Scorchin' Torah and Strange Thoughts

Migrating to Wordpress: Please take note

2009-09-23T13:34:00.002-05:00

Time for a new bookmark: scorchintorah.wordpress.com

I've opted for a more magazine like template. Check in and tell me how you like it.

Still Scorchin' after all these weeks.

More on Usurious Bank Practices

2009-09-22T14:30:00.003-05:00

Washington Post yesterday stated that Congress will pass legislation that will halt the practice of automatic overdrafts from debit cards. Consumers will no longer be clobbered with huge "fees" (read penalties) for being a penny overdrawn. People should not let this fall by the wayside and let the Congress know that consumers need to be protected.

Begging Forgiveness: Do It For Yourself

2009-09-21T08:25:00.001-05:00

Too often the perfunctory request for forgiveness is only offered to those of whom we are guaranteed a positive outcome, but, in fact, have not seriously wronged at all.

I offer the following story. A close friend whom I wished to visit because my family was away had told me not to come because a mutual friend was visiting and basically two was company and three was a crowd. It seems my observant lifestyle would have cramped whatever style he had envisioned for the weekend. I immediately wrote a letter saying how upset, hurt I was that somehow our being together was less important than how we might have spent the time. If this was an indication of our friendship, then there really wasn't much friendship at all.

What did I want from that letter? I wanted a response, and as each year, each birthday went by and no response was forthcoming, I came to the realization that what I had written seemed to be true. He didn't really care, and that hurt worse that the previous rejection.

One day, five years later, a letter arrived in the mail (this was a long time ago!) from my friend who apologized not only for what had happened, but for why it had taken him so long to respond. He had had a dream recently that included me, both of us looking for someone's house that we couldn't find. The following day he picked up a random book at a new age book store and it happened to be my translation of Sharre Orah that had recently been published. When he saw my name on the cover, the signs could not be ignored and, finally, he felt impelled to write a letter.

It was clear that I, too, had been waiting lo these many years for that letter. I wrote him back immediately, and he came to visit me for a few days soon after. This is not the end of the story. The visit was not a great one. The memories of our friendship were not rekindled in the present. After the visit, we didn't manage to keep in touch, and years have since gone by without us being in contact.

Once, I got a call from a mutual friend that David was having a special birthday and his girlfriend was organizing a special party and she had requested messages from people who were important to his past. Without hesitation, I sent a message, happy to modestly contribute to this celebration. I received a response, but there was no subsequent correspondence.

David's visit had filled a hole that was in my heart. His acknowledgement that he had been bothered by the way we left things allowed us to discover whether we should be friends based on who we were now and not on what we had done to each other. The hurt went away and I can fondly remember the times we had together.

The point is that fixing what we have done wrong does not have to end in some kind of grand epiphany, but your last memory of someone who once mattered to you, should not be one of disappointment and hurt. People should be able to reclaim the moments when they mattered to each other. It is worth the risk of rejection to try and do this.

It was true that because I had already approached him and been open about how offended and disturbed I was that it was up to him to respond. We don't always get a nudge from a dream and a chance encounter with a book, and we shouldn't need it.

How many Yom Kippurs need to elapse, before we free ourselves from the shackles of our own design. The Mishnah says: Transgressions between people cannot be atoned until one has mollified the injured party. These pains last for years. They don't go away until they are addressed, and even if the outcome isn't dramatic, or even positive, knowing that an effort was put forth, takes the burden off you and places it on the injured party.

The Mishnah says once one has apologized three times, the injured party carries the sin--and carry it, he will.

Please, don't let another Yom Kippur go by. Do yourself a favor.

Haredi woman dies leaving behind over 1400 descendants

2009-09-17T11:26:00.002-05:00

Rachel Krishevsky died at the age of 99 leaving over 1400 direct descendants behind. It is stunning to realize that having lived a long life one could leave an auditorium full of family behind. This is the idealism of a community who consider children a joy and a mitzvah. She lived near the shuk in Machaneh Yehuda, and I am certain her loving home didn't have much space, but her children didn't seem to mind. They opted to continue the tradition and had large families of their own.

There were many positive responses to the Shoah. A Jewish army is one, but this too, is an answer that is worth contemplating and appreciating.

Joe Wilson the New Abbie Hoffman, Irony and the Enigmas of Derech Eretz

2009-09-15T04:02:00.003-05:00

In the Ordeal of Civility, John Murray Cuddihy's book on the reasons for the Jewish disproportionate intellectual impact on the twentieth century, he recalls the antics of Abbie Hoffman in Judge Julius Hoffman's court. Abbie was repeatedly held in contempt for calling the judge "Julie". Cuddihy noted that to be held in contempt was to be held in contempt of the civility of the court. He wryly pointed out that the Judge was a yekke, a German Jew, while Abbie came from the ostjuden, the prost (vulgar, common) Galician Jews, and that was the subtext of their conflict.

Now, the hippies of congress are the southern republicans, challenging the legitimacy of these hallowed halls by disruptive uncivil behavior that makes light of protocol and house rules. The yekkes are the democrats who decry the feisty ridicule of their President and their party. It is a bit ironic, isn't it? Look who is challenging the foundations of this country now? Except the issue is not the war in Vietnam, but...health care, and guns.

There is no simple term for civility in the Talmud, although the one often used is Derech Eretz which literally means "The Way of the Land". In its earliest usage the phrase meant an occupation. "The study of Torah goes well with Derech Eretz, (an occupation)" In other contexts, it is broadened to include ways to behave while one is out in the world. When God visits Abraham after his circumcision, the Torah is letting us know that visiting the sick is a nice thing to do.

Civility is not mandated, but suggested by God's example. The Midrash Tanchuma notices that the daily Succot sacrifices decrease in number, unlike the daily Passover sacrifices that stay the same throughout the seven day festival. The Midrash explains: Ths teaches derech eretz. It's like when you have a guest, the first day you feed him chicken, the next day fish, the next day vegetables until finally, you feed him beans.

In other words, the Torah is giving a tip on how to gently unload a freeloading guest, letting him know that he has overstayed his welcome. Derech Eretz does literally mean, "the way of the land", the way one gets along in the world. One is required to work, to get along with others, and to either understand or provide social cues. Civility is not singled out because it is intertwined with the whole business of living. All of these components are equal partners in how to get along in a balanced way.

Derech Eretz means how your time should be occupied when engaged in society. The uncivil upset the tenuous rules, the code that allows us to not only get along, but to go along. They challenge these restrictions and upset our foundations because they hold them in contempt. They either wish to make the land go a new way, or they simply love the attention they get from being naughty. Those impervious to Derech Eretz are always upsetting to those who are happy with the status quo.

Abbie Hoffman wouldn't have been entirely displeased with the redneck Woodstock in Washington last weekend. Sometimes this is really a whacky place!

The Parchments are Burning: A memorial service for the victims of September 11th

2009-09-11T09:34:00.003-05:00

On the first anniversary of the fall of the towers, I, along with my intern (now, Rabbi) Elliot Kaplowitz created a memorial service that was used by Hillels and synagogues throughout the country. The graphic design was created by the incomparable Maria Radacsi. Nowadays, our students have no memory of that chaotic, horrific day. It's worth a look, so if you are so inclined, Parchments are Burning: A September 11th Memorial Service ">

Why Don't We let the Banker Beware Instead of the Buyer

2009-09-11T07:22:00.004-05:00

Yesterday, I read an article in The New York Times that made my blood boil. It is well known that Jewish Law and American business practice do not see eye to eye on whose responsible for making sure that merchants charge a fair price for their wares. The Mishnah in Bava Metziya makes it clear that the responsibility falls on the merchant to be within one sixth of the market value of a particular item, while American business invokes caveat emptor "let the buyer beware". This, however, is what happens when you rely on the foxes to guard the chicken coop.

When Peter Means returned to graduate school after a career as a civil servant, he turned to a debit card to help him spend his money more carefully.

So he was stunned when his bank charged him seven $34 fees to cover seven purchases when there was not enough cash in his account, notifying him only afterward. He paid $4.14 for a coffee at Starbucks — and a $34 fee. He got the $6.50 student discount at the movie theater — but no discount on the $34 fee. He paid $6.76 at Lowe’s for screws — and yet another $34 fee. All told, he owed $238 in extra charges for just a day’s worth of activity.

Mr. Means, who is 59 and lives in Colorado, figured employees at his bank, Wells Fargo, would show some mercy since each purchase was less than $12. In addition, a deposit from a few days earlier would have covered everything had it not taken days to clear. But they would not budge.

Wells Fargo Bank is sleazier than those check cashing store fronts that charge high fees for getting your own money. At least they tell the customer what their charging up front. In this case Mr. Means finds out only after the fact that his "overdraft protection" was costing him five times as much as his purchase. Also, his sin is in not realizing that a deposit had yet to clear--not that he had insufficient funds.

Worse yet, is the exploitation of those who use debit cards in favor of credit cards. These are people who are trying to be fiscally responsible by paying as they go, instead of accruing heaps of credit card debt. Their reward is to be clobbered by usurious stealth interest under the guise of penalties--or overdraft "protection".

How do banks defend this practice?

Some experts warn that a sharp reduction in overdraft fees could put weakened financial institutions out of business.
Michael Moebs, an economist who advises banks and credit unions, said Ms. Maloney’s legislation would effectively kill overdraft services, causing an estimated 1,000 banks and 2,000 credit unions to fold within two years. That is because 45 percent of the nation’s banks and credit unions collect more from overdraft services than they make in profits, he said.

Oh, poor baby! Now, we know the truth. Your local neighborhood bank is nothing more than a check cashing storefront masquerading as a respectable institution. They now rely on fees from the more vulnerable in society in order to stay in business. Charging exorbitant fees is a no-risk proposition that allows banks to fund adventurous mortgages that also exploit the poor.

The Torah understood loaning as a means for helping people out of difficult circumstances and therefore eschewed the practice of charging interest. The world could not tolerate this level of idealism, so that the practice of charging interest is reluctantly allowed under Jewish law, but now one can see the perversity of putting a price on money, and the consequences for those who play by the rules. It seems a no brainer that charging these fees would be halachically prohibited. I don't know if I'm more upset by the practice, or by the sneakiness of so called respectable institutions.

I once heard a lawyer joke, but it seems more appropriate for bankers these days. "What's the difference between a banker and a rooster? A rooster clucks defiant..."

There's a special place in hell for these people.

Lust One In Smells the Rotten Egg: Elazar Ben Dordia and the Flatulent Harlot

2009-09-09T08:11:00.007-05:00

There is a popular Talmudic narrative that probably owes its prominence to its lurid (at least to Western ears) content. It is the dramatic story of Elazar Ben Dordia who was governed by his lust for harlots to the point that once he traveled seven rivers to sample the favors of a prostitute who was renowned for her "skills". During their moment of intimacy, she broke wind, and told him, "Just like this gas will not return to its original place, so too, Elazar will not be returned and atoned." At this point Elazar, struck by the poignancy (and the pungent nature) of this statement asks the mountains, the constellations, the heavens and earth to advocate on his behalf, but he is refused by all. He realizes that it is up to him alone, and his remorse for the wasteful life he has led ends up killing him. A heavenly voice welcomes Rabbi Elazar Ben Dordaya to the world to come.

The context of the story is a discussion of whether one can return from being an idolater and live. The Talmud concludes that if one has provocatively and willfully engaged in this ultimate betrayal, the return from it would be so perilous that the process itself would be fatal. The Talmud then asks whether the same would hold true for other sins, or is it only idolatry that exacts such a price. The answer given is that one does not die from turning away from sins. The Talmud challenges this answer by relating the aforementioned story where it seems that the process of turning away from sin did in fact take Elazar Ben Dordaya's life. The Talmud answers that because he was so profoundly addicted to this behavior, his devotion to these base desires was tantamount to idolatry. In other words, abject and fatalistic submission to any desire is as false of a god as one can have.

It is presumed in this passage that all desires have the potential to govern one's life, but that acts of will can conquer and even transform those desires. The first step is to acknowledge, like Elazar does that it is no use appealing to others when in the end, it is we who have control.

The Maharal of Prague points out that Elazar's last name "Dordia" means dregs in Aramaic. He says it is indicative of how out of control he was. His first name El-Azar means literally that God will help, so his name personifies the struggle of being helped out of the dregs, the misery of not being in control of your desires. Once we are so out of control that we worship that which is antithetical to our well-being then the return is so perilous that survival is not possible. The narrative witnesses that everyone is redeemable, but not everyone survives the redemption.

But since redemption, is the preferred goal over survival, even this story might be considered optimistic. When Elazar Ben Dordia is through asking for support from those things that were here before he was and will certainly outlive him, he is thwarted in his efforts. It is then he says: אין הדבר תלוי אלא בי (This process depends on me alone).

It is a sobering message to realize that we are responsible, but an empowering one as well.

There may always be french fries, and they may be engineered to be addictive and tempting, but we don't have to eat them. That does not exonerate the complicity of the food industry, but focusing on the battle that is won more handily, the one between the fries and our bellies, may be a better use of time.

Make French Fries Treif!!! That's What the Former FDA Chief says! (Well kind of)

2009-09-07T09:47:00.004-05:00

The Diane Rehm Show interviewed the former head of the FDA, David Kessler who has just written a book entitled The End of Overeating. His thesis is that eating is a salient stimulus that is hardwired into our brains. It is not something we can unlearn, but we can create "new wiring" that will mitigate the unhealthy impulse to overeat. Eating is different than other "addictions" because we actually need to eat, unlike needing to smoke or drink alcohol.

In the middle of the interview, Kessler opined that people have to adhere to absolutes regarding unhealthy foods. One cannot hardwire a brain to eat some french fries. Once that door is opened, the old wiring takes over and three fries turn into thirty-three before one can murmur "supersize me". In other words, you have to make french fries treif!

The Rambam argues, echoing the Mishnah in Pirkei Avot that one does not eradicate desire, but one can conquer it, channel it so that it serves a higher purpose. One can and should resist the impure impulses, but he doesn't seem to think that it is possible to eradicate them. There will always be a struggle between what we want and what we should do, but it is a struggle where we believe we can prevail--most of the time.

The Hasidic masters believed that it was possible not only to conquer these desires but to transform them so completely that the desire was no longer there. Our souls can become so much closer to the Divine source that the base "natural" desires are no longer an impediment to reaching this potential.

The Hasidic rewiring allows for a new brain every Yom Kippur, while the Rambam encourages a new resolve for the old brain to behave better, and do what it has always been capable of, and always will be. He assumes that some people will need to engage in extreme denial for a period of time, but the goal is to get to the place where one moderates behaviors that are detrimental when overdone--like overeating.

Kessler says that may not be possible when it comes to compulsive eaters. They need to create new taboos in their head that will make them turn up their nose at those salient stimulators. In other words, those foods (and you know what they are) need to become as treif as bacon and elicit the same level of disgust. For those of us who have never partaken of certain foods, it is not difficult to refrain from eating them, but I am told by those who once ate them, but now don't, that the desire lingers. It is just that they have rewired a new "taboo" that prevents them from going down that road.

The problem with applying a kashrut mentality to unhealthy foods is that these foods are more unhealthy for some than for others. There is less of an objective standard, but there is little argument that the world would be a healthier place without the provision of large portions of fat and sugar laden foods that are engineered for everyone to eat more than they should.

Kessler argues that just as tobacco went from being socially acceptable/desirable to being uncool, the same thing has to be done to certain foods as a first step. Many of the Jewish community have taken on the mantle of extending the definition of treif to unfair labor practices, industries that are ecologically insensitive, and the like. There has not been, however, the same outcry regarding industries that stuff our stomachs and psyches with murderous doses of sugar, fat, and salt in super-sizes. Isn't this a more direct and immediate threat to our personal well-being? I mean, it's killing us now--isn't it?

It's not likely that such a movement will emerge, nor is it necessarily desirable, but if one does wish to take control over these appetites, you might want to do what Kessler suggests, and for observant Jews, that means--make them treif!

Quote of the Day...from the Talmud

2009-09-04T13:17:00.002-05:00

Rava said: Length of days, fertility, and income are not the products of merit, but of mazel. For look at Raba and Rav Hisda both of whom were righteous men.

When either of them prayed, the rains came.

Rav Hisda lived to be ninety-two.

Raba lived to be forty...(Moed Katan 28a)

Each day brings new possibilities, but each day is a gift.

The Good One Who Ran Away: Ode to Bongo Barry

2009-09-03T18:43:00.002-05:00

A childhood friend died suddenly and his untimely demise evoked speculation from which a subtle undercurrent of panic could be felt among his contemporaries. "He was overweight." "His family had a history of heart disease." Somehow, these reasons were supposed to immunize we, the fifty somethings, from a similar fate. Nobody wants to be cheated out of his three score and ten, so we blame the victim. Deep down inside, we know the truth--it could be any one of us at any time. After all, there are plenty of fat, old people. I, unfortunately, am not able to mollify myself with rationalizations that have little bearing on reality. When it's your turn, it's your turn, and it often--more often than not--feels too soon.

His was a life filled with celebration, music, and children. He was a music therapist/performer who brought a sense of celebration to the Dewey Decimal System, the anatomy of ants, and the art of drumming. He was beloved by the local community of musicians and they showed up in great numbers to celebrate all that he had achieved with children, with his persona, and with his craft.

I knew Barry from my synagogue youth group. He was younger and was always pleased to be with one of the older guys. Growing up in an almost exclusively Jewish millieu, he was a typical product of Jewish American suburban culture, but in young adulthood he became so profoundly alienated from the Judaism of his youth, that Judaism and his Jewishness played the most minor of roles during his funky, eclectic memorial service. No kaddish, no burial, only the slightest acknowledgement of those who almost exclusively nurtured him through high school.

One could ask why I went only to see the tradition I revere, snubbed in such an overt fashion. I went because his eighty year old mother is still alive and I knew she would get comfort from seeing some of his old friends come to pay their respects. She did. Barry intermarried, and he succeeded in freeing his daughters of the Jewish baggage that he wished to leave behind. More than I blame him. I blame us.

Even though there are many ways to be a Jew, membership to any part of the Jewish community comes with a hefty price tag, and too often, the materialism and pretension that comes with it. Barry made a choice to live through music, and certainly there were sacrifices that attend such a decision. We as a community let him know in many ways that these are choices that a Jew shouldn't make. He shouldn't help autistic children. He shouldn't be silly at libraries creating cacophonous symphonies of percussive sound to the delight of young and old. This may be a way to work ones way through college, but this is not a path for a grown man to make a living.

His communities were those who made similar choices. Those who were fulfilled by entertaining, educating and supporting the most vulnerable in our society. Those who somehow manage to feed their families by doing what they love. Such conviction takes courage not appreciated by those who make "great" livings doing something they hate.

That Barry found little resonance in Jewish symbols, Jewish traditions, Jewish song and dance and celebration is not entirely our fault, but I can't help but wonder what a little appreciation and acceptance might have done, not only for him, but for us as well. Certainly, he could have found company with those Jewey Jews who have maintained the spirit of the sixties throughout their lives, but why seek out that which you feel you already know and don't much care for?

The Jewish vacuum at his memorial service meant we missed the scores of children's performances and songs. We missed drum circles with a Jewish vibe. Songs that taught the holidays in our Hebrew schools. We missed somehow, a spirit that grew up among us and saw little of value to take with him. He bears some responsibility for this, but, then again, so do we.

Lech B'Shalom Barry. I'm sorry we missed you.

Elul, Teshuva, & Teddy Kennedy

2009-08-28T07:34:00.003-05:00

If you look at my mother's library, you can't help but notice the many shelves of Kennedy memorablilia. JFK's assassination kept my mother in bed for days. Teddy's death marked an end of an era not only for them, but for her.

I haven't had much interest in the Kennedys over the years, but the stories I've been reading over the past few days belie the feigned disinterest I have managed to cultivate. I, too, more than I care to admit, am a loyal subject of Camelot.

He was the most layered of individuals. His appetites and his flaws were fodder for the mainstream media and the tabloids, but few would define him only by his sins. Moreover, his last seventeen years of devoted public service illustrated that people can change, grow, and bring honor and respect after a tawdry, and somewhat dengenerate past. His, was an almost wasted life, but ultimately redeemed by the best parts of him.

Over and over again, the papers recount stories of his concern for individuals, their families, and the loyalty that inspired. One such instance was recalled on NPR by Boris Katz, an MIT professor. Boris was a refusenik in Soviet Russia over thirty years ago. His daughter, Jessica, was a toddler with a serious disease that was beyond the expertise of the Soviet medical system. Dr. Katz demonstrated in front of Red Square to bring international attention to his plight.

One night at 1 o'clock in the morning, he was alerted to expect a visitor. Teddy Kennedy was at his door accompanied by KGB agents and Soviet officials. Once inside, Kennedy told his "escorts" that they could leave now, which--, to the astonishment of Boris--they did! Days after that Kennedy visit, Boris was granted permission to emigrate to the United States, and the first person to greet him on the tarmac, was Teddy Kennedy.

Daughter Jessica was recently married and works for the city of New York, helping find housing for the disabled. Boris attributes her interest in public service to the events that brought her to the United States. The interviewer wondered whether he had the opportunity to ask the Senator why he had taken such a personal interest in his plight. He said he never did, but he knew the answer.

"He was one of those rare individuals who truly cared about others."

He understood deeply that during times of trial is when people feel, not only to be vulnerable, but invisible. Not to personally acknowledge their suffering and offer comfort exacerbates the loneliness of afflictions. His acute awareness of this made him seize every opportunity to bring comfort to others. The caring for individuals suffering, whatever their ailments, were as important to him as any major policy issue in congress, and the personal testimony of scores of people attest to that.

It is these stories that illustrate where I often fall short, and has led me to resolve to do better. This was Teddy's Elul legacy to me for which I am chastened and grateful.

What physicians once were and what they may not be now.

2009-08-25T07:48:00.003-05:00

I am old enough to remember house calls from my pediatrician, Dr. Pakula who called me "Johnson", and for some reason, I, as a small child thought this was hysterical. Dr. Pakula was part of our family. He entered rooms that were reserved for those with whom we were most intimate. He was privy to information that was not readily given to many who might be considered good friends. He knew us, he cared about us, and he was considered family. It would have been the most reasonable thing in the world to discuss end of life options with Dr. Pakula, because we trusted him.

Nowadays, avuncular images of the family doctor have been replaced with demonic apparitions of "death panels", and an innocuous piece of health care legislation that allows reimbursement for counseling becomes an ominous foreshadowing of bureaucrats cajoling the vulnerable and defenseless into dying "early".

It is too easy to only dismiss this hysteria of "death panels" as ignorant people being stirred up by demagogues, but the deeper fear, I feel is a true one. Anyone over fifty remembers a more personalized medicine that has eroded considerably over the years. Even though the statistics would tell us that we live longer and better than we did fifty years ago, our experience tells us that doctors cared about themselves a bit less and us a bit more. There was a time when they knew us better.

This impression will not show up in statistics, but our quality of life is ascertained by our quality of community. Now, nobody has a "family doctor", but a "general practitioner", the practice of which has become the most unattractive option for those entering the medical profession. It doesn't pay, and there is no time allocated by the insurance companies to develop relationships with patients.

The following Talmudic passage emphasizes the power and the limitation of healing, but more importantly, it underscores the profound impact of genuine concern and empathy.

Rabbi Elazar fell ill, and Rabbi Yochanan went up to him but he was obscured because the house was dark. When Yochanan revealed his arm, light fell from it. When Rabbi Elazar saw this he broke down and cried.

Rabbi Yochanan asked: Why are you crying? If it is because of the Torah you have not learned, isn’t it taught: One will learn much, one will learn littler, but most important is that one direct his heart toward heaven? If it is because of your income, not every individual merits both tables (the table of plenty and the table of Torah). If it is because of children that you have lost, here is the tooth of my tenth son.

He answered: I am crying for this beauty that will be ravaged by dust.

Yochanan responded: This is truly worth your tears.

Both of them then cried together!

After awhile Yochanan asked him: Are these afflictions dear to you?

He answered: Not them, nor their reward.

Then give me your hand. He gave him his hand and helped him stand.

The fear expressed by many is a veiled yearning for the days when the Dr. Pakulas were considered part of the family.

For the complete translation of this piece of Talmud click here.

Now Quentin Tarantino Gives His "Jewish Fantasy"

2009-08-23T16:56:00.002-05:00

I can't see his movies. Once my brother took me to see Reservoir Dogs, and I spent too much time avoiding eye contact with the screen. I guess it was only a matter of time until, he reckoned with the ultimate horror of the twentieth century, and, of course, Jews are weighing in on whether he should or shouldn't have.

Tom Segev, in his history, 1949, The First Israelis, speculated that whatever Tarantino had in mind, there were Jews who would have and tried to do much worse. According to Segev, the well regarded Hebrew writer and poet, Abba Kovner had plotted to poison the water supply of Germany in 1945 to avenge the murder of the six million. Other accounts say that his plot was only directed at German POW's. Either way, the British were on to him and deported him to Egypt.

Kovner was unrepentant, and held the entire German people accountable for the murder of his people. In 1945, he wouldn't have shed a tear over the death of a German child. This was a visceral response rooted in a particular time under what were extaordinary circumstances. To revisit the moral implications of these actions from the comfort of our air conditioned homes would be obscene if it weren't so damn silly. The question isn't who are we to judge, but rather, who are we to have an opinion in the first place? And if we deign to have an opinion, who cares?

The Sages when offering triumphant Jewish stories under Roman occupation rarely speak in terms of physical triumphs, but moral triumphalism is the preferred medium for exacting vengeance. Hanina Ben Tradyon's executioner jumps in the fire with him, convinced of Rabbi Hanina's spiritual superiority. The materialists rejected this view as hollow and mourned the fact that Jews had become so passive thereby making Jewish blood such a cheap commodity.

Neither the spiritualists, nor the materialists had the whole story. While it is true, "That not with valor nor with might, but rather with My spirit..." (Zecharia 4:6) will we ultimately triumph. It is also true that when "someone actively pursues another to kill him, he should get up early and kill him first." (Sanhedrin 72a) For Kovner, the question was what to do if you failed to pre-empt the tragic consequence.

It's a question of balance.

Blame It On the iPhone

2009-08-21T12:56:00.002-05:00

Some may have noticed that I have been posting less recently. There are three possible explanations:

I had a break from teaching for the last three weeks, and if I'm not teaching, I'm not learning.
I simply have nothing to say, but hope to have more to say soon.
I have recently purchased an iPhone which has me mesmerized with its apps, its packaging, and its ability to keep me in touch will all my email accounts, at all times.

I think the iPhone is making me stupider. My colleagues marvel at the promptness of my responses these days, but what they may not know, is that I'm using them as a pretext for perfecting the two thumb two step (touch?) of typing and texting. I know the day will come when I will resent this virtual ball and chain, just as the celebrity resents not being able to get a cup of coffee without being accosted, but for now, I have been ensorceled by the allure of this miniature marvel. It is a doomed relationship, but even brief passion is better than the numbness one now gets from one of those not so smart cell phones.

Oh, have to go, I heard a ding!

The Jewish and Academic Calendar

2009-08-19T12:01:00.002-05:00

One of the great frustrations of anyone who observes the Jewish calendar are the conflicts that emerge when dealing with the secular rhythms of American life. The audible sigh of relief that the Chagim fall on weekends can be heard in many quarters.

It is curious that Jewish holidays are never on time. They are always early, or late. I've never heard it said that Rosh Hashanah is on time this year. Nevertheless, the Jewish new year is in sync with the academic calendar. Both begin the year at around the same time.

School starts usually in Elul, just when we are preparing ourselves for the New Year. It is the only time the academic and Jewish calendars coincide. I don't count Chanukah and xmas only because it was xmas that enhanced the importance of Chanukah. Certainly, there was nothing inherent in Chanukah that would make one take a break from school.

A major theme of Rosh Hashanah is that not only our community, but the entire world is being judged at this time. It is a season of new beginnings for the entire world community. Elul is a time to change patterns of behavior that have proven to be destructive just as the school year affords those opportunities. This type of personal work is much easier when the general culture is also beginning a new term. Let everyone see themselves as preparing for the first day of a brand new term.

It's a new semester folks, and change is possible.

Butter, the metaphorical toxin, with apologies to Julia Child

2009-08-16T10:34:00.004-05:00

I have always been a firm believer in my own kind of alternative medicine. For sedation, when sleep may evade, my drug of choice is a mystery novel. Mostly, they are mediocre and have me asleep within a half an hour. On occasion, these "whodunits" will have the opposite effect, but at least I was entertained.

Often novels open up with a famous quotation meant to foreshadow the essence of the book. This time, the quotation alone was enough to get me out of bed and send me on a two hour odyssey of discovery. The verse in question was the twenty second verse from the fifty-fifth Psalm:

The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart.

Midrash Tehilim assumes that the author King David is referring to the threat posed to his Kingdom by his son Absalom, and the treachery of their mutual advisor Achitophal whose words were "smoother than butter".

The Hebrew word for butter in this context is מחמאות and, to my knowledge, it is the only time it appears in Tanakh. In modern Hebrew, Machma'ah means a "compliment" without the pejorative connotation indicated in the verse. Compliments are suspect in Jewish tradition because they provide openings for negative comments.

For instance, I would say that Reuben is a wonderful dancer which allows someone to say, but his breath could knock a buzzard off a manure pile. Had I not offered the compliment, there would have been no opportunity to speak of Reuben's unfortunate halitosis.

Much of what passes for debate on health care is based on the suspicion that our silver tongued President has nefarious designs that are the opposite of what he is saying. We are being "buttered up"--a phrase which may very well come from this very verse--only to be consumed by death panels, interminable lines for urgent care under Dickensian conditions, and rationing. These complaints, however, seem to emerge from an agenda that has little in common with these fears. Certainly, duplicity is familiar territory for every politician. Even the President rations truth in the doses he deigns appropriate for we, the rabble.

More interesting is the understanding that the Biblical origin of מחמאות indicates that compliments are never seen as being free from ulterior motives and are intrinsically tainted with the disingenuous stain of hypocrisy. The fact that we crave them nonetheless says that we all want others to believe the lie about ourselves, especially when being praised by others.

As Rosh Chodesh Elul approaches, this is not the time to indulge in flattery, but in the painstaking scrutiny that can lead to change and possibly transformation. For more reasons than one, it is time to remove the "butter" from our spiritual recipes and see ourselves as clearly as we can.

The Gates of Wounded Feelings

2009-08-04T08:28:00.002-05:00

The saga of the cop and the Harvard professor created an opportunity for yet another referendum on race in America. Widely regarded as a tempest in a teapot, why did it captivate the attention of so many? The Talmud has an answer.

One of the most well know Talmudic Aggadot, is the showdown between R. Eliezer Ben Hurcanus and the Sages, where in spite of all evidence to the contrary Rabbi Eliezer's opinion is thwarted and the sages prevail, even though a heavenly voice supported the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The epilogue for most readers occurs when Elijah the Prophet is found wandering around the marketplace and when asked what God was doing when the sages rejected His opinion with a prooftext from the Torah, He answered with a smile, "My children have defeated me, they beat me!"

This, however, is not the end of the story, nor is it the primary purpose of the editor of this chapter. Later on, Rabbi Eliezer, who was punished with a ban for being so defiant, took it so personally that a third of the wheat in the world was destroyed by the pain expressed from Rabbi Eliezer. Furthermore, it was Rabbi Eliezer's pain that brought on the demise of Rabban Gamliel.

What is learned from this?

"All the gates to God have been locked except for the gates of wounded feelings." (Bava Metziaya 59b)

The grievances of a working class Cambridge cop and a black, public intellectual, once again, opened the gates of wounded feelings, closing temporarily, the gates of the health care debate, the unemployment crisis and the billions of bonuses enjoyed by bloated deadbeat bankers. Instead, the nation's attention is preoccupied with the drinking habits of our nation's leaders as the media plumbs the socio-economic subtext of an arrest that shouldn't have happened.

The Mishnah in Perek Hazahav in Bava Metziya reminds us how devastating hurt feelings can be. The myth of "sticks and stones" is not something that ever made sense in Jewish tradition. Hurting someone with language is as tangible as cheating them financially. As the Mishnah states:

"Just as one can cheat a person in financial transactions, so too, one can cheat him with language alone."

For a look at some of the relevant verses, and the Mishnah that unpacks the potential destructive nature of language, click here.

Post Tisha B'Av Musings

2009-07-30T19:35:00.003-05:00

Today, I was among over 80 attendees from many countries listening to Rabbi Brovender on webyeshiva.org. He elucidated a couple of kinot (liturgical poems of lamentation) and gave the following insight. When the Prophet Jeremiah in the fifth chapter of Lamentations, asks that God should "Remember what we once had", what is the Prophet assuming? That God can forget? What does it mean for God to remember, and what does that teach us about Jewish memory?

Going back to Noah, memory is also invoked. It says after the flood that "God remembered Noah". It wasn't like there were that many people around for Noah to get lost in the shuffle. So, what does memory mean in a Divine context. Rabbi Brovender then said, when the Prophet enjoins God to remember what we once had, he doesn't imply that God has forgotten. He is asking God to activate the dynamic of what once was that has presently been put on hold.

Similarly, in one of the kinot when it says that "God didn't remember the covenant with Avraham", it's not that God forgot, but rather that the process has been halted, and he petitions that the process be renewed.

As Faulkner once said: Not only is the past important, it's not even past.

The class was given in memory of my teacher and Rabbi Brovender's colleague and friend Rabbi Jay Miller. I think Rabbi Miller would have liked it.

Wolpe's Original Text on R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish

2009-07-29T04:56:00.002-05:00

The text excerpted can be found in Jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com. Look in the archives for July 23rd.

"For me, Rabbis are just average Joes..."

2009-07-27T10:10:00.008-05:00

Tablet.com has some insight and background into the Syrian Rabbinic Roundup this past week. They conducted an audio interview with Zev Chafets who wrote about the Syrian Jewish community for the NYT magazine a couple of years ago.

At one point, he was asked whether he was shocked that so many rabbis were included in the corruption scandal that has shaken New Jersey. His answer was that he had been a Jew for sixty-two years and from what he sees rabbis are just "average Joes" no more or less exemplary than those in the general community. When Chafets lived in Israel, he witnessed first hand the corruptions of the religious parties that were seemingly no worse, but no better than the Godless socialists. His remark saddened me because, he no longer has any expectations from the rabbinate and sees them as cynically exploiting their position for personal gain, just like so many others in power.

We rabbis should see ourselves as people who are less impressed with our position, but daunted and committed to the mission of serving the Jewish community and leading by example. Too often, many of us are more impressed with our position than the gravity of our mission. The fallout is total disregard for not only us, but the Torah we have learned, and even worse, the Torah we have taught.

I believe that observant communities are exemplary when compared to how non-observant communities behave. They have fewer criminals, safer neighborhoods, and have a better track record for caring for the most vulnerable. Nevertheless, Rabbi Kassin may have taken a bad hit from the perp walk that starred him, but, ultimately, it was God and the Torah who will bear the brunt of the blow. And that's the kind of stuff that gave us solemn occasions like Tisha B'Av.

This is something we all need to do Teshuva for.

"Woe to the generation whose Judges are judged." (Ruth Rabba, Petichta)

Rabbi David Wolpe Misses the Point on the death of Rabbi Yochanan and Goldberg takes the bait.

2009-07-24T08:03:00.009-05:00

Jeffrey Goldberg quotes his rabbi, David Wolpe, on the Talmudic tradition of argument.

The Talmud tells us that when Resh Lakish -- Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish -- died, Rabbi Jocanan was inconsolable. No one else challenged Rabbi Jochanan's conclusions so vigorously or engaged him in such sharp argument. Repeatedly the Jewish tradition emphasizes that disagreement, even fundamental disagreement, need not be the same as personal hostility.

The point, I guess, could be made that one should be dispassionate in arguing fundamental disagreements, but this is hardly the example to illustrate it. After all, it was during a fairly abstract argument that Rabbi Yochanan killed Resh Lakish, after each one hurled personal insults at the other. Rabbi Yochanan was so angry at the time that his own sister who was married to Resh Lakish could not convince him to have mercy on her husband. It is the most tragic story in the Talmud, and the lesson learned is that those who challenge you the most, are the ones who help you define your thinking. It was, however, Rabbi Yochanan's failure to understand this that gave us this lesson.

The Talmud repeatedly argues for forgiving the passions of those who are overzealous in argument if they are truly arguing for the truth and not some ulterior agenda. I don't think they presume that one can easily distinguish passionate engagement from personal hostility. The tragedy of Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish is that after the moment of anger had passed, there was no road back to reflection and forgiveness, but the disagreements themselves were inevitably personal.

If someone attacks your understanding, something that you have internalized, it may be very difficult not to take it personally. It could be that the one who can easily argue principles dispassionately doesn't care about those issues so much in the first place. Christopher Hitchens--who is brought as an example of someone with whom Wolpe disagrees fundamentally, but civilly--I think, would agree.

The problem with Wolpe is that he doesn't seem to care about what the Talmud is saying, he only cares about using it as a pretext for what he wishes to say. I congratulate Wolpe for living in this Elysian Field of civil discourse, but I hardly believe that our Sages are fellow travellers.

Please, Rabbi Wolpe, let us know what you think, but leave the Talmud out of it.

For the whole story of Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, plus other powerful Talmudic narratives, click here. You can find the R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish story on page 11.

Quote of the Day

2009-07-23T18:07:00.002-05:00

"Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are."

--Kurt Cobain

He should know...He committed suicide

Baruch Atah...OK fine, but what does it mean?????

2009-07-22T18:51:00.009-05:00

It is interesting to note that Medieval classics like the Rokeach, Shiblei HaLeqet, Kolbo and Abudarham are works that are referenced more than they are learned. Only when one wants to explore a topic are these books revealed in greater detail. I was asked to give a class on the Siddur to which I reluctantly agreed. My hesitation came from feeling that this once a week class would require much thought and preparation for a topic I regarded as less than exciting. Boy, was I wrong!

Every week I've been exposed to these early Medieval Halachic authorities who instead of writing codes, wrote what amounts to brief essays on Kaddish, Pesukei D'zimra, and Baruch. The Talmud has pithy aphorisms in random places that give insight into the meaning of many of these prayers, but these writers extend what have become popular quotations with questions that rarely occur to those who routinely and somewhat mindlessly utter their prayers each day. I count myself among them. Prayer is a time for declaration, not analysis, but analysis of prayer is an appropriate enterprise for learning--I, like many, never got around to doing it.

Last night I lifted a couple of paragraphs from Rav David Abudarham's classic 14th Century work on liturgy. He wrote this book with the following purpose in mind:

"the customs connected with prayer have become varied from one country to another, and most of the people do not understand the words of the prayers, nor do they know the correct ritual procedures and the reasons for them."

He poses the following question: Why is it that most Brachot begin by addressing God in the second person and end by referring to Him in the third person. We begin with Baruch Ata (Blessed are You) and we end by saying Borei Peri Hagafen (the one who created the fruit of the vine). Why doesn't it say, "that You created the vine.

He explains that this is reflective of how we experience God which is primarily through His actions. Because we believe all things come from Him and no other entity, because we believe this, we demonstrate this by addressing God as an intimate. We cannot, however, presume to know God's essence, so that when we attribute what He has made, we switch to the third person. For aspects of God are both present and hidden. This is also reflected in human beings. Our actions are revealed, but the essence of our heart remains hidden within us. Whereas our deeds are connected to God only through mitzvot, our hearts, our thoughts have the potential to be continuously connected to the Holy One.

He also clears up the issue of what it means to say Baruch Atah. We are not blessing God--How would that make sense anyway? We are acknowledging that God is the source of all blessing. Baruch atah means "You are the source of blessing", and then the rest of the Bracha makes sense..."King of the universe, who created the fruit of the vine."

Sometimes one has to be pushed to learn something that he should have known a long time ago.

"This is all my fault."

2009-07-21T09:40:00.002-05:00

So said Robert E. Lee to his troops after his costly defeat at Gettysburg. He then offered his resignation to Jefferson Davis thereby accepting full responsibility for losing what would later be considered the turning point of the Civil War.

Well, in the midst of this financial crisis, I have yet to hear those words from the Masters of the Masters of the Universe, or from Greenspan or Paulson. In fact, we are "treated" to a flurry of books and memoirs that state the opposite, or worse, finger someone else, or even worse, "I'm no more of a scoundrel than anyone else in this business."

At least Medoff pleaded guilty.

"In a place where there are no people, strive to be a person!" (Pirkei Avot 2:5)

It is not colossal errors that show the measure of a man, but how one chooses to be accountable brings him up or down to size. These imposters, posing as leaders, never even tried or probably understood what it means to "...be a person."

Maureen Dowd: Uninformed, or Just a tinge Anti-Semitic

2009-07-19T17:13:00.003-05:00

Either Maureen Dowd, or some snarky editor at the NYT, gave her column the title Pharisees on the Potomac. Her point was to recount the hypocrisy of the Republican leadership. If you look up Pharisee in the OED, you will find that the second definition legitimates this usage, but then again, look at the second definition of a Jew "...a grasping extortionate person." Does that allow the NYT to have an editoral entitled "Medoff Jewed lots of Jews in Florida"? The only difference is how educated the NYT staff might be.

One assumes, and hopes that this is a literacy problem and nothing more for Ms. Dowd, and whomever edits her column. Still, the larger issue is the fact that this word is part of the English language and is not considered an epithet or defamatory.

One may not defame a people in the NYT, but their Sages and their Ancestors are fair game.

Gettysburg Visitor Center and Battlefield: Unforgettable

2009-07-19T17:04:00.002-05:00

It has been long overdue for me to take my twelve year old son to Gettysburg, PA. It's about a 90 minute drive for an unforgettable afternoon. The new visitor center and museum offer an orientation that does what it is supposed to do. It makes you want to see the battlefield. The newly restored Cyclorama, a 360 degree mural that weighs thousands of pounds is presented succinctly, but brilliantly.

Six thousand soldiers died, and over 40 thousand maimed in three days of relentlessly fierce fighting. The spirit of the Union and Confederate dead hover over the place, as palpable as a humid day in July. Go visit! It is as moving of a place as any in Washington DC.

The Hearings, Sotomayor, Hillel, Shammai and the nature of interpretation...

2009-07-14T16:26:00.004-05:00

I'm addicted to these hearings not only because they are so "Talmudic", but because it reminds me of the intellectual limitations of those who represent us in the Senate. Although she is no Bork when it comes to parrying the same challenge over and over again, Judge Sonia Sotomayor does more than hold her own.

Any serious student of Gemara understands that interpretation of law never happens in a vacuum. Either consciously or unconsciously one brings his/her own experiences to understanding what's in front of them. They are, however, shackled by what the parameters of a phrase will allow and that phrase still has to ring true in context.

One may argue that the right to abort a fetus is an extension of the Constitutional right of privacy , or one may say that it isn't a legitimate understanding of the 14th amendment. When Roe vs. Wade became law, it did not contradict anything in the Constitution, but the case redefined our understanding of the 14th amendment. An extension of personal liberty would certainly be within the what one might call the spirit of the law.

If, however, one sees abortion as murder, and the fetus as the most vulnerable of society, then this conclusion is an obscenity. What one brings to the table will color the way one understands the law--the pretense of being a robot, is just that, a pretense. In the end, one's argument has to pass muster, and that is the litmus test for its validity. The fact that the argument emanated from a manor on a plantation, or a housing project in the South Bronx is irrelevant.

As much as the Talmud valued concepts well argued, it valued temperament even more. When Both houses of Hillel (the kid from the projects) and Shammai (the man with the house on the hill) argued, a heavenly voice declared that "These and these are words of the living God, but the law goes like Hillel." (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 13b) Why like Hillel?

Because they were humble in their demeanor and gentle--and they always were careful to quote Shammai's position, before their own. It was said of their master, Hillel, that he never lost his temper and was profoundly patient. One could argue that this sensitivity came from his humble origins, and this was reason enough to follow Hillel.

In the end, the most clever argument may not bring the truest decision. The Torah expected judges not only to be beyond reproach, but to not favor a particular background when cases come before them. Nevertheless, they must be empathetic to the plight of their fellow Jews for creation cannot be sustained if scrutinized through the lens of absolute justice--justice has to be coupled with mercy.

The Torah demands no less, and the Constitution shouldn't either!

Missing MJ in Tel Aviv

2009-07-13T19:00:00.002-05:00

It reads:

"Blessed Be the Righteous Judge"

Shocked and aggrieved we announce the untimely demise of

"Michael Joseph Jacobson"

the singer "Michael Jackson"

His admirers who are in mourning

Sarah Palin--Rage as an organizing principle

2009-07-13T10:49:00.002-05:00

Beyond the Tina Fey caricature is the undeniable fact that millions--it seems--identify with her. Many who often feel, by virtue of their military service, their skin color and their religious convictions that they are the real America, but, through some bizarre sleight of hand, they have become...marginalized.

They are living in a nightmare come true when along comes Sarah. She looks like us, she talks like us, she's kinda cute, and her kids don't always behave the way we would like...just like us! What else matters? Identity politics is not only the province of Sarah Palin supporters, but we all, and I do mean all of us, want to identify with our leaders as somehow the most idealized version of whom we would like to be.

For frum Jews, she, like most evangelicals, is adamantly pro-right-wing Israel--so, go no further. Bibi, Ha'aretz reports is already calling Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod self-hating Jews behind closed doors. Often, frum Jews are not as interested in social policy as they are in small government and an unhindered and blindly supported Israel. The belief that 'government will only waste my money so why give it to them' is widespread and so is the 'fact' that democrats/liberals are less reliable allies of Israel than republicans/conservatives. (Pat Buchanan notwithstanding). This is an argument that has merit. I'd like my charity dollars to go where they will do the most good, so let me decide, but how should one decide if one is not going to rely on the governement for social programs?

Living in exile as we are, we may look to the Talmud as to what our responsibility is to our neighbors.

The Sages taught: One should support financially the idolatrous poor with the Jewish poor, visit their sick with the Jewish sick and bury their dead with the Jewish dead. (Babylonian Talmud Gitin)

Add to this, the understanding that how we are perceived as a people actually does matter. The Talmud further states that we have a duty to "sanctify God's name" or at least not profane it--the most egregious and severe of all sins. How do we do that? We do that by being exemplary, that we demonstrate our love and concern for all. Such respect makes others say, "He is good, his Torah is good, and God is good." The way we love God is by being visibly, demonstrably, lovable.

Not by being angry, not by delegitimating others when we disagree, and not be capitalizing on the rage of others. This is true for everyone, including those who are the supporters of Sarah Palin. We need to understand the origin of their generosity and compassion as well as the injustices that they have endured.

I believe many of these people have been profoundly and unfairly insulted. We know that wisdom comes in many shapes and sizes--not only from the hallowed halls of the ivy league. It is easier to have two dimensional pictures of adversaries and certainly it justifies salty rhetoric, and salacious gossip. Caricaturizing the adversary is a national past time.

It's just not a particularly constructive one.

David Brooks Discovers Dignity

2009-07-08T09:07:00.004-05:00

So do the readers of the NYT! His latest op-ed piece rates as the most emailed article of yesterday's paper. Here's a snippet:

(George) Washington absorbed, and later came to personify what you might call the dignity code. The code was based on the same premise as the nation’s Constitution — that human beings are flawed creatures who live in constant peril of falling into disasters caused by their own passions. Artificial systems haveto be created to balance and restrain their desires.

This is an idea that is at least two thousand years old, as it says in Pirkei Avot

Who is considered mighty, one who conquers his impulses." (Pirkei Avot 4:1)

I would never use the term artificial systems because the struggle between impulses and a moral, or higher calling is a natural one. The desire to serve an ideal is as deep and natural as any other impulse. It is called a desire for a reason, and it is natural for human beings to wish to be good, just as it is natural to be selfish and narcissitic. The notion that we are flawed is also a natural conclusion from the intellect. This is not just a minor point, but it goes to the heart of the matter. Is hearkening to our better angels an artificial action to control who we really are? Or is the impulse to do so the process by which we become who we really should be. The distinction I think is a serious one.

Why does the word "Amen" loom so large?

2009-07-08T05:12:00.002-05:00

It is true that the things that are most common to us are often the things we know the least about. They are part of our natural routine and so we don't question them. For many, the intricacies of breathing only become understood when that process is interrupted. Otherwise, there are many of us who happily walk around totally unaware of the science behind that which allows us to function.

Our spiritual habits are no different. People say אמן or "Ayyymen" all the time, assuming they both know what they mean and what it means--or maybe mindlessly parroting an accepted mimetic tradition, and knowing neither.

Last night, in the late summer of my years, I learned and then taught about the importance of this one word--not only in liturgy, but in everyday discourse.

The word Amen makes a brief appearance in the Talmud. It is a word with power. Resh Lakish says when said with gusto that it opens the gates of heaven. Ben Azzai cautions with a severe warning that one should never "orphan" an Amen, but it should always be connected to a bracha. Amen means nothing on its own, but becomes powerful only when it is responding to a blessing.

Well, what is it doing? What does it mean? What are we doing when we say it? Most people when they say amen are affirming what has been said to them. But it is more than that. Amen is an acronym for Al Melech Ne'eman אל מלך נאמן (God, the faithful king) and by saying it we affirm that all God's promises will eventually come to pass.

People often improvise their own wishes in life where people affirm these impromptu blessings with an enthusiastic Amen. They are indeed affirming the words of the speaker, but they are also bearing witness that the One who created the world is in charge of fulfilling these wishes. We, impudent snots that we are, invoke Him even in circumstances where we are implicating Him in promises He has not made. It's a sort of spiritual activism in which one should engage with some care, for a misplaced Amen the Gemara says, is a dangerous thing.

Amen is testimony. Amen is affirmation. Amen, at its best is done in response to others, so Amen does not only connect us to God, but our relationship with others--it is an opportunity to unify the commandments between people and God and the commandments between human beings in just one word.

No wonder it can open the gates of heavens.

Jeffrey Goldberg interviews the very erudite and new Israeli Ambassador

2009-07-05T20:08:00.003-05:00

Michael Oren, a fine historian and scholar is a phenomenal spokesman for the Jewish State.

Why are Men Such Bozos!!!????

2009-07-02T09:23:00.002-05:00

Jenny Sanford succinctly and poignantly outlines what should make a marriage last. The operative term is the "will" to persevere during the hard times.

I always wondered why the Rambam didn't put marriage as his example for a relationship built on ideals--instead, he sees marriage as a reciprocal partnership, which, of course, it is. That was enough for Jenny Sanford, but not enough for her narcissistic husband, who needs validation that he still has "it"--which, of course, indicates that he's lost "it" in more ways than one.

The illusory nature of romance will not sustain a relationship for a lifetime, but the will to be a loyal partner and companion, may. As many of us have learned, the will to be a faithful partner has to be shared by both parties or the relationship is destined for failure. Unfortunately, this is something that often can't be known ahead of time, but of consenting adults who are not physically violent, or financially irresponsible, still require more than these trappings of decency to sustain a marriage. They require a mutual commitment that is not subject to the vagaries of the emotional turmoil that is part of everyday living.

It is not incidental that a wife in the Talmud is referred to as a "home". Jenny Sanford provided a haven for a man who seems to be considerably less able and talented than she is. But why are we surprised? A politician's job is to convince himself that hundreds of thousands adore him. Many need to be adored and why shouldn't that need be reciprocated by more than just one woman. In fact, the truly great (looking) ones--Kennedy, and Clinton have been compromised, but have also maintained their allure and to a degree their legacy. Sanford was just following in their footsteps. Didn't he compare himself to King David, after all?

Jenny, however, did not require the adoration of throngs, just a commitment from her husband. She was formidable in her own right, and was happy to demonstrate her competence in a way that furthered her ideals, and her commitment to her husband. This, however, was a not enough for Mark Sanford, who can only mollify himself by saying, "Well, at least she didn't have cancer!"

Do we really believe that the Argentine home wrecker is his 'soul-mate'? Seriously.

Well, maybe this week.

For Those Who Find Reading Annoying...a Parshat חקת VIdeo!

2009-06-29T18:39:00.008-05:00

Two minutes of teaching on why--maybe--Moshe Rabbenu was denied entry into the land. Consider it either a pilot, or a train wreck...

Quote for the Day

2009-06-29T13:53:00.008-05:00

Hail forms in strong thunderstorm clouds, particularly those with intense updrafts, high liquid water content, great vertical extent, large water droplets, and where a good portion of the cloud layer is below freezing (0 °C (32 °F)). The growth rate is maximized at about -13 °C (9 °F), and becomes vanishingly small much below -30 °C (-22 °F) as supercooled water droplets become rare. For this reason, hail is most common in midlatitudes during early summer where surface temperatures are warm enough to promote the instability associated with strong thunderstorms, but the upper atmosphere is still cool enough to support ice.

Late Afternoon Fury

Ravavi

Love's fury

is as natural and,

as incongruous

a hailstorm

in summer.

Banter from the Brothers Weinstein

2009-06-28T09:29:00.002-05:00

"I have to have a molar removed."

"Holy Molar!"

"Yeah, it's the bitter tooth."

Michael Jackson, Reverend Al, and Acharei Mot Kedoshim Emor

2009-06-26T10:38:00.003-05:00

Rock fans never saw Michael Jackson as one of them. The glitz, the choreography, and the polish were too mainstream for those whose primary fare was outside of Motown. Maybe, I'm wrong. I was in Israel from 1975-1986 and never experienced close up the cultural icons of that time. Consequently, I am profoundly bored by all the attention paid to the death of MJ, and have turned off my radio until further notice. I guess I can only be critical because he never made me happy, so, I have no inclination to countenance his alleged indiscretions/crimes/sins.

The whole notion of celebrity is stunning to me. All these people milling about his star on Hollywood Boulevard, and the Apollo Theater in Harlem mourning a man of dubious character and--I guess prodigious talent--as if they knew him. He may have been a leader of an industry, but he wasn't their leader. They just liked to watch him sing and dance.

The poet John Berryman in his collection Love and Fame deals with this phenomenon from the celebrity's side. He offers that fame's prime motivation is the quest for love of "her". If I'm famous, maybe she will love me. The love from the audience, unfortunately, is unrequited by design because they applaud, cheer...and leave. He is left without them, and, more imprtantly, without "her". One can imagine the letdown if, afterward, one goes home alone, or even worse with a surrogate for the object of his desire.

But what of the audience? Why do they feel so close to someone who wouldn't acknowledge, let alone recognize their presence? They have the songs, they have the films. Truly, what have they lost? Two more live appearances or concerts?

The audience imagines a relationship that will never exist, and as long as that hypothesis remains untested, the fantasy remains. Watch what happens, however, when the object of the audience's affection snubs a fan, displays bad temper, or in some other fashion, dispells the mythified connection.

"I'm not gonna put no flowers on his Hollywood star--he was sooooo rude!" I've heard it said that the fastest way to hate a novel is to meet the author.

Goodness, there are so many pathetic people in the world.

Quote for the Day

2009-06-25T16:00:00.001-05:00

Actions may speak louder than words, but since when did noise bring clarity?
--Ravavi

Rabbi Jay Miller ז"ל

2009-06-25T09:20:00.002-05:00

It is with tremendous sadness and not a small amount of regret that I mourn the passing of Rabbi Jay Miller. There are many of us from the golden age of Brovenders who will always bear his exacting brand of Torah study. He was a man unique in his talents and his flaws, but I always felt the two were inextricably tied, and as often is the case, without the other, the one would not exist either.

In the '70's when learning Gemara was all but closed to Ba'alei Teshuva, Rabbi Miller developed a method of learning that could achieve in a year what most day schools could not achieve in twenty, or fifty for that matter. The daily first year Mishnah class had a quality of perpetual high drama. Studying Mishnah and Gemara could only be characterized as a gladiator sport where he was always the last man standing. There would be no such thing as a slow day in Miller's shiur.

Excited, irritated, mystically enveloped in a veil of tobacco smoke, he took Mishnahs we thought we understood, and then after rendering them inscrutable, he helped us relearn them correctly. He admonished us, shrieking, "Don't think, just do what I do!" Many of us, I'd like to believe the best of us, loved him for it.

The fierce discipline, passion and commitment belied a softer side that would emerge only when he deemed necessary. I remember when we were helping pack up his books prior to his moving from Yerushalayim to New York. At one point, he opened a can of olives to share with us. He then saturated the olives in olive oil because Chazal said that olives cause one to forget, while olive oil helps one to remember. (Horayot 13b) He explained that these are the simple ways we keep the Talmud present in our lives and actions.

I remember thinking that it doesn't matter whether olives and olive oil contain these properties in fact, but for him it was a simple act of affection and fealty to bring what our Sages had said into the world, reminding us that remembering Torah is important and forgetting any apart of it may even be a sin. Such was his devotion, to and his compulsion for learning.

If everything we contribute emanates from the skills we are given, then Rabbi Miller singularly, selflessly and passionately was the one who taught me, and countless others, everything.

Updates on the Multiple Intelligence Myth

2009-06-24T09:01:00.004-05:00

In the latest Chronicle for Higher Education, an article entitled, Not every child is secretly a genius, explores the gap between what we wish to believe and what is true--and the gap is enormous when speaking of the theory of multiple intelligences. Everyone wished to believe Howard Gardner when he single handedly revolutionized educational theory in the '80's, but the idea turns out to be...wrong. Not only unprovable, but wrong! One might say that a theory that persists long after it has been disproved is no longer a theory, but a religious belief, and a bad one at that.

I dealt with this issue back in April for those who are interested, but Christopher Ferguson makes some interesting points in his critique of the theory that does not let the facts get in the way. Here is a quote worth pondering:

The theory of multiple intelligences fundamentally conflates intelligence and motivation. (my emphasis) It's a fatal flaw. Motivation is certainly important, and it works alongside intelligence to produce results. However, having the raw biological machinery of intelligence is simply irreplaceable.

The great mystery of motivation. Even though native intelligence is required for many cognitive tasks, without the desire to engage in them one might argue that the raw material just remains raw, unrefined and not particularly useful. Of course, this discussion is a sideshow. Let's face it, skill building is a necessary evil if one is going to get to the fun stuff and skill building is drudgery for many of us. We may as well admit that some of us are never going to be able to acquire the skill.

Still, we know some people are mechanically inclined where others aren't, but the presumption is that a physicist so inclined to get his hands dirty could fix a car if he wished to. He could learn to do it. The same is not true for one with limited "g" (the moniker for native intelligence).

We need to deal with the world as it is. As Lenny Bruce once said, "What is, is. What should be, is a lie."

The Talmud and The Passions of Those Who Left it.

2009-06-23T10:41:00.031-05:00

Biographies of great failures make for wonderful reading, but paltry sales. Isaac Rosenfeld is a case in point. He is the Saul Bellow who never happened.

A new biography by Steven Zipperstein chronicles this cautionary tale of promise unfulfilled. Phillip Davis offers a thoughtful review of this all but forgotten man of letters. I was taken by a quotation lifted by Davis from Rosenfeld's review of another classic The Rise of David Levinsky that, according to Davis, is not only a reflection of Levinsky, but of Rosenfeld himself:

Levinsky is a man who is not at home with his desires. Because hunger is strong in him, he must always strive to relieve it; but precisely because it is strong, it has to be preserved.

Are we supposed to be comfortable with our desires? The Gemara in Succah seems to think not. At least King David wasn't. In the famous Bible story where David covets the wife of another, the Gemara provides "context".

David himself precipitated this episode when he wondered why he was not included among the forefathers when people offered their prayers. God answers that it is because he has not been tested as they were. David asks for a test, and God complies even revealing to him the nature of the test--something he never did for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. David succumbs to his desires causing the Sages to comment:

A man has a small organ that is sated by starvation, but starved by satiation. (Sanhedrin 107a)

The same seems to be true for the consumption of simple carbs as well. As it is written: Bet you can't eat just one...But stay away from them altogether and ones desires will be muted. In other words, one is better off eating none.

With sexual desire, however, "eating none" means no family life, no intimacy, no physical expression of love, so we live by necessity, uncomfortable with our hunger, but hungry none the less. Levinsky, Rosenfeld are examples of this age old struggle.

He who serves his Creator, enrages his passions (Midrash Ruth Rabba 6:1)

The Most Important things I learned Came from Shop Class?

2009-06-22T04:07:00.005-05:00

Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the Value of Work is philosopher/bike mechanic Matthew Crawford's meditation on the value of skilled labor as a work choice. He eschewed the life of a think tank wonk for the joys of rebuilding master cylinders, and making Harley engines hum. He claim that the problem solving of such work helps him understand Heidegger. The integration of the mind with one's hands.

Jews, at least American Ashkenazic Jews, have not been great fans of earning a living with one's hands even though the Sages of the Talmud often had day jobs as cobblers, blacksmiths and farmers. The adulation of intellectual abstraction created a reaction called hasidism which legitimated Jewish artisans and their sincere aspirations to connect to the Divine.

I never understood why craftsmanship was not more of a Jewish value. Certainly, the dictum, Torah Im Derech Eretz urged people to have a profession, but for what purpose? Only to earn a living so as not to rely on the kindness of relatives or strangers, or in order that ones learning be informed by ones work? Crawford argues the latter, as would I. The best learning comes from the integration of worldly experience with lofty ideas--the merger of heaven and earth.

The problem is a question of balance and prioritizing that such a life presents. How much time should be devoted to each enterprise? One might follow Shammai's advice:

Fix set times for Torah. (Pirkei Avot 1:14)

I assume he means every day. Shammai knows that the demands of work are such that they can easily take over most of the day. Therefore, he argues, part of the day's routine has to include the Jewish examined life--Torah study.

As for those who denigrate the elegance of building cabinets, or the feat of diagnosing and curing an ailing carburetor, I am not among you. I stand in awe of those who do these thing well because I know if they examined their work, as Crawford does, they can teach me things that I would never get on my own.

Back from the sea, zeal renewed, strength restored...

2009-06-19T14:04:00.008-05:00

And still scorchin'. After this short break, I realize what a gift teaching is. There I was, sitting outside with my laptop near Rehoboth Beach, but actually next to a small bay on the other side of the ocean. It was time for my Maharal class given on the Web through webyeshiva.org. My students who appear from California to Poland on my screen through their webcams are ready for Torah from רחובות.

The Maharal opens the second chapter of Netiv Torah (The Pathway to Torah) with a Talmudic passage from the Tractate of Ta'anit (Fasting).

Why is the Torah likened to water? As it is written, 'Let all who are thirsty come to the water.' (Isaiah 55:1)

Just as water from a high place always seeks out a low place, so too, Torah is only maintained in one who's awareness [of self] is lowly. (Ta'anit 4a)

The Maharal explains that Torah is pure intellect and has no connection to the material world. Therefore, in order to receive Torah, one must be in a state of humility. Humility is what the modern Hasidic masters would call the Bitul Hayesh, the nullification of self. The opposite of which is Gasut Ruach (grossness of spirit, arrogance). Arrogance is the most material, and the crassest of all qualities. Why the most material? Because of its emphasis on size, on being bigger, and being the best. By definition, the arrogant are subjected to the realm of form and matter, and that is their limitation. No matter how big you are, you are only that size and no more.

The humble, however, by nullifying self as much as possible, have forfeited the realm of size, for something a tad more than nothing. Thus paradoxically, they have no limitation. Like water, the humble have transcended size by going to the low place, and therefore are capable of receiving and maintaining the Torah.

Rabbi Yehoshua Bar Chanina was speaking to the daughter of Caesar. She observed, "What magnificent wisdom contained in such an ugly container!"

Rabbi Yehoshua asked, "In what kind of vessels does the Caesar keep his wine?" "In vessels of earthenware," she replied. "People as important as you keep wine in vessels so common?" He queried. "What should we keep them in?" she asked. "In vessels of gold and silver", he answered. She did as he suggested and the wine turned to vinegar.

The Caesar asked her, "Who told you to do this?" "Rabbi Chanina did", she said. The Caesar asked Rabbi Chanina, "Why did you tell my daughter to do this?"

Rabbi Chanina replied, "Just as she told me, so I told her. (Ibid)

The Gemara wonders whether it is possible for the handsome to learn? The answer is that they can, but if those who were handsome were less good looking they would have learned more.

This story demonstrates that the most precious of liquids is only preserved in the humblest of vessels. Torah, like these liquids, require the utmost care in order to be preserved. That care requires all who wish to receive it to be self-ignored and Torah absorbed.

A vacation isn't a vacation without a little learning!

Quote for the Day

2009-06-12T05:23:00.002-05:00

Don't you feel a lot more like you do now than when you first came in? Well...don't you?

Stephen Tyrone Johns of Blessed Memory

2009-06-11T08:38:00.005-05:00

I think a gesture of support should be made for this man's family. We spend so much time obsessing over our enemies, we, especially during these difficult times, should look to support our friends. According to the Washington Post, Johns has a son and was recently remarried. Now, maybe Wackenhut securities will make bulletproof vests available to its guards.

One can only hope.

A Jewish Look at Affirmative Action

2009-06-09T12:31:00.003-05:00

Judge Sonia Satomayor's nomination to the Supremes has raised the hackles of conservatives, and they point to her dismissive response to a lawsuit where a white fireman was denied promotion after having passed the required exam. The reason given was that no minorities had passed, so because of concerns for diversity in the department, nobody was promoted.

It is clear to me that anyone who believes in fair play should have a problem with what can only be construed as reverse racism. Because of advances in race relations, I do believe that such a decision would no longer fly, but years ago, when whole groups were closed out of certain professions, redress for past wrongs was a much more resonant justification than it might be today.

The Biblical Noah, was called "A righteous pure man of his generation..." The Talmudic commentators wondered why was it necessary to say "of his generation"? One opined that it was only in such a wicked generation would he have been considered righteous, while the other disagreed saying that if Noah could maintain his morality among these folks, any other generation would be a breeze.

If a child goes to school hungry every day, and on his way to school passes two crack houses, maintains a good attendance record and a "B" average, that is a feat of profound commitment, at least according to the second opinion. He has exhibited exemplary character, and should be given "extra credit" for overcoming the obstacles of poverty, and crime. He should be given credit for the tested content of his character. According to the opinion that praises the good man in a morally challenged neighborhood, where one begins is more important than where one ends up. We are interested in the whole trajectory of achievement and not just the bottom line.

In other words, we reward on merit alone, but the definition of merit has to reflect the entire reality, and not just test scores. How many suburban kids with all their advantages would have fared as well in these circumstances.

Redress for past wrongs encourages bitterness among those who feel guiltless. My being white does not make me responsible for past injustices of other groups, but my advantages over one who is disadvantaged, should matter, if we are to be a fair society.

For a look at the two opinions and their intriguing metaphors, click here.

More theories regarding smart Jews...and others

2009-06-07T08:35:00.012-05:00

Nicholas Kristof sides with nurture over nature when it comes to native intelligence. He cites three over-achieving groups: Chinese Americans, Blacks from the West Indes, and, of course, Jews.

A common thread among these three groups may be an emphasis on diligence or education, perhaps linked in part to an immigrant drive. Jews and Chinese have a particularly strong tradition of respect for scholarship, with Jews said to have achieved complete adult male literacy — the better to read the Talmud — some 1,700 years before any other group.

This very complimentary statement is misleading. As far as I can see, there wasn't complete adult male literacy 1700 years before any other group. It was, however, a mitzvah for every male to be literate because learning was a sacred activity. Talmud Torah was the meeting ground for rich and poor, patricians and peasants, artisans and merchants.

Kristof argues against the geneticists who contend that there are race based differences in regard to intellectual ability. It goes without saying that it doesn't matter how smart you are if you don't use your brains, but, if you are innately endowed and apply yourself, it would stand to reason that you would achieve more than one less endowed but equally ambitious. One might teach physics in high school, while the other may be a Nobel laureate. It doesn't ring true that anyone who works hard and is insanely ambitious, regardless of innate ability, will be on equal footing with the hardworking gifted.

What is true and more to the point is that everyone, and I mean everyone, can be successful if educational values are reinforced from an early age. The immigrant drive that is often referred to as the common denominator of all groups is assimilationist and materialist in nature. The Chinese and the Jews originally viewed literacy as a tool for wisdom, and as a vehicle for transmitting traditions. When this was the purpose of literacy, believers rich and poor through succeeding generations continued to uphold these values.

When groups transformed learning from a sacred task into a capitalist tool, they actually jeopardized the future of that group's academic excellence. Once a family established itself and the material struggle was no longer necessary, succeeding generations became considerably less ambitious--and less brilliant.

The problem of being comfortable is only a problem when the purpose of knowledge is to achieve comfort.

After 10 years of Talmudic study, I once read a modern Hebrew short story in the original language, and, on a whim, I sat down and translated it into English whereupon it was published in Commentary magazine. I then edited a translation series and added two very different books to my list of publications. One was a medieval Kabbalistic lexicon, while the other was a modern history of Israel. I didn't have to go back to school, I had skills that were transferable, because for years I had been learning for its own sake without a report card in sight.

Over and over again, I have found that the by product of spending years mastering what is perceived to be an arcane discipline, has been a very practical use of that time, even though that was never the intention.

When the quest for knowledge is only for material gain, and cultural acceptance it cannot be sustained.

As it is written:

One who does not learn Torah for its own sake would have been better off not being created at all.
--B. Talmud, Brachot 17a

Obama & Spielberg Make the Same Mistake

2009-06-04T19:50:00.005-05:00

A liberal was once defined as someone who would sleep in the crack of a bed to save a marriage. I always wanted to unpack this little ditty from a Talmudic perspective. What would be the result of such an intervention?

Does it mean, he makes a cold peace by keeping the parties close, but not too close, providing the buffer that makes co-existence possible?

Or does it mean that the intervening party is about to get ___________ (fill in a synonym for violated in an unseemly fashion. Propriety doesn't allow me to fill in the blank, but you get the point.)

Once again, Obama made the classic historical error. His speech implied that the Jewish right to homeland is intrinsically tied to the horrors of World War II Europe. The Arab street response is cogent. "Give the Jews East Germany then." If Obama wishes to argue for the Jewish State's legitimacy, he is going to have to go back further than the 1940's. He has to be willing to argue that for over two thousand years of exile, Israel was the focal point of Jewish longing.

The founders of Israel knew this and placed two thousand years of exile front and center in the national anthem as the poet declared התקוה בת שנות אלפיים "The hope borne of two thousand years". This was the problem of Spielberg's film Munich. He, too, argued that the Holocaust compelled the world to give the Jews a state of their own. Maybe so, but the logical conclusion of Spielberg's argument is not necessarily a Jewish Island amidst a sea of Arabs.

In the academy, viewing Israel as an outlaw state that has no right to exist is not considered a radical position. The every fifteen minute invokers of the Holocaust have legitimated it--even among many Jews. The sins of Europe do not justify Jewish "colonialism" in the Middle East has become an academic truism in anti-Israel circles.

The modern world of realpolitik is uncomfortable with ancient memory, and, so it seems is President Obama. But if he wants to some day get out of that bed he has just invited himself into, he better get intimate with some ancient history, or better yet--Christian that he is--let him get out his Bible.

What Happened to Those Attractive Retirement Packages?

2009-06-04T09:24:00.002-05:00

Less than twenty years ago, I worked for a corporate foundation the parent company of which had offices in the Boston metro area, where I happened to be living. They were kind enough to give me office space there instead of insisting I move to the foundation's headquarters in The Big Apple. I had the opportunity to hobnob with the regional management and sales team who were often second generation employees. The general manager of the office was about to retire. The company gave generous pensions to those whose age and number of years working added up to 80. He was fifty-five and had worked for the company for twenty-five years. You do the math--he was off to the golf course or a second career.

I am 57, and by my calculations if I'm alive and employable will most certainly have to be in the work force until I'm 75--at least. Even before the recession this was more or less true. Although companies were profitable then, these benefits are perceived as unreasonably generous now--what happened?

George Eliot's Strange Affinity for Jews and Zion

2009-06-02T12:28:00.003-05:00

On the way to the King David hotel one crosses a small alley way where a small sign attached to a stone building says "Rechov George Eliot". One of the great writers of the Victorian era, neither Jewish, nor particularly knowledgeable of Jews, Eliot wrote one of the great Jewish novels of the 19th century, Daniel Deronda.

Through the power of scholarship and imagination, Eliot, unlike her Victorian counterparts, evokes a sympathetic portrait of Jews, and Judaism. Joseph Epstein reviews Gertrude Himmelfarb's treatment of this phenomenon, The Jewish Odyssey of George Eliot.

When researching the novel that defined Eliot's affinity for the Jews she never actually knew, Himmelfarb reports:

Eliot's notebooks for this period contained excerpts from the Bible and Prophets, the Mishnah and Talmud, Maimonides, medieval rabbis and Kabbalistic works, as well as contemporary German scholars (Moses Mendelssohn, Heinrich Graetz, Moritz Steinschneider, Leopold Zunz, Abraham Geiger, Abraham Berliner, Emmanuel Deutsch), French scholars (Ernest Renan, Jassuda Bedarride, Georges Depping, Salomon Munk), English scholars (Henry Milman, Christian David Ginsburg, Abraham Benisch, David de Solar, Hyam Isaacs), and score of others.

Before pogroms and the Holocaust, Eliot intuited that it is Judaism that defines Jews and not victimhood. Jews are a people who dwells alone, but in that capacity have much to offer the world. Epstein's review is worth a look, and Daniel Deronda should be required reading for the successive generations of Holocaustalogians, and those who vicariously identify primarily with Jewish victimhood and not Jewish spiritual contributions.

It's time to read Daniel Deronda again.

The Liberal Temperament vs. The Conservative Temperament

2009-05-31T10:37:00.004-05:00

Does everything boil down to temperament, or personality type? Maybe. After reading Nicholas Kristof's op ed last Thursday, the following sentence came to mind. There are liberals, there are conservatives...and then there are Jews...and then there are frum Jews.

Kristof reports:

One of the main divides between left and right is the dependence on different moral values. For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. For conservatives, morality also involves upholding authority and loyalty — and revulsion at disgust.

He also admits that hearing opposite points of view never moderates an opinion, but indeed, it tends to calcify one's thinking as each side spends tremendous energy conjuring reasons to refute the other. Opinions that stem from morality do not reside, it seems, in the deliberative part of the brain, but from a more reactive part of the thought process.

It occurs to me that the Torah is neither liberal or conservative but embodies aspects of both parties. Certainly, the Torah is respectful and deeply concerned about respect for elders, teachers, and traditions, but it is equally concerned about caring for the most vulnerable in society.

As Kristof points out, most liberals would have no problem slapping a parent in a performance providing he had his parents permission, most conservatives would not do such a thing, even play acting. Certainly, the sages of the Talmud would be very sympathetic to the conservative point of view. Strict lines of permissible and forbidden behavior are the stuff of law, after all.

But that's not the whole story, the Torah is not a rights centered document, it is duty centered. The poor do not have a right to be fed, but all individuals have an obligation to feed them. The verse in Deuteronomy exclaims that this is the reason you have the money in the first place.

For it is because of this issue (sustaining the poor) that God has blessed your actions and your occupation.
(Deuteronomy 15:10)

You are a steward, a partner in making sure that poverty is eliminated as much as possible. It does not seem that the Torah is sympathetic to those who say that it's my money and I can spend it any way I wish, does it? These words are echoed in the liberal preference for equity, for taxes to take care of those in need. In fact Tzedaka collection resembled tax collection much more than it did a voluntary activity.

The purpose of the Talmudic version of friendship is to break down the facile labels that define American political discourse. We are supposed to submit ourselves to what the Torah requires of us. We have a pact with our learning partners that we shall not care who comes up with the most articulate and unassailable position, for it does not matter. We both claim victory since we were part of the process of arriving at the truth. My challenges sharpened your theory, and therefore, we celebrate our theory together in hopes that others will challenge and sharpen what we have presented. Such a dynamic still allows for biases, but humility is also fundamental for the dynamic to work. In such a world challenges are taken seriously, and are spurs to creativity.

Just when we have again received the Torah, it behooves us to remember that the seventy faces of Torah interpretation are in dialogue, and our tradition is the remedy for the disturbing blather that passes for political debate in this country. We should remember that yes, there are liberals, there are conservatives, but there are also Jews, and this is a much higher calling.

The Saudis Came to Jewish Kansas

2009-05-21T20:33:00.002-05:00

I'm not kidding. Nine Saudi Arabian school principals and supervisors came to visit the Hyman Brand Hebrew Academy today. Organized through a local not for profit and sponsored by the State Department, these men--of course, men--came to witness a Jewish community day school in action. Just for a dash of irony, today is Yom Yerushalayim, but somehow I don't think they would have joined in the celebration of the Jewish unification of El Kuds, if you know what I mean.

One of the educators opened expressing gratitude for our hospitality, and telling us that one of Muhammed's wives had Jewish lineage and that his other wives ridiculed her until Muhammed rebuked her and said she too is the daughter of a Prophet, Moses.

They asked about how we handled moral education when the students did not live up to the ideals expected of them. They asked about class size. They asked at what grade the boys and girls are separated (they aren't).

Our students asked why aren't the boys and girls allowed to play together even after school? They explained that boys and girls have different temperaments and needs, so they need to be separate until they are married. Understanding that these people were our guests, and that it would be rude to challenge them, our students let that one go until after our cousins had left. Great maturity for 7th graders.

The top supervisor gave me his email address, a gmail account and asked me to send him sample of our Jewish studies curriculum. So, for two hours peace in the Middle East seemed possible until...

Right at the end of the visit, after all the pictures of detente, one of the teachers said through his interpreter (who was from Nablus but had been in the U.S. for thirty-five years). "We do not agree with Israel, and we feel it is unfair that Palestine is not present on your Israeli maps." To which we replied, "Would we find Israel placed on Saudi maps? We do not agree with much of what you do, but you seem perfectly nice."

They laughed, got on their bus and went to visit one of the Catholic schools.

I remember being with the poet Yehuda Amichai, of blessed memory, when he was asked if he went to these very fashionable dialogues with his Palestinian counterparts. He eschewed participation in them saying that he already believed that their was decency across the Jewish Arab divide, but that was beside the point. Each people had passionate claims to the same small piece of real estate and all the cordial teas in the world was not going to change that, nor was it going to make it easier to compromise.

Here is what I learned today, that the Saudis we met were very keen on letting us know that there was room for them to respect the Jewish tradition, but there was not the same generosity when it came to Israel. This seems to amplify Amichai's point. As long as you are not claiming the real estate there is plenty of room to get along.

Happy Yom Yerushalayim!

Why Discussions of Pluralism are so Boring, and Intellectually Sloppy

2009-05-20T08:54:00.008-05:00

What is the difference between a good Drasha (Rabbinic homily) and a bad one? A good drasha demonstrates an honest attempt at understanding a problem in the text, the byproduct of which is a powerful insight.

A bad drasha starts with the insight and contrives textual corroboration as an afterthought. The intent of the former is understanding. The intent of the latter is to use the text as an approbation for an idea conceived independent of the text. For example:

Rabbi Abba Bar Shmuel said: For three years The House of Hillel and The House of Shammai argued. One side said ‘The law is like us!’ The other side said, ‘The law is like us!’ A heavenly voice came forth and declared: These and these are the words of the living God, and the law should be decided as Hillel says!

But after it is declared that these and these are the words of the living God, why did the House of Hillel merit having the law decided like them? Because they were gentle and humble and they would teach the words of the House of Shammai, not only would they teach their words, but they would quote Beit Shammai before they would give their own opinions. (B. Talmud Eruvin 13b)

I can't tell you how many times that the agreeing to disagree of Hillel and Shammai are brought to "prove" that pluralism has always been part of our tradition. This is not an honest reading of Hillel and Shammai, or the heavenly voice who endorsed both of their opinions. Hillel and Shammai both agreed on the Divine authority of the Torah. They often disagreed on how to interpret it. Much like Supreme Court justices who believe in the integrity and authority of the Constitution, but disagree on what it means.

This is a plurality of opinion, but it's not our pluralism. Our pluralism means that everyone respects each other even though they agree on virtually nothing--not even whom is considered to be a Jew. This source has nothing to say about that kind of pluralism and therefore would never challenge a traditional thinker to be more open minded regarding others. It might, in fact, have the opposite effect. Because the insight preceded the text, the text does not prove the insight, and therefore this qualifies as a paradigmatic example of a bad drasha.

Does this mean that there are no sources that might challenge a traditional thinker? No, it just means that if one wishes to challenge someone on their own terms, he needs to do so with their tools and not rush to super impose his values on an ancient text. For example:

How great is peace, that even the Torah misrepresented Sarah's words in order to bring harmony between Abraham and Sarah , as it is written, “And Sarah laughed quietly saying after I have been without season and my master is old.” Later when the story is repeated the narrative changes, and instead of “my master is old” it says, “and I [Sarah] am old.”( Derech Eretz Perek Shalom)

A simple understanding of this statement is that even though truth is the seal of God, nevertheless, it takes a back seat to peace. It is worth sacrificing truth in favor of harmony, for this is what the Torah did for Sarah, so that Abraham would not be angry at her. This source allows one to interact with perceived heretics for the sake of peace which is a greater value. This is not because one acknowledges the other's truth, but because it is better to get along than it is to be belligerent. It may or may not be a religious imperative, but it is an honest reading of a text which cannot be easily dismissed. It also doesn't give the pluralist everything he wants because what he wants is a modern value that does not exist in traditional sources.

It is, however, a step forward and the most honest approach given the differences that we face. If getting along in spite of formidable differences is a religious, read Orthodox value, the nature of discourse could be fundamentally transformed.

For the Hebrew sources, a translation and commentary on both texts for downloading, click here.

Proverbs 15:27 Something worth Considering

2009-05-17T13:38:00.005-05:00

Proverbs 15:27
...He who spurns gifts will live long.

As often is the case the pithier Hebrew version of these words is more poetic, more absolute, and, as a result, more jarring. שונא מתנת יחיה or in transliteration, SoNAy (Lit. He who hates) MaTaNoT (gifts) YiCHYeH (will live). Note that the verse doesn't allow for indifference, but one must despise the idea of being on the receiving end for gifts.

Now that is a counter cultural concept if I ever heard one.

The Talmud teaches what an exemplar of this value does to demonstrate that he is one who spurns gifts.

"A Sage who does not hesitate to declare his own food treif (not kosher) when he is not absolutely certain" (B. Talmud Hullin 44b)

The commentaries learn that if he is not so invested in his own sustenance than surely he is not one to care about gifts. The reason being that he is more concerned about keeping the law than he is material losses. Certainly,such a person will never consider a material gift to "matter".

What does it mean to "spurn gifts"? It is to see them as tempting distractions that deter one from life's purpose, a nefarious subterfuge to make one subject to the sycophantic designs of those who wish to curry favor. The same Talmudic passage recounts that:

Rabbi Elazar was sent a gift from the House of the Nasi (the Jewish leadership) and he wouldn't accept it. He was invited to join them, and he refused to go. When they inquired as to why he would not join, he answered, "He who spurns gifts shall live."

Rabbi Zera, however, refused gifts when they were sent to him, but accepted the authorities invitation to join them. "They are showing affection to me." He said.

Here, R. Zera marks a distinction between invitations and gifts. R. Elazar does not. R. Elazar, considering the source sees gifts and invitations as one and the same, but R. Zera is willing to accept the flattery of the officials as long as it does not line his pockets.

Here's another thing to consider. In times of economic hardship, do gifts not create yet another possibility for humiliation and embarrassment for those who have fallen on hard times and can no longer participate? What would happen if special occasions were celebrated without gifts, but with the reciprocal sharing of bounty, or where ones honored presence was considered gift enough?

I remember when my daughter celebrated a birthday in a Chabad kindergarten. We were invited to attend while the class was served a cake in celebration of her sixth year. She had a wreath of flowers on her head, and the gift from her teacher was that she was given the honor of serving her students her birthday cake.

And truly an honor it was.

(Former) Agnostic Roger Simon Describes How Ahmadinejad made him into a Believer

2009-05-15T11:56:00.004-05:00

Simon was at Durbin II and came face to face with what he perceived to be evil and he came up with the most interesting of conclusions. The protean mind never ceases to amaze.

The Samuel Bronfman Foundation's annual "Why Be Jewish" Gathering

2009-05-15T05:17:00.004-05:00

After a few days in New York at the annual "Why Be Jewish" gathering sponsored by The Samuel Bronfman Foundation, I'm back home. This year's specific topic was "Renaissance in a time of Ration", the purpose of which was to see the opportunities that austerity can create.

One recurrent theme of the conference was that diminished resources by necessity should make institutions reflect on priorities. In the words of Sharon Cohen Anisfeld leadership during these times--and for that matter during all times--requires one to ask three essential questions:

Who am I? In other words, what are my abilities and what are my limitations.
To Whom am I responsible? Or as she poetically put it, "Who is your 'we'?
What do I have to give that they need?

Beyond these existential questions are the operational ones, those that deal with efficiency, economy, and accountability. It goes without saying that sound implementation strategies are central to success, but it is equally clear that the minutiae of details deadens the passion that fuels the enterprise.

The gathering reflected the values of The Samuel Bronfman Foundation. The themes were contemporary, but the wisdom came from the ancients. The seamless synergy between classic Jewish texts and current issues testifies to the fact that the Samuel Bronfman Foundation practices what it supports. The Bronfman Youth Fellowships in Israel, Myjewishlearning.com, and The Education Initiative, all seek to promote Jewish content in pluralistic settings.

Women and men, scholars and professionals, learned and taught for a day and a half without rushing to computers, without furtively checking their blackberrys, and without needing to be in some bucolic setting away from it all. It was an island of the mind in the middle of Manhattan.

Adam Bronfman ended the session with heartfelt personal comments. He didn't understand why this gathering was so moving for him, but was grateful that it was. I think I know why he felt that way. It truly was a gathering. There was no posturing. People either became reacquainted, or made new friends, and although this happens effortlessly for teenagers, it is always more difficult for adults. He was moved because a professional community from different quarters came together as family, and managed to "feel the love" in the most urban of settings.

It occurred to me that when people say someone was thinking out of the box, they usually mean that they had somehow circumvented the "box" with unconventional or innovative ideas. Is it not also true that one cannot see his box unless he sometimes stands outside it? Innovation that builds on resources and conventional experience suggests that one should step outside a framework with the purpose of jumping back in thereby giving new life to venerable traditions. This is what the Foundation and its benefactors practice, and it was good to be outside the box so that I'm now excited to jump back in.

Thanks to all for the opportunity to learn and teach, to teach and learn. I am not a person who thrives in these settings, and I am not one who looks forward to attending professional conferences, but this is one gathering where I do hope they will invite me back.

I think I need it. In fact, we all do.

Teaching the Maharal of Prague is Wondrous...

2009-05-08T08:30:00.003-05:00

...Nobody, and I mean nobody unpacks, examines, and elucidates like the man who is said to have made the Golem. It is stated in the Talmud that:

Welcoming guests is greater than receiving the Divine presence

This statement follows a Mishnah which determines that one is allowed to move heavy objects on Shabbat for two reasons: Because of guests, and to make room for people to study. One opinion ascertains that receiving guests must be a greater mitzvah than accomodating scholars. How do we know this? The prooftext that is brougt is the Biblical passage where Abraham leaves a visitation from God to greet three strangers. Listen to the Maharal on this passage:

Rising early to study Torah is the way we honor Torah, but when you welcome a guest it is tantamount to honoring God Himself. For when one brings a guest into his home and honors him because he was created in the image of God, then it is considered as if he is honoring the Divine presence Herself which is greater than honoring the Torah, and that is why the statement "Beloved are humans for they are created in the image of God" is mentioned first and only then mentions Israel and the Torah.

So eloquently and succinctly rendered and hundreds of years before Buber's I and Thou. The Maharal has more to say, and it is worth the effort. Click here.

The Festival of Second Chances, Pesach Sheni falls on Friday, May 8th...

2009-05-07T22:04:00.007-05:00

...or more accurately, the 14th of the Jewish month of Iyar. It also happens to be my birthday, and the birthday of my son Shraga Faivel. Pesach Sheni originated because the children of Israel who were far away, or were impure had managed to miss the Pesach sacrificial meal They wanted a second chance, and Moses was counseled by God to give it to them.

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people, saying: When any of you or of your posterity who are defiled by a corpse or are on a long journey would offer a passover sacrifice to the LORD, they shall offer it in the second month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, (Numbers Chapter 9)

To remember this second chance, there is a custom to eat Matza on Pesach Sheni, and some communities omit prayers that are considered inappropriate on happy days. But for most of us Pesach Sheni usually passes unnoticed.

I propose that it should be the Jewish holy day of second chances. The day of do overs. Just as God gave those Jews a second chance to fulfill the Pesach sacrifice, so, too, we should give others, and ourselves, a second chance, or at least the benefit of the doubt--a Jewish day of reconciliation.

It was always significant for me that I was given a second chance to raise a son after a ten year gap between he and his older sister and that the second chance was given on Pesach Sheni. Second chances make everyone better!

An Australian Sees "The Big Picture" when it comes to Israel

2009-05-07T09:33:00.008-05:00

Gary Sheridan writes an extensive article that explains why the American left is in cahoots with the theocratic, anti-gay, Holocaust denying Ahmadinejad.

Here's an interesting point:

First, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Turkey is a democracy but is not technically in the Middle East. Lebanon is no longer a full democracy, its politics dominated by armed militias and Syrian interference. Israel is the only society in the Middle East with all the institutions of a democracy: a media that reveals all its secrets, a free parliament, independent courts, independent universities and the rest. This earns it a lot of support, especially in the US, but it also means that Israelis generate much of the most damaging criticism of Israel.

This is a singular quality of Israel but it is also discloses a singular quality of the Middle East. Is there another region in the world in which there is only one democracy? This fact alone demonstrates how utterly at odds with its own region Israel is, but also how very odd that region is. The Jewish people, as Walter Russell Mead has written, are an old people but the Israelis are a young people. And deeply imprinted on their DNA is the culture of democracy.

It has always amazed me how a bunch of Eastern European socialists and Middle Eastern Jews created a democracy without any tradition of its institutions. It is ironic that the colonial face of Israel is not in the complexion of its population, but in its institutions which by virtue of being democratic are deigned as "colonial". If that's what colonial means--I'll take it.

Another tidbit regarding our friends the Saudis, taken from accounts of diplomatic exploits of Martin Indyk, and Henry Kissinger:

Indyk describes in 1998 between Clinton and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is most instructive. This was at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Indyk writes:
Abdullah leaned across the table and explained to Clinton in a hushed voice that he had information that Monica Lewinsky was Jewish and part of a Mossad plot to bring the president down because of his efforts to help the Palestinians. He told the president that he intended to share this intelligence with senators he would meet after lunch in an effort to help forestall his impeachment.

This anecdote echoes one of a generation earlier told in Henry Kissinger's memoir, in which Kissinger holds a formal meeting with a Saudi ruler who tells him the world is beset by a global communist conspiracy, which is a mere part of the broader global Jewish conspiracy.

It's striking that from Kissinger to Indyk absolutely nothing has changed, nor will it, I'm afraid. Sheridan's lengthy article is well worth the time.

Lenny Bruce Would Not Understand Vanessa Hidary, and nor do I?

2009-05-04T22:09:00.007-05:00

I saw this youtube segment showing Vanessa Hidary wowing an African American crowd with a ruminative piece of spoken word performance art. She is quite compelling, but her message, upon reflection, was troubling.

The piece centered around a non-Jewish male asking her out at a bar and her declining because that day was going to be Yom Kippur and she was going to be fasting. He "compliments" her by saying she didn't look Jewish, nor did she act that way. She responds with a silent smile, and only later did she feel the sting of shame.

This triggers a diatribe decrying his not so subtle bigotry and her silence, all the while invoking images of the Exodus from Egypt, the Western Wall, and the ubiquitous Holocaust. Her point was that she was tired of feeling that being Jewish is not cool, and she just wants to be seen and respected for who and what she is.

When did being Jewish stop being cool? Hasn't she ever heard of Lenny Bruce's neologic musings on Jewish and Goyish? "Dig I'm Jewish, Count Basie's Jewish, lime jello is goyish..." Doesn't she know there was a time that the top three novelists on the New York Times Best Seller list were Phillip Roth, Saul Bellow, and Bernard Malamud--all writing about the Jewish experience while the fourth a very non-Jewish John Updike had written Bech: a Book whose protagonist was a very Jewish college professor?

In the days of Lenny Bruce they wanted to be like us. We didn't need to be accepted by them--that was the height of unhipness. Did anyone ever doubt that Allen Ginsberg was Jewish? Who was hipper than Allen Ginsberg?

Her perpetual invoking of our unique badge of suffering is also getting to be a bit much. You start to wonder what these artists would do if we didn't have the Holocaust. I get a bit queasy when I see the Holocaust replacing Mt. Sinai. We needed Sinai, and, God knows, we didn't need the Holocaust--but some seem to.

There is an old joke about a country yid meeting a city yid on a train. "Where are you from?" the city yid asks the country yid. "From a small shtetl." "How small?" "100 Jews and about 15 gentiles." "And you, where are you from?" "I'm from Minsk" "How many people are in Minsk?" "50,000 Jews and 200,000 gentiles."

"What do you need with so many gentiles?" The country yid asks.

The point of the joke is that the country yid has no perception that Jews are, or ever act like, a minority group. Why?

Because we're too cool to care!

What Would Make a Justice Truly Supreme?

2009-05-01T17:31:00.005-05:00

The Most famous dispute between rabbis in the Talmud has to be the controversy between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel is the head of the court and Rabbi Yehoshua is the brilliant thorn in Rabban Gamliel's side--representing the proverbial incisive dissenting opinion. It is Rabban Gamliel's humiliation of Rabbi Yehoshua that causes Gamliel to be deposed. When R. Gamliel realizes that he is in trouble, he walks over to R. Yehoshua's house to mollify him. Rabban Gamliel, a patrician, is surprised by Rabbi Yehoshua's poverty.

Rabban Gamliel: I see by the black walls of your house that you make coal for a living.

Rabbi Yehoshua: Woe to the leader of a generation who is not aware of how his sages suffer for how they make a living, and how they earn their keep. (B. Talmud, Brachot 28a)

President Obama, a constitutional scholar himself, has made empathy a primary criterion for his selection of a supreme court nominee. He said he's looking for someone who can relate to the every day struggles of ordinary Americans. I believe the sages would concur. Certainly, Rabbi Yehoshua would.

Another Academic Burned by Plagiarism

2009-04-30T22:41:00.002-05:00

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a historian kvetching about his ideas being plagiarised by a Dutch journalist, only to be told that the ideas were not really his. He had compared the depression of 1897 with the present global economic crisis.

I contacted the Dutch paper. The editor in chief acknowledged that his journalist had read the article and should have credited the parts that he had used. "I cannot however but disagree with your grave accusation of plagiarism," he said. "You may have been the first to have pointed out publicly the similarities between both crises. But Mr. De Boer rightly claims that this is not a unique achievement."

Appropriate attribution is an important Talmudic concept. Sometimes you will have excessive attention paid to ensuring that the appropriate teacher is acknowledged for his statement, and when there is doubt about who said it, both names will be given as possibilities. A well known statement that one hears often quoted is:

"Anyone who attributes something correctly brings redemption to the world, as it is written: And Esther reported it to the king in Mordecai’s name. (Esther 2: 22)"

The Rabbis of the Talmud through close reading attribute the redemption of the Jews in The Book of Esther to the fact that when Mordecai uncovered a plot to kill the king, he reported it to Esther. Esther in turn reported it to the King, but when it was written down she made sure to attribute it to Mordecai.

One night when the king couldn't sleep, he asked for the chronicles to be read to him where he discovered that his life had been saved by Mordecai the Jew. It was at that point that the tables turned against Haman, and the Jews were saved. If Esther had not given Mordecai the Jew, the credit then a Jew would not have been credited for saving the king.

The Maharal of Prague explains what is so redemptive about appropriate attribution.

There is a redemptive quality to the one who gives proper attribution when he quotes people. For what is that person doing? He actually does an act of redemption. For he returns the words to their rightful owner, and he takes that persons words which are now in his control and he returns them to his rightful owner by granting appropriate attribution.

The Maharal sees words and wisdom as owned by those who utter them. They are a unique property that can be used without the "owner's" permission, but the least one can do is acknowledge the one who said it.

If you want to see how wantonly unrepentant most undergraduates are about plagiarism, click here. If you want to read the Maharal in its entirety--not long, but quite beautiful, click here.

Visual vs. Auditory Learners? Humbug!

2009-04-30T11:15:00.002-05:00

It turns out that the neuro science doesn't corroborate the notion that there are different types of learners. In fact, a new book Why don't Students Like School by Daniel T. Willingham argues that students need a knowledge base before they can think critically because this is not something that the brain naturally does. In Christopher Chabris review in The Wall Street Journal, he rejects the theory of different learning styles.

It turns out that while education gurus were promoting the uplifting vision of all students being equal in ability but unique in "style," researchers were testing the theory behind it. In one experiment, they presented vocabulary words to students classified as "auditory learners" and "visual learners." Half the words came in sound form, half in print. According to the learning-styles theory, the auditory learners should remember the words presented in sound better than the words presented in print, and vice-versa for the visual learners.

But this is not what happened: Each type of learner did just as well with each type of presentation. Why? Because what is being taught in most of the curriculum -- at all levels of schooling -- is information about meaning, and meaning is independent of form. "Specious," for instance, means "seemingly logical, but actually fallacious" whether you hear it, see it or feel it out in Braille. Mr. Willingham makes a convincing case that the distinction between visual, auditory and kinesthetic learners (who supposedly learn best when body movement is involved) is a specious one. At some point, no amount of dancing will help you learn more algebra.

We want to believe that students will be challenged more by being given skills, but in order for them to organize information and analyze it, they have to know what it means first. My teacher, Rabbi Chaim Brovender once said, "There are only two questions. One is: How can he say that? And the other is: What does it mean? The first question is irrelevant until the second question has been addressed fully. "

More importantly, just because something seems to make sense, does not make it true.

It may be that appealing to different student temperaments is confused with how they learn. The reseach may indicate that teachers are responding to regulating classroom behavior, and assuming that because students are more manageable, they are actually learning more. Indirectly, that may be true, but it has nothing to do with ones "style" of learning.

I think I need to read this book.

Lawful Sleazebags

2009-04-29T20:54:00.002-05:00

Nachmanides understands the limitations of law, and legal reasoning. In one of his more popular comments, he gives the following insight:

Being holy means how one approaches that which is permitted to him. The Torah permitted one to eat meat and drink wine as well as to have sexual relations with a husband or wife, but one could fulfill this requirement and still behave in an unseemly way with one's spouse -- which would technically be permitted--or one could be a glutton with kosher meat and kosher wine. He would boast that everything he does, the Torah allows, thus being a "sleazebag" with the Torah's permission.

Because intent can't be legislated, all permissible acts have the potential to be distorted. The Parsha begins: Kedoshim Tihiyu You shall be Holy. Nachmanides says this statement is necessary because one's intent is critical to one's behavior, just because you're allowed, doesn't make it right. Ultimately, the Torah makes good people better, but has the potential to make bad people worse.

The Hasidic master Rabbi Simcha Bunim of Parshischa taught the following lesson:

When a student is learning and hears that his teacher has been preparing the same lesson, this brings the student joy because he knows his teacher will add to the lesson. The verse in this Parsha enjoins us to be Holy, so that God can add His Holiness to ours thereby making us ascend in Kedusha.

We prepare ourselves to be as good as we can and the Holy One will make us better. Ill intentioned behavior also gets reinforced, even if it is covered with a halachic fig leaf. The lesson from this portion is the most important of all, and also the most challenging.

Swine Flu In the Talmud...or a pig flu by any other name is not a Mexican flu.

2009-04-27T22:49:00.005-05:00

Timing is too strange for comfort. While innocently perusing a page of Gemara, I just happened upon the following quotation:

Once Rav Yehudah was informed that pestilence was raging among the swine and he ordained a fast. Can it then be concluded from this that Rav Yehudah is of the opinion that a plague scourging one species of animals is likely to attack also other species?

No, the case of the swine is exceptional, because their intestines are like those of human beings.
(Ta'anit 21b)

Unlike their Israeli counterparts, the sages had no problem calling a pig pestilence, a pig pestilence. No Mexican flu for them! The only question for them was "When does this flu become a fast flu"?

If I am Not For Myself...

2009-04-26T15:15:00.003-05:00

Hillel's famous statement "If I am not for Myself who will be for me, and when I am for myself what am I" instead of "When I am for myself alone what am I" is the translation of choice for all medieval commentators as well as late medieval commentators.

I did find a Sefat Emet which said that advocating for yourself meant getting yourself integrated, and once that was achieved one should use it to connect with knesset yisrael (the community of Israel) which is close to the way we understand it today.

Nearly everyone else sees it as talking about an individual's spiritual purpose which is to serve God. With the modern era, and probably with the growth of Prophetic Judaism, a Judaism that emphasized social justice, this became the interpretation of choice.

So far I have checked about fifteen sources and except for the Sefat Emet a late 19th early 20th century Hasidic master, I haven't come up with any other who favors the popular translation. The reason for this is simple. The words don't seem to mean this, many of us just wanted them to. Even the Sefat Emet understands Hillel as saying the purpose of integrating ones self is to connect with something greater. For him, something greater is the community of Israel.

I think both meanings have much to offer. The question of what it means to advocate for ones self is a profound one, but it remains an open question. The problem with the popular reading is the final sentence: If not now, when? It makes much more sense to read this as enjoining one to get his act together now, so that he can rise to his greater and ultimate purpose. In the popular reading it's just hanging out there like a non sequitor that begs a creative connection. The simpler reading is usually the more correct one, even if it isn't the most compelling for most people.

2009-04-24T19:00:00.002-05:00

This was too funny, so I just had to share. I understand the situation was resolved, but here is one individual who stood up and spoke out.

Hatikva in a faux Talmud Page

2009-04-24T13:55:00.003-05:00

Hatikva is an anthem of yearning that like the Haggada is more concerned with the journey than the destination. Israel is a young country. This faux Talmud page tries to capture the old new land that inspires so much affection and provokes so much anger. Choni HaMa'agel, the rainmaker looks over to Yehuda Amichai as he drives through the Arava desert and notes:

Ein Yahav
A night drive to Ein
Yahav in the Arava
Desert,
a drive in the rain. Yes, in
the rain
There I met people who
grow date palms,
there I saw tamarisk
trees and risk trees,
there I saw hope barbed
as barbed wire.
And I said to myself:
That’s true, hope needs
to be like barbed wire to
keep out despair,
hope must be a mine
field.

For the whole Talmud Page click here

A.D. Gordon and Rav Kook Muse on the Importance of a Place

2009-04-24T11:12:00.004-05:00

And the place is Eretz Yisrael. Two mystics, one religious and one avowedly secular have more in common than one might think:

A. D. Gordon:
We are told that it is national sentiment that prevents the Jews from assimilating. But what is this national sentiment? What strange kind of nationality is ours, which is not alive but yet will not die? Wherein lies its strength? We have no country of our own, we have no living national language, but instead a number of vernaculars borrowed from others... What, then, is that elusive, unique, and persistent force that will not die and will not let us die?

It seems that every one of us can answer this question if he is really himself free of all foreign influences and if he is not ashamed to face the matter squarely and be honest with himself. That answer is that there is a primal force within every one of us, which is fighting for its own life, which seeks its own realization. This is our ethnic self, the cosmic element, which combined with the historic element, forms one of the basic ingredients of the personality of each and every one of us. The ethnic self may be described as a peculiar national pattern of mental and physical forces, which affects the personality of every individual member of the ethnic group. It is like the musical scale, which every composer uses in his own way.

Rav Kook:
DEEP IN THE HEART of every Jew, in its purest and holiest recesses, there blazes the fire of Israel. There can be no mistaking its demands for an organic and indivisible bond between life and all of God's commandments; for the pouring of the spirit of the Lord, the spirit of Israel which completely permeates the soul of the Jew, into all the vessels which were created for this particular purpose; and for expressing the word of Israel fully and precisely in the realms of action and ideas.

Both in their own words and contexts express the unified notion that collective creativity is most vital when rooted in the Land of Israel. For a fuller exposition of these two thinkers, click here.

The Most Mistranslated of Mishnahs!

2009-04-24T06:59:00.002-05:00

I have added a file on the famous statement of Hillel, that gives a plausible explanation for how the Mishnah has come to be the clarion call for Jewish communal institutions throughout the country. It is interesting that phrases like Tikkun Olam, and Hillel's famous statement of balancing self interest with the needs of others are not necessarily reflective of what these phrases actually meant. Stay tuned for another "light unto the nations" (NOT exactly)

Torture

2009-04-22T20:17:00.006-05:00

If there is any doubt regarding the Halacha's attitude toward the permissibility of the odious practice of torture and its dubious utility, read this. Dov Zackheim, an Orthodox rabbi, and the former comptroller of the Dept. of Defense under the Bush administration might disabuse you of the feeble excuses that the Bush administration has been using, up until now that is. The abstract reads:

The international outcry and the rulings of both the United States Supreme Court and Britain’s Law Lords regarding prisoner abuse have serious implications for Jews in the military, whether that of Israel, America, or elsewhere. The uncertainties relating to the actual information that might be gleaned from prisoners subjected to torture, and the likelihood that such abuses would generate both hillul ha-shem and eivah, the latter resulting in danger to Jews everywhere, militate against the use of torture in all but the most extreme circumstances. Only when it is absolutely clear that a prisoner possesses information that could result in the near-term loss of life, the so-called case of the “ticking bomb,” is it arguable (my emphasis) that prisoner abuse might be tolerated.

By the way, it is by no means clear that even in the case of a "ticking bomb" would torture yield the results necessary, so, therefore there are opinions on both sides of this issue. The article is long and worthwhile and written by a member of Bush's defense establishment in 2006.

Bronfman's musings on Yom HaShoah

2009-04-22T15:31:00.006-05:00

Edgar M. Bronfman and Taylor Krauss wrote an op ed for Jewcy describing the Jewish generation gap regarding Jewish self-interest in contrast to Jewish responsibility to others:

Jews of an older generation guard the language of the Holocaust against use by others stems from fear for Jewish survival. The older generation of Jews, those who lived through the atrocities of the Holocaust, saw the world stand aside as Jews perished in concentration camps. They responded with the resolve to fight anti-Semitism worldwide and to ensure Jewish cultural continuity. But a tragedy of our Holocaust is that humanity has not absorbed the lesson its horrors should have taught. Asserting "Never Again" for all does not mean denying the unprecedented nature of the Holocaust. It means keeping its memory alive in the service of others.

Young American Jews have been active in the fight against genocide-recording survivor testimony in Rwanda, caring for survivors in Cambodia, raising awareness for Darfur. This generation seems unwilling to be aligned with an attitude that privileges Jewish suffering. Having grown up in a country where anti-Semitism is no longer a part of daily life, they are less concerned with the struggle for Jewish survival than with a search for joy and meaning in Judaism. They resist the call for self-protection, and instead focus on the Jewish value of justice and the pursuit of tikkun olam, the repair of the world. This confidence and openness should inspire hope for a newly vibrant Jewish life. But the embrace of the second "Never Again" has also come at the cost of the first. The younger generation tends to gloss over the real dangers that Jews face today, which include the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and the threat to Israel from a nuclear Iran.

Edgar M. Bronfman used to quote his mentor Nachum Goldman, "Anti-semitism good for Judaism, bad for Jews. No anti-semitism, good for Jews and bad for Judaism." As the first director of the Bronfman Youth Fellowships in Israel, my expressed goal for this diverse community was to make those who were very insular a little more open, and to make those who were open a little more insular. These same sentiments are expressed beautifully by Edgar the elder and Taylor, a young film maker in his twenties. The fact that they are writing together is a wonderful testimony to what is possible.

A side note. In their article, the famous statement of Hillel is quoted: If I'm not for myself... They understand it to mean that Jews have to be concerned both with their own community and the world. This may be a mistranslation. A more accurate translation might be:

If I'm not for myself who will be for me, and when I am for myself what am I? (Not, if I'm for myself alone which was a much more recent gloss on this 1st Century document).

The question being, what does it mean to be for yourself? One might answer that it means one should not only consider himself in order to be "truly for ones self". The fact that Edgar and Taylor know the popular translation "if I'm for myself alone..." as "the" translation shows how we would like to understand Hillel and understand ourselves through this interpretation. For those who have Hebrew enabled browsers, here is Hillel in Hebrew:

אם אין אני לי מי לי? וכשאני לעצמי מה אני

On the other hand, the people have spoken, and this is how they've chosen to understand Hillel. This has a veracity independent of the pretentious nitpicking of translators such as myself.

Gerson did not Convert to Christianity, he had a Jewish Grandfather

2009-04-22T10:08:00.002-05:00

Presumably a paternal grandfather, my original source had it wrong. I guess I can go back to quoting him again with fewer misgivings.

Pirates, Ransoms & The Talmudic Sages

2009-04-20T07:20:00.006-05:00

Jews throughout their history have had to contend with kidnappings and ransoms. It was so prevalent that legislation had already appeared in the Talmud.

The Sages ascertained that being held captive was a fate literally worse than death:

Rava said to Rabba Bar Mari, "Where does this notion that redeeming the captive is considered so special that the sages called it an exceptionally great mitzvah appear? As it is written: "And when they will say to you, "Where shall we go?" You will say to them, "So says the LORD, those to die will die, those to go by the sword, will go by the sword, those by famine will be by famine and those who will be taken captive will be taken captive." (Jeremiah 15:2, 42:11) And Rabbi Yochanan said, "[In this verse] the afflictions become increasingly more severe. [For example] The sword is considered more severe than death." [and therefore being held captive is worse than famine] (B. Talmud Baba Batra 8b)

Nevertheless, the Sages cautioned that one should not "over pay" for redeeming captives because of Tikun Ha'Olam i.e. one would encourage the practice of kidnapping which would be detrimental to the entire community. The Mishnah states:

One never redeems captives for more than they are worth, because of our concern for Tikkun HaOlam. One also does not help captives escape because of our concern for Tikkun HaOlam. (B. Talmud Gitin 45a)

Using this principle, the primary goal of a policy should be to deter piracy while the goal of redeeming the individual captive is secondary. It is clear that paying ransom encourages piracy, but keeps captives alive, while killing pirates may have a detrimental impact on the survival of captives. Both caving in or military action have downsides. A third option was offered in an op. ed piece in The New York Times:

In 1995, for example, the water supply for Mogadishu, the capital, was shut off by the United Nations humanitarian agencies until a hostage who worked for another aid organization was released. On the first day of the shutoff, the women who collected water from public distribution points yelled at the kidnappers; on the second day they stoned them; on the third day they shot at them; on the fourth day, the hostage was released.

Here in option three, collective punishment makes the captors so unpopular they are forced to release their captives. This reminds me of the O. Henry short story, "The Ransom of Red Chief" where the captive was so obnoxious the kidnappers decided the enterprise wasn't worth it.

One question, what do you think would have happened if Israel had turned off the water of Gaza after Gilad Shavit was captured? The Sages may have approved, but what would the response of the hypocritical U.N. have been? Not a hard call. For a more comprehensive look at these sources, click on the "Scribd" badge in the margin and look for the file entitled: Tikkun Ha'Olam: The Massive Malapropism, and feel free to check out some of the other files. Too lazy to peruse? Click here.

Neurotheology and the Jewish Brain

2009-04-19T18:09:00.003-05:00

Dr. Andrew Newburg seems to be the unassailed pioneer of this new field of Neurotheology. He has been taking pictures of brains of meditators and has proven what one might expect--that the part of the brain that is engaged in concentration and mindful focus are very active during these meditative states, so that paradoxically, while one is "inactive", he is actually working very hard, but in a way that energizes instead of enervates. He also finds that a belief in God amplifies these feelings of empathy, peace and unity.

Michael Gerson was a speechwriter for W and as I found out from one who would know, converted from Judaism to Christianity. He writes thoughtful op-ed pieces for the Washington Post about religion and its value. I confess that I liked him better when I thought he was just a thoughtful Christian, but now, I feel funny even quoting him. After all, he betrayed his people for a calling that I cannot accept. Nevertheless, he wrote an op-ed piece on Newburg and his latest findings. He also reports that Newburg's findings indicate:

Contemplating a loving God strengthens portions of our brain -- particularly the frontal lobes and the anterior cingulate -- where empathy and reason reside. Contemplating a wrathful God empowers the limbic system, which is "filled with aggression and fear." It is a sobering concept: The God we choose to love changes us into his image, whether he exists or not.

This op ed piece appeared soon after my post on why we say a partial Hallel prayer on the intermediate and last days of Pesach. The verse in Proverbs warns us: Do not be joyful from the fall of your enemies, and the Midrash immediately explains that this is why only a partial Hallel is part of the intermediate and last days of the Pesach liturgy. I recently gave a more detailed version of these sources in a class that I gave as part of the morning service. I ended it with a similar ending that I had written here in the previous post:

Blessed is the people who wish to believe in God's empathy, and in so doing, believe in their own.

Immediately afterward, one of the congregation came up to object and say that it was this very quietism of Ashkenazic Jewry that prevented the Jews from having a state much sooner. It would have helped us if we could have actively fought and hated our enemies with more gusto.

Newburg might say that this fellow chose to envision a different God, and as a result, is very much stuck in a survivalist mode that does not allow for these feelings of compassion, peace and unity. I imagine the fellow would counter that this type of love and compassion is a luxury that Jews cannot afford.

But we couldn't afford it in the 13th century either, yet this is the path we chose and this is the way we chose to see God and certainly ourselves.

A study guide that takes us through the sources will be forthcoming.

Short-changing the last day of Pesach with only a partial Hallel

2009-04-14T09:48:00.006-05:00

There are two reasons given why we only say a partial Hallel on the last day of Pesach. The most prosaic of which is the fact that the sacrifices were the same during the intermediate and last days of Pesach, so no complete Hallel is required since they are all subsumed under the same rubric (B.Talmud Erchin 10b)

The more evocative reason is that when Israel made it across the Red Sea, the angels wished to sing praises, when God chastises them by saying, "The work of my hands is drowning in the sea, and you wish to sing?" This is the reason that people know, primarily because it is the only reason quoted in the later codes. Never mind that we sang and danced when we crossed the sea.

The first time this reason appears is in the 13th century work Shiblei HaLeket of Rabbi Tzidkiyahu Ben Avraham HaRofeh when he quotes from the lost Midrash Harneinu:

Shmuel Bar Abba said: "At the fall of your enemies, do not be joyful." Because the Egyptians were drowned [we do not say a complete Hallel]. In later Halachic works the Talmud in Sanhedrin is quoted to illustrate this point, "The work of my hands is drowning in the sea, and you wish to sing?" Even more interesting is that the more prosaic reason is not mentioned at all having been eclipsed and embellished by God's empathy for the Egyptian enemy. In the collective Jewish memory, this is the reason most people seem to know, the source of which is a lost Midrash, which is buried in a section of the Shiblei Haleket, the subject of which is Rosh Chodesh (The New Moon). Dredged from the innards of a 13th Century halachic anthology, comes a truism in Jewish consciousness.

Blessed is the people who wish to believe in God's empathy, and in so doing, believe in their own.
Chag Sameyach!

The Barbarity of Multi-Culturalism

2009-04-14T09:34:00.003-05:00

Kenan Malik argues in his book From Fatwa to Jihad, The Rushdie Affair and its Legacy that Islamo-fascism is far from medieval, but a modern invention--a product of multi-culturalism. By creating "communities" in the U.K., Tony Blair invigorated tribes in their stead. Celebrating difference had eclipsed the fight against racism making communities into tribes. In his review, Bryan Appleyard laments:

Racism is a cause that unites all creeds and colours. It is a universal enemy that can be attacked with the universalist Enlightenment belief that there are values that can be rationally and justly applied to all human societies. Splitting the world into “communities”, celebrating difference at all costs, is a counterEnlightenment strategy.

Malik was the product of a mixed Hindu-Muslim marriage who grew up without either religious tradition. He may argue that certain "tribes" received a boost from multi-culturist policies, but we, in America, know all too well the cost of a "great melting pot" strategy that left many races and ethnicities out in the cold.

Goldblog and Roger Cohen are at it...again. Two Jews in a "passing water" contest.

2009-04-12T14:25:00.002-05:00

Roger Cohen once again draws attention to Bibi's objection to the Iranian regime. Jeffrey Goldberg revels in his honorable mention by Cohen as Bibi's "stenographer" read, apologist, when all Goldberg did was score an interview. Goldberg is happy to be trashed by an NYT columnist, claiming that he has gotten under Cohen's skin.

It reminds me of R. Yossi Ben Kisma and R. Hanina Ben Tradyon. R. Hanina was the defiant scholar who studied Torah publicly knowing that if he were caught, he would be executed. Yossi collaborated with the authorities under the assumption that the Roman victory indicated that God's favor was with them and not with the Jews.

R. Yossi became ill and, lo and behold, Rabbi Hanina went to visit him even though it seems there was very little upon which they agreed. That level of concern for each other in spite of their differences, always struck me as particularly powerful given that there was so much at stake. R. Yossi Ben. Kisma was a collaborator after all, and R. Hanina was anything but that.

R. Yossi dies from his illness, and the Romans eulogize him with great fanfare and then on their way back from the funeral, they "catch" Rabbi Hanina teaching to the multitudes with a Sefer Torah in his lap. It is here he utters the most famous four words in Jewish martyrdom, "Gvilim nisrafin, v'otiyotav porchot" (The Parchments are burning, but the letters are flying free.)

I ascribe the most noble of motives to Cohen and Goldberg, but if Cohen turns out to be wrong about Iran, he loses very little in that he has cast his lot as a citizen of the world who is willing to mortgage Israel's future on his enlightened perceptions. Goldberg, on the other hand, would lose much more for his attachment to Jews, Judaism and Israel is well documented. He would have certainly been on Hanina's side in this argument, while there is no doubt where Cohen would be.

The question is would one visit the other if he was ill?

For the Talmudic rendering of Rabbi Hanina's trial with R. Eliezer Ben Parta and the subsequent tale of his visit to Rabbi Yossi Ben Kisma, click here.

Peace In Our Time for all Wonton Progressives

2009-04-07T16:03:00.002-05:00

Finally, a common language!!!

Chinese Food--We can get together on

Xmas after the movie!

Pass the Pu Pu Platter cousin!

But please wait until after Pesach.

David Brooks writes an interesting NYT column, but doesn't know diddly about the Talmud or its purpose.

2009-04-07T14:37:00.005-05:00

Brooks writes an article declaring that moral reasoning has little to do with morality since most moral decisions are intuitive and made in a visceral instant. In it, he claims that this:

...challenges the Talmudic tradition with its hyper-rational scrutiny of texts

Clearly, an indication of someone who has no idea of what the Talmud is, and its purpose. One of the criteria for entering the Sanhedrin, the sacred portal of those who created the Talmud, was to be able to prove in many ways how a lizard is kosher. (The point being that even a child knows that Jews aren't allowed to eat lizards.) This was not only a way to demonstrate intellectual acumen, but to understand the limitations of reason when it comes to morality, or even legality.

Rav Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Palestine spoke of the Musar HaTeva the "organic morality" that existed in all men. The Talmudic sages called this the Yetzer Hatov, the organic inclination to do good. Enhancing the understanding of why even de facto the good is the better path reinforces the good and gives it substance beyond biological impulse. Just as the raionalization for evil is the friend of the perpetrator, the pondering of the ramifications of the good is an ally to the visceral impulse to do so.

The purpose of the Talmud was to sharpen those visceral judgements, to harmonize the positive emotional response with intellectual rigor, so that not only what you are doing will be of good intent, but will also have as good of a result as possible.

I love reading David Brooks, he is smart, sensitive and often unpredictable. He is also a committed Jew, but he might even be smarter if he studied a little Torah and understood the intellectual tradition that has much to do with who he is today.

I'm about to shut down for awhile, Chag Sameyach!

Travellin' Man

2009-04-06T08:39:00.001-05:00

The key to happiness is good health and a bad memory.--Ingrid Bergman

In transit today and won't be scorchin' until late this evening. Happy cleaning everyone!

The Sefat Emet A Modern Chasidic Master Teaches Us How to Get Real with our Passover Seder

2009-04-05T09:49:00.004-05:00

For many who take Passover Seders seriously it is either an opportunity to have children to take over and display their knowledge, or an opportunity for lively discussions relating to the ritual at hand. Both of these approaches choose pedagogy and discourse over piety. The Sefat Emet Rabbi Yehudah Aryeh Leib Altar(1847-1905) challenges us to believe that there is more to Pesach than a ritualized reenactment, it is a connection that is meant to transcend time. The power of believing that can make a seder magical. Quoting the Maharal of Prague, Rabbi Yehudah Loew (1525-1609) he says:

...as a group everyone was actually present at the Exodus, but it as individuals everyone has to see himself “as if he went out”. (Maharal, Gevurot HaShem Chapter 61). It would also seem that the way one enters the group is through believing that he went out from Egypt. For certainly, the Exodus from Egypt was the original Israelite point from which life is drawn to every person in Israel, and this is something that we are obliged to believe.

We are to believe that our very lives as Jews not only depend on the Exodus in the past, but that through this reenactment we remain connected as if it is happening now, and in fact, there is always an Egypt that we are trying to leave, it is only the characters that change. For the Sefat Emet in translation and a scorchin commentary, click here.

The NYT Doesn't Let Facts Get In the Way

2009-04-04T21:15:00.004-05:00

Blinded by the "necessity" of equal airtime, the NYT has to give free space to a George Bisharat whose "heart is in the 'right' place, even though his mind is somewhere else. Noah Pollack has the goods on his post entitled "He forgot the poison wells".

Bisharat continues by charging that Israel is violating Article 33 of the Geneva Conventions by imposing “collective punishment” on Gaza. This claim depends on every resident of Gaza being considered a “protected person” under the Geneva Conventions, which they are not, because Israel is not occupying Gaza. The blockade may be a bad policy, an ineffective policy, or an immoral policy — but it is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Side question: Why do people like Bisharat never condemn Egypt for its involvement in the blockade?

As more information comes out regarding the Gaza incursion--see my post a few weeks ago, Israel bashers under the guise of Professorial "authority" don't let the facts get in the way. I also rushed to believe the worst stories being peddled by a recalcitrant anti-Gaza activist, because in any war, such instances are entirely plausible. But that's the point, Israel is never worse than others who are engaged in mortal combat, and is probably marginally better.

The fact is once again Hamas is not responsible for targeting exclusively civilian populations across the green line because "why exactly" Mr. Bisharat?

Hat tip to Jonathan Cohen.

More Studies Confirming What Any Bozo Should Already Know!

2009-04-03T00:34:00.005-05:00

JTA newsflash "Study finds that ethnic identification on the wane and 'spirituality' is on the rise!" This has tremendous ramifications for Jewish institutions in the future. Pllllleasssse...Now, I haven't read the study, so let's confine this critique to the way it was reported, but if it has been reported accurately, well, let the chips fall...

Ask Joe/sephine college student if given the choice between a debauched evening with friends or a "spiritually meaningful experience", most would opt for the former option. Hands down, however, it would be option B that has the potential to be memorable, and significant while option A will be forgotten with tomorrow's inevitable hangover.

The truth is, people don't often know what they really want which renders $60,000 surveys less than useful. We need to be suspicious of studies that call for new directions that are based on ill-defined terms like "spirituality". Take this oxymoronic statement from the JTA article:

"The notion of spirituality is an elusive one, the researchers concede, though they generally understand it to mean the quest for meaning, purpose and connectedness. Rather than identifying Jewishly through ethnic food or language, or through affiliation with communal institutions..."

Aren't synagogues supposed to be spiritual institutions? Aren't they the primary communal institution? Aren't they ostensibly the vehicle for meaning, purpose and connectedness? Aren't synagogue memberships plummeting longer and faster than the stock market?

True Jewish spirituality, like all authentic disciplines, require commitment, literacy and community. For years, synagogues have pandered to the consumer by diluting Jewish uniqueness in favor of blander, fare. As long as anti-semitism was alive and well, it didn't much matter what our institutions did because there was a visceral need to be connected to our brothers and sisters. Institutions do better when formed out of need, they do less well, when institutions need people, more than the people need the institutions.

I have no doubt that few newspapers will survive the next fifty years in their current format, but some will because there will be a group of people who need them, for whom holding a newspaper over morning coffee feels like having a good friend over every morning. There will always be those for whom the ritual of reading the Sunday Times will be a meaningful event in their lives that is worth paying for.

All over America there are emerging organic Jewish spiritual communal institutions that are developing through common need and interest. These institutions are joined by the most educated and Jewishly erudite of the next generation, but they developed because like minded people joined together to create something meaningful for themselves. They are committed people who need institutional structures to fulfill their commitments in the best way possible. These commitments require them to volunteer, create, and connect to their community.

Nearly two years ago I consulted with the Bronfman Youth Fellowships on their alumni program and how to make it more responsive to its alumni. The first order of business was to ascertain whether there was an actual need to be fulfilled and whether this was the vehicle to fulfill it. In other words, if we disappeared tomorrow, would it truly matter to those we ostensibly serve? To honestly acknowledge the possibility that it may be time to split the scene can be an invigorating starting point for truly serving the people. At that moment, one can honestly say, what do they need us for, and for that how do we serve them?

I believe re-invention begins with the possibility that it may be time to disappear. In many large synagogues, the most committed have their own minyan in either the chapel or the library. These breakaway groups are an accommodation to the most literate and often the most committed, but sooner or later those who crave intimacy might ask why do I have to help finance this sanctuary building fund, when I only need and care about a small modest room? Why do I need this newspaper when I can get more up to date information on line, and it's for free? Why indeed? I'm convinced that the model of huge buildings financed primarily by those who attend them three days a year has been a failed model for longer than anyone cares to remember. Finally, people are choosing not to pay for it.
Well, Boker Tov!

A committed Jew needs a shule, because s/he needs to daven, not because the shule needs members. As long as the Jew is committed, the need for certain institutions exist. Spiritual institutions serve commitment. Whether it be religious services, kosher food, study groups, classes, Jewish meditation societies, or pot luck dinners, structures serve defined commitments.

As soon as the primary commitment is to serve the institution, and not to serve God, or whatever transcendent/spiritual purpose that brings folks together--it's over, and we shouldn't need to spend 60k on a study to figure that out.

Checking for Chametz, and the Haggada's slow start

2009-04-02T20:34:00.002-05:00

For those who are furiously scrubbing into the immaculate night fantastic of this, the most sanitary of festivals, I offer a guide to make the excision of leavening a bit more meaningful. Click here for a spiritual guide to the ritual of nullifying leavening, and some scorchin tips on how to understand the first sections of the Haggada.

Yogi interviews Booboo...

2009-04-01T15:16:00.003-05:00

I mean Goldblog interviews Bibi...yeheyheyhey,

To get a glimpse of what lies in store...

“Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world. That’s what makes them so dangerous.”

Realist or Paranoid--you choose.
Choose wrong, you lose.

What would the Rambam say of Collatoral Damage?

2009-04-01T11:37:00.008-05:00

There has been a small buzz on the internet regarding the conduct of Israeli combatants during the Gaza incursion. It is undisputed that it has been a longstanding practice for Palestinian combatants to elect to fight in heavily populated civilian areas in order to not only deter the Israeli forces, but to use civilian casualties to their political advantage.

This type of war was not considered in our sources, but the Rambam does speak eloquently about the mission of the soldier:

...he should put his life in his hands, and not be afraid. He should not think of his wife and family, but he should wipe out the memory of them from his heart, and focus everything on the battle before him. For anyone, who has second thoughts during battle and feels fear, transgresses a negative commandment, as it is written: Do not soften your hearts and do not be afraid… Not only this, but all of Israel is weighing on his neck. And if they do not win, and he has not fought with all his heart, it is as if he has spilled the blood of everyone… (Rambam Hilchot Melachim 7:15)

For a more complete rendering and a scorchin commentary, click here.

Well, so far the Palestinians seem to have stayed home.

2009-04-01T09:49:00.002-05:00

Tens of thousands of anti-capitalists, and somehow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has not been front and center at the G-20. I guess they're saving it up for "Durban II".

Quote for the Day: Cruel to be Merciful?

2009-03-31T09:08:00.004-05:00

One who is merciful to those who are heartless will end up being heartless to those who are merciful.(Midrash Zuta, Midrash Tanchuma, Yalkut Shimoni)

This quotation ia attributed to Resh Lakish, R. Elazar, R. Shimon Ben Levi, R. Yehoshua Ben Levi. It is apparent that this belief was widely held.

The proof brought is from Shaul who against Divine decree, spared Agag, the Amalekite leader, and then seven chapters later Shaul slaughters a town of Kohanim blinded by his jealous rage for David. The Rabbis read I Samuel Chapter 22 in light of what Shaul had done in I Samuel Chapter 15 where Agag is temporarily spared only to be killed by Shmuel.

It is difficult to understand how one's sympathy even for a heartless monster could cause one to be heartless toward an innocent. Maybe the Sages felt that when one loses a moral compass for right and wrong, cruelty and kind, all things are possible. A moral order requires judgment, and without that, the wrong people will be on the receiving end of ones wrath.

We live in a world where phrases like "objectification of the other" indicate a sin akin to racism. We hardly ever ask the question, "When does "the other" deserve to be "objectified" as cruel.

The Sages knew that we have never been, nor ever will be always "the same".

This is the flaw of proportional response in certain conflicts. If the expressed goal is to wipe one off the map, should the fact that the enemy is not successful at it be a mitigating factor? Or, like Roger Cohen, do we choose not to believe them because he knows that this is merely overblown rhetoric contradicted by the kindness that he has been afforded by some of the local citizenry.

Whatever political strategy one adopts, it would behoove one to heed the notion that to enter the brotherhood of man there needs to be an entrance exam.

There is a heartless nihilism that in the name of human decency should not be "understood" and doing so, will ultimately cause one to be cruel to the merciful. Words are powerful and they often reflect the deepest held passions and beliefs of individuals.

In the new age of dirty bombs one can't afford to dismiss them.

In Case You Think the Previous Post is Some Fluffy Pop Kabbalah, Look at this source from The Zohar

2009-03-29T18:02:00.005-05:00

The lower world is completely attached to the upper world, and until the lower world is complete, the upper world cannot be complete, as we have said.

"For the LORD God had yet to make it rain on the earth [and there was no man to till the soil]." (Genesis 2:5)
For one is dependent on the other.

(i.e. until there is someone to till the soil, there is no reason to make it rain. It is the act of preparing the earth that brings the rain.)

The lower world once repaired returns face to face [with the upper world] so that it too will be repaired thus finding the heavenly now attached to the earthly.

For before this happened, the world did not have its Tikkun (repair). Because "The Lord God had yet to make it rain on the earth." So, you see, one is dependant on the other.

What is written after this verse? "And vapor ascended from the earth." (Ibid 2:6) This is the earthly Tikkun which occurs after "the face of the earth was watered." (ibid)

"And vapor ascended from the earth." This is the desire of the feminine for the masculine. Zohar Vol. I:35a (My Translation)

(At this stage, the heavens are totally dependant on the earthly vapors for rain. First, the lower earthly world is repaired which in turn repairs the heavens.)

In other words, according to the Zohar, we control the flow, once the original waters poured down from the heavens, from then on the vapor ascended from the earth.

This source was previously quoted in the Tikkun Olam: The Massive Malapropism File.

Ten Emanations and Human Encounters

2009-03-29T00:41:00.005-05:00

Today while pondering a very human problem in a wondrous meditative state, my four years spent translating a Kabbalistic work came to the rescue and eased a concern that had been rattling my psychic cage for many months.

Shefa is a Hebrew term that describes how God's energy sustains the world. I translated it with the neologism "everflow". To my knowledge, it is a unique translation, but I feel it is the most accurate. The "Shefa" flows through the ten emanations of God, through channels. If the channels are in repair, than the Shefa pours bountifully through these ten emanations, the Sephirot until they reach the lowest emanation, then all that energy is concentrated and pours out to the world.

It is we, by our deeds, who keep the heavenly channels in tact so that the everflow will pour freely through all the emanations, and if we fall short, then the channels are ruptured and the everflow spills out to the darkness and destructive, empowering all that is negative.

Relationships born out of innocence, and ostensible purity of purpose feel this everflow so profoundly that at the moment it feels that it will be forever, untainted. The channels are secure, and the emotional bounty will be never ending. During these moments who wouldn't sacrifice all else to preserve these feelings.

Invariably, because of human frailty, and the challenges of everyday living, something goes awry. The channels are breached, and the spectre of suspicion hovers, growing stronger until all those feelings from before feel like a tragic misdirection, except it wasn't, it was real, but we are not focused or conscious enough to maintain that spirit, the way we have come to expect it.

Some everflow, however, still flows through the channels and drips down, but now it has to compete with all the darkness, the anger, the jealousy, the disappointment, the suspicion, and overwhelmingly, the guilt.

The everflow does, however, have the edge, for it is eternal, and cannot stop. The water always seeps through the thickest walls of despair. We created the walls and we can knock them down. We make them big, but with the help of the everflow from our Creator, we can make them small until they disappear.

The purpose of prayer is to affirm that we believe in the goodness of that which sustains life, love, justice and peace and we believe that we are sustained from a Divine energy beyond ourselves and it is that energy which is eternal. Everything else is temporal. When this belief transforms behavior, the channels are repaired, the darkness recedes, and the world is sustained. If they aren't repaired, then we limp along gathering glimmers of the eternal now and then, once in awhile.

As long as there is life, there is the everflow sometimes weak, sometimes strong, but constant and never ending.

Get your plagues on! Blood is ickier than Water

2009-03-27T11:33:00.003-05:00

Moses water and the plague of blood: A tragic love story.

Charoset--so women are already on the Seder plate, who knew?

2009-03-27T11:28:00.003-05:00

What's the connection between apples and charoses? The Talmud teaches that:

If it wasn't for the women of Israel we would have never been redeemed.

Take that Dr. Heschel, they already have a place on the Seder plate, we just have to remember to acknowledge it. Click here for the whole story!

A Heroine of The Exodus: Serach Bat Asher

2009-03-27T10:22:00.004-05:00

In the Passover Haggadah we say “the more one talks about the Exodus, the more praise one deserves.” With this in mind, the following texts will examine a little known figure from the Exodus story, Serach the daughter of Asher. As you will see, Midrashic literature links Serach to the Exodus story and the rest of Jewish history. Serach offers a wonderful female character to incorporate into the Passover story. As her character is developed in the midrashic sources, she also raises important questions about Jewish memory.

Serach, in Rabbinic literature is the female Elijah, helping out at critical times throughout the generations, for it is written in the midrash--

Her mouth is full of wisdom (Proverbs 31:26) -- This refers to Serach the daughter of Asher who did not taste the taste of death.

For more midrashim on the wonders of an Eishet Chayil: Clck here.

All the Files are in One Place

2009-03-26T04:55:00.002-05:00

If you click on the Scribd badge found on the bottom right hand side of this page, you have access to all the files that have been posted on this scorchin site. Happy hunting!

Birchas Hachama Riot in 1897--A Clash of Civilizations

2009-03-26T03:55:00.007-05:00

In honor of the fact that Birchas Hachama will be said this year, I bring you the following tidbit:

Here's a New York Times article from 1897 describing the arrest of a certain Rabbi Wechsler for illegal assembly for blessing the sun. His colleague Rabbi Klein fled the scene.

Every twenty eight years from the beginning of creation, so the story goes, the sun is in its original place which is marked by a simple blessing on that day. It is always on Yom Revi'i (Wednesday) which is the day that the lights were created. Here's the money quote:

The celebration is rather a complicated matter to explain to anybody. Rabbi Klein's knowledge of English is slight, while Foley's faculties of comprehension of matters outside of police and park regulations and local events are not acute. The attempt of a foreign citizen to explain to an American Irishman an astronomical situation and a tradition of the Talmud was a dismal failure.

You can just imagine!

Hat tip to Raysh Weiss

The Third Book: Vayikra, and He Called

2009-03-25T05:59:00.003-05:00

When God calls to Moshe, it seems that it is rarely good news. Rashi tries to understand what the word Vayikra really means.

Every time God spoke to Moshe, he was welcomed by this calling which was a term of endearment. It was the same language used by the ministering angels for they too, 'called one to the other...' (Isaiah)...And the voice went to Moshe alone for Israel was unable to hear the sound... Yet, everything God said to Moshe for thirty-eight years, was for the sake of Israel. It was only after the generation of the spies--those who were afraid to conquer the land of Israel-- had died that God spoke to Moshe for his sake alone. As it is written, "After all the people from the generation of the war had passed, God spoke to me.

What does Rashi mean when he says that "everything God said to Moshe for thirty-eight years, was for the sake of Israel."? Click here

A Searing Pesach of Pressburg 1943

2009-03-25T05:41:00.004-05:00

Rabbi Shlomo Unsdorfer wrote down his sermons in a notebook that was recovered after the war, and after he had perished in Auschwitz. His brother published Reb Unsdorfer's essays in a work entitled Siftei Shlomo (The Lips of Shlomo). It is the only document I know of that "darshens" the holocaust through the lens of Torah. His Shabbat Hagadol drasha, that I have translated may give us some perspective, and even in these times, appreciation for our bounty and blessings.

"For all who are hungry, come and eat...us." (Siftei Shlmo)

What's in a Miracle? Posts for Pesach

2009-03-25T05:34:00.002-05:00

The single most important component of a miracle is that it happens when you need it. It was true at the Red Sea, and it's true now. No one controls timing. Click here