Op-Ed: Praising Madoff isn’t kosher

/Home/Madoff and the Jewish Community/Jewish Anger over Madoff Betrayal

Op-Ed: Praising Madoff isn’t kosher
By Tzvi Hersh Weinreb · April 6, 2009

NEW YORK (JTA) -- I was simply astonished when I first read Rabbi Avi Shafran's Op-Ed, "Bernie, Sully and Me." I reacted with open-mouthed incredulity to his contention that we are misjudging Bernie Madoff as a villainous knave, and miscasting pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger as a heroic figure. A better example of a tendency called Talmudically "ipcha mistavra," or "ornery contrariness," would be hard to find.

My initial inclination was to give my respected friend and Baltimore landsman the benefit of the doubt. Could he have been writing "tongue in cheek"? And after all, even the best of us is entitled to a bad day. Might we not chalk this one up to the stresses and strains of pre-Pesach preparations?

But soon, in the midst of my own Passover preparations, I found myself "bubbling and boiling," and increasingly aware that what was before me was not only against my own moral judgment, but was an also inconsistent with the Jewish moral tradition. By defining Madoff as a "penitent," and belittling Sully's life-saving heroism as devoid of "moral choice," Shafran is more than just "off the mark." He does not adequately convey the Torah’s moral sensibilities, and thus his essay compels me to issue a public refutation. Mr. Madoff, whatever other names he deserves to be called, cannot be called a "penitent." His expressions of remorse and apology, even if sincere, fall far short of penitence and bring his crimes no absolution.

Teshuvah, repentance, from interpersonal offenses requires redress of the damage done. Whereas, for sins between Man and God heartfelt confession may suffice, the Talmud and rabbinic legal codes require much more when it comes to sins between Man and his Fellow. Return of the stolen object, compensation for the loss, reparation for the anguish and embarrassment caused, appeasing the victim and petitioning him or her for forgiveness are but some of the absolutely necessary steps that the repentant criminal must take to achieve absolution before the earthly and Heavenly courts. Madoff has done none of the above, and is not likely to ever do so. He has certainly not obtained forgiveness from those whose dreams he shattered and lives he ruined. And who can blame them for not granting that forgiveness?

Shafran comes up short theologically as well. In some religions, expressions of faith and heartfelt contrition are the crux of piety and sufficient to obtain Divine Grace. Judaism, on the other hand, concedes that "the Compassionate One requires the heart," but insists that deed and effective action are central and necessary.

Shafran argues that Madoff's initial intentions were good, but that he became "inextricably trapped" in his own machinations. From the Jewish perspective there is no such thing as "inextricably trapped” -- there are always choices -- and he had numerous occasions, indeed daily opportunities, to end the scandal and thereby at least mitigate the losses of his victims.

There is another dimension to Madoff's treachery. As a Jew, and as one who identified himself strongly with Jewish causes, he created a chillul HaShem, a profanation of the name of the Almighty, of historic proportions, reflecting disastrously on the reputation of all Jews, Judaism, and the Jewish God. Shakespeare's Shylock and Dickens' Fagin fade as symbols of supposed Jewish avarice and greed in comparison with Madoff and his misdeeds. Furthermore, reaction to his crimes not only sullies the name of Jews the world over, it endangers them everywhere. It provides confirmation for the most venomous anti-Semitic propaganda. For this, forgiveness is impossible.

Sully, on the other hand, acted efficiently and skillfully, saving the lives of well over a hundred human beings. Whether or not he displayed "sublimity of spirit" or adequately credited the Lord above is immaterial and irrelevant. As our sages stress: "Your actions shall draw you near."

And as for his "moral choice"? Choosing to land his plane the way he did may not have been guided by motives of morality, but they were surely guided by motives of survival, praiseworthy in their own right. Sully's "moral choices" came much earlier in his life than that fateful day on the Hudson River. They came when he chose to become a pilot, when he fervently advocated improved safety procedures, when he decided to pursue specialized training opportunities, when he determined to become the "best damn pilot" that he could, and surely when he refused to leave his plane until he personally made sure that all passengers had disembarked.

Every choice that he made, dozens of times each day, to keep his body fit, his senses keen, and his mind alert, was a "moral choice".

In an age when mediocrity is the norm, the choice to pursue excellence is a "moral choice."

And in an age when tens of thousands choose to use their technical intelligence to devise schemes of death and destruction, Sully's choice to utilize his intelligence to develop life-preserving skills is a "moral choice" indeed.

Better to contrast Sully not with Bernie Madoff, but with those other pilots who not so long ago, and just a few hundred yards from Sully's landing, exercised their piloting skills to murder thousands of innocents. Sully chose to master those same piloting skills to protect life. For that he deserves our gratitude and moral admiration.

Would that we could learn from him that moral choices must often be accompanied by long processes and painstaking efforts, and that only with great commitment can we fulfill the biblical injunction: "Therefore choose life."

(Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb is the executive vice president, emeritus, of the Orthodox Union.)



More articles by this author »