Zimmerman's acquittal in the eyes of the Talmud

I was shocked by outcome of Zimmerman trial
And signed petitions to eric holder to prosecute Zimmerman for civil rights violation
Shocking that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin for being black in florida
Stalked him in his car, somehow provoked him,
And got away with killing him
It is a scary porecedent.
One wonders: does this open the door to a wild west mentality?
If someone stalks me, and I defend myself, can they then shoot me and claim self defense?
But I want to discuss a jewish perspective on the verdict per se
Even if Zimmerman’s actions were horrible
Which they were
Was the jury right to acquit, from a jewish perspective?
Was justice served?

In its discussion of court procedures for capital crimes, the Talmud institutes very careful procedures to make sure there is absolute proof of the crime. The Torah requires two witnesses, and the Talmud require that they both warn the criminal and unambiguously witness the act.
Sanh 37b:
It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Shatah said: May I never see comfort6 if I did not see a man pursuing his fellow into a ruin, and when I ran after him and saw him, sword in hand with blood dripping from it, and the murdered man writhing, I exclaimed to him: Wicked man, who slew this man? It is either you or I!7 But what can I do, since thy blood [i.e., life] does not rest in my hands, for it is written in the Torah, At the mouth of two witnesses etc., shall he that is to die be put to death?8 May he who knows one's thoughts exact vengeance from him who slew his fellow! It is related that before they moved from the place a serpent came and bit him [the murderer] so that he died.

The court procedure was so biased against false conviction that
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah states: [Executing more than] one person in 70 years [would be considered a murderous court]. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva state: “If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, no defendant would ever have been executed.” [Makkot 1:10]
To which of course R Shimon b Gamliel responds:
Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel responds, “they would have been increasing the murderers in Israel.”
But the halacha is that we are careful about this procedure, because it is better to let someone go than to punish someone who’s innocent
In fact, the judges on a bet din are instructed to look for reasons to acquit.
Pesachim 12a:—cannot convict person if there’s any doubt they are equivalent
Cites Num 35:25: “the congregation shall deliver”
Rashi: we look for a reason to acquit
From a utilitarian perspective: it’s better to convict people even if you’re not 100% sure
This is Shimon ben Gamliel’s argument:
We would be a safer society if courts could convict people like Zimmerman
It would send the message: you can’t be a vigilante
But from a moral perspective, our own moral integrity as a society comes first
The ends don’t justify the means
Courts need to make sure they don’t punish innocent people
Or they themselves are acting immorally
our own moral integrity limits what we can do to protect public safety
The Zimmerman trial shows our society has problems
The possibility that someone could think it’s okay to assault and kill someone for appearing suspicious, based on racial stereotypes
That we have vigilantes driving around on town watch acting without regard for the law
But it also shows our justice system can work
People can be acquitted if there’s just a possibility of being innocent

On a personal level, when we are judging others’ motives
And tempted to condemn them, to judge them negatively,
We should always look for a tzad zechut, a way to view their actions positively
And through this, preserve peace in our communities and families.

Still basking in the aftermath of Shavuot

I'm still basking in the aftermath of Shavuot at Kol Haneshamah-- the first time since Israel I've been somewhere where a minyan stayed up all night (thanks to David & lucy's generous hosting), and a great Shavuot day picnic with only mild injuries (Thanks to Bruce and Miriam for organizing). I'm now here at the RA, and David Heller inspired me to FINALLY start a blog. Will anybody read? Will anybody care?

WHERE'S THE CHEESE

Many people over Shavuot asked me the origin of the custom to eat dairy. It turns out that this is a widespread and popular custom, the origins of which are not at all clear.

A number of reasons have been adduced for the custom, including:
-the gematriya of milk (halav) is 40, the same as the time Moses was on mt. Sinai
-Sinai is also called Mt Givnonim, similar to the Hebrew for cheese.

According to Rabbi Abraham Gombiner (17 c Poland), the custom was not about refraining from eating meat, but rather eating meat and milk as close together as possible within the boundaries of halacha. This, he writes that we serve 2 separate loaves of bread (1 with the milk meal and 1 with the meat meal), and that we must be sure to ‘clean our mouths' well (kinuah, done by eating a piece of bread) after the milk and before the emat. He suggests that it may symbolize the 2 loaves of bread sacrificed on Shavuot in the temple. He also suggests that it may be a remnant of a pagan custom of boiling a kid in its mother's milk on the ‘festival of first fruits.'

Interestingly, Joseph Caro, the 16th century posek, mentions no such custom--apparently, it was an ashkenazic thing. The Chofetz Chayyim (19th-20th century) states that the jews had received the laws of kashrut but were unprepared to shecht and cook meat (they had no fleishig pans); this explanation seems dubious to me for a number of reasons. First of all, they could not have had cheese either, as that requires you to have kosher meat (rennet for hard kosher cheese needs to come from a kosher animal). Also, the original custom (at least back in the 16th century) is to eat both meat and milk.

One explanation which I find rather persuasive is that the mitzvah to bring first-fruit offerings is immediately followed by the injunction not to boil a kid in its mother's milk (Ex 34:25). This explains why the original custom was actually to eat both. (Sefer Matamim) All of these explanations have the feel of post-facto explanations of a popular custom whose origins were obscure. It goes to show that popular customs really have lives of their own. Or maybe it just shows how much folks like cheesecake.

Thanks to Ben Stein for this great opportunity to learn!

L'shalom,
Rabbi Siff