Torah...for the Nations? part 3

The issue of whether or not we should be teaching Torah to our non-Jewish neighbors was a moot point in Medieval Europe. Jews were frequently murdered en masse. The worst perpetrators of all were the English. It was they who started the blood libel; the calumny that Jews use Christian blood in our religious ceremonies, especially on Passover, and Jews are born blind, until Christian blood was poured in their eyes. Entire communities were wiped out as a result. Often, the Jews were herded into the synagogue, which was set on fire, or thrown off a cliff. The Jews of England suffered great massacres in 1190, with the final annihilation of English Jewry in 1290. Jews were only readmitted to England three and a half centuries later. The blood libel spread rapidly through Europe, and still crops up from time to time, even in the Unites States. To this day, German Jews are careful to have at least one cup of white wine among the four cups at the Passover Seder, in order to demonstrate that we are not drinking blood. The Crusades saw massacres of Jews all over Europe and the Middle East, as enthusiastic Christian soldiers "practiced" on Jews, while on their way to kill Muslims. Fully one-third of the Jewish people was killed, proportionally identical to the Holocaust. One would think that the way to deal with the hate was to talk. But a series of disputations between Jewish and Christian clergy from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries proved not only fruitless, but actually disastrous. In most of these cases, an apostate Jew would level charges against Judaism with the civil authorities, often the King himself. A public debate would take place. Usually, the rules stated that the Jews could defend Judaism, but not criticize Christianity. Nearly always, the Jews won these debates, which generally brought about further persecution and expulsion. In the few cases where the Jews lost, they were often forcibly Baptized afterward. Perhaps the most famous of these disputations was that at Barcelona, in 1263, between RAMBAN and the apostate, Pablo Chistiani. Unlike other such debates, King James of Aragon gave RAMBAN full permission to make counter-arguments against Christianity. The debate was what we would today call a "knockout". (One can find a dramatization of this debate on YouTube, under the title "The Disputation"). However, RAMBAN was, despite royal assurances, forced to flee Spain because of his "blasphemy". Historians believe that these debates lead directly to the Inquisition. Yes, talking to the outside world about Torah, brought death and destruction upon our people. It was seen as far better to keep quiet...and even to maintain secrecy. In fact, I worry about all the ubiquitous rhetoric of online rabbis against Christianity. The arguments have changed little since the thirteenth century. I fear that these videos will bring an antisemitic backlash. In my opinion, a better approach is to teach Judaism, rather than attack others. In the mid Twentieth century, there appeared to be a glimmer of hope on the horizon for true dialogue, with the Jewish people free to tell our story to the world. But it lasted less than a decade. Next time.

Torah...for the Nations? part 2

In 1988, a famous Hasidic Rebbe had lost his wife. Among those paying condolences, was a Lithuanian Rosh Yeshiva. This particular Rosh Yeshiva was world renowned for his penetrating analyses of RAMBAM, both in halachah and philosophy. As could be expected, the conversation turned to topics of Torah. The Rebbe, in the course of their discussion, quoted a halachah in the name of RAMBAM. The Rosh Yeshiva stated emphatically "There is no such statement of RAMBAM". The Rebbe corrected him, pointing out that the statement is not found in RAMBAM's legal code, but rather in his commentary on the Mishnah. He went on to point out the numerous authorities who quoted that statement in their writings. The Rosh Yeshiva was humiliated. He was THE expert; or so he thought. This was like catching an error in Einstein's arithmetic. He left, visibly shaken. The Rebbe immediately sent some of his followers to ask the Rosh Yeshiva for forgiveness. They were rebuffed. (I have heard this story from followers of both men.) The point of this story is that the writings of RAMBAM are both subtle and complex. Issues raised and explained in one of his works, are often taken up again elsewhere, and given a different explanation. This "elsewhere" may be in a different book, or several paragraphs later in the same work. (This is one of my pet peeves about many online rabbis, who build an entire philosophy on a statement of RAMBAM, which is contradicted three paragraphs later.) A great deal of Jewish religious literature consists of works reconciling these differences. The same holds true of RAMBAM's uncharacteristic quote of the homiletic interpretation of "meorasa" (betrothed) for "morasha" (inheritance), apparently forbidding any transmission of Torah knowledge to non-Jews. This reticence is reinforced in his laws of conversion, where only bits and pieces of Jewish concepts and practices are told to the conversion candidate, and that only moments before his actual conversion ceremony. But we also find in RAMBAM that he considers both Jesus and Mohammed to be false prophets, he nevertheless sees them as tools for G-d, enabling even those living on "distant islands" where Jews never go, to learn of the G-d of Israel. But from here, we could infer that our spreading the Torah should be passive. We shouldn't teach. We"ll let G-d and history take care of that for us. But in another passage, he says that we should not teach Scripture to Muslims. Since they say that we have deliberately altered and distorted the Scriptures, in order to remove prophecies concerning Mohammed, our efforts to teach them Torah would only be met with derision. But since Christians do accept our Scriptures, it is a mitzvah to teach them, so as to show them their true meaning. Therefore, his approach is NOT to keep our Torah secret. On the contrary, we WANT them to come to Torah. We do not want to give them further ammunition for derision. Historically, however, this approach was also seen as a threat to other faiths. Very real, physical dangers, up to and including torture and death, manifested themselves in the attempt to elucidate verses in Scripture. We are about to enter a discussion of the Age of Disputations. The events that I shall describe, have largely brought about Jewish self-censorship, and, in my opinion, a reticence concerning the Prophets' charge to be a Light unto the Nations

Torah...for the Nations? part 1

The Talmud, along with several other ancient sources, both Jewish and non Jewish, records the following story:

King Ptolemy (of Egypt) once gathered 72 (others say 70) Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". G-d put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.

Although many historians question the details of this narrative, there is no question that in the Third Century BCE, Jewish scholars translated the five books of Moses into Koine Greek, the language of the Hellenistic empire. Over the next century or two, the other Biblical books were also translated, along with material that is not in our Tanach. This is known as the Septuagint, the "Translation of the Seventy", which became standard Scripture in the assimilated communities of the Empire, especially in Egypt, and later became accepted Scripture for early Christians, from Paul on. (Earlier quotes from Tanach are direct translations from he Hebrew). To this day, the Septuagint is the only version of Tanach recognized as authoritative in the Greek Orthodox Church. The Talmud records that some deliberate changes were introduced by the translating rabbis, in places where a literal translation would be misleading. In some places, especially in the Book of Isaiah, the "translation" is little more than a paraphrase. By the Third Century CE, Jews had abandoned the Septuagint. Torah was studied and read in Hebrew. In those parts of the Eastern Roman Empire (whose language was Koine Greek, rather than Latin) where the Jews did not remember Hebrew, the far more literal translation of Aquila was substituted. Only fragments of the latter survive. We would expect the Septuagint to have been greatly celebrated by the rabbis. HaShem's Torah was, for the first time, made known to the Nations. But, on the contrary, this magnum opus was seen as a cause for mourning. "When the Torah was translated into Greek, three days of darkness fell on the world" (Talmud Megillah). A fast was instituted, which later was incorporated, together with other tragedies, into the fast of the Tenth of Tevet. But why? We had "made it"; Judaism was now "on the map". Several reasons were offered. One is that each word of the Hebrew original is pregnant with meaning. A translation...any translation... could, at best, convey only one of these meanings. The Italians have a saying "A Translator is a Traitor". Also, with Scripture in non Jewish hands, it could be easily distorted. The Book of Esther, in the Septuagint, is practically a different book! Haman is no longer an Agagite, but a Greek, seeking to undermine the Persian Kingdom in order to enable a Greek conquest. Worse still, the word "hanged" (applied to Haman and his sons), is the same word as "crucified" (σταυρώνω staurono), which infuriated Greek speaking Christians, who felt they were being mocked. This caused much antisemitism, and even violence, each year when Purim was celebrated. But beyond these reasons, many of the rabbis saw a more fundamental problem with a translation. We read in Deuteronomy 33:4 "Moses commanded us the Torah, The inheritance of the congregation of Jacob". The Torah was our gift from G-d! It was sacrilege to give it to others! The rabbis went on to homiletically say "Do not read "Morashah" (an inheritance), but "meorasah" (betrothed Bride). We are surrendering our Betrothed to every passerby. The latter homiletic interpretation converts the sharing of our heritage, into an act of depravity. Surprisingly, RAMBAM quoted this Drash as halachah. Or DOES HE? Next time.

Living in the Land of Israel part 6

I would like to go further into the words of my teacher, as well as present my conclusions on the topic as a whole. Rav Kiwak was, as I understand, teaching an important general lesson. There are commandments, both Biblical and Rabbinic, that are non-negotiable. One cannot simply say "well, this Saturday I would really like to go shopping. I'll just skip Shabbat this week". That is simply not an option for someone who takes Torah seriously. On the other hand, even most Torah laws provide for situations where they are to be violated. For instance, a person who is dangerously ill MAY NOT fast on Yom Kippur. Similarly, one who is dangerously ill on Shabbat, MUST violate the Shabbat in the course of medical treatment, This is not a dispensation. This itself is a requirement of the Torah. There is no reward for going beyond this by putting one's self in danger. But there are things that are very valuable, but not actual halachah. The Zohar, as well as many other holy books, puts a tremendous emphasis on the positive effects, both on the microcosm; man, as well as on the macrocosm: the Universe, of arising in the middle of the night to pray and meditate on the themes of alienation from G-d, as well as restoration. In the days when people retired soon after nightfall, this was not difficult. Today, this is a virtual impossibility for most people. Some, nevertheless, do it without fail. Others do it occasionally. For still others, this has gone by the wayside entirely.For example, older editions of the Chabad siddur feature it, newer ones do not. Rav Kiwak's comments about the "stomach ache" mean that one must weigh the risk/benefit ratio of staying in bed or getting up in the middle of the night. As it is not halachah, one may very well say "why bother?". But the tremendous spiritual journey of Tikkun Hatzot is beyond words. On the other hand, if being up at that time will mean being sleepy the next day, unable to pray, unable to study Torah, unable to perform one's duties to one's employer, let alone to G-d, his "merit has been lost in his loss". Some people will do it anyway. Others will think about prioritizing their spiritual life. The same is true when talking about the Land of Israel. There is clearly no requirement, according to most opinions, to live there. But the sanctity of the Land, besides its many holy places where one can be renewed, are beyond belief. Every moment is a treasure; for those who do not feel a "stomach ache". Those who say otherwise, base their statements on aggadah rather than halachah; or, even worse, political ideology, disguising as religion. I will illustrate with an unpleasant experience I had a few years ago. A woman who had been my neighbor in Beit El, found me on Facebook. She told me her tales of woe. Her husband had left her, going back to the States. (Fortunately, he did give her a "get"; a bill of divorce.) She had moved to Jerusalem with their children. Unscrupulous lawyers had convinced her to sue her ex for support and were draining her of the little sustenance she had. I told her that from my knowledge and experience, such international lawsuits rarely bore fruit. But she was convinced that if, in the midst of her poverty, she pursued the legal route, she would soon be rich. She met a man who wanted to marry her. But he had a wife back in the States, whom he did not divorce, and hence the Rabbinate would not allow her to marry this man. A rogue rabbi in Israel suggested she live as his concubine. They now have children together. For months, she wrote to me about her misery; bill collectors, neighbors prejudiced against her because of her living arrangements, government oppression, police oppression, constant anxiety over Israeli government policies. I wrote her many sympathetic emails. Then, about six years ago, she posted a comment about the upcoming American elections. (I do not wish to deal with the question whether her perceptions were correct. It is the attitude I am commenting upon). She wrote "I hope that Trump loses. American Jews would prosper under Trump, and never come on aliyah. But Hillary is an antisemite, and will persecute the Jews. Then they will have no choice but to come to Israel". I was stunned. Despite all of her misery, she wanted the American Jews to come at any cost. Let them be persecuted, rounded up in camps, perhaps with many to die...so long as the bulk came "home" to share in her misery. This attitude gives a whole new meaning to the term "cognitive dissonance". I immediately unfriended her and blocked her. For all those who say that it is a Torah requirement to live in the Land, which is largely fictitious, or who say, after an antisemitic incident "the writing is on the wall.  Time to come home" J'accuse. For those who are capable of focusing on the spirituality inherent in the Land, on the sense of closeness to G-d,  while being oblivious to everything happening around them,  happy are they! I, for one, am not sympathetic to that view. 

Living in the Land of Israel part 5

No figure in Jewish history has placed more emphasis on the spiritual significance of the Land of Israel than Rabbi Nachman of Breslov. He saw it as the quintessence of Holiness, which each Jew must visit at least once. He embarked on a pilgrimage  in the early Summer of 1798, without money or provisions, in the middle of the Napoleonic wars. He was captured by pirates, nearly sold into slavery, ransomed by the Jewish community of Rhodes, endured the shelling of Akko (Acre) by the French; just to walk four cubits in the Holy Land. He arrived in Haifa on the Eve of Rosh Hashana, walked a few paces, and made the amazing statement "I now understand what none have understood before, and I have been given a gift of Rosh Hashana" (I have explained these statements elsewhere). He then said to his travelling companion (his identity has not come down to us, but there are two theories), "Hire passage back for immediately after the Holiday" The man balked, and said that he wanted to feast his eyes on the sights of the Holy Land. Rabbi Nachman, who was never stubborn about anything, agreed to stay for a few months, visiting the fledgling Hasidic communities in Tiberius and Safed. He never mentions about going there to live. His student, Rabbi Natan, made an almost identical trip in 1822. In his writings, Rabbi Natan does praise those who live there. Since then, most Breslover Hasidim have either lived there, or are making efforts to get there. Rabbi Nachman's and Rabbi Natan's deep mystical insights form the main backdrop to Rav Kook's teachings, albeit without the political twist, and cognitive dissonance, that few Breslovers would endorse. I have written in the past about my teacher, Rabbi Nissen David Kiwak. I met him in 1985, when he was just thirty years old, and was "bowled over" by his incredible insights, as well as his way of seeing through events, in a way that is, in my opinion, close to prophecy. After seventeen years of suffering under the Israeli "system" (not that there is anything systematic about it), Sima and I were totally beaten down, our idealism betrayed, robbed of both goods and dignity. I asked Rav Kiwak if it would be permissible to leave (not a simple question). He said "Of course. At this point, it is forbidden to live here". (The "Second Intifada" was underway; bombs exploding every few hours, with the government doing nothing.) I said "But YOU live here!" He answered "No I don't. I live in the Holy One,, blessed be He". It took me a few years to understand that remark. He meant that he was surrendering himself to the Will of G-d, and relished every moment in the Holy Land. If death was around the corner, that was up to G-d, and essentially none of our business. He went on "The description of the Holiness of the Land could fill up so many books, that this whole apartment building would be filled with books. I love Eretz Yisrael. I also love to wear Tefillin. But when I have a stomach ache I take my Tefillin off." I began to understand. The halachah says that if one has stomach or intestinal discomfort, one must remove the Tefillin (some say because the body is then "unclean", others say because of distraction). Tefillin are amazing. But if one is so distracted, there is no point. The rabbi is not distracted by violence and terrorism. For a long time, two thugs stood menacingly at his door, hired by a major Hasidic Rebbe, who claimed that Rav Kiwak had used black magic (!) to attract the Rebbe's grandson as a disciple, and later as a son in law. Rav Kiwak ignored everything. But for me, and many others, the tensions of life in Israel, the government oppression of religion, the indignities of day-to-day life in Israeli society, prevented any appreciation of the Holiness of the Land. All this was, in effect, a "stomach ache". It was time for me to "take off the Tefillin" I consider these words to be among the most vital teachings that I received from him. A few years ago, my son, Shmuel and his wife asked the rabbi if they should move back to the Land. It was the eve of Rosh Hashana, just a few feet from the holy resting place of Rabbi Nachman. Rav Kiwak said "of course." When they came home, and informed me of this, I was bewildered. I told my son "ask him again, when it is not Rosh Hashana, and you are not in Uman". He did so. Rav Kiwak said "Of course. When you own an apartment in Jerusalem free and clear, when you have saved $200,000 in cash, when you can assure me that you will ignore the news media, keep your head in the Holy Books, and speak with no one." My son was only to come when he could make sure he would not have a stomach ache. That is possible for very few.

Living in the Land of Israel part 2

Despite the huge praise of living in the Land of Israel in Talmud, like "one who lives in the Land of Israel is as one who has a G-d, one who lives outside the Land of Israel is as one who has no G-d" and "Jews who observe the Torah outside the land are like those who worship idols in ritual purity", we find precious little about moving there. In fact, there is a view in the Talmud that it is FORBIDDEN to move there. The proof text is from Jeremiah "They shall be brought to Babylon, and remain there..." Our exile is a Divine Decree. Attempting to undo it is rebellion against G-d! (I have written elsewhere that although the Jerusalem Talmud believes in a natural redemption, the Babylonian speaks of a supernatural one.) However, the verse in Jeremiah is not speaking of the Jews, but of the Temple vessels captured by Nebuchadnezzar, and the above "interpretation" must be seen as aggadah.. The concept of Aliyah is perhaps the one with the widest gap between drash (homiletics) and pshat (literal meaning). Already the Tosafists (12th to 14th centuries) write that this mitzvah is no longer applicable, due to the hardships involved in the journey, as well as those involved in living in a primitive backwater. Besides, the special mitzvot that apply only in the Land are many and complex, which most will be unable to properly observe. (Tosafot, Ketubot 110b). This is also quoted in MORDECAI. This was little discussed in later centuries. One may argue that today there is no great hardship in the journey, and Israel is a modern country. But anyone who has been reading my posts knows that there are other kinds of hardships in Modern Israel, especially for American immigrants. Moshe Feinstein, writing in 1952, states that although one fulfills a mitzvah by living in the land of Israel, there is no obligation either Rabbinic or Biblical. He writes that since there is no actual obligation to live there, one should heed the warnings of Tosafot. This view caused considerable consternation in religious Zionist circles. When he died in 1985, and was buried in Jerusalem (I was at his funeral), one religious Zionist publication put on its cover "Rav Moshe makes aliyah!", superimposed on a picture of Jerusalem's Har Hamenuchot cemetery. People were arguing about that headline for many months.  Most non-Zionist, and anti-Zionist rabbis endorsed the view of  Moshe Feinstein. Rav Moshe Shternbuch, a Hareidi Israeli rabbi, added to it that the pressures against religion in Israel are very great, and one must think carefully about the effects of these pressures on one's self and one's family. On the other hand, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, a major figure in religious Zionist circles, wrote emotionally about the "obligation" of aliyah after the founding of the State. According to him, a  twofold obligation of aliyah has been created. First, the barriers mentioned in Tosafot no longer exist (I would disagree strongly), and since Israel is the "beginning of the Redemption", but is still in its swaddling clothes, every Jew has an obligation to go there. He writes that this is a “central and fundamental Mitzvah”. It must be noted that these words are emotional, rather than source-based, and based primarily on the ideas of Rav Kook. Other rabbis in the religious Zionist camp write in a similar vein, quoting aggadic sources, and basing themselves primarily on political ideology rather than Torah. Some say that every case must be judged on its merits, as to the appropriateness of this move. One who goes on aliyah leaves friends and family behind, often breaking many hearts. One cannot ignore that the vast majority of Western immigrants, return to their native countries within five years. The statistics used to be 70% but were solved by the Israeli government by stopping to keep this statistic. I personally feel that my "aliyah" in 1984 hastened the deaths of my parents. This is a very heavy burden on me. I know countless others with the same thoughts. My take away from all of this is that all things being equal, it is a wonderful thing to live in the Land of Israel. But rarely are all things "equal". In my next post, I will deal with those who argue against living there in current circumstances.

Living in the Land of Israel part 1

When I lived in Israel, there was an outspoken journalist, TV commentator and politician, named Tommy Lapid (father of Yair Lapid, who is now a powerful person in the government). His political stance was right of center, although he would take each issue as it came. He had a deep hatred for religion. I once saw him say on TV "Religious Jews are vermin". When the moderator asked "And how should we deal with vermin?" he refused to answer; but we knew what he was thinking. From time to time, a fellow panelist would call him a Nazi. He would get enraged, saying "How dare you? I lived through the Holocaust". Once, two rabbis were in a heated debate, on the topic of "Land for Peace" (sic). The Kookian rabbi said "Never! Absolutely forbidden!" The Hareidi Aggudist rabbi said "Of course we should. The halachah requires us to!". Tommy Lapid looked at them and said "Tell me; do you read the same books?" When trying to derive a final halachah from sources, one must watch out for claims based on politics, or that say "This is not mentioned in sources, because it is too obvious." The latter assertion rarely holds up to reason. Very often, there are conflicting views, and it takes a great deal of skill to arrive at truth. This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the issue of if there is or isn't a Torah requirement to live in the Land of Israel. There are many aggadic statements in the Talmud that lavishly praise living in the Land of Israel. Perhaps the most striking of these is "He who lives in the Land of Israel is considered as having a G-d, he who lives outside the Land is as one who has no G-d".These are the statements that we often see in rabbinic essays that declare "aliyah" to be obligatory. However, we seek in vain for a halachic statement. True, RAMBAN (1194-1270)(among others) understands the verses that say "You shall go over Jordan, inherit the land of your enemies, and dwell therein" as a command. But nearly all other authorities see those words as a promise, rather than a command. RAMBAM clearly states that a Jew may live anywhere in the world he chooses, other than Egypt (problematic, as that is precisely where he lived). However, once he has lived in the Land, he may never leave. (Most others give parameters that would allow leaving.under certain circumstances) The Shulchan Aruch makes no mention of such an obligation, although it rules that if a couple are divided on the issue of moving to the Land of Israel,  this constitutes grounds for divorce. In fact, we find no major authorities debating the issue before the twentieth century. Living in the Land was overwhelmingly seen as something meritorious, but by no means obligatory.Those for and against the idea that one must live there, take their stands along partisan and ideological lines; is the State Israel the promised Redemption? What are the implications of that? When I go over this material, I ask, along with Tommy Lapid, "Tell me, do you read the same books?" In my next installment, I will deal with the writings and arguments of these twentieth century rabbinic figures. After that, I will deal with the question "if I'm not obligated, is it nevertheless something I really should do?"

The Law of the Land part 8

The Rav Kook communities, especially in the settlements, see violating Israeli Civil law as tantamount to rebellion against G-d Himself. Rabbi Melamed's daughter in law was running an unofficial (unlicensed, off the books) daycare center from her home. It didn't take long for neighbors to report her to the police. But isn't this the great sin of Mesirah (reporting a fellow Jew to the Civil Authorities)? No. She was acting against the government "the first flowering of our redemption", and, by extension, against G-d Himself, as well as against the collective body of the Jewish people. When we got firebombed on the way to Jerusalem (half an hour away), the response of the government was to give us stronger windshields. When attacks stopped being sporadic, but virtually constant, the government built a bypass road, so we didn't need to drive through El Birah and Ramallah. The Arabs now needed to go out of their way to shoot us and throw firebombs. A segment of the population called for protests. I attended one such protest, across the street from the Knesset. There was ice cream. Various political hacks made dull speeches, with no one listening. It was essentially a picnic. I listened a little. They were all saying words of praise for the government and its leaders. I asked for an explanation. "We want to show the government that we are behind them, so they will feel freer to act in a more determined manner." Having been active in my day in Vietnam era anti-war protests, I knew that this was a meaningless performance. Several others agreed with me. But the community heads told me that what I was speaking was blasphemy. The government heads are guided by G-d. This is all a test of our faith. One community leader, who was soon to lose his wife and a son in an ambush on their car, actually laughed at me. "G-d is playing, twisting everyone on His little finger. We only need to be silent until this passes. You have failed". Another rabbi in Beit El, Shlomo Aviner, was asked if the new situation is war. He replied "No. Although individuals are in danger, the society is not". A week later his brother-in-law was murdered by a terrorist in his Jerusalem plant nursery. Soon, it was obvious that neighbors were reporting the words of other neighbors to the police. People were getting arrested, The police were asking us about statements that we had made in private. We knew to whom we had said these things. Soon, no one trusted anyone. Those like me, who were more outspoken, were soon rumored to be Shabak (secret police) provocateurs, attempting to ensnare others into speaking ill of the government. (That sort of thing was frequent) During the 1992 elections, between Rabin and Shamir, the Likkud's ad campaign focused on Rabin's alcohol issues, rather than on the fact that he had fired upon and killed 17 Jews during his attack on the Altalena (I have written about that elsewhere). Rabin's ads were focused on Shamir's ineptness, rather than on the fact that he had murdered his comrade in arms of the Lehi freedom fighters, Eliyahu Giladi, in 1943. Both actions are well known and well documented. I said to my neighbors "I can't imagine another country where the two candidates for leadership killed people, and never stood trial." Again, community leaders reminded me that this is G-d's government. The killings were like the rabbinic martyrs under Roman oppression. They were of G-d, and we may not question. Yes, the teachings of Rav Kook are in some ways beautiful, but in other ways, they brought about repression and an unheard-of cult of government. Yes, I believe that a Jewish government should follow the Torah. But party politics, including religious parties, can easily be corrupted. I agree with Jefferson: "A people afraid of its government is tyranny, a government afraid of its people is liberty". We respect just and rightful authority. Worshiping that authority is another matter. Let all nations take heed."The Law of the Land"? Yes. "Royal robbery" and tyranny? No.

The Law of the Land part 7

Like many, I was convinced that the only place for a Jew was Israel. It was 1983, and Sima and I realized that it was now or never. I was now thirty four, and many programs had a limit of age thirty five. We had read Rabbi Kahane's books about the potential holocaust in the United States. Many were predicting that it would happen the following year; 1984. .Synagogues and Rabbis' homes were being set on fire in nearby West Hartford, Connecticut. Rabbi Kahane had staged a rally there, urging all Jews to leave immediately for Israel; the writing was on the wall. (It was later discovered that the perpetrator was actually a deranged Yeshivah student.) The last time such a dire year was evident was 1938, when the Hebrew year spelled out "Murder". 1984 spelled out "Destroy!" We attended an "Aliyah Fair" in New York (we lived in New Haven, Connecticut at the time). Booths representing different communities in Israel were set up. People were selling apartments, selling the ideas of this rabbi or that,, promising anything. "Of course you can come on aliyah! You don't need money! The government will give you whatever you need"! "The Arabs? they know they are defeated and cause no further trouble"! "The "territories"? Nobody ever talks about abandoning them anymore!" Remember the old commercial "promise her anything but give her Arpege"? These people are paid on "body count" (how many people they get to go on aliyah). They promise the world, but are not under any obligation to fulfill their promises. We did learn that our best bet would be the Settlements, where housing was cheapest, government grants were readily available, and we would have a fine religious environment. We were put in touch with settlement leaders, who were then visiting the U.S. I was unprepared for what I was to see. The settlers looked just like the Modern Orthodox with whom I was familiar. I expected the shallow, wish-washy one-size-fits-all Orthodoxy I had come to know and not love from a myriad of Yeshiva University graduates. But these people were for real. They were learned.They were idealists. They used Kabbalistic terminology; it was part of their world view. I felt at home. They got me in touch with the owner of the Beit El Tefillin factory, who immediately offered me employment. They gave me information on various settlements, as well as people to contact. They assured me that there was nothing to fear from either the Arabs, or government policies. Little did I know that prison awaited some of them when they got back to Israel, because of violence against Arab municipal heads. To make a long story short, we arrived at Beit El at the beginning of September, 1984, after a two month stay at an absorption center. Sima was to give birth to our third child a week later. Beit El was a breath of fresh air compared to Israeli society in general. People were kind and friendly. They were open to my Hasidic ways. Rabbi Nachman was well known to them, and I was frequently asked to speak at community events. One thing I did notice, and thought was strange. My new neighbors considered the State to be synonymous with "Klal Yisrael" (Universal Israel). They told me that despite the fact that they were strictly observant, they still felt closer to a secular, even anti religious Israeli, than a non Zionist Hareidi. The State was everything. This idea of "Klal"(collective community),which had always been part of Judaism, had been strangely put at the very center of everything. They "explained" to me that we, as individuals, are of no value, except to the degree that we serve the Klal. I thought it a bit strange, but could live with my neighbors having that ideology That is, until the Intifada came three years later. We were thrown under the bus by the government. An emergency meeting was called by the community. The Rabbi, Zalman Melamed. would address us. I expected that we would be divided into defensive and offensive squads, assigned to protect the community. I walked proudly, if apprehensively, to the meeting. I was stunned. The rabbi said that this was another stage in the Ge'ulah (Redemption). Rocks were being thrown at us because we did not love the rocks of Eretz Yisrael enough. This was the Arabs' last gasp. We must wait in silence, for we have already won. Just stop looking at the news media. The ideology of Rav Kook had, essentially, castrated the community. It got worse. In my opinion, all this puts into perspective the insanity of  unbridled nationalism, and the near deification of government.Dina d'Malchuta had become Fascism.

Addenda to The law of the Land part 6

One of the disciples of the Vilna Gaon (Elijah of Vilna 1720-1797, generally known as "GRA"), wrote a book called "Kol HaTor" in which he outlines the events leading to redemption. In this book, it is stated that "Mashiach son of Joseph" will be a secular leader (or leaders), who will gather in the Exiles, followed by Mashiach ben David who will bring in the spirituality. Rav Kook, in his eulogy for Theodore Herzl, intimated that he saw Herzl as at least part of this process. Rav Kook can, apparently, be seen as following in the footsteps of the Vilna Gaon. On the other hand, the violently anti-Zionist Neturei Karta, also claim to be following in the footsteps of the Vilna Gaon. Shortly before I left Israel, a neighbor, a staunch follower of the Vilna Gaon, told me that a letter had been discovered in which the Vilna Gaon stated that earlier, he had seen immigration of Jews to the Land of Israel as being the Beginning of Redemption, and he personally had very real plans to go. However, he now realizes that the Redemption was, in fact, dependent on study of Torah. He repudiated his earlier stance. Rav Kook would have had no way of knowing this. I have not personally seen the letter. (There are those who insist that Kol HaTor is a forgery. I highly doubt this, in view of other letters with similar ideas written by GRA). Can it be that religious Zionism was never more than an erroneous, fleeting ideological fancy of one man (GRA), picked up by another (Rav Kook), and popularized?

The Law of the Land part 6

When I was twelve, I read Marx's "Communist Manifesto". I loved the idea of a classless society, with each contributing according to his abilities, and receiving according to his needs. But I had no knowledge of how many tens of millions had been killed because of those ideas, or the full import of "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". In my opinion, a similar situation exists with the teachings of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935). A beloved figure (by most people), who declared the Zionist movement, its institutions and leaders, as the beginning of the promised redemption. He established the Chief Rabbinate, and was the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of pre-State Israel. This was despite the declared anti-Torah policies of the Zionist leadership. He is famous for his idea of "Ahavat Chinam" (Baseless love). The Temple was destroyed because of baseless hate, and could only be rebuilt by baseless love. He saw the founders of the State as the workmen G-d had put in place with the spiritual redemption to come later, built on the backs of the early pioneers. What is generally not known, is that he was opposed by virtually every other rabbinic figure. Rabbi Sonnenfeld, the head of Jerusalem's ultra-Orthodox community, said "Rav Kook's great love for Zion, has taken him out of his mind, and away from the Mind of his Creator". He took a very lenient view towards halachah...in most issues. While he believed in the mission of Israel to be a light unto the nations, he was very strict about conversions. This was not for the reasons usually heard today, but because he came up with the unprecedented (to my knowledge) idea, that if a convert sins, the guilt is on the heads of the rabbis who converted him. When I was the rabbi of Kfar Tappuah (in the Shomron), I was offered, and gladly accepted, a position on the Beit Din for conversions in Kedumim, as most of the other rabbis in the area were followers of Rav Kook, and were afraid to serve. But the most troubling of his teachings were his views on the meaning of the Zionist movement. He called the institutions of the Jewish Agency (the pre-State governing body of the Jewish community in Eretz Yisrael) "The pillars of G-d's Throne of Glory" He also said that halachic observance was no longer essential for Redemption, as  how could we imagine that this glorious process could possibly be impeded by something so puny as our sins? He taught that when the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were destroyed, the Divine power of Kingship went back to the People. The People have now bestowed that Divine attribute upon the leaders of Zionism. Each one is to be seen as King David himself. One student of a student of Rav Kook says even today that even the Palestinian members of the Knesset must be seen as King David. Even the "Palestinian Authority" exists as a result of an agreement with Israel. It must, therefore, be honored as a factor in the ultimate redemption.These ideas essentially make of the entire menagerie of politicos an expression of  G-d, which must be treated with reverence. He posited that the Jewish People is perfect (with no blemish), and takes the place of the Hasidic idea of the Tzaddik. We must emulate the ordinary people, rather than a charismatic figure. Follow the People. (His writings underwent a great censorship in the 1950s, where his idea that an eventual revolt against the State must occur, if the State doesn't turn to G-d in a short time. This was carefully expunged. I have seen the pre-censorship edition). In a sense, the state represents G-d. Although most non Hareidi Orthodox are influenced by Rav Kook's teachings, there exists a hardcore that has built these ideas into what I call a sort of religious Fascism. The concept of Dina D'Malchuta, morphed in these circles into a full Torah obligation. Violations of law actually impede the Redemption. The State of Israel is actually the Kingdom of Israel, or even the Kingdom of G-d. I lived in such a community for fourteen of my seventeen years in Israel. How this plays out, will be the topic of my next post.

The Law of the Land part 5

Through the ages, there have been theoretical discussions if the concept of Dina D'Malchuta would apply to a Jewish government in the Land of Israel. Many opined that it woulod not, as such a government would clearly need to be founded upon Torah law. Others felt that a community could make its own civil laws, which would come under the category of Dina D'Malchuta. This question became a reality with the founding of the State of Israel. Israel was not founded as a religious State, but rather as a "socialist paradise", along the lines of Sweden or Norway. What can be said is that it was founded by idealists. David Ben Gurion said "You do not yet have a Jewish State. You will have it when there is a Jewish prostitute and a Jewish pickpocket". In other words, when Jews are "normalized". Up until the early 1970s, Israelis danced in the streets on Independence Day. Such displays are exceedingly rare today. Patriotism is looked upon with cynicism. Several high-profile scandals have removed three presidents from office, and two have gone to prison. One former Prime Minister spent time in prison, and the previous first lady has been the subject of a police investigation. The previous Prime Minister is now under indictment for serious crimes, and may well go to prison. The goal of most Israelis is to simply live and prosper. For the vast majority of Israelis, idealism is dead. Studies of volunteers for special forces in the army, have shown that whereas their primary goal was, in the past, to serve Israel, in recent decades that has changed to "personal challenge". Israelis are the highest taxed people in the world. Many feel that their tax sheqels are being squandered. When I first got to Israel, then finance minister, Eliezer Modai, was on an interview program on television. He was asked "what percentage of Israelis cheat on their taxes?" He answered, "One hundred percent. Otherwise they couldn't live". He further explained "the tax laws are designed with the goal of collecting 50% of what is charged. We ask for double, in order to collect half". The moderator asked "then why do you prosecute tax cheats?". He answered "if we didn't prosecute some, we wouldn't collect even 50%." I have been told by many business owners in Israel that they only begin to make a profit when they hide 50% of their income. I saw this in action many times. I have also seen arbitrary application of civil laws in general. Therefore, the view of many, if not most, Israeli rabbis is that Dina D'Malchuta does not apply, as we are faced with a "Chamsanuta D'Malka" (Royal Robbery) situation. Of course, each rabbi I spoke with begged me not to quote him. There is, however, one segment of Israeli society that scrupulously, indeed religiously, observes all laws, and freely reports neighbors who do not. Are these people saints or sinners? Why the idealism about non-Torah law? That will be my next topic.

The Law of the Land part 4

Part of the reason for the non-acceptance of the "Dina D''Malchuta" principle as halachah in many circles is the fact that it would put every town council on a greater footing than the Sanhedrin. When a Sanhedrin makes an enactment, it doesn't become fully operative for a year, during which time it must be seen if the people accept it. Otherwise, it becomes a dead letter. This was the fate of enactments against the consumption of non-Jewish olive oil and beer. The people's non-acceptance became a veto. Are we saying that if a town or city enacted a rule that one could not purchase or consume alcohol on Sunday (which was actually the law in many places when I was a child), that to drink a beer would be a sin? That we would not make our consumption public, so as not to offend our neighbors, is a given. But is it logical to say that the halachic power of a few politicians is so far-reaching? Therefore, the view that "Dina D'Malchuta" is a guideline for Jews, is much more widely accepted than that it is Jewish law. Another approach, already mentioned above, is that Dina D'Malchuta does NOT refer to every new piece of legislation, but only to principles of law and conduct that are "ancient" in that society. Anyone who becomes a member of that society does so on the understanding that he will abide by those rules of conduct (providing that they do not contradict the Torah). But the power of a legislature to enact new codes of behavior, while it must be taken into account and respected in our daily lives, has no religious significance for Jews. Many rabbis will say this privately, while maintaining a different public stance, so as not to appear rebellious. Yet another issue is those laws that are "on the books", but are no longer enforced. For instance, as late as the 1980s, some municipalities had laws on the books concerning the private lives of husbands and wives. There were laws about how far apart they needed to sleep, when they may kiss, as well as all sorts of restrictions on various types of lovemaking. By then, however, these laws were seen as funny, and were certainly not enforced. Is it possible to imagine that Shmuel's principle would apply here? According to halachah, a Jew may not, under ordinary circumstances, sue another Jew in a non-Jewish court. (There are certain exceptions). The halachah is clear that even if the secular law is identical to the Jewish law in a given instance, one must still go for a Din Torah; a Torah Court. (This is one reason that I am so uncomfortable with legislation banning Sharia. Is halachah next?) There is a minority opinion, which I have grown to respect of late, that since truly qualified rabbis are few and far between in America, and rabbinical courts tend to rule based on gut feelings rather than Torah sources, one can, and should, go to the civil courts. I was convinced of this view only recently, when a close friend had a dispute with his former employers, ultimately going to a Din Torah. The decision was draconian, and violated both Torah and Civil law. I doubt very much if the "rabbi" had studied either. Almost always, the secular authorities recognize the decision of a rabbinic court as binding arbitration. Many prominent authorities consider the taking of money from another Jew through non-halachic legal means as nothing short of stealing. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef considered the practice of law by Jews as being a violation of Torah.  Moses Tendler, a prominent Modern Orthodox rabbi, disagreed; saying that Dina D'Malchuta overrides halachah; especially in America, where there is no antisemitism in the legal system. (Anyone want to buy a bridge?). When I have been called for jury duty, and they ask me if there is any reason why I cannot serve, I answer "I feel duty-bound to rule in accordance with Torah and Talmudic law". There is always a Jewish lawyer present, who asks "What about Dina D'Malchuta"? I tell him to check sources. There are, of course, rabbis who feel that a thorough commitment to the law of the land, even seeing it as religious law, is necessary for Jews to be welcomed as equal citizens. Others will argue that the Freedom of Religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution allows for a different approach. As complicated as this is in the Diaspora, it is far more complicated in Israel. Does Dina D'Malchuta apply, or is that an accommodation only for life in exile? Can there be secular law in a Jewish State in the Holy Land, or is the Torah the only valid rule of conduct? Next time.

The Law of the Land part 3

Another factor in all of this is the concept of "Hillul HaShem" (Desecrating the Name of G-d). If a Jew does something wrong, or is even perceived as doing something wrong, it reflects badly upon the Jews in general, and ultimately upon the Torah. In reality, there is a gap between the approach of more left wing Orthodox and more right wing on the Dina D'Malchuta issue. The left-wing community, generally is scrupulous about civil law; considering it to be a real halachic issue.. Indeed, many classical authorities consider civil law as overriding halachah when it comes to economic issues. (Others consider this view to be heretical). Most right wing authorities see Shmuel's rule as a general guideline, not as.law. After all, he was a friend of the King, and wanted the Jews to be seen as loyal subjects.It would not do if Jews would be perceived as a threat to the stability of general society. To cross the street against the red light when there was no traffic would not brand a man as immoral. But acting like a hooligan, or vandalizing public property, certainly would. Jews cringe when a Jew is arrested for these sorts of things. It is not just against the law, but is a reflection on us, as well as on our religion. When a Jew returns a sum of money that was lost, we all take pride, and the name of G-d is sanctified. However, even in the Modern Orthodox community, there are issues. Although they maintain a firm stand against lawbreakers, there is the inevitable less-than-honest businessman. White-collar crime is not unknown in this community. A controversial editorial in a Jewish newspaper a few years ago pointed out that this phenomenon is bad enough, but convicted felons often have their names on Jewish schools and other institutions to which they have donated money. The editorial asked "what message does this send to our children, as well as to the non-Jewish community?" I certainly cringed when "60 Minutes" did an expose about a shady Jewish businessman, who was convicted of massive white-collar crimes, who nevertheless has a famous Orthodox women's college named for him. On the other hand, there is a story on the other extreme that I find most troubling. A book came out in the early '80s, in praise of a wealthy Orthodox Jewish businessman. He came on a visit to Eretz Yisrael while it was under British rule. He had with him a Torah scroll. When he arrived, he asked the customs official how much he needed to pay in import taxes. The official said "It's alright, no charge". The man said "Is that legal?" The official said "Not strictly speaking, but don't worry about it." The Jew said "I want to pay". Now let's analyze this. The British mandatory regime was imposed on the society from the outside (the League of Nations). Essentially, it was an occupying power. I can see no basis for calling it "Legal" in halachic terms. Even if it were legal, customs officials, and even police, do have discretionary powers. The official told him that he wasn't charging him for the Torah scroll. At that point, he had no obligation to pay; either from a halachic or civil perspective. But he paid anyway. At that time, there were many Jews living in Eretz Yisrael who were near starvation,.The money he put out for a dubious tariff could have fed several families for months, Perhaps his action was wicked, rather than righteous? On the other hand, the British official was telling this story even years later. Perhaps the Jew had sanctified G-d's Name? We have choices to make, every day. These choices leave us conflicted. Often, two values clash. From a Torah perspective, making the right choice is one major way in which we serve G-d. To be continued.

The Law of the Land part 2

We must ask a question as to where the authority of the secular authorities comes from in the first place. If you and I perform a business transaction, how does the government become a party to that, levying taxes on our transaction? Many of the medieval authorities suggest that it is an outgrowth of the principle of "Hefker Beit Din Hefker" (the Court may legally declare any property as ownerless). Although this is referring to a standing (as opposed to ad hoc ) Beit Din of rabbis, many medieval scholars saw it as referring to any recognized authority. Another approach was suggested by RASHBA (1235-1310) who formulated the principle of "Social Contract" some four hundred years before Rousseau, who is usually credited with the idea. He states that when men formed societies, they voluntarily ceded some rights to kings, for the benefit of all citizens. (We must contrast this with the view that individuals exist for the betterment of the State. That is Fascism, but is nevertheless a feature of the ideology of certain groups in Israel and other countries). This would exclude a government that is imposed from the outside. Indeed, there are many quotes in Talmud that Roman tax collectors can, and should, be ignored. (I consider attempts by some commentators to "explain away" those statements as being a feeble maneuver aimed at not arousing governmental anger). Another issue is if a law is discriminatory. A tax, levied on one segment of society, but not on another, is invalid. The Talmud already makes clear "the law of the Kingdom is the law, but not royal robbery". Another suggestion is that in every monarchy, the King, at least theoretically, owns all of the real and movable property in his Kingdom. All property is his. Any misappropriation of property or money is robbing the King. This begs two questions, which rabbis tend to avoid, at least publicly. First, does the principle of "Dina D'Malchuta" apply in a society without a King? The U.S. government makes no claim to private property. It cannot take my money away without due process. Is a tax imposed by a local, state, or federal legislature considered due process? Indeed, there are opinions that Dina D'Malchuta only applies to ancient, well-established laws of that society. Second, does the principle apply only to financial matters? If the government makes a law against underage drinking, for example, should a synagogue not serve wine to children at a Shabbat service? The general view I have seen among poskim is that we must obey the laws of a democratic society as well (some differ; to be discussed next time), but we need not follow legislated morality; but, at the same time, not blatantly flaunt it, so as not to appear rebellious. These, and related issues, will be discussed more next time.

The Law of the Land part 1

This is a most sensitive topic, which raises great anger in both Jewish and non Jewish circles. Opinions vary greatly.We have our G-d given laws of both the written and Oral Torahs. To what degree are we bound by the laws of the  place in which we live? To what degree would doing so be an affront to the Torah?  We find the first mention of the  idea of respecting the law of the land in Jeremiah, who urges the people who were taken captive to Babylon to "Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the L-RD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." (Jeremiah 29:7). Even if taken away by force from our land, we are not to behave in a rebellious manner; but rather obey the ways of society. On the other hand, when Nebuchadnezzar orders the Jews to practice idolatry, they flat out refuse to disobey G-d. According to the Talmud, they told Nebuchadnezzar "You are our King for taxes, but when it comes to our religion, you and a dog are equal". The foundation was thus established, that the secular authorities have no control over us in matters of religion. If they legislate against Torah, we are still bound to practice it. In the Talmudic era, Shmuel of Nehardea (165-257 CE), was a close friend of King Shapur I of Persia. When twelve thousand Jews were killed in an uprising against the Throne, Samuel refused to show any signs of mourning. When asked about it, he simply said "Dina d'Malchuta Dina" (The law of the Kingdom is a law). In other words, by violating the law of the land, they brought their deaths upon themselves. Shmuel's principle is quoted often in both Talmud and later rabbinic sources. Several questions arise. Does civil law become Jewish law, or just law for Jews, that we do not claim extraterritoriality? If I jaywalk, have I committed a sin? What are the parameters? What if the law is patently unjust? Does the principle "the law of the Kingdom" imply that this applies only to where there is a King? Would it apply in a democracy? Would it apply in a Jewish State, where, at least theoretically, the Torah should be the law? Does this principle refer to every whim of a King or government, or only to well established rules of that country? By what right can a government limit my freedom of action? All of these questions sparked great debates within Judaism I will be dealing with these questions in this series.

"Unorthodox Answer"

There has been a meme circulating on Facebook for some time, with a quote from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, responding to a letter sent by a person who proclaimed herself "not Orthodox", saying that there is no such thing as Orthodox, Conservative and Reform.Rather, we are all Jews. I believe that the majority of people who have read this, interpreted it incorrectly. They understood the Rebbe to be saying that levels of observance make no difference, and all "denominations" are of equal value. It is as if we are judged in Heaven on the basis of "You were Orthodox, so that time you ate that ham sandwich was a grave sin", but if the person had been a member of a Reform Temple "well, Reform doesn't recognize the kosher laws, so it was OK". This is not what the Rebbe was implying. Rather, he was emphasizing that all Jews are equally bound by HaShem's Torah. Kashrut, Shabbat..everything is equally incumbent on every Jew. He was here castigating those elitists who say "only we are the Jews"(as one rabbi, a little over a century ago went to court in Germany, in order to have Orthodoxy and Reform declared different religions) , but at the same time castigating those who proclaim themselves not bound by Torah law, because they have joined one or another "denomination", that allows ignoring much of the Torah. The Rebbe, in this instance, was emphasizing the essential Jewishness of all Jews, while clarifying that differences of ideology and practice are man made, and mostly artificial. You can read more in my series "Orthodox and non Orthodox Judaism.

Thanksgiving part 3

First, I would like to make short shrift of the anti-Thanksgiving argument heard from certain Christian groups, particularly "Hebrew Roots", that the Torah forbids any new holidays. They base this upon the verse "These are the Festivals of the L-rd", understood as "these, and no others". (The Talmud advances an identical interpretation). However, we understand this to mean the appropriation of idolatrous festivals. The addition of Purim which is post the Five Books of Moses, and Hanukah, which is post-Biblical, are the paradigms for festivals instituted by our sages. Nearly every Jewish community, and even certain families, have significant days that they celebrate as holidays, due to some special event. Jews never had a concept that we are forbidden to celebrate, and give thanks for what good things have happened to us; collectively or individually. On the other hand, we do have a prohibition of ":Hukat HaGoy" (copying the ways of non-Jews). Some rabbis understood this to mean that any practice of Gentiles, for which there is no logical reason, is Biblically forbidden. Some East European rabbis forbade the necktie on this basis. Most rabbis, however, consider the prohibition of Hukat HaGoy as referring specifically to customs with pagan roots. In the 1950s, Jews having a "Hanukah Bush" was in vogue. It was essentially a Christmas tree, with a Star of David on top. Even many Christians object to the tree, as it stems from Druid celebrations. Fortunately, this aberration has now died out from among us. Rabbi Feinstein's fear that Thanksgiving may harbor Christian doctrines, or even missionary content, was based on this. But we know from historical sources that Thanksgiving always represented a generic acknowledgement of the Divine, as the source of whatever good we have. Another concern is seeing Thanksgiving as assimilationist. Many feel that we must always remain "A people that dwells alone" (Number 23:9). Some see any acknowledgment of the dominant culture as an existential threat to the survival of the Jewish people. In my opinion, this is a reality belonging to Eastern Europe. One's Polish or Ukrainian neighbors were usually ready to attack and kill Jews with the slightest provocation of the secular government, or of a benighted clergyman. In Western Europe (after the Middle Ages), or the Middle East, Jews usually had friendly relations with their neighbors, with each respecting the others' differences. Not that antisemitism didn't exist, but it was, in most times and places, the exception rather than the rule. I personally have close friends of many religions. Some Jews are shocked at that. To me, it seems natural, provided there is mutual respect. As I have written in "My Story", I had, when living in Israel, good friends who lived in Palestinian refugee camps. In the final analysis, people are people. As Jews, we must remember who we are, and what we stand for. But we are not to put up walls of animosity. My experience has always been that the vast majority of people respect that. I would like to add a painful note. (Many will say I shouldn't mention it). When my kids were going to Jewish Day Schools, there was no bus service on some secular holidays. The schools remained open, with the parents expected to drive the kids to school. Fair enough, why suspend Torah study? But the letters of the principal to the parents always made me shudder. "We want to impress upon our children that these holidays are not our holidays, and even when Mom and Dad have the day off from work, they will drive their children to school, to prove how far we are willing to go to ignore their holidays". I thought "What would we say if Christian schools held classes on Yom Kippur, even if it was not a scheduled school day, in order to show the kids that they disrespect the Jewish holy days?" The Anti Defamation League would be on it in no time. In my opinion, this attitude is downright hateful, and the cause of much antisemitism. Surveys have shown that Western countries have rates of antisemitism from fifteen to twenty-five percent (only Greece far exceeds that). That still means that most people do not harbor animosity toward us. Why not extend the hand of friendship and fellowship? Where we have legitimate differences, we must be separate. Where we can join together, why not follow the advice of the Sages, to maintain and nurture "the Ways of Peace"? If my neighbor says "Let's thank G-d for our blessings", on what basis should I refuse? I will make mention again of a beautiful quote from the late Rabbi of Belz: "If my neighbor celebrates, I'd rather celebrate with him, than cry alone". Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Thanksgiving part 2

Thanksgiving part 2
Proclamation of Thanksgiving:
Washington, D.C.
October 3, 1863

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

The proclamation of a uniform Thanksgiving celebration, with praise of G-d for what he have, supplication for healing our wounds, and forgiving us our shortcomings, expresses ideas and ideals that resonate with Judaism, and have become part of the American heritage. Until recently, every Presidential proclamation of Thanksgiving has called upon Americans to gather in their houses of worship, and give thanks to G-d. More recently, this has been watered down to simply gather, and be thankful.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 26, 2015, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage the people of the United States to join together -- whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place of fellowship for friends and neighbors -- and give thanks for all we have received in the past year, express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own, and share our bounty with others.
Although this de-emphasizes the religious aspects of the day, it nevertheless reflects values that Jews share with our fellow Americans.
However, more recently:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 28, 2019, as a National Day of Thanksgiving.  I encourage all Americans to gather, in homes and places of worship, to offer a prayer of thanks to God for our many blessings.Until the mid twentieth century, I am unaware of any rabbinic opposition to the observance of a day of thanks. For Jews to oppose such an idea seemed ludicrous. If our country is asking us to praise G-d, in our own synagogues, in our own way, refusal to do so would amount to a Hillul HaShem (desecration of the Name of G-d), as well as spitting in the face of the country that gave us refuge and freedom,unparalleled anywhere (with the possible exception of Canada). . In the 1950s, a huge shift took place in Jewish consciousness, which brought many to oppose these celebrations. But why? What could be wrong with praising G-d for all we have? The first voice of doubt, and then dissent, was Moshe Feinstein; the doyen of American Lithuanian Judaism. He wrote three responsa in rapid succession on the topic. In his first one, he applauds the making of this holiday, and considers its observance praiseworthy. In his second responsum, he expresses doubt if this might be a Christian plot designed to convert us. Therefore, caution must be exercised. In his third, he writes that there is no way to verify the origins of Thanksgiving, and it must be seen as an effort to evangelize us, and is therefore forbidden to observe. J.B. Soloveichik, writing at the same time, reviews the origins of Thanksgiving, and concludes that there is no aspect of this holiday with missionary intent. It would be a disgrace, when everyone involved in giving thanks, for a Jew to absent himself. Other reasons, pro and con, were written by other rabbis. I will write about these next.

Thanksgiving part 1

This Thursday, Americans celebrate Thanksgiving; when all Americans are called upon to enter their houses of worship, and give thanks for the abundance that G-d has bestowed upon our country. In practice, few houses of worship have special Thanksgiving services. Most people observe the day as a time to gather with friends and family around a turkey dinner, with many other traditional foods. Many give thanks, but many just eat and watch sporting events on television. In recent years, there has arisen much questioning about this holiday, as it commemorates the Pilgrims, a group of Puritans; Englishmen who felt that Queen Elizabeth's reformation of the English Church had not gone nearly far enough. Later kings were even worse. They arrived in Massachusetts in 1620 (they had been told they were being brought to Virginia) at the beginning of a cold, harsh winter. Many did not survive. Those who did, did so with the help of local Native Americans who provided them with food. When the harvest came in the following year, they made a celebration of thanksgiving, based on the Biblical harvest festival; Sukkkot. They were joined by some Natives. In the ensuing years, they killled many of the Natives, while enslaving the others. We usually see the Pilogrims as champions of religious liberty. In fact, they only championed their own religious liberty. They were intolerant of people of other religions, including other Protestants. As a result, many Americans today refuse to celebrate Thanksgiving. The fact is, however, that the Pilgrim story is NOT the basis for this holiday. Rather, Abraham Lincoln, during the dark days of the Civil War, instituted a day of thanks for what we DO have, despite the violence and killing around us. (There had been sporadic, local holiday observances before and after). It became an official legal holiday only in the twentieth century. For a while, there were even partisan difference in the date of the holiday, leading for a time to separate Republican and Democratic Thanksgivings. (Canada observes it in October). But as much as Thanksgiving is a subject of dispute between Americans, it is a huge controversy in the Orthodox Jewish community; with some rabbis saying that it is a mitzvah to observe this day of thanks together with all Americans, and others saying that it is totally forbidden. (I am in the former camp). What are the issues for and against? That will be the topic of my next post.

Shabbat part 22

The vast majority of Ashkenazi rabbis continue to see electricity as fire, to the extent that no leniencies are accepted that would not be utilized with actual fire. On the other hand, most do not permit use of electricity on Yom Tov, when fire is, in many cases, permitted. Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik was an exception. He permitted all appliances on Yom Tov, as long as their use didn't detract from the enjoyment of Yom Tov. Thus, he permitted dish washers, but not vacuum cleaners. Today, few of his students still rely on his ruling in this area. I mentioned previously that there exists an organization in Israel called the Tsomet Institute, that creates appliances that may be used on Shabbat, primarily for the military, police, and hospitals,Most of these are electrical, and based on the idea of indirect, or delayed, action (causation).They produce a microphone, as well as a telephone, that work on a delay of one one hundredth of a second.This microphone is in use today in many Modern Orthodox synagogues. They also make a hot water machine, that heats up water for tea or coffee by means of delayed action. While some are opposed to this, it has gained wide acceptance, not only in hospitals, but in yeshiva dormitories as well. A delay would render a Biblical prohibition rabbinic, and a rabbinic prohibition permissible, in case of necessity. On the other hand, a few years ago, a company came out with a "Shabbat Switch", that was met with great opposition. It connected to the main electrical outlets of the house, turning on the power after a short delay. One could hook up not only lights, but radio, TV, and all other gadgets. Why was this different from the Tsomet appliances? Rabbis pointed out that this was not intended for emergency situations, but was, rather, designed to make Shabbat like a weekday. It might not violate the laws of Shabbat, but it essentially makes Shabbat into a dead letter. Numerous rabbinic prohibitions in the Talmud are designed to not undo the feeling of Shabbat. What would be left of Shabbat if we sat around the table while checking our cellphones, and then went to visit our friends driving our electric cars? Sepharadic and Yemenite rabbis are less convinced of the idea that electricity, especially when not used to heat metal to a glowing point, is in any way to be considered "fire", but nonetheless insist on its avoidance because of the reason of "Uvdin D'Hol" (weekday activity). Many will, however, permit electricity to be used in case of great difficulty, even without illness or danger, on condition it is turned on in an unusual manner. (as with the elbow, for example). These things are never given as absolute rulings, but are dealt with on a case by case basis. Things that may not be used on a Shabbat, such as a pen, may not be moved (muktzeh). This is a basic idea in rabbinic law. Many Sepharadic rabbis do allow moving an appliance, such as a fan, as long as we do not detach it from its power source. (Rav Ovadia Yosef permitted this with appliances that have no lighting or cooking function, but many other Sepharadic rabbis do permit even that). In short, Ashkenazi opinion generally sees electricity as either fire, or likely fire, whereas Sepharadim see it as risky, but enough of a doubt that it can be permitted in emergencies. So, is care regarding electricity a matter of halachah, or a worthwhile stringency calculated to preserve the character and sanctity of Shabbat? I have not offered answers, but I hope you now better understand the problem.

Shabbat part 21

The issue of electricity on Shabbat has been a sticking point between rabbis for well over a century, and continues to raise hackles. Many rabbis take one stance publicly, but privately maintain quite different views. One side of the argument has been so vociferous, that many assume it to be the only side. Issues come into play that are not only halachic, but also pragmatic. Whether to be strict or lenient takes on another whole dimension.There can be no real solution, either, until a genuine Sanhedrin will arise. This question is a paradigm for other issues as well, that lack any solid guidelines in sources. Rabbis are forced to go with gut feelings, as well as utilizing tiny shreds of evidence that can conceivably be applied to the issue. Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (1863 - 1940)(considered by many to be the greatest rabbi of the generation) at the introduction of electrical lighting, visited a power plant, and spoke with the engineer. At the rabbi's question of what is it and how does it work, the engineer gave a grossly oversimplified answer. "We make fire in the generator, and send it through the wires". Upon hearing that, he issued a ruling that it is Biblically forbidden to turn on the electricity, or start-up any appliance on Shabbat. On Yom Tov, however, when fire is permissible (so long as it comes from an existing fire), we may feel free to turn on lights, or use appliances. This view held sway for half a century. Some rabbis even used an electric light as a havdalah candle, in order to demonstrate that we are actually dealing with fire. Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz, (1878-1953), know as  Chazon Ish, disagreed. He was unconvinced that electricity is fire, but equally unconvinced that it is not fire. He ruled that we must be strict, and turn on electricity neither on Shabbat (in case it is fire) nor Yom Tov (in case it is not fire). Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1975), believed that the premises of his two predecessors were incorrect. He said that an electric circuit has no halachic significance. However, if it heated up a piece of metal, that would, indeed, be considered fire, perhaps even Biblically. He based himself on a Talmudic statement that certain Shabbat prohibitions may be ignored in a case where the full observance would lead to pain and injury. Thus, broken glass in the street may be swept up, even in a place where there is no "eruv", as injury is likely. Similarly, the Talmud discusses a glowing metal fragment sitting in the public domain. The ruling is that it may be extinguished. RASHI maintains that such a piece of metal poses a threat of injury. It isn't really "fire" by Biblical law, but is nevertheless "fire" by rabbinic law. Rabbinic law is not applicable in a case of injury or great pain, so it may be extinguished. The Tosafot say that a glowing piece of metal is indeed Biblical fire, but as the glowing metal is not easily seen by a passersby, people might become so badly injured that their lives might be threatened, thus rendering even a Biblical labor permissible. (Or. alternatively, the entire topic may be speaking of a piece of metal that had been heated in an actual fire, rendering the whole issue of electricity a non-topic. This is the private view of several major rabbis with whom I have spoken). Rabbi Auerbach therefore ruled that an incandescent light bulb, operating with a tungsten filament, is clearly fire, either rabbinically or Biblically. But appliances that have no glowing element are at least theoretically permissible, to be decided by a qualified rabbi on a case by case basis, so as not to bring to widespread disrespect for Shabbat. The one exception he made was with hearing aids, which he considered completely permissible, even to the extent of changing a battery. (In the 1950s, hearing aid batteries needed replacement about every three hours). However, out of respect for  Chazon Ish, he did not publicize his view widely. These three men are considered the greatest rabbinic authorities in halachic matters of their age (at least in Lithuanian circles). Nearly all that has been written since struggles between these views. One prominent twentieth-century rabbi went so far as to say that even if Rabbi Grodzinsky's views were based on misinformation, once it came out of his mouth, it is forever halachah. (I consider that view to be heretical). Another prominent rabbi, on the other hand, said "Had I been there when  Chazon Ish ruled against electricity, I would have gone against him...and I would have been wrong". What would Shabbat be like with people glued to their cellphones? A great Rosh Yeshivah, Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman (1900-1987) was adamant that a microphone is permissible on Shabbat. We would be hard-pressed to get that ruling from a prominent rabbi today. These are the battle lines. How they are applied by different rabbis today will be the topic of my next post.

Stringencies part 2

The type of stringencies that I was referring to in my last post was those actions that either have no basis in halachah, or that have been, at one time or another, proposed, but were firmly rejected, based on both sources and logic. This must be distinguished from other forms of stringency. There are other considerations and cases. One would be where a very lenient, almost fringe view has been widely accepted; usually because of an unusual emergency situation. Such a case might be the observance of the Sabbatical Year rules in the Land of Israel. The location of agricultural lands being distant from population centers makes the real observance of these laws virtually impossible. (All fruit being declared ownerless, and giving all people the right to come and take). Two methods of "outs" for the circumvention of these laws have been proposed, with one or the other found by most to be acceptable under the circumstances. A significant minority, however, do not appreciate the "thin ice" situation, and choose to either buy produce from non-Jewish farmers, or to use only imported produce. Many can, and do, argue that this is unfair to Jewish farmers, and bad for the Israeli economy. But that may not be enough for a pious individual, who remembers all the dire words of the prophets concerning the non-observance of the Sabbatical year. (Please don't write to me that some groups actually observe the laws. No one does.). Are the legal "outs" acceptable? Under the circumstances, I would say yes. But I can't disparage those who refuse to accept the legal fictions. Another case would be where a particular question has significant opinions on both sides. A final decision has never been made. However, one side has received the sanction of custom. Some individuals may choose to not accept such a tenuous position, and thus try to follow both opinions. One example would be Tefillin. The order of the four Torah portions written in the Tefillin has been debated for almost two thousand years. In the last seven hundred years or so, custom has accepted one of the two opinions. This is widely accepted. But many (including yours truly) choose to wear two pair of Tefillin in order to be certain (besides Kabbalistic considerations). Another debated point would be stringencies that originate in Kabbalah, but have no basis in either Torah or Talmud. Many see these as being the pinnacle of Jewish practice. Some see this as appropriate for those deeply involved in Kabbalah, but not for general consumption. Some (CHATAM SOFER), while recognizing the truth of Kabbalah, totally reject it as part of the halachic system. One example would be the morning washing (Neigel Vasser). The Zohar and ARI are very strict that the impurity of sleep be washed away first thing in the morning. Many keep a basin of water at their bedside for this purpose. The Shulhan Aruch mentions the washing, but with little of the emphasis that is to be found in Kabbalah, despite that the author of the Shulhan Aruch, Rabbi Yosef Karo, was himself a Kabbalist. Many far fetched explanations for this apparent omission have been proposed. But others point out that in the Talmud, RAMBAM and other early sources, the washing is only a pre-prayer sanctification; so no need to hurry or stress. Those who choose to be strict, as well as those who are lenient, each have a solid basis. An Ashkenazi-Sepharadi issue would be the matter of statements by rabbis, that express opinions not to be found in any sources. In fact, they may even contradict sources. Sepharadim would greet these with a chuckle. Most Ashkenazim will follow these, especially if expressed by a rabbi who lived in their region. This process continues until today. Some would say that this is the way of Oral Torah. Some call it heresy. Of course, all of this is hurt by the lack of a valid Sanhedrin. The Torah puts the proper interpretation of halachah into the hands of this body (Deuteronomy 17:8-13). Although the existence of a Sanhedrin would solve much, this is nowhere more true than with situations engendered by modern technology. (Opposition to such an institution far exceeds the desire to solve these problems, however). I have been pleasantly surprised that I have largely been able to avoid the minefield topic of electricity for the last several years that I have been writing. The time has come to deal with this issue, and see what is actually law (Biblical or Rabbinic) and what is merely stringency, and where we must admit ignorance. Next time

Stringencies Part 1

A few years ago, a former Facebook friend posted, a few days before Passover, "Just got up off my hands and knees, after cleaning the cracks in the floor tiles with a tooth brush for six hours". I wrote to him "This is a needless stringency, unless you are planning to eat or cook on the floor. The prohibition of owning hametz only applies to pieces larger than the size of an egg. Although the prohibition of eating hametz applies to even a crumb, that is only if you know it's there, or at least have good reason to suspect its presence. We are commanded to rejoice in our Festival, not to become enslaved by anxieties and insecurities". He replied "what are you talking about? Passover is all about stringencies". I can find that idea neither in Torah or Talmud. Yes, we have a halachic principle that we may, in a situation of doubt, be lenient in a rabbinic law, but we must be strict in a Biblical law. But where was the doubt in the above case? RAMBAM makes clear that even in the principle that we need to be strict in a Biblical law, this concept is itself purely rabbinic. (RASHBA disagrees).Biblically, if an object or an action is doubtful, it is permissible. The rabbis instituted that we are to be more careful, so as not to violate the laws of G-d. The Talmud rules that if I find a piece of meat lying in the street, in a place where kosher butcher shops outnumber non kosher, the meat may be considered kosher. Nevertheless, the rabbis ruled it should be avoided, as there is more than a reasonable doubt that it might not be kosher. The Talmud enumerates many guidelines to what is and isn't a reasonable doubt in each case. Yet, many communities take a very stringent view on many issues, way beyond any rhyme or reason. Their feeling is that we can show our devotion to G-d by taking the most strict approach to every law. Think of a husband who loves his wife so much, he can't imagine doing anything that may remotely hurt her feelings. So one who truly loves G-d will want to please Him, and in no way offend Him. Others disagree. They argue that stringencies are generally not shows of love, but rather of insecurity in one's relationship with G-d. Moreover, they often violate the intent of the law, or even a larger principle. Going above and beyond the requirements of halachah to avoid hametz on Passover, will lessen the sense of joy and freedom we are urged to feel. If one is overly strict in the menstrual laws, the ideal of a loving relationship between spouses can be hurt, not to mention the mitzvah of procreation. The Talmud pictures King David as devoting a great deal of time and effort every day, into permitting a woman to her husband a day sooner. Qualified Orthodox rabbis spend much time learning the details of these laws, not just to say "well, I'm not sure if this stain invalidates you, so just be strict". Moreover, stringencies can lead to an unjustified sense of accomplishment and pride (arrogance). Rabbi Nachman even said that they lead to depression, and are to be avoided. (Please don't write that you know a follower of Rabbi Nachman who observes all sorts of stringencies. We live among other Jews who do things differently, and follow rabbis who have the wildest ideas of propriety. Rabbi Nachman would not approve. Rabbi Natan, his main disciple, makes a point of saying that Rabbi Nachman observed no stringencies).Rabbi Shabtai Sabato, a Sepharadi Rosh Yeshiva in Israel, said to me once "Look how the rabbis of the Talmud put every law through 'thirteen sifters' before saying either yes or no. They didn't just say 'we're not sure, so let's avoid the question by being strict". As you may have guessed, this, too, is an Ashkenazi-Sepharadi battleground. (There are exceptions on each side, however). The approach that stringencies are a good thing, is a major feature of (most) Ashkenazic opinion, whereas most Sepharadic opinion prefers a straightforward lenient approach. Askenazim tend to respect a rabbi who can show that something we have been seeing as permissible is actually problematic (I have previously shown that the standards of avoiding insects in food gets stricter every five years or so), while Sepharadim will hail the rabbi who shows that an action assumed to be prohibited is actually permissible. Each group will have its sources, as well as its logical arguments. Each will see its approach as following the will of G-d. None of this is arbitrary. Already in the first century BCE, the Jews were divided between the strict approach of the School of Shammai, and the lenient approach of the School of Hillel. We are told that this debate went on for several centuries, until a Heavenly Voice rang out "Both are the words of the living G-d, but the halachah follows Hillel". We sure could use such a voice today! What are the basic considerations for each approach, and where do they come from? To what degree do history and sociology, rather than purely religious considerations come into the picture? To be continued.