As with other topics, the Jewish view on revenge is complex.  On a basic level our tradition prohibits revenge, at least against a fellow Jew.  The Book of Leviticus 19: 18 explicitly teaches, “You shall take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinfolk, Love you neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.”  Based on this verse, our tradition has included the injunction among the 613 commandments of Judaism. 

Another point of view is evident on a basic reading of Jewish liturgy.  The Shabbat morning liturgy includes a prayer for martyrs, which is traditionally recited near the end of the Torah service.  In this prayer, we seek God’s vengeance upon our persecutors.  Quoting the book of Psalms, the prayer beseeches God to, “Let Your retribution for the blood of Your servants be made known among the nations, in our sight.” And refers to God as “He who remembers retribution.” 

The concept of retribution or revenge is also found in the Passover Haggaddah.  While we spill out wine when reciting the 10 plagues as a symbol of our compassion, we also recite from a section from psalms that urges god to “Pour out his wrath on the nations that do not know You.”  Clearly the text in some measure is a call for vengeance. 

There remains a great distinction between those texts that call for vengeance and those that proscribe retribution.  Vengeance for the individual is prohibited.  A person who is wronged and harmed is instructed to seek justice through the state and not to act individually in exacting vengeance.  The community somehow seems justified in calling for vengeance, but that vengeance is left to God. 

I cannot agree with your concern about boycotting businesses that are boycotting Israel. Whether it is an effective tool or not can be debated, but there is nothing “un-Jewish” about refusing to do business with those that are abetting your enemies.  In an age where enemies of Israel are seeking to use economic pressures to attack Israel, it is fair and just to point out that economic pressures can be used both ways.  I do not see this as an issue of vengeance but a tool to defend the State of Israel, and as such is allowed as a Jewish action.

While we can find public figures of great character that may serve as Jewish role models for us, Judaism has had a predilection of anonymity with its greatest heroes.  The Talmud famously refers to the hidden thirty-six righteous of the world, whose anonymous righteousness ensures survival of humanity. One of the great motifs of Jewish literature over the past few hundred years has been the anonymous peasant who performs great acts of righteousness.  This impulse has been carried through today by Danny Siegel, who developed the concept of mitzvah heroes, ordinary individuals who do extraordinary acts of righteousness.  Some of his followers have established a Mitzvah Heroes Fund to promote such actions.

When looking for specific identifiable heroes let me suggest several culled from recent Jewish history.

Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, also know as, the Hafetz Hayim

The Hafetz Hayim was an influential Rabbi and ethicist whose works continue to be widely influential in Jewish life. He was recognized as both an outstanding scholar and an extraordinarily righteous man. He refused to accept any rabbinical position and supported himself from a small grocery run by his saintly wife in the town of Radin where they lived. The Hafetz Hayim devoted himself to the study and teaching of Torah. A major reason for the enormous influence and acceptance won by the Hafetz Hayim was his utter and complete integrity.

Haym Salomon

Hero of the American Revolution.  Haym Salomon helped finance the War of Independence save the newly proclaimed United States. Though he came to America from Poland only 4 years before the Declaration of Independence, his patriotism was so strong that he suffered imprisonment. He subsequently became official broker to the Office of Finance of the Continental Congress, working with Robert Morris to maintain the public credit of the infant government.

Theodor Herzl

Generally credited with being the father of modern political Zionism, Herzl convened the first Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. A renowned journalist, he was so profoundly affected by the infamous Dreyfus trial in France that he became the foremost spokesman and activist for a Jewish homeland. His untiring efforts to convince kings and potentates of the justice and urgency of the Jewish claim to a homeland, as well as his untimely death in 1904 at the age of 44 make him a true Jewish hero.

Anatoly (Natan) Shcharanzky

As a Soviet Jew, Shcharansky petitioned to emigrate from the Soviet Union to live in Israel. He was arrested and accused of being a spy for the United States. President Jimmy Carter told the Russians that this was not true, but his government was intent on making an example of him and he was put on trial.  The viciousness and ferocity of the Soviet government's desire to quell the Jewish dissident movement was brought to the attention of the entire world by the way Shcharansky was treated. He was sentenced to many years in prison, but not before he made a number of statements in court, which made all of world Jewry proud of him. He showed his great courage when he said: "One would think I would be sorry, but I am not. I am happy because I have lived at peace with my conscience... I am happy that I helped people... I am happy to have witnessed the process of liberating Soviet Jewry. For more than 2,000 years, my people have been dispersed. Wherever Jews were, they would repeat every year, 'Next year in Jerusalem.' At present, I am as far as ever from my people ... and many hard years ... are in store for me. To my wife and my people, I can only say, 'Next year in Jerusalem.'"  Finally in 1988 he was ransomed from the Soviet Union and immigrated to Israel.

Rabbi Joshua S. Finkelstein

There are many approaches one could take, I am sorry to say that our tradition does not offer a magic solution for this issue or any other issue involving human relations.  While our rabbi offer laws and instruction as to how we interact with each other, Perhaps you best strategy is a simple straightforward biblical approach based on the book of Genesis.  

At the conclusion of the story of Cain and Abel, God asks Cain, “where is your brother Abel?”  Cain responds that he does not know and asks God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9)  While the question seems rhetorical and snide, in a sense, the rest of the book of genesis is an answer to that question.  We see the dysfunction of families as they dissolve.   There are few moments of familial harmony and peace until the very end of the book. 

After the burial of Jacob the brothers are fearful that with their father dead, Joseph will finally avenge their harsh treatment of the young Joseph. With great anxiety, they throw themselves at Joseph and offer themselves to him as his slaves.  Joseph filled with pathos allays their fears and says, “Fear not, I will sustain you and your children.” (Gen. 50:21)

With these words Joseph answers Cain’s question from the opening chapters of Genesis. We are our brother’s keepers, and with that truth acknowledged, the family of Abraham Isaac and Jacob find peace and harmony.

The finest biblical view on sibling harmony may be the statement in the book of Psalms (Psalm 133) where we read, “How good and how pleasant it is that brothers dwell together.”

Our tradition have a strong preponderance to “Sh'mirat ha-ashon”-guarding one's tongue. in the book of Leviticus 19:16 we read, “Do not go about as a talebearer among your people.” This principle forbids saying something negative about someone even if it is true.  With this in mind let’s examine the issue of political conversations regarding Israel with non-Jews. 

I think it behooves all to consider the consequences of their words before speaking, regardless of the audience or the topic.  I do not mean to suggest that dissent is forbidden, nor is silence always an ideal.  When Jews commit atrocities it is our responsibility to speak out against them.  When Baruch Goldstein committed the atrocity in Hebron in 1994, the Jewish world rightly condemned him and his actions. 

Presently, Israel finds itself under attack by people and forces that are seeking to isolate and de-legitimize it. In this milieu, supporters of Israel should be concerned that those who seek to attack Israel not use their legitimate criticism and concerns.  There is reason to be cautious and circumspect with regard to questions and criticism about Israel.

As for concern about non-Jews,  there are many non-Jews that are among the greatest supporters and defenders of Israel and many Jews that are among Israel’s detractors.  We should never make assumptions based on stereotypes, race or religion.

I cannot imagine why such a movement would be appropriate for our time or any time.  Canaanism was an ideological belief, born in the first half of the 20^th century, that sought to separate religion from Jewish identity and supplant it with an identity based on the ancestral land of Israel and Hebrew language.  At the core, these efforts were founded on a rejection of over two millennia of Jewish history and a messianic belief that creating a new paradigm would unite different peoples living in Israel. 

Canaanism never attracted wide support from the Jewish population let alone the non-Jewish population of Israel.  The foundations of Canaanism were based on faulty history and a misunderstanding of unifying forces within a society and a people.  The reality of 2500 years ago is only one aspect of the forces that create a people today.  I might discover that fifteen generations ago my ancestors were living in Latvia or Poland, but that does not give me a deep or strong bond with the ancestor of the Pole or Latvian, who may have lived near my ancestor. 

Identity is shaped through common beliefs, culture, and history.  What makes Israel unique to Judaism is the feelings of belonging Jews of all ages have upon arrival in Israel.  What makes Judaism unique to Israel, is the connection and responsibility felt for the Land and the people united by the longing for the Land, even after a separation of two millennia. Canaanism failed to value those connections and offers nothing that could make it of value to our day.

Rabbi Joshua S. Finkelstein

According to halacha (Jewish law) a husband can divorce his wife, but a wife cannot divorce her husband.  The power of divorce rests solely in the hands of the man.  In most cases of secular divorce is either accompanied by or is followed by a Jewish bill of divorce, called a “get.”  In such cases, the man will give his wife a get and they are divorced and both free to remarry should they choose. 

In some cases, whether because of anger or other motives, a man may choose not to give his wife a “get.”  Under Jewish law the woman has no recourse.  She cannot initiate a “get” on her own, and becomes what is known in Jewish law as an “agunah”(literally, chained).  She technically remains married to her husband and cannot marry another, without being considered guilty of adultery.  Neither can she move on with her life unencumbered by her ex-husband.

Traditionally Jewish courts have tried, with limited success, to exert social pressure on such a husband.  Recently, over the past decade, Orthodox rabbis have sought to come to prevent such issue from arising through the use of a special halachic prenuptial agreement signed by the bride and groom in advance of their betrothal.

These prenuptial agreements provide the “bet din” (Jewish court) jurisdiction over property settlement, and other germane issues and provide the court with the ability of levying monetary penalties on a husband who refuses to participate in the “bet din” or abide by the rulings of the “bet din.” In this manner, the prenuptial agreement seeks to prevent any future bride from falling into the category of an “agunah.”

According to modern halachic authorities, such agreements are valid and binding.  The hope is that they never need to be used and if needed are helpful if what is, by all accounts, a tragic circumstance.

While some might question the propriety of contemplating the end of a marriage, as it is about to begin, I feel that in many ways this has the potential to strengthen a marriage.  With the use of such a prenuptial agreement, both the husband and the wife know that they enter into the relationship by their own free will, and they remain husband and wife by their own free will.  This agreement lessens the halachic power one has over the other and allows them a greater sense of equality 

Rabbi Joshua S. Finkelstein

I know of no such law that would prohibit the non-Jewish housekeeper from turning on the stove for a  nor do I know of a law that would prohibit a non-Jew from cooking for a Jew.  The only  caveat I would offer is that perhaps the issue you are questioning involves Shabbat, the Sabbath.

According to the Torah, (Exodus 35:3): “You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the Sabbath day.”  Our tradition has taken that to mean we cannot start or extinguish a flame on Shabbat.  That rule coupled with the injunctions to keep the Sabbath day has given rise to the law that no food may be cooked on Shabbat.  Food may be warmed up under very strict guidelines, as long as the fire, or warming implement, has been left on and unadjusted from before the onset of Shabbat.

It would seem to me that perhaps the incidents you describe occur on Shabbat.  On Shabbat, a Jew is not permitted to cook, nor is a non-Jew permitted to cook for a Jew.  The thought behind this law is that on Shabbat, when we are prohibited from cooking for ourselves, we do not allow non-Jews to cook for us.

The Torah has much to say in regards to personal injury.  Chapter 21 of Sh’mot (the Book of Exodus) deals extensively with issues of torts and personal injury.  The primary teaching is Exodus 21:24 which teaches, “an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Our tradition universally reads this verse as referring to monetary compensation for the injured party. The torah further expounds on particular cases of injuries and how they are to be adjudicated. Exodus 21:17 deals with a party injured during an altercation.  Exodus 21:26 deals with a master who injures his servant.  Exodus 21:28ff is concerned with the owner of an bull who gore another person. 

Rabbinic law further develops the field of Jewish torts and the Mishnah dedicates several tractates to the issue of personal injury and the particulars nuances involved in such cases.

In Modern times we no longer live in societies that are ruled by Jewish civil law.  The sages of the Talmud recognized the primacy of secular civil law for Jewish communities in the Diaspora.  Still it would serve us well to reflect on the underlying principles of Jewish civil law.  Our tradition believes in justice and fairness.  We come from a belief espoused in Leviticus 19:18, which instructs us to “Love your fellow as yourself.’” In Judaism, justice and love are not ethereal emotional ideals, but real concepts that are to be achieved.  Our religion is based on actions, mitzvot, that are meant to lead us to holiness.  Jewish civil law was our traditions attempt to create a just and fair world through prescribed actions and consequences.  

The question has two components.  The first is the issue of disseminating information and the second concerns Judaism’s prescription for this malady.   Concerning the first issue, the question of information in an IT world raises interesting issues.  Often what one describes as information could be classified as gossip or slander. In the Torah (Leviticus 19:16), we are instructed not to slander our kinsman. We are explicitly told not to market such information.  What constitutes slander and gossip is a difficult question.  The esteemed Rabbi, Israel Meir Kagen, known as the Hafetz Hayim, defines such talk as utterances that are derogatory, damaging and generate animosity between people. The Hafetz Hayim is actually the title of one of his works that preached against slander and gossip, urging Jews to guard their tongues.  In an ever-connected world, where people “google” acquaintances and “spy” on facebook friends, it behooves each person to question what is information worth knowing and what is not.

 As for the second issue raised, even information worth knowing is not worth knowing 24/7.  Judaism urges us to operate on no more than a 24/6 schedule.  The opening chapters of Genesis tell us that God rested on the seventh day creating a Sabbath, a day of rest.  The fifth commandment, Exodus 20:8-11, teaches us to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy; to refrain from all work on the Sabbath.  A stricter reading of Jewish law instructs us that the use of electrical devices is not allowed on Shabbat.  Hence our tradition requires us to power down at least one day a week and it offers us an antidote to our ever-connected world.

 For those who are not (yet) religiously observant, powering down on Shabbat offers an opportunity to refresh our souls, and reconnect to non-electronic friends, while beginning to fulfill the mitzvah of keeping Shabbat. 

Rabbi Joshua S. Finkelstein

The question of how the Hanukah candles are lit has been an issue since the first century of the Common Era.  

In the Talmud, (tractate Shabbat 21b), we are told; “the mitzvah of Chanukah is fulfilled for a person and his entire house with a single candle; those who diligent, light a candle for every member of the house; regarding those who are extremely diligent, Beit (the school of) Shammai says to light eight candles on the first night and to remove one each following day, and Beit (the school of) Hillel says to light one candle on the first night and to add one on each following day.”

 The earliest recorded rabbinic debate offers us the insight that originally there was no single tradition on how to light the Hanukah candles, or even how many to light each month.    Eventually the Jewish world accepted the teaching of Beit Hillel, and we begin with one candle, plus a shamash on the first night, adding an additional candle each subsequent night.

 The tradition of placing the candles in the Hanukah, from the right and lighting them from the left derives from the notion that each candle represents a specific day.  Placing the candles from the right acknowledges the ascending order of the days, beginning with the first day of the holiday.  Lighting the candles from the left recognizes the primacy of the individual night.  The first candle lit each night is the newest candle, the candle for that specific night.  As we place the candle in the Hanukiah, from oldest to newest, we light them from newest to oldest and in doing so sanctify each day individually and as a part of the greater festival of Hanukah.

The foundation of Judaism's teaching regarding care for the elderly is found in the Book of Leviticus (19:32)  “You shall rise before the aged and show deference to the old; you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.”  The Torah instructs us to  “show deference” to the elderly.  The medieval commentator Rashi points out that  “showing deference” means one should not sit in his place, nor speak in his place, nor contradict him.  The economic needs of the elderly are not addressed.

Generally, our tradition is concerned about the needy of the community, and the responsibility falls on individuals as much as it falls on the community. Judaism is concerned about creating a just society, but the mitzvot (commandments) are, for the most part, individual responsibilities.

In Deuteronomy 15:7-8 instructs us, “if, however, there is a needy person among you . . . do not harden your heart, and shut your hand against your needy kinsman. Rather, you must open your hands and lend him sufficient for what he needs.” Our responsibility is need based not age based. 

As to your concern about raising the age of retirement and reducing Social Security benefits, the questions remain what is old and what is the individual need?

Your concern that “having too many children reduces the standard of living for everyone,” is based an assumption that may be greatly flawed.  From the time of Thomas Malthus, people have worried about overpopulation and diminishing resources.  Over the past century we have seen populations explode and resources grow.  Where depravation exists, it is often a product of distribution and a lack of political will rather than lack of resources.  In addition you forget that children may be the greatest natural resource we have.

The balance between the mitzvah of being fruitful and being guardians of the earth is not something that our tradition confronts directly.  In general, I would argue that an individual so concerned about the environment, should budget his or her resources accordingly.  Such a person could reduce his or her carbon footprint to accommodate his or her children, as well as, take other conservation actions. As for our collective responsibility, I believe we need to do a better job preserving and conserving our resources.  We also need to use the tool God gave us, a mind to think, to allow us to solve such problems. 

But, if you are concerned about the ethics of brining more children into this world our tradition offers support for the institution of adoption.  The Torah in Numbers 3:1 tells us, “These are the generations of Aaron and Moses,” and only mentions the sons of Aaron.  Based on this verse the Talmud (Sanhedrin 19b) teaches us that, “He who teaches the son of his neighbor the Torah, Scripture ascribes it to him as if he had begotten him.” This Talmudic teaching is reinforced through the children of Michal, the daughter of King Saul. When a rabbi state that Michal did not bear the children, but raised them when they were orphaned, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 19b) points out that this comes to teach that, “whoever brings up an orphan in his home, Scripture ascribes it to him as though he had begotten the child.”  According to our tradition, adoption is a wonderful and an important institution that can fulfill the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.

I always felt that it was to our benefit that on Yom Kippur God judges us, rather than each person judging him or herself. Ultimately, God is much more merciful and understanding of our individual shortcomings than each of us would be.