Gary Rosenblatt, editor of The Jewish Week can't seem to understand anti-Semitism. In his latest piece:
Have we reached the point where we not only take anti-Semitism for granted but don’t even question the illogical attitudes of those who hate us?I learned with shock, as we all did, of the attempt of four former convicts from New York, Muslim converts, who reportedly out of opposition to the U.S. war in Afghanistan, decided to blow up synagogues, and presumably Jews, in the Bronx. Does that make any sense?Surely we will come to learn more details in the days and weeks ahead, but the strange conflation of American foreign policy, Israel, militant Islam and anti-Semitism is as dangerous as it is puzzling. Yet we have been conditioned to accept the notion that virtually any controversial event in the world
somehow becomes linked to Israel, Zionists and Jews, in a negative way.
There are two general approaches to understand Jew hatred: the religious and the non-religious.
The religious approach is relatively simple. Our sages tell us that "it is a halacha that Eisav hates Yaakov." Not a general thing, not a custom, not something common, but a law, using the same word that one might use to discuss rules about kashrus or Shabbos. In other words, it's a given for us.
What's more, we recognize this hatred is irrational. The Midrash tells the story of Hadrian, y"sh, the Emperor of Rome who was walking down the street when a Jew greeted him. Hadrian, insulted by the idea of a Jew speaking to him, had the poor guy executed. The Jew's friend who witnessed this then tried to sneak by but when Hadrian caught him and discovered that he too was a Jew, he had him executed as well. Hadrian's advisors then asked about the obvious contradiction: you killed the first Jew for greeting you and the second Jew for not greeting you. Where's the logic in all that? Hadrian's answer was: Don't tell me how to deal with my enemies.
For the non-religious, understanding anti-Semitism has always been much more difficult. After all, it's easy for them to understand Jew hatred from a xenophobic perspective. Religious Jews in their strange garb, speaking a strange language, refusing to integrate into the surrounding culture, well that would make sense. Initially suspicious turns into eventual hatred.
But let us remember that the tragedy of the Holocaust did not start with religious Jews. Hitler, y"h, began with the non-religious and the charges against them were that they wore German garb, spoke German perfectly and were desperate to integrate into German society, thereby diluting the Aryan race's purity. What's more, looking at the Nazi literature of the time, like Der Streumer, it's easy to discover what the German mind thought of their Jews: underneath the assimilated Teutonic exterior was the same bearded and caftaned Jew that infested Poland.
Movies like The Pianist make this point perfectly. Adrien Brody and his family are assimilated Jews in Poland during the war. There are, in fact, only assimilated Jews in Poland if this film is to be believed. They are so assimilated that they have Polish names, participate in Polish culture and, other than a bris milah (hopefully) they betray no trace of Jewishness. Yet when the Nazis come it's off to the ghetto for them and the viewer is forced to ask: why? They're no different from the non-Jewish Poles. What was so special about them that warranted such harsh treatment?
As the holiday of Shavous draws close, we are given our answer. About 3329 years ago we stood at the foot of Har Sinai as God Allmight, in all his glory, revealed Himself to us and gave us His Torah. The Torah is the source of morality, God's foothold in a world that would rather not have Him in it so that true goodness can be expunged. We are the guardians of that foothold and the nations of world, consciously or not, know this. Jews observant of the Torah's law know this. By virute of the covenant, we cannot be separate from Him. Just as they hate Him, they hate us. A Jew cannot assimilate away from this hatred and attempts to try just worsen things. No one loves a God fearing Jew but a perceived turncoat is always worse.
There will always be Jew hatred until the final redemption (may it come speedily) and it will never appear rational to the initiated because a rational approach exclude God's importance in all that befalls us as a nation. May we merit that this is the last Shavuos in golus and that our Father in Heaven speedily return us to our land in front of the eyes of the nations of the world so that His Torah can once again become the guiding light for humanity.
Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart
BUY THIS BOOK! Now available on Amazon! IT WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE COMPLETE!
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Needless Antagonism
Since we're on the topic of mehadrin buses, my own personal opinion has been that Egged, being a company that serves the public, should run only unsegregated buses on any line that does not exclusively serve a religious neighbourhood where the service has been requested. The idea that some public bus lines will be altered to respect the sensitivites of a minority of the population (and possibly only a fraction of the folks withint that minority) is not sensible in a generally secular society. It's one thing to expect folks on the bus in deepest and dark Bene Beraq to sit separately even if they're not ultra-Chareidi, quite another on the cross-town express.
But I don't believe the solution is to antagonize the religious population demanding this special treatment:
Retired Supreme Court Justice Dalia Dorner suggested on Monday that secular passengers start riding haredi bus lines en masse to counter the gender segregation advocated by the ultra-Orthodox...
The public Egged bus company operates special "mehadrin" lines on which men and women are required to sit separately. Dorner insisted that Egged must provide an alternative for secular passengers who wish to ride these lines but are opposed to segregation.
In a conversation with Ynet, Dorner stressed that the proposed move was not meant as an act of defiance against the religious administration, but rather as means to exert pressure on the transportation minister and the Egged bus company to operate complimentary lines for the non-religious public.
"These arrangements should not be forced on the general population," she explained.
Dorner told students that young Jerusalemites should actively protest the segregated lines by using these buses more and disregarding the modesty codes practiced on them.
On one hand, comments like this from someone like Dorner aren't surprising. Israel's high court is an in-club in which the supreme justices choose their replacements without any input from the government or the public, both of which are considered too stupid and unenlightened to offer any meaningful input. Ever since Aharon Barak's tenure, the court has been a lodge of anti-Jewish intellectuals who think Israel's future is best secured by removing every trace of Jewishness from the country while encourages the Arabs in their cultural nationalistic ambitions. A Supreme Court justice making an anti-Chareidi remark is about as exceptional as Paris Hilton discussing her latest sexual conquest.
If Dorner wanted to be responsible, she could have made a simple suggestion: No segregated bus lines on Egged. If the Chareidim want them, they can create their own bus company and pay for it themselves. Anyone protesting such an idea could safely be dismissed as a fanatic.
But actively protesting and disregarding the modesty codes? Look, I have no interest in telling non-religious folks how to dress and act but I would reserve the right to be offended if someone I considered to be immodestly dressed walked up to me and yelled out "Hey! I'm purposefully doing this to offend you!"
Now, me being me I would probably just roll my eyes and turn away. However, it has been well established over the last several decades that this is not how the average Chareidi responds to confrontation. Dorner's irresonsible ideas are recommendations to create a riot.
Mind you, that's probably what she wants. Then she'll give an interview where she points out how primitive Chareidim are, rioting all over innocent seculars who went out of their way to bother them. And, oblivious to the commotion she helped create, she'll create another wave of bad feeling that does nothing to improve secular-religious tensions in Israeli society.
But I don't believe the solution is to antagonize the religious population demanding this special treatment:
Retired Supreme Court Justice Dalia Dorner suggested on Monday that secular passengers start riding haredi bus lines en masse to counter the gender segregation advocated by the ultra-Orthodox...
The public Egged bus company operates special "mehadrin" lines on which men and women are required to sit separately. Dorner insisted that Egged must provide an alternative for secular passengers who wish to ride these lines but are opposed to segregation.
In a conversation with Ynet, Dorner stressed that the proposed move was not meant as an act of defiance against the religious administration, but rather as means to exert pressure on the transportation minister and the Egged bus company to operate complimentary lines for the non-religious public.
"These arrangements should not be forced on the general population," she explained.
Dorner told students that young Jerusalemites should actively protest the segregated lines by using these buses more and disregarding the modesty codes practiced on them.
On one hand, comments like this from someone like Dorner aren't surprising. Israel's high court is an in-club in which the supreme justices choose their replacements without any input from the government or the public, both of which are considered too stupid and unenlightened to offer any meaningful input. Ever since Aharon Barak's tenure, the court has been a lodge of anti-Jewish intellectuals who think Israel's future is best secured by removing every trace of Jewishness from the country while encourages the Arabs in their cultural nationalistic ambitions. A Supreme Court justice making an anti-Chareidi remark is about as exceptional as Paris Hilton discussing her latest sexual conquest.
If Dorner wanted to be responsible, she could have made a simple suggestion: No segregated bus lines on Egged. If the Chareidim want them, they can create their own bus company and pay for it themselves. Anyone protesting such an idea could safely be dismissed as a fanatic.
But actively protesting and disregarding the modesty codes? Look, I have no interest in telling non-religious folks how to dress and act but I would reserve the right to be offended if someone I considered to be immodestly dressed walked up to me and yelled out "Hey! I'm purposefully doing this to offend you!"
Now, me being me I would probably just roll my eyes and turn away. However, it has been well established over the last several decades that this is not how the average Chareidi responds to confrontation. Dorner's irresonsible ideas are recommendations to create a riot.
Mind you, that's probably what she wants. Then she'll give an interview where she points out how primitive Chareidim are, rioting all over innocent seculars who went out of their way to bother them. And, oblivious to the commotion she helped create, she'll create another wave of bad feeling that does nothing to improve secular-religious tensions in Israeli society.
Monday, 25 May 2009
Get On the Bus
The Yeshiva World has an interesting piece on the latest push for mehadrin buses in Israel. Much to my shock, the piece was describing opponents of Taliban-styled buses in a positive light:
Tzipi Hotovely, who chairs the Knesset Committee on the Status of Women, is working against the mehadrin lines in Jerusalem. Ms. Avital Feldman, who is a leader in the battle against mehadrin lines, states the response supporting their opposition is encouraging. She explains there are a growing number of complaints from women who have fallen victim to abuse on buses on which passengers demand they sit in the rear.
Hundreds of supporters, opponents of the mehadrin lines, are expected to take part in a kenos in Hebrew University in Yerushalayim on Monday. Feldman other anti-mehadrin activists organized the event. A panel will address attendees. Panel members include former High Court Justice Dalia Dorner, Jerusalem Councilwoman Rachel Azariya, feminist Dr. Orit Kamir and Prof. Alon Harel, a member of the law faculty.
Organizers are however disappointed that Transportation Minister (Likud) Yisrael Katz has declined an invitation. They explain his office released a laconic explanation, that he receives too many invitations to attend all the functions.
Like much else that has come out of the Chareidi community lately, mehadrin buses are a useless distraction from the bigger social/religious problems they have to deal with. Even the term mehadrin bus is a misnomer. In an area such as kashrus where competing stringencies and leniencies abound, one can use the term mehadrin but in an area like seating on bus where there are no rules in the first place, it's irrelevant. A married couple sitting together on a public bus is not somehow less stringent about the laws of gender interaction than a couple that chooses to sit separately. A bus is not a shul, after all.
Last year, the purifiers in our community chose to take aim at those of us that use Pesach hotels to escape for the holidays. We were told that they were the biggest threat to Judaism today! (A guest to our community a couple of weeks later told me that the biggest threat to Judaism today are the rabbonim who think that Pesach hotels are the biggest threat to Judaism today) Now we are told that not only is separate seating on buses an indicator of higher religious commitment but that women who refuse to see things this way are legitimate targets of abuse.
I would like to see the Chareidi leadership deal with rampant pedophilia in their yeshivos, their poor educational standards and their rampant poverty-by-choice problem before deciding that Am Yisrael is ready to stand on the sacred heights that separate seated buses afford us.
Tzipi Hotovely, who chairs the Knesset Committee on the Status of Women, is working against the mehadrin lines in Jerusalem. Ms. Avital Feldman, who is a leader in the battle against mehadrin lines, states the response supporting their opposition is encouraging. She explains there are a growing number of complaints from women who have fallen victim to abuse on buses on which passengers demand they sit in the rear.
Hundreds of supporters, opponents of the mehadrin lines, are expected to take part in a kenos in Hebrew University in Yerushalayim on Monday. Feldman other anti-mehadrin activists organized the event. A panel will address attendees. Panel members include former High Court Justice Dalia Dorner, Jerusalem Councilwoman Rachel Azariya, feminist Dr. Orit Kamir and Prof. Alon Harel, a member of the law faculty.
Organizers are however disappointed that Transportation Minister (Likud) Yisrael Katz has declined an invitation. They explain his office released a laconic explanation, that he receives too many invitations to attend all the functions.
Like much else that has come out of the Chareidi community lately, mehadrin buses are a useless distraction from the bigger social/religious problems they have to deal with. Even the term mehadrin bus is a misnomer. In an area such as kashrus where competing stringencies and leniencies abound, one can use the term mehadrin but in an area like seating on bus where there are no rules in the first place, it's irrelevant. A married couple sitting together on a public bus is not somehow less stringent about the laws of gender interaction than a couple that chooses to sit separately. A bus is not a shul, after all.
Last year, the purifiers in our community chose to take aim at those of us that use Pesach hotels to escape for the holidays. We were told that they were the biggest threat to Judaism today! (A guest to our community a couple of weeks later told me that the biggest threat to Judaism today are the rabbonim who think that Pesach hotels are the biggest threat to Judaism today) Now we are told that not only is separate seating on buses an indicator of higher religious commitment but that women who refuse to see things this way are legitimate targets of abuse.
I would like to see the Chareidi leadership deal with rampant pedophilia in their yeshivos, their poor educational standards and their rampant poverty-by-choice problem before deciding that Am Yisrael is ready to stand on the sacred heights that separate seated buses afford us.
Dairy Limitations
All right, I know that my female readers (all one of you, it seems) will be upset with what I'm going to say but being a thick-headed male (the best mea culpa you're going to get) I'm going to say it anyways:
Shavuos is not a dairy holiday.
Now let me explain.
Yes, one eats dairy on Shavuos. The well-known custom is based on the idea that after the Jews received the Torah which contained, amongst other things, the requirement to eat meat slaughted by shechitah they returned to their tents and realized all the meat they had was now trief. So dairy was the only option for their first post-matan Torah meal, hence the custom to eat dairy on Shavuos.sons
Shavuos is not a dairy holiday.
Now let me explain.
Yes, one eats dairy on Shavuos. The well-known custom is based on the idea that after the Jews received the Torah which contained, amongst other things, the requirement to eat meat slaughted by shechitah they returned to their tents and realized all the meat they had was now trief. So dairy was the only option for their first post-matan Torah meal, hence the custom to eat dairy on Shavuos.sons
And yes I know it's not such an old custom and that other reasons are given by the poskim. However, I would like to point out that I now know many people who think that eating dairy on Shavuos means making all the Yom Tov meals milchig and, in my capacity as the Chief Rabbi of Stoney Creek, I would like to rail against this misunderstanding.
If one really wants to observe the custom of eating dairy on Shavuos as it is properly understood, here's what one does. After shul on the morning of the first day one returns home, makes kiddush and then makes a motzi and serves milchig appetizers. One must be very careful to use only one of the two breads at this point. Then one clears the dairy equipment, sets the table for meat and puts out all the meat stuff and after a 1/2 hour break or so the meal is continued with fleishigs using the second loaf of bread.
If this is hard for some folks, then making the first day's lunch milchig is fine but folks, the rest really should be meat. It's still Yom Tov after all.
How To Make a JCC Irrelevant
As usual, I'll state my bias up front. The small town I grew up in had a nearly useless JCC. They had a poorly stocked gym complete with pictures of Jewish sports teams that had competed in city tournaments (and won a couple) in the 1950's. The meeting room had 1960's shag carpet and a smell from the fake wood walls. We knew there was a staff working there but we never actually saw them. In my teens, they built a new JCC. At first the plans they posted called for a health club with a pool (!), along lots of meeting and activity rooms. Unfortunately cost containment changed all that. We got the meeting rooms and a social hall but the rest of the building turned into old age apartments that were almost all rented to non-Jews so we had the pleasure of the tenants having X-mas parties in the JCC every December.
The JCC where I live now isn't much better. For some odd reason, it's tucked off on a side road nowhere near anywhere that Jewish, religious or non-religious live. It's essentially a giant fitness club with meeting rooms that host the occasional "cultural" event but not much else.
So if you ask me if I ascribe any importance to the concept of a JCC, I don't because I've never been around one that actually plays any meaningful role for its community.
Apparently in some bigger Jewish centres, this is the case. The JCC serves a role for both the religious and non-religious population which, as one might expect, gives rise to complications that don't often happen on a shul level. After all, all the frum people go to the Orthodox shul. The non-frum folks go elsewhere. No conflict there, but not so at the JCC.
And conflict is what appears to be happening in Baltimore, a larger Jewish centre in the United States (or so I'm told). Non-religious forces in the community there wish to have the place open on Shabbos. The observant community opposes this for obvious reasons and recently held a rally not so much to protest the JCC's decision but rather to positively promote the idea of Shabbos.
For the non-religious, it seems the protests of their observant brethren is a mystery. Years of living radically different lifestyles in different parts of town have taken a toll on the community's sense of unity:
“We’re two separate communities,” Rabbi Steven M. Fink, spiritual leader of Temple Oheb Shalom, said on Monday. “We talk about Jewish unity, but the only thing that unites us is anti-Semitism.
“We both read from the Torah, we both love Shabbat, we just do so in radically different ways,” Rabbi Fink added. “They would never invite us to a rally like this one because it would validate us as rabbis.”
So let me ask some questions. First, why would the JCC want to open on Saturday afternoons? Clearly not for Jewish reasons. After all, the main Jewish worship, especially amongst the heterdox, is in the morning. Furthermore, JCC's generally don't serve as centres of worship to avoid conflicting with the community's synagogues. Although I don't live in Baltimore, I'll willing to bet that the JCC is opening to allow members to access its - wait for it - health club.
But if that's the case, doesn't that make the JCC even more irrelevant, and not just to the Orthodox population of Baltimore?
Again, despite not knowing Baltimore I'm willing to bet there are lots of health and fitness clubs there. I'm also willing to be that a good number are probably as nice as the one at the JCC and might even offer reasonable prices. Many might be closer to the homes of JCC members and therefore more convenient to attend. If that's the case, why would someone choose the JCC to work out in? Because it makes him feel more Jewish? But what does it say about someone's Jewish identity that he chooses to be mechalel Shabbos of all places at the JCC?!
In the end, a Jewish institution that chooses to minimize its Jewishness, whether by being open on Shabbos or choosing to not be kosher decreases its relevance to the community it serves. The Orthodox Jews will choose to minimize their support and the non-religious will eventually drift away to similar non-Jewish venues after seeing that there is no difference between "them" and "us".
In the end, any Jew who feels so strongly about working out on Shabbos probably doesn't have a problem with driving to a private club he's paid membership at. Leave the JCC out of this.
The JCC where I live now isn't much better. For some odd reason, it's tucked off on a side road nowhere near anywhere that Jewish, religious or non-religious live. It's essentially a giant fitness club with meeting rooms that host the occasional "cultural" event but not much else.
So if you ask me if I ascribe any importance to the concept of a JCC, I don't because I've never been around one that actually plays any meaningful role for its community.
Apparently in some bigger Jewish centres, this is the case. The JCC serves a role for both the religious and non-religious population which, as one might expect, gives rise to complications that don't often happen on a shul level. After all, all the frum people go to the Orthodox shul. The non-frum folks go elsewhere. No conflict there, but not so at the JCC.
And conflict is what appears to be happening in Baltimore, a larger Jewish centre in the United States (or so I'm told). Non-religious forces in the community there wish to have the place open on Shabbos. The observant community opposes this for obvious reasons and recently held a rally not so much to protest the JCC's decision but rather to positively promote the idea of Shabbos.
For the non-religious, it seems the protests of their observant brethren is a mystery. Years of living radically different lifestyles in different parts of town have taken a toll on the community's sense of unity:
“We’re two separate communities,” Rabbi Steven M. Fink, spiritual leader of Temple Oheb Shalom, said on Monday. “We talk about Jewish unity, but the only thing that unites us is anti-Semitism.
“We both read from the Torah, we both love Shabbat, we just do so in radically different ways,” Rabbi Fink added. “They would never invite us to a rally like this one because it would validate us as rabbis.”
So let me ask some questions. First, why would the JCC want to open on Saturday afternoons? Clearly not for Jewish reasons. After all, the main Jewish worship, especially amongst the heterdox, is in the morning. Furthermore, JCC's generally don't serve as centres of worship to avoid conflicting with the community's synagogues. Although I don't live in Baltimore, I'll willing to bet that the JCC is opening to allow members to access its - wait for it - health club.
But if that's the case, doesn't that make the JCC even more irrelevant, and not just to the Orthodox population of Baltimore?
Again, despite not knowing Baltimore I'm willing to bet there are lots of health and fitness clubs there. I'm also willing to be that a good number are probably as nice as the one at the JCC and might even offer reasonable prices. Many might be closer to the homes of JCC members and therefore more convenient to attend. If that's the case, why would someone choose the JCC to work out in? Because it makes him feel more Jewish? But what does it say about someone's Jewish identity that he chooses to be mechalel Shabbos of all places at the JCC?!
In the end, a Jewish institution that chooses to minimize its Jewishness, whether by being open on Shabbos or choosing to not be kosher decreases its relevance to the community it serves. The Orthodox Jews will choose to minimize their support and the non-religious will eventually drift away to similar non-Jewish venues after seeing that there is no difference between "them" and "us".
In the end, any Jew who feels so strongly about working out on Shabbos probably doesn't have a problem with driving to a private club he's paid membership at. Leave the JCC out of this.
Sunday, 24 May 2009
Indignation at the Truth
My recent post on honesty and Orthodoxy generated quite a vigorous response. The number of comments was a record for this blog and, for once, most of them were not me commenting on myself.
What I found most interesting was the outrage from the non-observant commenters. My point in posting the excerpt from the Tana D'vei Eliyahu was not to try and claim that all frum Jews are honest. Rather, my point was to show that within halacha there is excellent support for those who contend that Torah law forbids the cheating of and stealing from non-Jews. In other words, those Orthodox Jews who contend that it's okay nowadays to do such sins are wrong when they say that the halacha permits them to.
But the response to that was fascinating. Instead of what I expected: "Yeah? Well then all Orthodox Jews are hypocrites because they break that law!", I got this: "No, you're wrong. Orthodox not only allows but tacitly encourages theft from and cheating of non-Jews". In other words, people don't want to hear about how we sin. They want to hear that we are just following our religion when we cheat and steal.
That led me to think about what people on the outside want to believe about Judaism, and it isn't pretty. For them Torah Judaism is a religion that is bigoted, hateful and deceitful. Never mind all the examples that I can bring to the opposite, they're prepared to dismiss all those proofs because it doesn't fit with their view of how the Torah should be (as opposed to how it is).
Why is that? I believe that it's to help with the justification of their own personal beliefs. After all, if the Torah is a moral system, then one must work hard to justify why, as a Jew, one does not hold by its rules. Not that there is not justification. Philosophy is a flexible enough field of inquiry to allow that to happen. But it's much easier to justify why one hates and avoids Torah Judaism if one can villify it in the first place. For those who have left "the derech" it seems essential to remember that derech as a path filled with hate and deceit. That the Torah itself is not that way cannot be acceptable.
To summarize: if there is a problem with Torah Judaism today, it is the fault of the people who are not carrying it out correctly or twisting it to fit their own personal agendae, not the fault of God's Torah itself. I am quite fine with people saying they stopped being religious because of a lousy high school rebbe or a bad experience within the community, but we must never allow people to misrepresent the Torah as the reason for their loss of faith. That's just not honest.
What I found most interesting was the outrage from the non-observant commenters. My point in posting the excerpt from the Tana D'vei Eliyahu was not to try and claim that all frum Jews are honest. Rather, my point was to show that within halacha there is excellent support for those who contend that Torah law forbids the cheating of and stealing from non-Jews. In other words, those Orthodox Jews who contend that it's okay nowadays to do such sins are wrong when they say that the halacha permits them to.
But the response to that was fascinating. Instead of what I expected: "Yeah? Well then all Orthodox Jews are hypocrites because they break that law!", I got this: "No, you're wrong. Orthodox not only allows but tacitly encourages theft from and cheating of non-Jews". In other words, people don't want to hear about how we sin. They want to hear that we are just following our religion when we cheat and steal.
That led me to think about what people on the outside want to believe about Judaism, and it isn't pretty. For them Torah Judaism is a religion that is bigoted, hateful and deceitful. Never mind all the examples that I can bring to the opposite, they're prepared to dismiss all those proofs because it doesn't fit with their view of how the Torah should be (as opposed to how it is).
Why is that? I believe that it's to help with the justification of their own personal beliefs. After all, if the Torah is a moral system, then one must work hard to justify why, as a Jew, one does not hold by its rules. Not that there is not justification. Philosophy is a flexible enough field of inquiry to allow that to happen. But it's much easier to justify why one hates and avoids Torah Judaism if one can villify it in the first place. For those who have left "the derech" it seems essential to remember that derech as a path filled with hate and deceit. That the Torah itself is not that way cannot be acceptable.
To summarize: if there is a problem with Torah Judaism today, it is the fault of the people who are not carrying it out correctly or twisting it to fit their own personal agendae, not the fault of God's Torah itself. I am quite fine with people saying they stopped being religious because of a lousy high school rebbe or a bad experience within the community, but we must never allow people to misrepresent the Torah as the reason for their loss of faith. That's just not honest.
Avoiding Invisible Bugs
I'm always amazed by the ongoing crusade by some in the Torah observant community to assur any healthy foods that normally don't require any supervision. When it comes to fruits and vegetables which don't seem to be a money maker for kashrut organizations, it seems the problems multiply like insects.
The recent example of this has been a supposed epidemic of bugs in strawberries around the world. According to the people who detected them, these buys are nearly microscopy and the exact same colour as the strawberry. In other words, you can't seem them but they're there. As a result, according to some authorities, all strawberries are now trief. (Rubashkin's meats, however, are still fine).
Recently, however, what I thought was a voice of sanity, poked through the clouds of confusion when Rav Shlomo Amar, chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, noted the obvious: the halachah forbids that which the eye can see under normal lighting conditions. Ultra-powerful or special lights, jeweller's glasses and microscopes are not necessary. Otherwise all food, which is covered in non-kosher bacteria, would be forbidden.
Unfortunately, Rav Amar has already been forced into a clarification:
Just a few weeks before, many chareidi rabbonim forbad eating strawberries because they are heavily infested with tiny insects which are impossible to completely remove. The announcement removed the popular delicacy from the table of many frum homes.
Then the sensational news was published throughout Israel: Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar announced in a shiur that one may eat strawberries after rinsing them in water and removing their leafy tops! The news appeared in Israel's leading newspaper and even in the chareidi world's leading VosIzNeias web blog.
Many reported relief upon hearing the lenient psak. Others sideswiped at the poskim who always seem to find a new prohibition to saddle the public with.
But now the Shas party organ reports that Rav Amar's psak was quoted incorrectly. They asked Rabbi Shlomo Amar for his clarification, and he explained that his shiur had been about worms which are not visible to the eye and had nothing to do with strawberries.
Advertisement:
"It never occurred to me, chalila, to dispute the prohibition against eating visible worms!" he says firmly. "To say otherwise is misleading."
Rav Amar explained, "I was speaking about a recent tshuva I had just written which dealt with worms that are not visible to the eye. I wrote that according to many great poskim of our generation, led by Rav Ovadya Yosef (SHU"T Yecheve Daas 6:47), they are not forbidden. I further was mechadesh that they are not even considered 'worms' according to halacha."
Rav Amar said in the shiur that if, for example, strawberries had such invisible 'worms' on them, the strawberries would not be prohibited to eat. Obviously, the strawberries were only mentioned by way of illustration and not as the basis for a chiddush or a psak.
The Chief Rabbi reiterates that as experts have shown, strawberries are infested with worms which are visible to the eye and can be seen without the help of a device. These worms must be avoided, and if it is not possible to clean strawberries of them, then strawberries may not be eaten.
So which is it, then? Is it enough to look at the strawberry carefully after washing it thoroughly?: It should be and people should know this when confronted with those who would change the rules and retroactively accuse 3500 years of Jews who age vegetables not checked by microscopy of eating bugs.
The recent example of this has been a supposed epidemic of bugs in strawberries around the world. According to the people who detected them, these buys are nearly microscopy and the exact same colour as the strawberry. In other words, you can't seem them but they're there. As a result, according to some authorities, all strawberries are now trief. (Rubashkin's meats, however, are still fine).
Recently, however, what I thought was a voice of sanity, poked through the clouds of confusion when Rav Shlomo Amar, chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, noted the obvious: the halachah forbids that which the eye can see under normal lighting conditions. Ultra-powerful or special lights, jeweller's glasses and microscopes are not necessary. Otherwise all food, which is covered in non-kosher bacteria, would be forbidden.
Unfortunately, Rav Amar has already been forced into a clarification:
Just a few weeks before, many chareidi rabbonim forbad eating strawberries because they are heavily infested with tiny insects which are impossible to completely remove. The announcement removed the popular delicacy from the table of many frum homes.
Then the sensational news was published throughout Israel: Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar announced in a shiur that one may eat strawberries after rinsing them in water and removing their leafy tops! The news appeared in Israel's leading newspaper and even in the chareidi world's leading VosIzNeias web blog.
Many reported relief upon hearing the lenient psak. Others sideswiped at the poskim who always seem to find a new prohibition to saddle the public with.
But now the Shas party organ reports that Rav Amar's psak was quoted incorrectly. They asked Rabbi Shlomo Amar for his clarification, and he explained that his shiur had been about worms which are not visible to the eye and had nothing to do with strawberries.
Advertisement:
"It never occurred to me, chalila, to dispute the prohibition against eating visible worms!" he says firmly. "To say otherwise is misleading."
Rav Amar explained, "I was speaking about a recent tshuva I had just written which dealt with worms that are not visible to the eye. I wrote that according to many great poskim of our generation, led by Rav Ovadya Yosef (SHU"T Yecheve Daas 6:47), they are not forbidden. I further was mechadesh that they are not even considered 'worms' according to halacha."
Rav Amar said in the shiur that if, for example, strawberries had such invisible 'worms' on them, the strawberries would not be prohibited to eat. Obviously, the strawberries were only mentioned by way of illustration and not as the basis for a chiddush or a psak.
The Chief Rabbi reiterates that as experts have shown, strawberries are infested with worms which are visible to the eye and can be seen without the help of a device. These worms must be avoided, and if it is not possible to clean strawberries of them, then strawberries may not be eaten.
So which is it, then? Is it enough to look at the strawberry carefully after washing it thoroughly?: It should be and people should know this when confronted with those who would change the rules and retroactively accuse 3500 years of Jews who age vegetables not checked by microscopy of eating bugs.
The Problem With Sincerity
The problem Orthodoxy has always had when interacting with heterodoxy is trying to make the following point understood: sincerity, no matter how... sincere, is not enough to qualify one for a job or a position within the Jewish people. Being a nice person, really meaning well, all that, while extremely laudable (and all too often missing in the Torah observant community) is not eo ipso all that is needed. One would not trust someone who calls himself a doctor or accountant who hasn't actually gone to a real professional school to learn the knowledge needed to perform competently. Why does the title of "rabbi" somehow get treated differently?
The difficulty, in my opinion, arises from the lack of appreciation that spiritual health gets as opposed to physical or financial health, to use my examples above. One expects a doctor to know what he is talking about because otherwise his poor advice might lead to disasterous health consequences. Given the choice, would you rather have a surgeon with lousy bedside manner or a really nice guy whose watched the appendectomy video on Youtube a few times?
One wants one's accountant to know tax law pretty well so that one never receives a dreaded phone call from Revenue Canada or the IRS. But when it comes to the spiritual Western culture encourages far more autonomy. What we feel is spiritually correct for us is what tends to guide us and the idea that there is an objective form of spiritual health, analagous to rules for physical health, is offensive.
To put it simply, imagine that I decided that three Big Macs and no exercise is the best way for me to live a physically healthy life, simply because that's what makes me feel good. My opinion in this matter would be considered ridiculous. But if, as a Jew, I announced that the rules of the Torah were irrelevant to my spiritual health and that I would decide by myself what will get me into Gan Eden, well that would make me... heterdox, I guess.
Which brings me to the following problem:
As a student rabbi, Alysa Stanton — who next month becomes the first ever African-American woman rabbi — was assigned to intern in a congregation in Dothan, Ala. But no sooner did she arrive than the president of the congregation called the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati to complain.“He said, ‘Are you kidding,?’” recalled Rabbi Ken Kanter, director of HUC’s rabbinical program. Stanton said she was told that a “black person ministering to a white congregation in the Deep South was unheard of.”However, Rabbi Kanter said, the congregation “very quickly recognized they had a rabbi who happened to be a woman and who happened to be African-American. She quickly became their rabbi ... and at
the end of the year they wanted her to stay because she was so well loved.”
Off the top, I'm going to say that I do not question Ms. Stanton's sincerity. Having davened in a number of shuls, I can say that if her congregation loves her so much that she is a special person. I am also not questioning her because of her colour, chas v'chalilah. Otherwise my good friend in Israel who is also Ethiopian would probably turn his schochet knife on me the next time I show up. I am, however, questioning her qualifications because:
“The fact that she is a convert was not a factor [in her selection],” Barondes said. “She was not the only Jew-by-choice who applied for the position. ... And the fact she is African-American played no part. During her three-day visit, she was able to impress so many people that the congregation overwhelmingly supported her candidacy.”Stanton, 45, grew up in a Pentecostal Christian home in Cleveland, Ohio. At the age of 6, her family moved to a Jewish neighborhood in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.It was there that her Uncle Ed, a devout Catholic who also occasionally attended the local synagogue, explained to her what the mezuzahs meant on the neighbors’ doorposts. When she was 10 and already on her own spiritual quest, he gave her a Hebrew grammar book.“My mother is a woman of faith,” Stanton said. “She taught us that we need to have a spiritual base and she gave us the freedom to chose what that is. For me, Judaism was where I found a home.”At the age of 11, Stanton moved with her family to Lakewood, Colo., and by the time she was in her early 20s, she said she had decided to convert to Judaism. “I sought out a rabbi and each week I traveled 144 miles to meet with him in Denver for intensive, one-to-one study,” she said, adding that after a year she converted, appearing before a bet din [Jewish court] and going to the mikveh.“Initially when I converted my family was shocked,” Stanton said, adding that her mother (her father is deceased) and sister and two brothers have been “very supportive — my rock during this long journey.”For about the last 15 years, her rabbi in Denver has been Steven Foster of Temple Emanuel, a Reform congregation. He said he found Stanton to be “a very spiritual person who brings the best of two different cultures together. She is a terrific person and we will be lucky in the Jewish community to have her as a rabbi.”Rabbi Foster said that although Stanton was converted by a “right-wing Conservative rabbi,” she later “connected with us because of our history with social justice issues. ... She used to teach for us and sing for us and when she decided to become a rabbi we all supported her.”
In other words, to the Torah observant community she isn't even Jewish to begin with. And this is a huge problem because, as I noted at the start of the post, while sincerity is nice, proper qualifications are even better. What's more, the article inadvertantly describes the whole reason why the Torah observant community dismisses non-Orthodox conversions in the first place. Having been done by a "right wing Conservative rabbi", she then switched to Reform because of social justice issues. For Orthodox Jews, there is no such thing as social justice, there is only the will of God. We are decent to our fellows not because it feels "right" or because of trendy terms but because the Torah tells us to. The nafka mina comes when the Torah conflicts with Western secular principles. Orthodoxy then follows the Torah's rules while the heterodox announce that God would want them to follow secular values.
Ms. Stanton is probably a wonderful person. But al pi halacha she is not a Jew, certainly not a rabbi. And when people start to realize this, it will only lead to further hostility between us and them.
The difficulty, in my opinion, arises from the lack of appreciation that spiritual health gets as opposed to physical or financial health, to use my examples above. One expects a doctor to know what he is talking about because otherwise his poor advice might lead to disasterous health consequences. Given the choice, would you rather have a surgeon with lousy bedside manner or a really nice guy whose watched the appendectomy video on Youtube a few times?
One wants one's accountant to know tax law pretty well so that one never receives a dreaded phone call from Revenue Canada or the IRS. But when it comes to the spiritual Western culture encourages far more autonomy. What we feel is spiritually correct for us is what tends to guide us and the idea that there is an objective form of spiritual health, analagous to rules for physical health, is offensive.
To put it simply, imagine that I decided that three Big Macs and no exercise is the best way for me to live a physically healthy life, simply because that's what makes me feel good. My opinion in this matter would be considered ridiculous. But if, as a Jew, I announced that the rules of the Torah were irrelevant to my spiritual health and that I would decide by myself what will get me into Gan Eden, well that would make me... heterdox, I guess.
Which brings me to the following problem:
As a student rabbi, Alysa Stanton — who next month becomes the first ever African-American woman rabbi — was assigned to intern in a congregation in Dothan, Ala. But no sooner did she arrive than the president of the congregation called the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati to complain.“He said, ‘Are you kidding,?’” recalled Rabbi Ken Kanter, director of HUC’s rabbinical program. Stanton said she was told that a “black person ministering to a white congregation in the Deep South was unheard of.”However, Rabbi Kanter said, the congregation “very quickly recognized they had a rabbi who happened to be a woman and who happened to be African-American. She quickly became their rabbi ... and at
the end of the year they wanted her to stay because she was so well loved.”
Off the top, I'm going to say that I do not question Ms. Stanton's sincerity. Having davened in a number of shuls, I can say that if her congregation loves her so much that she is a special person. I am also not questioning her because of her colour, chas v'chalilah. Otherwise my good friend in Israel who is also Ethiopian would probably turn his schochet knife on me the next time I show up. I am, however, questioning her qualifications because:
“The fact that she is a convert was not a factor [in her selection],” Barondes said. “She was not the only Jew-by-choice who applied for the position. ... And the fact she is African-American played no part. During her three-day visit, she was able to impress so many people that the congregation overwhelmingly supported her candidacy.”Stanton, 45, grew up in a Pentecostal Christian home in Cleveland, Ohio. At the age of 6, her family moved to a Jewish neighborhood in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.It was there that her Uncle Ed, a devout Catholic who also occasionally attended the local synagogue, explained to her what the mezuzahs meant on the neighbors’ doorposts. When she was 10 and already on her own spiritual quest, he gave her a Hebrew grammar book.“My mother is a woman of faith,” Stanton said. “She taught us that we need to have a spiritual base and she gave us the freedom to chose what that is. For me, Judaism was where I found a home.”At the age of 11, Stanton moved with her family to Lakewood, Colo., and by the time she was in her early 20s, she said she had decided to convert to Judaism. “I sought out a rabbi and each week I traveled 144 miles to meet with him in Denver for intensive, one-to-one study,” she said, adding that after a year she converted, appearing before a bet din [Jewish court] and going to the mikveh.“Initially when I converted my family was shocked,” Stanton said, adding that her mother (her father is deceased) and sister and two brothers have been “very supportive — my rock during this long journey.”For about the last 15 years, her rabbi in Denver has been Steven Foster of Temple Emanuel, a Reform congregation. He said he found Stanton to be “a very spiritual person who brings the best of two different cultures together. She is a terrific person and we will be lucky in the Jewish community to have her as a rabbi.”Rabbi Foster said that although Stanton was converted by a “right-wing Conservative rabbi,” she later “connected with us because of our history with social justice issues. ... She used to teach for us and sing for us and when she decided to become a rabbi we all supported her.”
In other words, to the Torah observant community she isn't even Jewish to begin with. And this is a huge problem because, as I noted at the start of the post, while sincerity is nice, proper qualifications are even better. What's more, the article inadvertantly describes the whole reason why the Torah observant community dismisses non-Orthodox conversions in the first place. Having been done by a "right wing Conservative rabbi", she then switched to Reform because of social justice issues. For Orthodox Jews, there is no such thing as social justice, there is only the will of God. We are decent to our fellows not because it feels "right" or because of trendy terms but because the Torah tells us to. The nafka mina comes when the Torah conflicts with Western secular principles. Orthodoxy then follows the Torah's rules while the heterodox announce that God would want them to follow secular values.
Ms. Stanton is probably a wonderful person. But al pi halacha she is not a Jew, certainly not a rabbi. And when people start to realize this, it will only lead to further hostility between us and them.
Secularlism's Worst Nightmare
Israel's deputy Health Minister MK Ya'acov Litzman is well known in the Jewish world for saying that Jews should call the current H1N1 influenza outbreak Mexican flu instead of swine flu because pigs are not kosher. I don't think anyone can argue that this was a dumb comment (although a week later the WHO also said it should be called Mexican flu to prevent the collapse of the international pork trade).
What's less well known is that Litzman is a competent beaurocrat who organized the Israeli public health department after news of the outbreak and efficiently prepared for the arrival of swine flu in Israel via returning travelers. Naturally, doing his job well did not make the news as if often the case.
But Litzman has gone further and credit must be given where it is owed:
Deputy Health Minister MK Ya'acov Litzman ignored the advice of Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Aharon Leshno-Yaar, when he walked out during the Iranian health minister's speech at the World Health Organization meeting last week.
But Litzman, a United Torah Judaism lawmaker with a mind of his own, thought it was the proper thing to do in view of Iranian leaders' frequent calls for the destruction of the State of Israel, he told The Jerusalem Post Thursday, after his return.
It has become a regular occurence for Iran to use any ascent to an international speaking podium to execrate Israel for sins the fevered Perisan mind has deluded itself into believing. m The walk out was also significant if one recalls that since 1948 Muslim countries have made it their policy to walk out of any meetings in which a (non-Satmar) Israeli speaks. Sitting through anti-Semitic tirades should be no less tolerated by Jews. By walking out, Litzman chose to display both Jewish and Israeli pride. But what's more, unlike many who think that Orthodox Jews should abandon what makes us different (even as they praise multiculturalism in every other ethnic group they can find), Litzman had no trouble showing up at the event as a very identifiable Jew and without any discomfort:
Litzman said he had felt completely comfortable despite his hassidic garb.
"They have seen hassidim before, and I was personally introduced to many health ministers before my speech," said Litzman, who was raised in New York and speaks fluent English. Among them was Brazilian Health Minister José Gomes Temporão, who said he was planning to visit Israel soon.
After some Arab ministers walked out, Litzman noted that Israel provided medical care to its Arab citizens as well as to patients from the Palestinian Authority who need treatment unavailable there, and that terrorists who try to murder Israelis and survive often lie in the same hospital wards with their wounded victims.
In Geneva, where the H1N1 swine flu strain was a major topic of discussion, Litzman said he was concerned the virus could combine by next winter with the newest human strains, making dealing with it more complicated.
He will suggest to ministry officials that Israelis of all ages be urged to get vaccinated in the fall, and not only young children, the middle-aged and the elderly.
Litzman said he was well received at the WHO event and that Israel had a very good reputation in healthcare and research, even though an anti-Israel resolution had been raised by Palestinians at the assembly on health of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights.
Yaakov Litzman is an example of what drives secularists crazy. Despite his loyalty to an "archaic" religious system, despite dressing like an "18th century Polish landlord" he has proved to be a competent deputy health minister and has managed to interact positively with all those dreaded goyim that we routinely diminish out Jewishness in front of so that they'll like us more. In order words, he's a refutation of those that oppose our insistence on remaining true to the faith of our fathers. Kol hakovad to him.
What's less well known is that Litzman is a competent beaurocrat who organized the Israeli public health department after news of the outbreak and efficiently prepared for the arrival of swine flu in Israel via returning travelers. Naturally, doing his job well did not make the news as if often the case.
But Litzman has gone further and credit must be given where it is owed:
Deputy Health Minister MK Ya'acov Litzman ignored the advice of Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Aharon Leshno-Yaar, when he walked out during the Iranian health minister's speech at the World Health Organization meeting last week.
But Litzman, a United Torah Judaism lawmaker with a mind of his own, thought it was the proper thing to do in view of Iranian leaders' frequent calls for the destruction of the State of Israel, he told The Jerusalem Post Thursday, after his return.
It has become a regular occurence for Iran to use any ascent to an international speaking podium to execrate Israel for sins the fevered Perisan mind has deluded itself into believing. m The walk out was also significant if one recalls that since 1948 Muslim countries have made it their policy to walk out of any meetings in which a (non-Satmar) Israeli speaks. Sitting through anti-Semitic tirades should be no less tolerated by Jews. By walking out, Litzman chose to display both Jewish and Israeli pride. But what's more, unlike many who think that Orthodox Jews should abandon what makes us different (even as they praise multiculturalism in every other ethnic group they can find), Litzman had no trouble showing up at the event as a very identifiable Jew and without any discomfort:
Litzman said he had felt completely comfortable despite his hassidic garb.
"They have seen hassidim before, and I was personally introduced to many health ministers before my speech," said Litzman, who was raised in New York and speaks fluent English. Among them was Brazilian Health Minister José Gomes Temporão, who said he was planning to visit Israel soon.
After some Arab ministers walked out, Litzman noted that Israel provided medical care to its Arab citizens as well as to patients from the Palestinian Authority who need treatment unavailable there, and that terrorists who try to murder Israelis and survive often lie in the same hospital wards with their wounded victims.
In Geneva, where the H1N1 swine flu strain was a major topic of discussion, Litzman said he was concerned the virus could combine by next winter with the newest human strains, making dealing with it more complicated.
He will suggest to ministry officials that Israelis of all ages be urged to get vaccinated in the fall, and not only young children, the middle-aged and the elderly.
Litzman said he was well received at the WHO event and that Israel had a very good reputation in healthcare and research, even though an anti-Israel resolution had been raised by Palestinians at the assembly on health of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights.
Yaakov Litzman is an example of what drives secularists crazy. Despite his loyalty to an "archaic" religious system, despite dressing like an "18th century Polish landlord" he has proved to be a competent deputy health minister and has managed to interact positively with all those dreaded goyim that we routinely diminish out Jewishness in front of so that they'll like us more. In order words, he's a refutation of those that oppose our insistence on remaining true to the faith of our fathers. Kol hakovad to him.
Friday, 22 May 2009
Knowing Who Your Friends Are
Much is made of how Israel's standing in the world improved after Yitzchak Rabin signed the Oslo Discords in 1993. Whereas before Israelis only interacted with the rest of the international scene, now they were welcome in places they had only dreamed of. International music and movie stars started visiting the country. Their diplomats were invited to functions across the world, especially in Europe. It was a heavy time and all they had to do was give the biggest murderer of Jews since the Second World War access to land to build new terror bases on and all the weapons he could ask for so he could accelerate his murdering of our people. Surely it was a small price to pay.
The problem, Israelis have been slow to understand even these many years later, is that this new love was very, very conditional. As long as Israel played the peace game by three simple rules:
1) give the Arabs whatever they want
2) don't expect anything back
3) stop defending yourself
they could look forward to hugs and kisses around the globe. Violation of any of those three rules, however, brought back the old frostiness as if - gasp! - it had never really been gone.
Recall how shortly after the Discords were signed, the Arabs began blowing up buses across Israel. But whenever the Israelis thought about putting the Discords on hold, they were sternly told by their new friends: No, you must keep surrending land and control, no matter how much they attack you. It's part of the peace agreement.
Recall how Benjamin Netanyahu, in his first go around as prime minister, enacted a policy: Until the Arabs hold by their side of the agreement, we go no further. Does anyone remember the pale look on his face when he emerged from the Wye Plantation, his arm firmly twisted behind his back by Bill Clinton, that great "friend" of Israel, and announced further unilateral surrenders?
Even when Arafat, y"sh, unleashed Intifada II, our friends remains unphased. Don't hit back, don't defend yourself. If they're attempting to slaughter you, there must be a logical reason. Find out what it is and defuse the confrontation.
The latest example, from The Jerusalem Post, shows that nothing has changed. France, under Nicky Sarkozy, has been called a great friend of Israel. So naturally, when Binyamin Netanyahu pointed out on Yom Yerushalayim that Yerushalayim is and will remain the undivided capital of the Jewish people, the French were quick to express their conditional support:
One day after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu vowed never to divide Jerusalem, and pledged to keep the capital united under Israeli sovereignty, the French harshly condemned the comments, insisting instead that Jerusalem be a capital shared by the Palestinians and Israel.
"The declaration which the Israeli prime minister issued yesterday derives from prejudice regarding the final status agreement," Foreign Ministry spokesman Frederic Desagneaux said on Friday.
"In the eyes of France, Jerusalem needs to turns into a capital for two states," he continued, emphasizing that French President Nicholas Sarkozy made the same point last year.
Something my father always said: the world loves Jewish funerals and hates the State of Israel because it works to prevent those. The French are simply showing the conditionality of the love we inexplicably desire from them.
The problem, Israelis have been slow to understand even these many years later, is that this new love was very, very conditional. As long as Israel played the peace game by three simple rules:
1) give the Arabs whatever they want
2) don't expect anything back
3) stop defending yourself
they could look forward to hugs and kisses around the globe. Violation of any of those three rules, however, brought back the old frostiness as if - gasp! - it had never really been gone.
Recall how shortly after the Discords were signed, the Arabs began blowing up buses across Israel. But whenever the Israelis thought about putting the Discords on hold, they were sternly told by their new friends: No, you must keep surrending land and control, no matter how much they attack you. It's part of the peace agreement.
Recall how Benjamin Netanyahu, in his first go around as prime minister, enacted a policy: Until the Arabs hold by their side of the agreement, we go no further. Does anyone remember the pale look on his face when he emerged from the Wye Plantation, his arm firmly twisted behind his back by Bill Clinton, that great "friend" of Israel, and announced further unilateral surrenders?
Even when Arafat, y"sh, unleashed Intifada II, our friends remains unphased. Don't hit back, don't defend yourself. If they're attempting to slaughter you, there must be a logical reason. Find out what it is and defuse the confrontation.
The latest example, from The Jerusalem Post, shows that nothing has changed. France, under Nicky Sarkozy, has been called a great friend of Israel. So naturally, when Binyamin Netanyahu pointed out on Yom Yerushalayim that Yerushalayim is and will remain the undivided capital of the Jewish people, the French were quick to express their conditional support:
One day after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu vowed never to divide Jerusalem, and pledged to keep the capital united under Israeli sovereignty, the French harshly condemned the comments, insisting instead that Jerusalem be a capital shared by the Palestinians and Israel.
"The declaration which the Israeli prime minister issued yesterday derives from prejudice regarding the final status agreement," Foreign Ministry spokesman Frederic Desagneaux said on Friday.
"In the eyes of France, Jerusalem needs to turns into a capital for two states," he continued, emphasizing that French President Nicholas Sarkozy made the same point last year.
Something my father always said: the world loves Jewish funerals and hates the State of Israel because it works to prevent those. The French are simply showing the conditionality of the love we inexplicably desire from them.
Nationality vs Religion
One thing the heterodox (as Rav Yonasan Rosenblum called them) don't seem to understand is why Torah observant Jews don't recognize their conversions. After all, as independent "streams" of the Jewish religion, shouldn't they have an equal right to decide who gets into "the club"?
This lack of understanding is compounded by the actions of (not so) well meaning secular judges in Israel who also see Judaism from a religious point of view and don't comprehend a difference between the concepts of Orthodoxy and heterodoxy. It's all the same to them, just with a varying degree of observance of the rules.
Thus this article from YNet which shows that Israel's high court remains intent on turning Israel into an "enlightened" non-Jewish state as soon as possible:
The High Court ruled on Tuesday that the State must fund private conversion classes operated by the Reform and Conservative movements, in addition to the regular funding of private Orthodox institutions.
The Movement for Progressive Judaism in Israel petitioned the High Court demanding funding for private conversion schools that are operated by the movement, and that refer their students to independent Reform and Conservative rabbinical courts at the end of the process.
There are three fundamental flaws to the thinking that non-halachic conversions can ever be accepted by the Torah observant community.
The first is the idea of a non-observant rabbinical court. The idea is, to be frank, absurd. Could one imagine a legal tribunal anywhere composed of lawyers and judges who are outspoken opponents and non-observers of the law they supposedly represent? Imagine a traffic court judge who holds that speeding laws are unconstitutional and therefore refuses to find guilty any speeder no matter what the evidence. Would such a judge maintain his position for long?
The basis for Reform and Conservatism is rejection of the traditional halacha and its absolute authority in a Jew's life. What you feel, what you like, what gives you a good personal moral sense is the ultimate rule in heterodoxy. Am I expected to acknowledge the authority of a judge on such a court when he himself refuses the acknowledge the authority of the Ribono shel Olam over him? What does he base his authority on? What binding legal sources? And if everything is an option, how can he rending an enforceable judgement?
The second is the idea that Israel must, in its unavoidable role of being at the centre of the Jewish world, maintain a standard that is acceptable for the vast majority of Jews. To put it simply, heterodoxy recognizes Orthodox conversions. Orthodoxy does not. Therefore, if the State is going to authorize and play a role in the conversion process, it must restrict itself to only those nearly universally held.
The third and final problem goes to the heart of the difference between Torah observance and heterodoxy. Reform and Conservatism see Judaism as a religion. As a result, they do not see conversion in terms of anything more than a lifestyle choice. Yesteday one may have chosen to bow in church. Today he'll have a bagel with lox.
For Torah observant Jews, Yiddishkeit is much deeper than this. It is first and foremost not a religion but rather a nationality. For the Reformer, a Jew is a Canadian who happens to be Jewish. For the Orthodox, a Jew is a Jew who happens to be living in Canada. This is more than just semantics! Secondly, one who identifies as a Jew has a responsiblity to feel a sense of brotherhood with not only the Jewish people alive today but with the nation as it has existed since we stood at Har Sinai. The reason Orthodoxy cannot recognize the Reform and Conservative conversion process is because it does not create in its contestants the sense that they are leaving behind a "citizenship of the world" and exclusively joining the Jewish people. As another article in Ynet notes:
In their flashy website it says that aside from going to the mikvah and undergoing circumcision, one may adhere to mitzvot in line with his personal ability to adhere to them in light of circumstances of time or place. That is, if a convert finds it difficult to keep the Shabbat or fast on Yom Kippur, he need not do it. Such person would also be exempt in cases where a mitzvah contradicts his conscience.
This is in complete contradiction to the Orthodox expectation that a person joining the Jewish people joins them completely, for good and bad, for convenient and annoying, because he has chosen to leave behind his gentile life and pledge his complete loyalty to God and Torah.
For all these reasons, we cannot accept or acknowledge any legitimacy to those who would change our nation into just another culture with interesting cuisine. Fortunatley, with the continued poor growth rates of heterodoxy in Israel, this is not likely to become a major issue in any case.
This lack of understanding is compounded by the actions of (not so) well meaning secular judges in Israel who also see Judaism from a religious point of view and don't comprehend a difference between the concepts of Orthodoxy and heterodoxy. It's all the same to them, just with a varying degree of observance of the rules.
Thus this article from YNet which shows that Israel's high court remains intent on turning Israel into an "enlightened" non-Jewish state as soon as possible:
The High Court ruled on Tuesday that the State must fund private conversion classes operated by the Reform and Conservative movements, in addition to the regular funding of private Orthodox institutions.
The Movement for Progressive Judaism in Israel petitioned the High Court demanding funding for private conversion schools that are operated by the movement, and that refer their students to independent Reform and Conservative rabbinical courts at the end of the process.
There are three fundamental flaws to the thinking that non-halachic conversions can ever be accepted by the Torah observant community.
The first is the idea of a non-observant rabbinical court. The idea is, to be frank, absurd. Could one imagine a legal tribunal anywhere composed of lawyers and judges who are outspoken opponents and non-observers of the law they supposedly represent? Imagine a traffic court judge who holds that speeding laws are unconstitutional and therefore refuses to find guilty any speeder no matter what the evidence. Would such a judge maintain his position for long?
The basis for Reform and Conservatism is rejection of the traditional halacha and its absolute authority in a Jew's life. What you feel, what you like, what gives you a good personal moral sense is the ultimate rule in heterodoxy. Am I expected to acknowledge the authority of a judge on such a court when he himself refuses the acknowledge the authority of the Ribono shel Olam over him? What does he base his authority on? What binding legal sources? And if everything is an option, how can he rending an enforceable judgement?
The second is the idea that Israel must, in its unavoidable role of being at the centre of the Jewish world, maintain a standard that is acceptable for the vast majority of Jews. To put it simply, heterodoxy recognizes Orthodox conversions. Orthodoxy does not. Therefore, if the State is going to authorize and play a role in the conversion process, it must restrict itself to only those nearly universally held.
The third and final problem goes to the heart of the difference between Torah observance and heterodoxy. Reform and Conservatism see Judaism as a religion. As a result, they do not see conversion in terms of anything more than a lifestyle choice. Yesteday one may have chosen to bow in church. Today he'll have a bagel with lox.
For Torah observant Jews, Yiddishkeit is much deeper than this. It is first and foremost not a religion but rather a nationality. For the Reformer, a Jew is a Canadian who happens to be Jewish. For the Orthodox, a Jew is a Jew who happens to be living in Canada. This is more than just semantics! Secondly, one who identifies as a Jew has a responsiblity to feel a sense of brotherhood with not only the Jewish people alive today but with the nation as it has existed since we stood at Har Sinai. The reason Orthodoxy cannot recognize the Reform and Conservative conversion process is because it does not create in its contestants the sense that they are leaving behind a "citizenship of the world" and exclusively joining the Jewish people. As another article in Ynet notes:
In their flashy website it says that aside from going to the mikvah and undergoing circumcision, one may adhere to mitzvot in line with his personal ability to adhere to them in light of circumstances of time or place. That is, if a convert finds it difficult to keep the Shabbat or fast on Yom Kippur, he need not do it. Such person would also be exempt in cases where a mitzvah contradicts his conscience.
This is in complete contradiction to the Orthodox expectation that a person joining the Jewish people joins them completely, for good and bad, for convenient and annoying, because he has chosen to leave behind his gentile life and pledge his complete loyalty to God and Torah.
For all these reasons, we cannot accept or acknowledge any legitimacy to those who would change our nation into just another culture with interesting cuisine. Fortunatley, with the continued poor growth rates of heterodoxy in Israel, this is not likely to become a major issue in any case.
Star Trek: The Review
First of all, the background story you need to know to fully appreciate the movie (no spoilers):
10 years or so after Star Trek: Nemesis, the Hobus star deep within Romulan territory explodes. For reasons known only the physics of Star Trek, instead of weakening as it expands, Hobus strengthens as it absorbs matter like its planets. As a result, it threatens to destroy nearby Romulus as well as ultimately the entire galaxy.
Both Spock, now openly the Federation ambassador to Romulus, and a non-descript but patriotic space miner named Nero, realize the danger but their attempts to warn the Romulun high council fail. Spock notes that the Vulcans have developed a technology that allows them to convert decalithium, a rare mineral that Nero just happens to have lots of in the hold of his ship, the Narada, into red matter, something that can shut down an exploding star. So with the assistance of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E under the command of Data (his engrams having been uploaded into B-4's frame), Nero and Spock go to Vulcan. Despite the help of Federation Ambassador Jean Luc Picard, they cannot convince the Vulcans to help the Romulans either.
Nero gives the decalithium to Spock who secretly whips up some red matter and promises to do his best to help save Romulus. While working on this with Geordi Laforge who has created a small ship called the Jellyfish to approach Hobus without getting all burnt to a crip, Nero returns to Romulus in time to see it destroyd by the expanding Hobus.
The trauma of seeing his world, along with his pregnant wife, incinerated, drives him mad. He and his crew promptly shave their heads, cover themselves in tatoos and swear vengeance against:
a) Spock, for not helping promptly enough
b) Vulcan, for not helping promptly enough
c) the Federation, because they didn't push the Vulcans enough
Meanwhile Spock finishes his preparations and takes the Jellyfish to Hobus where he pops the red matter into its core. The plan works, a black hole is created which sucks Hobus into it, ending the threat. But Spock cannot escape as he is caught in the gravity well of the singularity. Just as his ship is about to get sucked into the black hole, the Narada shows up to destroy him but before Nero can fire, his ship is also sucked in. The Enterprise arrives to see both ships disappear, sad at the loss of Spock but happy that Nero is also gone.
Until the movie starts, that is...
Review (warning: spoilers)
Overall I thought it was excellent. The plot is a bit weak but the point of this movie isn't to leave you scratching your head and wondering at the profound dialogue, but to walk out of the theatre with your ears ringing and your mind wondering at the amazing special effects and how, with a simple little trick, JJ Abrams has managed to wipe out 40 years of Star Trek history and give himself a blank slate to recreate the franchise, without affecting the original canon!
See, here's the trick: By emerging from the black hole at the moment of James T Kirk's birth, Nero changes history. Kirk is raised completely differently, most other major characters have altered time lines and the circumstances that bring them together are completely different from the first time around. And that means the possibilities are now endless without having to create a different crew.
The casting was inspired. Chris Pine does an excellent version of what a young and undisciplined Kirk would have been like. This is cast in even sharper relief when one remembers descriptions of Kirk at the Academy ("Where No Man Has Gone Before", "Shore Leave") as being humourless and a compulsive bookworm who was constantly the target of practical jokes and couldn't get a date to save his life.
Zachary Quinto, who I hate as Sylar for being so petty and one-dimensional, shows an alternate Spock in which his emotions aren't entirely so surpressed. For those who wonder why it's Uhura of all women that he's getting it on with (poor Nurse Chapel!) watch "The Man Trap" again. Clearly this relationship is a reference to an awkward and (thankfully) nearly forgotten scene from early in TOS history where Uhura shameless flirts with Spock on the bridge, while on duty.
(Fans will recall that Uhura was dating Scotty during the events of "The Final Fronteir". Slut)
Scotty, Sulu and Chekov are also fun to watch in their slightly altered versions. It's a bit disconcerting to see Sulu played by a Korean but I guess his daughter, Demora, who was also mysteriously Korean, had a retroactive effect on his genetic struture. Or something like that. (or could it be that all these decades later, Orientals still all look the same to Hollywood brass?)
Karl Urban, in my mind, is the standout though for not trying to reinterpret or update his character but doing an amazing job simply channeling DeForest Kelly back to life. My God, Jim, I haven't seen anyone recreate a dead actor like that since Man on the Moon. When he shouted "Dammit Spock! I'm a doctor, not a physicist!" the doubts are dispelled.
There are also enough "in jokes" to keep die hard fans happy. We learn where McCoy's "Bones" nickname came from. We get to see the Kobiyashu Maru simulation although Kirk's obnoxious behaviour during the test was a little too much for me. Remember that in the original time line his effort to successfully rescue the ship was not detected as cheating and that he received a commendation. This time he comes off as a spoiled brat and not sympathetic at all.
However when Spock quotes from Sherlock Holmes ("Once you have ruled out the possible...") just as he did in "The Undiscovered Country", and after the scene in which Quinto meets Nimoy and again exchanges a classic quote, this one from "The Wrath of Khan": You lied! I implied! the torch is passed. We can await the new adventures of Pine and crew with great excitement.
(You think he'll get that green Orion girl as his new yeoman?)
Plot Holes:
1) A gigantic ship emerges from nowhere and, within a few minutes, destroys a Federation starship. And Starfleet's response? You'd think they'd mobilize the entire fleet and hunt this thing down. Nope.
2) Survivors of the Kelvin would surely note that the Narada was severely damaged when the Kelvin rammed intself down the ship's throat. Why no computer directive like: If you encounter this ship, here's what you do to destroy it? Why is its appearance to the Enterprise at Vulcan a complete shock?
3) Spock announces he must go to the Narada because he has the best chance of figuring out their computers since Vulcans and Romulans share a common heritage. Remember from "Balance of Terror" that Vulcans did not know anything about Romulans until that first feed from the cloaked Bird of Prey's bridge. Spock was completely surprised by Romulans' appearance. So how could he know about this shared heritage?
The Jewish angle:
I only wish I knew gemara like I know Star Trek (he said, hanging his head in shame... briefly)
10 years or so after Star Trek: Nemesis, the Hobus star deep within Romulan territory explodes. For reasons known only the physics of Star Trek, instead of weakening as it expands, Hobus strengthens as it absorbs matter like its planets. As a result, it threatens to destroy nearby Romulus as well as ultimately the entire galaxy.
Both Spock, now openly the Federation ambassador to Romulus, and a non-descript but patriotic space miner named Nero, realize the danger but their attempts to warn the Romulun high council fail. Spock notes that the Vulcans have developed a technology that allows them to convert decalithium, a rare mineral that Nero just happens to have lots of in the hold of his ship, the Narada, into red matter, something that can shut down an exploding star. So with the assistance of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E under the command of Data (his engrams having been uploaded into B-4's frame), Nero and Spock go to Vulcan. Despite the help of Federation Ambassador Jean Luc Picard, they cannot convince the Vulcans to help the Romulans either.
Nero gives the decalithium to Spock who secretly whips up some red matter and promises to do his best to help save Romulus. While working on this with Geordi Laforge who has created a small ship called the Jellyfish to approach Hobus without getting all burnt to a crip, Nero returns to Romulus in time to see it destroyd by the expanding Hobus.
The trauma of seeing his world, along with his pregnant wife, incinerated, drives him mad. He and his crew promptly shave their heads, cover themselves in tatoos and swear vengeance against:
a) Spock, for not helping promptly enough
b) Vulcan, for not helping promptly enough
c) the Federation, because they didn't push the Vulcans enough
Meanwhile Spock finishes his preparations and takes the Jellyfish to Hobus where he pops the red matter into its core. The plan works, a black hole is created which sucks Hobus into it, ending the threat. But Spock cannot escape as he is caught in the gravity well of the singularity. Just as his ship is about to get sucked into the black hole, the Narada shows up to destroy him but before Nero can fire, his ship is also sucked in. The Enterprise arrives to see both ships disappear, sad at the loss of Spock but happy that Nero is also gone.
Until the movie starts, that is...
Review (warning: spoilers)
Overall I thought it was excellent. The plot is a bit weak but the point of this movie isn't to leave you scratching your head and wondering at the profound dialogue, but to walk out of the theatre with your ears ringing and your mind wondering at the amazing special effects and how, with a simple little trick, JJ Abrams has managed to wipe out 40 years of Star Trek history and give himself a blank slate to recreate the franchise, without affecting the original canon!
See, here's the trick: By emerging from the black hole at the moment of James T Kirk's birth, Nero changes history. Kirk is raised completely differently, most other major characters have altered time lines and the circumstances that bring them together are completely different from the first time around. And that means the possibilities are now endless without having to create a different crew.
The casting was inspired. Chris Pine does an excellent version of what a young and undisciplined Kirk would have been like. This is cast in even sharper relief when one remembers descriptions of Kirk at the Academy ("Where No Man Has Gone Before", "Shore Leave") as being humourless and a compulsive bookworm who was constantly the target of practical jokes and couldn't get a date to save his life.
Zachary Quinto, who I hate as Sylar for being so petty and one-dimensional, shows an alternate Spock in which his emotions aren't entirely so surpressed. For those who wonder why it's Uhura of all women that he's getting it on with (poor Nurse Chapel!) watch "The Man Trap" again. Clearly this relationship is a reference to an awkward and (thankfully) nearly forgotten scene from early in TOS history where Uhura shameless flirts with Spock on the bridge, while on duty.
(Fans will recall that Uhura was dating Scotty during the events of "The Final Fronteir". Slut)
Scotty, Sulu and Chekov are also fun to watch in their slightly altered versions. It's a bit disconcerting to see Sulu played by a Korean but I guess his daughter, Demora, who was also mysteriously Korean, had a retroactive effect on his genetic struture. Or something like that. (or could it be that all these decades later, Orientals still all look the same to Hollywood brass?)
Karl Urban, in my mind, is the standout though for not trying to reinterpret or update his character but doing an amazing job simply channeling DeForest Kelly back to life. My God, Jim, I haven't seen anyone recreate a dead actor like that since Man on the Moon. When he shouted "Dammit Spock! I'm a doctor, not a physicist!" the doubts are dispelled.
There are also enough "in jokes" to keep die hard fans happy. We learn where McCoy's "Bones" nickname came from. We get to see the Kobiyashu Maru simulation although Kirk's obnoxious behaviour during the test was a little too much for me. Remember that in the original time line his effort to successfully rescue the ship was not detected as cheating and that he received a commendation. This time he comes off as a spoiled brat and not sympathetic at all.
However when Spock quotes from Sherlock Holmes ("Once you have ruled out the possible...") just as he did in "The Undiscovered Country", and after the scene in which Quinto meets Nimoy and again exchanges a classic quote, this one from "The Wrath of Khan": You lied! I implied! the torch is passed. We can await the new adventures of Pine and crew with great excitement.
(You think he'll get that green Orion girl as his new yeoman?)
Plot Holes:
1) A gigantic ship emerges from nowhere and, within a few minutes, destroys a Federation starship. And Starfleet's response? You'd think they'd mobilize the entire fleet and hunt this thing down. Nope.
2) Survivors of the Kelvin would surely note that the Narada was severely damaged when the Kelvin rammed intself down the ship's throat. Why no computer directive like: If you encounter this ship, here's what you do to destroy it? Why is its appearance to the Enterprise at Vulcan a complete shock?
3) Spock announces he must go to the Narada because he has the best chance of figuring out their computers since Vulcans and Romulans share a common heritage. Remember from "Balance of Terror" that Vulcans did not know anything about Romulans until that first feed from the cloaked Bird of Prey's bridge. Spock was completely surprised by Romulans' appearance. So how could he know about this shared heritage?
The Jewish angle:
I only wish I knew gemara like I know Star Trek (he said, hanging his head in shame... briefly)
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Looking For A Heter in the Wrong Place
So I'm sitting in shul this moring and one of the local rabbonim comes up to me with a question.
"I have to go for bloodwork," he says, "but do I really have to fast for twelve hours?"
(Never mind that Yom Kippur is 25 hours long...)
So I ask: "Is that what they told you?"
"Yes," he answers, "but I heard that in the States it's only 8 hours."
And then it dawns on me. He's looking for a heter. Like I'm supposed to say "Well The New England Journal of Medicine says it's 12 hours but JAMA and American Family Physician both proved that 8 hours is fine." Medicine doesn't work like that.
So I gave him the next best answer. "It's the same thing."
"Twelve and eight hours are the same thing?" he asks.
"Yeah, in America they work in Imperial but in Canada we're metric so it comes out to the same amount of time."
To his credit, it took only 3 seconds (I counted) for him to figure it out.
"I have to go for bloodwork," he says, "but do I really have to fast for twelve hours?"
(Never mind that Yom Kippur is 25 hours long...)
So I ask: "Is that what they told you?"
"Yes," he answers, "but I heard that in the States it's only 8 hours."
And then it dawns on me. He's looking for a heter. Like I'm supposed to say "Well The New England Journal of Medicine says it's 12 hours but JAMA and American Family Physician both proved that 8 hours is fine." Medicine doesn't work like that.
So I gave him the next best answer. "It's the same thing."
"Twelve and eight hours are the same thing?" he asks.
"Yeah, in America they work in Imperial but in Canada we're metric so it comes out to the same amount of time."
To his credit, it took only 3 seconds (I counted) for him to figure it out.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Be Careful How You Answer
So I'm in the ER and finish up with the patient and, as I always try to do, I ask: "Any questions?" Because it's important to conclude any physician-patient encounter that way. If the patient has questions and they don't get answered, then if something goes wrong or if the patient just doesn't understand the instructions he was given, he'll be back and he'll harbour some animus towards the doctor who was too busy to answer his queries.
So I wait and the patient answers: "No." Pause. "But doctor, I want to ask you..."
Now I get this all the time. No, you have no questions and here's one now. And maybe I was feeling fiestier than usual that day but I raised my hand and said "Hang on, I asked if you had any questions and you said 'no'. So that was it."
And the patient's shoulders sagged and he muttered "Darn" as if I'd just yanked the winning lottery ticket away after he'd accidentally refused to take it.
Fortuinately I was not only fiesty but in a good mood as well so I said "Oh okay, I'll make an exception this time. What's the question?"
You should have seen the smile on his face...
So I wait and the patient answers: "No." Pause. "But doctor, I want to ask you..."
Now I get this all the time. No, you have no questions and here's one now. And maybe I was feeling fiestier than usual that day but I raised my hand and said "Hang on, I asked if you had any questions and you said 'no'. So that was it."
And the patient's shoulders sagged and he muttered "Darn" as if I'd just yanked the winning lottery ticket away after he'd accidentally refused to take it.
Fortuinately I was not only fiesty but in a good mood as well so I said "Oh okay, I'll make an exception this time. What's the question?"
You should have seen the smile on his face...
I'm Number One!
One criticism I've heard time and again is that "you're almost as bad as Jacob Stein". Well, as I strive for excellence, I've never been quite so happy with that. "Almost"? That's like, second best. I hate second best.
Fortunately while trolling the internet I found evidence to the contrary. Apparently this guy (name sounds really Jewish, eh?) has a very high opinion of me:
Garnel Ironheart, you are an ------! I say that without an iota of regret. As far as deceitful ------------s are concerned, in the skeptic Jewish blogosphere there none worse than you. Do you honestly think you are going to bring any of those countless apikores back to the frum world, by pulling all the --- you do?
You hear that? "None worse" than me! Hah, take that Stein! I'm number one! I'm number one!
Fortunately while trolling the internet I found evidence to the contrary. Apparently this guy (name sounds really Jewish, eh?) has a very high opinion of me:
Garnel Ironheart, you are an ------! I say that without an iota of regret. As far as deceitful ------------s are concerned, in the skeptic Jewish blogosphere there none worse than you. Do you honestly think you are going to bring any of those countless apikores back to the frum world, by pulling all the --- you do?
You hear that? "None worse" than me! Hah, take that Stein! I'm number one! I'm number one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)