Brad Hirschfield
Rabbi, President of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership

Brad Hirschfield

Named as one of the nation’s 50 most influential rabbis in Newsweek, and one of the top 30 “Preachers and Teachers” by Beliefnet.com.

 ALL POSTS

Our Brothers' Keepers, Not Their Guarantors

It's the first human question in the Bible. Cain responds to God's inquiry about the whereabouts of his brother Abel by asking rhetorically, "Am I my brother's keeper?" And in many ways, the rest of the entire Bible teaches us to do what Cain could not, or would not do: Answer "yes".

We are responsible for each other. The real test of our commitment to that principle is not when we are up and our siblings are down -- most of us find it relatively easy to be generous under those circumstances. The real test of our responsibility for each other is when we are all feeling down, all feeling vulnerable, and all feeling poorer than we were until a short time ago. That's when we discover if our willingness to care for others is simply a matter of allowing them to sop up the overflow of our own good fortune, or a reflection of our commitment to care for those with less than ourselves because it's our responsibility to help.

It's why in Jewish tradition Tzedakah/Justice is among the terms used to describe acts of caring and philanthropy. Justice is about what must be done, even when we have to push past our initial desire not to or when we think that we lack the resources to do it. It even extends to those who may not "deserve" our help, to those whose actions got them into the situation which now demands our rescue. Kind of like all those people who spent beyond their means and all those banks who lent beyond theirs.

While we must all learn from those past bad acts, now is not the time to focus on punishing them, especially in light of our inter-connected economy. To paraphrase my own mother, we would only be cutting off their noses to spite our own shared face. But the fact that we are obligated to bail each other out, for both moral and economic reasons, does not mean that we must restore all those who have lost out, to their former glory and meet their every expectation.

Perhaps in a world of infinite resources, we would be obligated to provide for the desires of all who turned to us with a request. We could dissolve the line between wants and needs and give everybody whatever they asked for. After all, one person's want is another person's need. But we do not have infinite resources, and that is not the meaning of taking responsibility for each other. We have no obligation to guarantee that what everybody once had, they will have again.

But we are obligated to do as much as we can for as many as we can, not because it's a nice thing to do, but because it's the right thing to do. It's one of the greatest affirmations of both our own dignity and that of those who need us. In the end, that is what answering yes to the oldest human question in the Bible is all about.

By Brad Hirschfield  |  March 5, 2009; 8:01 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: If You Escaped the Meltdown, What Should You Do? | Next: India, the Aspiring Pluralistic Democracy

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



I am lucky because my elderly mother is my keeper. Ever since I lost my job (not my fault), I have depended on my mother's meagre wages as a meat packer to maintain me and my wife and son in some sort of decent lifestyle. What greater love can there be than that of a decent standard of living when all around you are losing their dignity? The question I often ask in the quiet moments of the early morning is "What will we do when she finally has to retire?" It's a question that only God can answer.

Posted by: L_A_Odicean | March 9, 2009 7:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

If we continue to be preoccupied by social status and by which religions and lifestyles are correct -- implying the others must be incorrect -- aren't we doing exactly what Hirschfield warns against?

Posted by: ViejitaDelOeste | March 7, 2009 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Kain :

You wrote, "Why does what one knows matter? If you do a good thing simple to do a good thing does it matter if you 'know' that god exists?"

God may ask more of one according to what one knows.

You also wrote, "For that matter what about pets that save their owners lives, or people who have never known God that help a man in need."

I don't know about the pet thing but it is written: "Whatever you do to the least of My People that you do unto Me", it doesn't say anything about knowing God or believing in God, does it?

Even tho I am not a hockey fan, when I was a kid I have skated after hockey games up at the Baltimore Civic Center and I tell you those players sure do tear up the ice during a game.

I am speaking of satan who is spoken of in the bible and even tho he may try to come across as "mister nice guy", he isn't.

Besides satan being a liar and a thief, he is also a loser, a sore loser.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.


Posted by: ThomasBaum | March 6, 2009 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thomas Baum,
Every hockey fan in America and Canada knows that Satan is real; he plays for the penguins this year.

Posted by: Kain | March 6, 2009 1:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows."
That seems to make sense until you add the last four words.
Why does what one knows matter? If you do a good thing simple to do a good thing does it matter if you 'know' that god exists?
For that matter what about pets that save their owners lives, or people who have never known God that help a man in need.

Posted by: Kain | March 6, 2009 12:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

HYJANKS

You wrote, "Any religious fanatics out there care to tackle this conundrum?"

I am not a religious fanatic, just someone who has met God. There are religious fanatics out here but it is not about religion, at least it shouldn't be, but about God and His Creation. There are also anti-religious fanatics out here.

Besides the fact that God is a Trinity and is a Being of Pure Love and that Jesus is God-Incarnate and that satan is real, I would like to pose a question or so.

Since you do not believe that God is real, why do you care if some that believe in God do not know anything about God except for His Name?

Why do you get upset if some that believe in God do not know His Name?

Why do you seem to get so upset because some think that without believing in God that it is impossible to, as you say, "have morals" when it is very evident that believing in God doesn't mean that people will "have morals"?

As I have said many times: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.


Posted by: ThomasBaum | March 5, 2009 4:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Response to Hyjanks:
I would suggest that we are better off devoting our time and energy to developing and implementing strategies for "raising all boats," rather than to trying to start arguments over the unprovable. There are many places to find wise guidance toward compassion and clear headed choice and action. We needn't wait for or argue over the perfect book or theory about existence. We also have plenty of opportunity now to practice the good of what we preach and see what we can do to make this world a better place for all beings. Thanks.

Posted by: jkarn | March 5, 2009 12:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

That same Bible has brother killing brother--and encouraging the killing of thousands of others simply because they refuse to worship the "correct" god.
I've been reading this Kumbaya stuff about holy books all my adult life and one thread runs though all of the essays: It's all right--make that imperative--to cherry-pick the contents to make things appear as they are not, whether it's the bible or the koran.
Look Rabbi, you have to accept the morbid, the disgusting and the horrible with the Sermon on the Mount.
It's funny how many blank stares I get when I mention that to the religious in their presence; stares that say, "No. We do not accept the fact that Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Genesis are in the bible, but, anyhow, who really cares if it is?
The Old Testament has become the proverbial crazy uncle in the attic, with his relatives hoping that no one will go up there and see that the household is more like Bob Dylan's "Maggie's Farm" than Beaver Cleaver's idyllic home of tie and pearl-wearing automatons.
And here are questions that also elicit an eye-raising response: Why do we need a god to prompt us to act in a moral way? Why do we have to face punishment from a non-existent. ethereal being to behave ethically? Isn't it in the best interest for all concerned to love and protect one another without being "counseled" to do so by some spook we've manufactured in our minds?
Any religious fanatics out there care to tackle this conundrum?

Posted by: hyjanks | March 5, 2009 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company