would neither vote for a black man nor a white woman.  Two meals were on the line, which I happily won with a dinner for three, inviting another lifeguard, Tim John to a lunch at our local Applebees.

As the campaign proceeded I invited my friends, among others, Monique Gaston,  Pat Richards, Tim Johns, Janet Allen,Ted Dowie, Judith Lee, Norma Jean Barnes, Patricia Roper, and Lee Trollinger, to take part in some campaign activities I was engaged in: a “Barack the Vote” concert on the Hudson River , a phone bank, a trip to campaign in Northwest Philadelphia.  They invited me to attend and speak at the community gathering in the gymnasium to watch the inauguration.  We all went out for drinks and food to celebrate his victory and again to celebrate the first hundred days.

Beverly McCoy being interviewed before viewing Obama inauguration at the Theodore D. Young Community Center

A particularly key person in this emerging social group was the Community Center’s receptionist, Beverly McCoy.  She is a very special person, the social center of the community’s life.  She is vivacious and friendly, knows just about everyone who uses the center, from the young summer campers, to the many senior citizens, from the teenagers taking African dance classes to the elderly Chinese members who meet for Chinese cultural activities.  She has just the right word to say to them to brighten their days (“Happy Tuesday!”).  She is the community center’s natural community organizer.  Obama does not have a stronger supporter than Beverly.  If it weren’t for Beverly, I would have become a curiosity to the staff and patrons of the center, the white guy who early on was collecting those signatures.   Instead, I was welcomed into a community.

Around Beverly’s reception desk people gather to discuss the problems of the day, a micro – public space to share the fears and concerns about the Tea Party, to discuss the latest news on the healthcare debate, to cheer Beverly up when “our guy” is having a hard time, to revel in our success after an accomplishment.  These discussions cut across racial and class lines.  We openly, or at least more openly than I have ever heard, speak about experiences of racism, intermarriage, inter racial understandings and misunderstandings, without the recriminations and clichés of the everyday and of abstract theory.  Eric Holder, soon after he became Attorney General, noted in a provocative speech that Americans are cowards when it comes to speaking about race.

The exceptional nature of our discussions around Beverly’s desk, which my intuition tells me has been repeated in other small American venues since the election of Barack Obama, reveals the truth of Holder’s controversial observation.  Even in the mass media, with all the stylized performances and cynical manipulations, it seems to me, there has been a change.

Of course change has its limits, even in our little world.  When Preston, Tim and I had our lunch at Applebees, there was a lot of kidding, a continuation of the exchanges that occurred between us throughout the campaign and which have continued during the Obama Presidency.  But then, especially, Preston needed to underscore that he always wanted Obama to win, just didn’t believe that it was possible.  He admitted that the victory told him something new about white people, as it told blacks, whites and other Americans something new about who we are.  Yet, the reaction against Obama, the special hatred, the accusations that he is not really an American, the cries for taking our country back, confirmed that our worst fears are not over and done with, that America is far from being a post racial society.  When it came to paying the check, this sad truth was confirmed in an eerie way.  Preston asked for the check and the waiter brought it to me to pay.  Two black guys and a white guy.  Obviously the white guy would be paying.  There was nothing intentionally demeaning in the waiter’s gesture.  He simply enacted the still prevailing everyday assumptions about race and status in America.  The change is that around Beverly desk at the community center, we talk about this and that we have connected this talk to the way we act politically.  American political culture is being reinvented.