untitled

BETTINA PRATO

through the first covenant as a precondition for meaningful life after the deluge, and
Jewish law and values, which stand as a perfect, but also more demanding model for acts
that enable humans to perform their intimacy with God. In other words, though there
are different degrees of meaningfulness of human life, which entail a qualitative gap be-
tween the life of Jews and that of others, the life of non-Jews also has a value that is
beyond the biological, because it is also rooted in a fundamental orientation of the human
being toward the divine. Moreover, human rights represent divinely sanctioned safe-
guards to such meaningful life and cannot therefore be violated or suspended by recourse
to the exclusionary character of the second covenant.
On some level, then, it seems clear from these texts that religious foundations can be
found in Judaism (as in other religions) to advocate respect for meaningful human life or
life that serves to reflect the divine image, whether or not that meaning is reached through
the performance of God’s commandments as entrusted to Israel. The right to life, how-
ever, is not the only human right that can be found within or appropriated from Jewish
tradition: in fact, some of the authors who argue for a full compatibility of human rights
and Jewish values find textual or traditional foundations for a wide range of civil, social,
and economic rights, including workers’ rights to fair compensation, association, and
freedom to break employment contracts.^36 Most authors writing about a Jewish human
rights tradition stress the centrality of freedom of speech and of opinion in Judaism,
which Cohn, for instance, regards as best represented by the prophets and sages.^37 Zohar
himself highlights a tradition of ‘‘free speech’’ and of institutions meant to ensure that
people may follow different interpretations of the law according to conscience in the
ancient Jewish polity. According to him, the reason for this is that the content of divine
revelation and of divine law is not always totally clear or sufficiently comprehensive in
scope, making it necessary to maintain institutions that can support different interpreta-
tions not only for practical purposes but also in the interests of the continued vitality of
Judaism.
Supported by a series of authoritative Jewish sources, Zohar claims, first, that no
coercion should be used to force Jewish people to obey a particular reading of the Torah,
let alone to support the ethical or political implications of such a reading (contrary to
contemporary pressures not to challenge the ‘‘Israeli consensus’’). Second, he offers a
rather liberal notion of the ability of individual conscience to contribute to determining
one’s proper relationship with people and with God, given inevitable uncertainty about
how God’s word should be interpreted at different times and in different situations. The
need to ensure that people can realize their full human potential by living according to
the Torahandtheir conscience demands institutions that guarantee civil and political
liberties, and that also protect individuals from political authorities claiming to identify
their own word with God’s. Indeed, Jewish tradition recognizes that statehood as such
tends to erode liberties and just institutions, and that values such as human rights and
freedoms cannot be fully entrusted to the state but rather require the periodic interven-

PAGE 568

568

.................16224$ CH28 10-13-06 12:37:03 PS