Politicians from the Right often cite God or Jesus as a basis for political positions. Some even make the claim that they are running for office upon the advise of God Himself.

Now, it is impossible for God to have told more than one particular person that they are destined to be the next president. So either all but one are lying or they are all lying. You decide.

Either way, the whole concept of appealing to God’s authority in politics is very silly. The reason it is silly is because none of these people have had any specific revelation. Rather, they apply their interpretations of ancient texts, or worse, their personal feelings or emotional stirrings and claim that these are Divine messages. What makes matters even fuzzier is that politicians are usually businessmen or lawyers. They are not theologians or members of the clergy. Their understanding of their own religions is as basic as the average American’s understanding of their religions. Their understanding of other religions is even poorer.

Case in point: President Obama invoked the teachings of Jesus as a basis for taxes. The response has been vicious. Most of the criticism has been because of the seeming transparent pandering to the religious voters. This is a valid criticism. But only to a point. Politicians are professional panderers. We just don’t like it when we can tell.

The more important point, that is being overlooked, is how religious beliefs are able to conform to political positions. It’s too easy to make an argument for almost any predetermined position using religious faith or texts. The stories are obscure, the analogies are tenuous and the bias is overwhelming. It’s to the point that I can’t take any appeal to religion seriously. Further, not everyone wants to follow the teachings of Jesus. Those same teachings were used as a tool for death and destruction for hundreds of years.

Are taxes some form of charity, as Obama suggests? Maybe. But religion is not going to provide the answer to that question.

Political policy should be based on reasoning that is free from religious influence. It should not be guided by love for God or religion nor should it be guided by disbelief in God or hatred for religion.

But I don’t blame politicians. I blame the religious fervor of American citizens that demands that their politicians double as religious leaders. It’s foolish to assume that politicians know enough about religion to have intelligent opinions on theological matters. We should stop demanding it. Along the same lines, we should not turn to one specific version of a religion to solve our problems or as a basis for setting policy. At best, it is silly and at worse it is offensive.

I think the other speaker at the event at which the president spoke had good advice. Eric Metaxas suggested we remove phony religiosity from public discourse. Since it is all phony, I say we remove it all.

Link: NY Times

Related posts:

1. Litchfield Connecticut: A Revolutionary War Town Erupts in a War Over a Religious Center and Synagogue
2. Thoughts on That Basic Religion Test in the New York Times
3. Where Did Religion Come From?
4. A Collection of Thoughts on James Kugel’s Recent Book
5. Tim Tebow’s Relationship With His God

Menachem Kellner is a scholar par excellence. I enjoy his books, and other writings very much. One book that I particularly enjoyed was the provocatively titled: Must a Jew Believe Anything?

The book is not really about what the title implies. Instead, the book is an analysis of required beliefs in Judaism. It is an excellent book and a joy to read. I heartily recommend the book to anyone interested in the evolution of fundamental beliefs in Judaism.

One important issue that is thoroughly discussed is the importance the Sages of the Mishna and Talmud placed on actions while placing less importance on faith or beliefs. This is true. But the significance of this fact is debatable. That is because faith or belief in a deity was a basic assumption of life in the era in which the Sages lived. One had to be insane to be an atheist 2000 years ago. How would one even begin to explain the world in which they lived. However, today one can certainly be sane and deny the existence of God. In fact, some might argue that the tables have turned and belief in God is the less sane position. After all, there is no scientific proof of an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator. So, while I enjoyed the discussion in the book about actions having more meaning than beliefs in the eyes of the Sages, how well that transfers to modern times is another discussion entirely.

Another core point of the book is that in adopted the 13 Fundamental Beliefs of Maimonides there is an odd irony. On the one hand, Maimonides the Rationalist lost. By this I mean that Judaism today is mostly not the Judaism of Maimonides. Today’s Judaism is dominated by metaphysics, mysticism, and Zohar-centric Kabbalah. The Judaism of Maimonides functioned without  these elements. (For a thorough analysis and discussion of this point see Kellner’s book: Maimonides’ Confrontation with Mysticism.) So Maimonides lost. He tried to establish a Judaism free from these non-essential elements but he failed. The public rejected his approach.

On the other hand, the public embraced the revolutionary suggestion of Maimonides that there are 13 fundamental beliefs and what those beliefs actually entail. There were other fundamental belief systems proposed by others and Judaism may have got along just fine without a formal expression of fundamental beliefs.

Yet, here we are today. The public has rejected rationalism and embraced fundamental beliefs. Isn’t it ironic?

The final part of Must a Jew Believe Anything? is a polemic. Kellner argues that it should be okay to relegate the 13 Fundamental Beliefs for the sake of Jewish Unity. His proposal is based on the assumption that Orthodox Jewish rabbis and non-rabbis avoid working with non-orthodox rabbis and non-rabbis. There is no conversation or joint agenda in which orthodox and non-orthodox Jews  participate. Further, Kellner assumes that this plain fact is because of the halachic prohibition that proscribes a believer from engaging with a heretic. The logic follows that since by the lights of the 13 Fundamental Principles there is a presumption that non-orthodox Jews are technically heretics. Hence, it is forbidden to engage them. This, according to Kellner is the reason there is no communication between orthodox and non-orthodox Jews. Kellner then argues that for the sake of unity, continuity, and peace we should discard with a highly literal usage of Maimonides fundamental beliefs and open the lines of communication with non-orthodox Jews.

One might suspect that I would agree with Kellner on this matter. In principle I do. I wrote about it here: There is No Tent. I think we should increase communication and interaction with all Jews. But I don’t agree with Kellner’s logic here. Not at all.

The reason there is little interaction between orthodox and non-orthodox Jews has very little to do with halacha. It has a lot to do with social concerns. The orthodox establishment is more concerned with their children and keeping their children orthodox than the nitty-gritty of whether or not it is permissible to engage with the non-orthodox. In other words, the real reason there is little interaction between the groups is because the orthodox are concerned about the influence that non-orthodox will have over their children or even themselves. It is a matter of insulation and isolation, not a matter of halacha.

And so, it makes little difference to the orthodox Jew that fundamentals of faith are a novel introduction by Maimonides or that there are other codes of faith that could be acceptable. What does matter is that access to a world of Judaism that does not follow the chain of halacha that is followed by orthodox Jews could “corrupt” orthodox Jews and they may jump ship. It is merely circling the wagons. It is not a halachic decision.

Therefore, Kellner’s ambitious and admirable suggestion is a non-starter. Unless the orthodox Jewish community can foster a confidence in its principles and ideals to the point that interaction is not considered a spiritual danger, I don’t foresee a change in approach. As a pure academic exercise, the recommendation of Must a Jew Believe Anything? is bold and exciting to me. But in a practical sense, it is lacking.

The only way intra-Jewish relations will change significantly is if our leadership suggests that it has value and that value trumps overzealous concerns over assimilation. I hope it does change.

I strongly suggest reading Must a Jew Believe Anything? and thinking about its many fascinating points for discussion. If you have read it let me know what you think in the comments.

Buy the book on Amazon: Must a Jew Believe Anything?

Related posts:

1. Book Review | The Search for God at Harvard
2. Book Review | Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism
3. Book Review | Sacred Trash: The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Geniza
4. Book Review | Hush
5. Book Review | The Color of Water

Last Sunday, two NFL teams advanced to the Super Bowl. Two other teams lost and were sent home for the winter.

One of the notable things about both games was the lack of heroes for the winning teams. Instead of the winning teams making a great play to win the game, both of the losing teams made mistakes that gave the game away. Instead of heroes we had goats.

In the first game, the Ravens made three consecutive heartbreakingly poor plays. First a dropped touchdown, then a bad pass when the quarterback could have run for a few yards and then a missed field goal from close range. The players who made the biggest mistakes, the receive who dropped the pass and the kicker who missed the kick lost the game for their team. Or at least it appears that way to the observer. Obviously mistakes in the beginning of the game are just as costly as mistakes at the end of the game. Yet, we somehow place greater emphasis on the glaring mistakes at the end of the game.

In our house we are fans of the Ravens. It was shocking and disappointing to see them lose in this fashion. Especially so, for my eight year old son. He was upset as I am sure millions of other Ravens fans across the country.

The second game featured an even worse anti-hero. Kyle Williams fumbled the ball twice in crucial kick return situations. He gave the ball back to the Giants and cost his tea the game. It was heartbreaking for him and for 49ers fans everywhere. It was his fault that the Giants won and people were really mad at him.

Some people sent him death threats.. Others just said horrible things about him. One seven year old boy was also upset after seeing Williams give away the game.

He was crying “but… why… did… he have to fumble?!”

His father replied, “if you are so upset, how do you think he feels?”

To which the boy responded by asking if he could write a letter to Kyle Williams to “make him feel better.”

Here is what the kid wrote:

Dear Mr. Williams:

We just watched the Playoff game. I feel really bad for you but I wanted to tell you that you had a great season. you sould be very proud, so I wanted to say thank you.

I am your #1 FAN!

Owen Shure
Los Angeles, CA

p.s. your awsome

 

You gotta love this kid. But even more than the kid, I think you gotta love the father!

I’m sure he was upset too. Most people who invest time into sports are somewhat affected by wins and losses. All the more so a heart wrenching loss like the one suffered by the Niners on Sunday. This father used it as a great teaching moment for himself and his son. Athletes are people too. They make mistakes and it hurts them when they make mistakes.

The anger towards athletes when they don’t live up to our lofty expectations can cause people to do stupid things. They write death threats and forget that their sports heroes have feelings too.

No one feels worse than the goats of these big games. Hatred and anger towards them is immature and misguided.

Meanwhile, the rest of country has to deal with another championship that will be decided between teams from New York and Boston. That’s something to get upset about! (Just kidding.)

Click the link to see the letter!

Link: Yahoo

Related posts:

1. Cricket in Compton Keeps Ex-Cons On The Straight and Narrow
2. When It Hurts Not To Give | A Guest Post
3. Athletes as Role Models?
4. Tim Tebow’s Relationship With His God
5. Brett Favre, Treason and Teshuva

The Jewish Week has an exposé on the controversial Rosh Yeshiva of a certain yeshiva in Israel. For purposes of this blog post, it is irrelevant who this person is and what yeshiva he presides over. I have not met this rabbi nor have I ever been in his yeshiva. I have no personal experience to draw from. The issue I would like to address is a general issue brought to light in discussions about this rabbi (and others).

Examples of behavior by this rabbi include, emotional manipulation, intense yelling, embarrassment in public, forcing boys to wait for him for hours on end after he called them in for a meeting, insulting students, gathering information from student’s therapists, among other anti-social behaviors all designed to elicit change in the recipient of the abuse. I call it abuse because without justification it certainly is abusive. The question is whether or not there is justification.

The claim has been made that the rabbi is a genius or savant who understands human nature so well that there is a method to the madness. It usually works. Sometimes it does not. The victims of cases where it does not work are the ones who speak out. The others are appreciative that it did work and claim that the rabbi is amazing.

Similar claims have been made about other rabbis. Sometimes the rabbis are too touchy-feely. They hug or kiss their students in a non-sexual way and for many this is a welcome sign of affection. For others it is abuse. Other rabbis have been said to have hit students. Sometimes the hitting was playful or with camaraderie, like when an athlete congratulates another athlete with more force than the average person can bear. Other times the hitting is unequivocally abusive.

I find these sorts of claims, whether emotional or physical or sexual to be under one broad category. I think they show poor judgment on the part of the rabbi. I don’t think they show absolute abuse. However, in the absence of proper judgment some of the acts or even many of the acts may have been abusive. In other words, I don’t think rabbis with wacky methodologies are intrinsically evil. Nor do I think that their successes justify their sometimes erroneous behavior.

We all make mistakes. I am sure these rabbis would admit to having made mistakes in their dealings with people. We all do. Rabbis are human. They should be held to the standard of human beings. That is, the standard of people who err and regret things they have done. People are complex. They are not all good, nor are they all bad. Trying to put this rabbi in either of those categories is folly.

What bothers me most are the absolutists.

On the one hand you have people saying the man should be fired, removed, lynched, exposed, no matter what. On the other hand you have people explaining away all the wrong things that occur because “he’s a genius” or because he knows exactly what he is doing. Neither of these positions is reasonable.

If the rabbi has done something illegal, morally repugnant or harmful to a student we would not be having this conversation. He has not. Rather, he has tread a fine line of questionable behavior. If that line is crossed there are ways to handle it. But that does not mean that in the meantime the acts should be hidden. Nor does it mean that he should be given a free pass.

As always, balance is the key. Some people work best in non-conventional ways. Students know what they are in for when they sign up to learn in the rabbi’s yeshiva. That does not give the rabbi license to do as he pleases with no regard for human life. It means if you don’t want to be in that kind of environment, don’t go. But if this rabbi even puts one toe over the line, he begins a walk down a treacherous path. It is difficult to live that kind of life. It’s his life, he can choose to try to pull it off. To this point, there is no evidence he has crossed the line. But Lord help him, if he does.

In the meantime, I think it would wise for the rabbi to tone it down. I don’t know if he can, or if he wants to. But that would be my advice. If he is such a genius of human nature, I am sure he will figure out how to help his students while avoiding questionable behavior.

Link: Google it yourself

Related posts:

1. Tough Times for Private Schools and Yeshivas
2. When Times Are Tough
3. Parenting: Unconditional Love
4. Rabbis and Facebook
5. Tell Someone You Love Them

So much excellent writing has come forth due to the controversy over Beit Shemesh and Meah Shearim. This week two additions to the genre found themselves at the top of the heap.

Both authors are rabbis. Neither are rabbis that are appreciated or recognized by anyone (or almost no-one) in the right wing orthodox Jewish community. That’s a shame because their message is valuable for the RWOJ community and they will not read or pay heed to these articles because they come from outside.

There is room to quibble over details within these articles but I think we can all agree that the sentiments are important and at the very least deserve a response if not agreement.

The first article was written by Rabbi Marc Angel. In his article, Rabbi Angel proposes modern tznius guidelines that do not change halacha but do change social expectations. In his words:

The goal should be to create frameworks for normal interactions between men and women, where men and women conduct themselves properly without reducing each other to mere objects of sexual attraction.

Two things. First of all, I don’t think this is a fair characterization. I don’t think the complete social separation of men and women automatically reduces people to sex object. I do think this is one possible result of many.

Second of all, this is never going to happen. Unfortunately.

I once made a relevant comment to a friend of mine as we observed a kiddush celebrating the birth of a child / grandchild in a home where there were separate entrances for men and women and once inside, the men were in one room and the women were in a completely separate room. We were discussing the difference between this kind of celebration and one outside the RWOJ community. Absolute separation of married men and women is seen as necessary in the RWOJ. The rationale is usually something like “if men and women fraternize together, it will lead to sin”. But the truth is that men and women socialize together all the time and they don’t sin. Yet, this perception persists in the RWOJ community.

Rabbi Angel hits it on the head. RWOJ do not envision a framework for men and women to engage in normal interactions. If this changes then perhaps other things will change too. I just don’t see it happening.

The second article is much more prominent as it appeared in the NY Times. This article was written by Rabbi Dov Linzer, the Rosh Yeshiva of Chovevei Torah which makes his words less meaningful than a republican senator in the eyes of a RWOJ. But he also makes some good points that are worth exploring.

In making his main point, Rabbi Linzer raises the conundrum of sexual purity in the religious context: Who is responsible for licentious thoughts about immodest women?

…the Talmud, the basis for Jewish law, offers a perhaps surprising answer: It places the responsibility for controlling men’s licentious thoughts about women squarely on the men.

This is true and as Rabbi Linzer develops this point he places the focus on men who over-sexualize women as opposed to women who may not dress in accordance with tradition.

Although, I would add that halacha in general speaks to men. There is no section in the Talmud or Code of Jewish Law that tells women how they should dress and behave in the public sphere. It is only in from the perspective of the men that we are given clues to what is expected of women. So, it is hard to draw definitive conclusions from omissions in the sources on this matter.

But all in all, I do agree with Rabbi Linzer. However, it is unfortunate that this is in the NY Times. At least it has not made their list of Most E-Mailed Articles.

I realize that these article will read like Chinese to RWOJs who measure skirt length with a tznius ruler and examine the denier of stockings. But maybe, just maybe, if an opposite perspective presented eloquently and forcefully the attitudes will slowly change.

Please read and share these articles. At the very least they will engender (hehe) discussion about these issues in a meaningful way. If you go to RWOJ shul, see what happens if you print these articles and give them to some friends in shul. That might be interesting…

Links: Rabbi Angel, Rabbi Linzer

Related posts:

1. Ethics Battle: Believers vs. Non-Believers
2. Mad Men Era Lives On in the White House
3. Israeli and Palestinian Women Go to the Beach Together
4. Women’s Suffrage in 2011 Crown Heights
5. Bill O’Reilly, Jon Stewart, Common and the Selective Outrage Machine

I’ll be honest. There is very little that I like about Rabbi Shmuley. I rarely agree with his perspectives on life, Jews and Judaism. But recently I find myself defending him in my mind against the latest round of accusations against him.

Rabbi Shmuley has written a book called Kosher Jesus. The book is a retelling of Jesus based on some (fringe) historical research. The book portrays the true Jesus as a man who was mostly a Torah abiding Jew but sought to establish a niche within Judaism for his personal views and style. He was later, much later, hijacked as a deity by followers of his teachings in an effort to rebel against Judaism and start a new religion.

At least that is what I was able to gather from the descriptions of the book on various websites. That’s because, despite what you may think, THE BOOK HAS NOT YET BEEN RELEASED.

I know this might come as a shock seeing as how Rabbi Shmuley has already been branded as a heretic for writing a book that almost no one  has read. In article after article, I have seen calls for Rabbi Shmuley to be ousted from Judaism or worse because of what he has ostensibly written. And this is why I come to his defense.

Screeds against a man who has written a book that has not been read by the ones raving against him. I have seen this movie already. It doesn’t end well for anyone.

Criticism and discussion are important parts of any functioning society. Just open the Talmud and you’ll see many opinions and reasoning that explains those opinions that we do not follow today. It’s a discussion. There is argument. But what you won’t find is rabbis calling for someone’s head because of a book title or brief dust jacket description. Further, if there is a point to be made, make the point! Yelling very loudly that Rabbi Shmuley is X and Y and therefore A, B and C must happen to him sounds like the ravings of a lunatic.

How about this?

Read the book. Write a critique of the book based on actual research and facts. Then we can have a mature discussion about the issues.

My two cents:

I reserve judgment until I have read the book. (If I read the book at all.) But I am curious why this is the book Rabbi Shmuley chose to write. I know what he says in interviews or in his articles but it still doesn’t add up. I am concerned that the book may have just been written to be provacative, to gain publicity and generate controversy. I could be wrong. But that’s just how it smells to me.

One more cent:

In order for Jesus to become kosher, everything that Christians teach must be wrong. Is that really a road we want to go down?

Someone else’s two cents:

Read Rabbi Gil’s excellent post on the issue of a kosher Jesus here: Hirhurim

Spend more than two cents:

And buy the book here: Kosher Jesus

Links: Attack, Response, Attack Two, More

Related posts:

1. In Madoff Scandal, Jews Feel an Acute Betrayal – NYTimes.com
2. We Don't Get No R-E-S-P-E-C-T! How do you feel now?
3. Officially a Rabbi
4. Rabbi J.H. Hertz’s Epic Introduction to the Talmud (with a little controversy mixed in)
5. In Defense of Kiddush Clubs

I am indebted to Alan Brill of the Kavvanah blog for sharing this gem.

One of my favorite topics and themes in Judaism is understanding the structure and methodology of the Talmud. I am constantly looking for more sources and studying, adapting and adjusting my understanding of the issues. Until I read the post on Kavvanah I did not know about the introduction to the Talmud written by Rabbi J.H. Hertz. I read it and I loved it.

I strongly suggest you read the entire introduction. It is written beautifully and with such an inspiring view of the Talmud that it becomes required reading.

Some highlights:

Like nearly every one of the rabbis, he earned his bread by manual labour.

Speaking about the rabbis of the Talmud, R’ Hertz reminds us that the rabbis of the Talmud worked for a living. They studied when they were able. He wrote this before the standardization of kollel. But it is almost prophetically inspired.

Concerning the exact time at which the Mishnah was committed to writing, diversity of opinion has prevailed among eminent Jewish authorities during the last nine centuries.

I never knew this. But apparently, R’ Sherira Gaon and Rashi, among others held that the Mishna was not actually written down until the 8th or 9th century. I would love to see a citation for this. Either way, this is astounding to me. I was always taught that R’ Yehuda HaNassi codified AND wrote down the mishna. It seems that these authorities held that the Mishna was codified by R’ Yehuda HaNassi and was transmitted orally for a few hundred years before it was published in written form. Clearly, Rambam disagrees. Fascinating.

Here is the best part:

Halachah, as we have seen, means ‘the trodden path’, rule of life, religious guidance. To it belong all laws and regulations that bear upon Jewish conduct. These include the ritual, the civil, criminal, and ethical laws.

Everything else is embraced under the term Haggadah; literally, ‘talk’, ‘that which is narrated’, ‘delivered in a discourse’. This again can he subdivided into various groups. We have dogmatical Haggadah, treating of God’s attributes and providence, creation, revelation, Messianic times, and the Hereafter. The historical Haggadah brings traditions and legends concerning the heroes and events in national or universal history, from Adam to Alexander of Macedon, Titus and Hadrian. It is legend pure and simple. Its aim is not so much to give the facts concerning the righteous and unrighteous makers of history. as the moral that may be pointed from the tales that adorn their honour or dishonour.

That some of the folklore element in the Haggadah, some of the customs depicted or obiter dicta reported. are repugnant to Western taste need not be denied. ‘The greatest fault to be found with those who wrote down such passages. says Schechter, ‘is that they did not observe the wise rule of Dr Johnson who said to Boswell on a certain occasion, “Let us get serious, for there comes a fool”. And the fools unfortunately did come, in the shape of certain Jewish commentators and Christian controversialists, who took as serious things which were only the expression of a momentary impulse. or represented the opinion of sonic isolated individual, or were meant simply as a piece of humorous by-play, calculated to enliven the interest of a languid audience.’

In spite of the fact that the Haggadah contains parables of infinite beauty and enshrines sayings of eternal worth, it must be remembered that the Haggadah consists of mere individual utterances that possess no general and binding authority.

This is a loaded paragraph and one that today is considered highly controversial. R’ Hertz has the broad shoulders necessary to make such a statement and I admire him greatly for making it. What he is saying is that the Talmud has statements that are binding and many that are not. The difference between the two is whether or not they are halachic. Further, it should not be a surprise to anyone if the rabbis of the Talmud were inaccurate in their non-halachic statements. Some were mistakes, others were made for purposes other than for their truth. R’ Hertz charges those who take these non-serious statements with greater seriousness than they were intended as fools. I wouldn’t be so harsh. But I agree with the sentiment.

I wonder what would happen if a prominent rabbi wrote this today.

And finally another excellent line in conclusion:

My purpose is merely to give a brief presentation of the Talmud as a book. I shall therefore conclude with the words of I. Abrahams. ‘The Talmud,’ he says, ‘is one of the great books of the world. Rabbinism was a sequel to the Bible; and if, like all sequels, it was unequal to its original, it nevertheless shares its greatness. The works of all Jews up to the modern period were the sequel to this sequel. Through them all may be detected the unifying principle that literature in its truest sense includes life itself; that intellect is the handmaid to conscience; and that the best books are those which best teach men how to live. The maxim, Righteousness delivers from death, applies to books as well as to men. A literature whose consistent theme is Righteousness, is immortal.’

Through it all, the Talmud is one of the greatest books ever written. It’s true, the sequel is at least as good as the original. We follow the Talmud in our lives and the Talmud interprets the Torah. It’s world certainly seems different to the naked eye than the world of the Bible. Says, R’ Hertz, this is a good thing.

Above all, the Talmud is an attempt at righteousness and aids us all in our attempts towards the same.

Now go study!

Link: Halakhah.com

Also, buy R’ Hertz’s Chumash. It’s my personal favorite: Amazon.com

Related posts:

1. Intro to Talmud 2
2. Intro to Talmud 1
3. Rabbi Yair Hoffman Responds to Yossi Sarid, Unconvincingly
4. Funding Controversy Threatens to Divide German Jews
5. In Which I Respond To The Most Epic Comment I Have Ever Seen

Photos - Right: Nan Goldin for The New York Times. Left: Associated Press.

You may recall that I a little while ago I met and befriended an incarcerated woman named Judith Clark. See: My Visit With Judith Clark at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility.

Judy is a Jewish woman who is serving a 75 year prison sentence for her role as a getaway driver in a famous Brinks truck robbery in my hometown of Monsey NY that left several men dead, some 30 years ago. The robbery was for the benefit of a far-left extremist group. Her sentence was severe and it was mostly because she treated the trial as an opportunity to make anti-government statements. She viewed herself as a martyr for her cause and did not cooperate during the proceedings.

Supporters of Judy were hoping for clemency last December. When that did not come, many of us were very disappointed. It seemed that her best chance at freedom had passed her by.

You may ask, why I would support clemency for a woman who played a role in several deaths. The short answer is that I don’t. The woman I met, the woman I support, is absolutely a different woman that the woman who participated in those heinous acts three decades prior. The Judy Clark from 1981 has been transformed into a new and improved Judy Clark. A woman, who by all accounts, gives every indication that she has been rehabilitated. Even the most cynical view is that she “only reformed herself to get out of prison”. But there is no doubt she has reformed.

It’s a rare case, where a person actually changes for the better while prison. It’s at least as rare as people who change their lives while not in prison. And we all know how hard and rare it is to change one’s life. Supporting Judy Clark is supporting the human spirit and its ability to improve. It is supporting a woman with an infectious smile and important message despite her shortcomings. I support a woman who admits her mistakes, regrets them very much and tries tirelessly to make a positive difference in others.

The article in the NY Times magazine is an in-depth look at Judy, her circumstances and her supporters. Two of those supporters mentioned in the article have become friends of mine through Judy. If you want a full picture of what happened in 1981, what happened in the 30 years since and the reactions from across the spectrum of supporters and opponents of Judy I strongly suggest reading the article.

Most of all, I urge you to consider what our justice system should do when someone in prison genuinely changes their life. When someone does teshuva and repents for what they have done, how long must they suffer for their previous errors?

Please read: NY Times Magazine

Listen to letters written on Judy’s behalf as read by some well known actors: Judithclark.org

Related posts:

1. My Visit With Judith Clark at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility
2. An Interesting Alternative to Prison
3. Some Thoughts on "Keeping it Kosher" as seen in the NY Times Magazine
4. I’ve Been Published! My Article On Felony Murder Is Online
5. Matza in the NY Times and In Our TImes

Rabbi Julie Schonfeld makes an outrageous claim and Ha’aretz runs with it.

The claim? A version of a siddur published in the 15th century contains the blessing she’asani isha v’lo ish. The blessing thanks God for making the one reciting the benediction a woman and not a man. Rabbi Schonfeld contends that:

“This Siddur proves that the degrading attitudes towards women, which we are seeing in certain extreme religious communities in Israel today, are a modern distortion of Judaism. Ironically, treatment of women in certain extreme sectors of the community is far more denigrating to women today than even the attitudes of the late Middle Ages.”

While I sympathize with Rabbi Schonfeld’s efforts in this regard, this siddur “proves” absolutely nothing of the sort. The siddur, which has been floating around the Internet for quite a few years now despite the attempt to portray this as an amazing new discovery, only proves that one woman had this siddur written on her behalf. It does not prove anything about the attitudes toward women in Medieval times.

Although, I would argue that the treatment of women in some Jewish communities in today’s day and age is not rooted in halacha as much as it is rooted in traditional, old-fashioned values that may or may not be compatible with halacha, Judaism or Torah. They are two separate things. But the siddur does not prove that. Nor does it prove that women were treated any better or worse in Medieval Europe.

The siddur, however does prove something very important in my eyes. It proves that the blessing of shelo asani isha is not as nefarious as it seems. See, if a woman is willing to say she’asani isha v’lo ish she must not feel that it is a degrading blessing. It would be extremely hypocritical for an oppressed group to turn around and use the same degrading terminology against the group that is oppressing them. It would be like civil rights activists in 1965 organizing a bus with black people in the front and white people in the back. Reversing the roles in degrading situations is hardly a fair or open-minded approach to the problem.

It seems, that neither the one who makes the blessing she’asani isha v’lo ish nor the one who makes the blessing shelo asani isha is meant to be degrading. Rather, both are blessings expressing appreciation for one’s place in life. Both blessing are ways of practicing the concept of being happy with one’s lot. Just like one can be happy as a man and not a woman, one can be happy as a woman and not a man. Even if one has more commandments than the other.

In my opinion, this single instance of a woman having her own blessing validates the blessing of shelo asani isha. It shows that the true meaning of blessing is that one blesses whatever their situation happens to be. It is not an expression of superiority, nor is it an expression of oppression. It is just a blessing.

I understand that this will not change the perception of the public. I do believe that the blessing of shelo asani isha appears offensive to outsiders (and even most to insiders who need to wrestle with apologetics to make it less offensive). I think the most effective way of preserving this ancient blessing is to understand what a blessing really is all about. Seeing a woman’s prayerbook with she’asani isha v’lo ish affirms to me that the blessing is not meant as a tziduk ha’din or an expression of having more mitzvos. Rather, it is an opportunity to thank God for one’s place in this world.

It is my hope that the public can accept that this blessing is not derogatory in intention or application. Rabbi Schonfeld’s new favorite siddur helps make that point.

Link: Ha’aretz

Also see: The Shelo Asani Isha “Discussion” (or does changing the liturgy remove one from orthodox Judaism?)

Related posts:

1. Rabbi Yair Hoffman Responds to Yossi Sarid, Unconvincingly
2. Some Note-Worthy Changes in the New Edition of the Bible
3. The iPhone / iPod Touch Siddur Misheberach List
4. The Good Wife: Unorthodox, From a Rabbi / Law Student Perspective
5. iTalmud – iPad Edition | App Review

We did a family trip to the California Science Center at Exposition Park in Los Angeles yesterday. The museum is nice, albeit a bit outdated. Such is the fate of any museum that has exhibits of the latest and greatest in technology. Cell phones were a new obscure invention according to the exhibit on technology. Even better was the section describing how phone lines are not fast enough for video conferencing. Hehe.

Anyway, the highlights of the museum are the Hubble 3D IMAX movie and the temporary exhibit called 1001 Inventions. The IMAX was incredible. It told the story of the Hubble telescope and some of its most incredible discoveries. It was really powerful to see the beauty and seeming infinite scope of outer space. The 3D images of galaxies and galaxy clusters trillions of light years away is awe-inspiring. The 3D glasses, 9 story screen and excellent sound system make you feel like you are traveling through space. Simply remarkable.

1001 Inventions is an international project that demonstrates some of the technological marvels and advances contributed by the Arab world in the Middle Ages. In a time that is stereotyped as the Dark Ages in Europe, much “light” was found in Arab countries. Hundreds of ideas and inventions are part of the exhibit. It is modern and compelling and I really enjoyed it.

Socially, the exhibit attracted many Muslims and I found pleasure and inspiration exploring the exhibit side by side with devout Muslims.

Politically, I can anticipate that there are those who will object to the exhibit simply because it portrays Islam in a favorable light. It has become en vogue for social conservatives and progressives to battle over the imagery of Islam in America. Some people find it harmful that Islam be portrayed as peaceful or beneficial to society. Others bend over backwards to ignore Islamic extremism and oppression in Arab countries. I don’t think either of those approaches are wise or prudent, but that is neither here nor there.

When examining the exhibit through those lenses I think the exhibit was fair. It only spoke to technology and medicine and the scholarship within the Arab word during the Middle Ages. I think this is an message for Arabs and non-Arabs in 2012. It is important for non-Arabs because it reminds them (or informs them) that there is a rich history of wisdom and forward thinking in the Arab world. We need to be thankful for their contributions to society. It is important for Arabs because in its current iteration, it seems as thought the Arab community is mired in backwards thinking. Technology and progress are not priorities. Thinking and scholarship are not priorities either. Advances are not coming from the Arab world at the same rate as they come from Asia, Europe or America. It would be great if this exhibit inspired a return to scholarship and innovation that contributes to the good of the world community. With such a rich history, I would imagine reinvigorating efforts for progress would be natural.

The second take-away from the exhibit that I had was that it tried to show that relations between members of different religions were not always contentious. The best proof of this was the only non-Muslim or Arab with a prominent place in the exhibit. That would be the Maimonides display:

I found the description of Maimonides fair and positive. It might be a bit understated though. I think Maimonides was even more of an iconoclast than he is given credit for in the panel. A video accompanied this panel and went a bit more in depth than the panel. In general, I was very pleased that Maimonides was included in the exhibit.

I am sure that some will find nefarious intentions in his inclusions. Something along the lines of the “Muslims are stealing Maimonides” or something like that. But I think that is misguided and wrong. The text clearly says that he was a Jewish doctor. Most importantly, the text notes that he helped people of all faiths. Indeed, this is one of the legacies of Maimonides.

The exhibit is worth seeing if you are in LA or one of the other locations. If you have seen it, I am interested in your impressions of the exhibit.

Link: 1001 Inventions

Related posts:

1. Wonderful Article on the “Three Faiths” Exhibit at the New York Public Library
2. Exhibit: Albanian Muslims Saved 2000 Jews During the Holocaust
3. My Visit to the Museum of Tolerance at the Simon Wiesenthal Center
4. High Holidays Services / Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur in Venice California / Santa Monica / Los Angeles with Pacific Jewish Center at The Shul on the Beach
5. California Dreaming No Longer?

It’s hard to revert to more traditional blogging after focusing on various angles of the situation in Israel. So to ease our way back into topics of lesser importance we begin with a post about gender roles albeit, in a much more innocuous context.

LEGO was one of my favorite toys as a child. As an adult, it is still one of my favorite toys to buy for my children (and give them a hand when they need it). Clearly, LEGO skews to the male side of the spectrum. My sisters did not really play with LEGO as children. The data backs up their experience. More boys play with LEGO than girls.

A new marketing campaign and product strategy is trying to make LEGO more girly. The new sets are specifically geared toward girls with brighter colors and less weapons. The new product line is based on science. Boys and girls play differently. They need different LEGO sets.

This has prompted a discussion as to whether it is wise to play into gender stereotypes. No. It’s not what you are thinking. The reason not to perpetuate gender stereotypes is not because gender should be neutral until the child decides on a gender. The reason not to play into gender stereotypes is because boys who play with girly toys and girls who play with boy toys expand their horizons. They relate better with members of the opposite gender and they develop skills that help them become more well-rounded.

I can’t say this is a bad thing.

So creating LEGO that appeals to girls we are helping them play in a way that boys normally play. But by making it appealing for girls, girls are discouraged from playing with boys and they are discouraged from playing other boyish games. By playing into the stereotype we might actually be preventing girls from reaching their potential. Not to mention, how many boys are playing with girl toys? Or with girls? If it really is healthy, and the science seems to support this, perhaps we should encourage our boys to try games and toys that are normally for girls as well.

Orthodox Jewish communities have different approaches to how boys and girls interact with one another. The data suggests that not having interactions between boys and girls during the tender preadolescent years can have a negative affect on future interactions between boys and girls as they move through their teenage and adult years.

With the slow movement of the Orthodox Jewish community from schools with mixed classes until the older grades to complete separation between boys and girls after the age of 5 it could be that we have created a monster. A monster that manifests on these shores as a “shidduch crisis” and in the Holyland as segregated buses. Our anecdotal experience seems supported by data.

Links: NY Times 1 and 2.

Related posts:

1. You Have Got to See This! | It's about Lego
2. What Do Boys Want?
3. School Dress Codes Should Be More Lax
4. 10 Week Anniversary Post
5. Innocent or Guilty, Jerry Sandusky is a Very Strange Man

Yesterday, I wrote about Yossi Sarid’s disgraceful article of vile hatred for halachic Judaism. I expressed my discomfort in writing a point by point response because when first started to write a point by point rebuttal, it came off as sounded apologetic and disingenuous. I was not able to articulate how and why Sarid was wrong in every one of his examples. I tried. But I was unsuccessful.

Rabbi Yair Hoffman also tried. His article is a lot like the one I was writing. It explains a few of the statements that Sarid misquoted or misinterpreted. More importantly it provides quite a few important sources that indicate reverence, respect and admiration for women in the Talmud. Clearly, Sarid ignores as many, if not more, sources than he barbarically wields in his unscrupulous attack on halacha.

This is great work by Rabbi Hoffman. But in the end all he has done is presented another side to the story. He has shown that the Talmud has statements that are praiseworthy or women and there are also statements that portray women negatively. This is because he does not refute the majority of Sarid’s sources.

I decided to analyze the debate systematically.

Saird mentions 16 negative sources in his article. Rabbi Hoffman addresses FOUR of them. Of the TWELVE he ignores, some of them are the most difficult to explain.

Rabbi Hoffman uses a variety of methods to refute the four sources he actually addresses.

Sarid says: “She is unfit for any public position with authority. “Thou shalt appoint a king over thee” – a king and not a queen.”

Rabbi Hoffman employs the “it is literal but it’s not so bad” argument. Meaning, yes it is true, but many other cultures and countries have had similar laws. Okay. Fair enough.

Sarid says: ” words of Torah should be burned rather than being given to women.”

Rabbi Hoffman correctly declares that this is out of context. It is true that the Talmud says this in the name of one rabbi, but since the Talmud actually addresses the question the woman asked that prompted the statement, clearly the rabbis felt that the question was a good question and this is really praise of a woman. While all of this is true, the statement remains in the text unchallenged. This is still offensive. Advantage Sarid.

Sarid mentions the prohibition against one who ” looks even at a woman’s little finger”.

 Rabbi Hoffman explains that this is actually a preferred approach to women. In effect in ‘deobjectifies’ women because it ensures that women will not be looked at as pure objects of desire. In fact it ensures that women will not be looked at, at all. Not a great job by Rabbi Hoffman, he could have added that the translation of Sarid is not perfect. It would be more accurate to state that the prohibition is against “gazing” at a women with lust.

One of Sarid’s last complaints is the statement in the Talmud that “calls women”, and I quote, “a sack full of excrement”.

Rabbi Hoffman is absolutely correct here. Sarid willfully distorts this source. The Talmud is saying that EVEN if a woman was a  “a sack full of excrement” a man would desire her physically. This is a statement about the strength of physical attraction. It is not a referendum on women. Sarid loses this one badly.

So in the four points of attack, Rabbi Hoffman argues valiantly. In some places he is better than others. But he does a good job.

The problem is that there are TWELVE more sources that go unaddressed. Among them, the most difficult to reconcile. Rabbi Hoffman does not address the law that prohibits women from testifying in court or becoming a judge, nor does he address the statement criticizing those who teach their daughters Torah. He ignores the obligation to save a drowning man before a drowning woman, he ignores the Talmud’s statement that allows men to divorce without his wife’s consent and the requirement that women be at her husband’s disposal when he desires her.

Some of these statements can be explained. Others really cannot. In some ways Sarid is right. The world does not look upon many of these laws and statements favorably.

In none of his explanations does Rabbi Hoffman invoke the argument that things may have changed since the time of the Talmud. In no place does he say that the statements in the Talmud are reflective of an ancient society and that we have evolved from that society into a more contemporary version of Rabbinic Judaism. Rabbi Hoffman is not willing to say, in any case, that these any of sources are actually offensive and have fallen into disuse or reinterpreted because they are offensive.

In my opinion, that might be the only way to answer some of the questions raised by Sarid. But for some, saying this amounts to kefira or at least knocks one out of orthodox Judaism. But isn’t it true? Have we not adapted and evolved since the times of the Talmud? I think we have. I think it is also futile to deny it. I would really love to see a bona fide, contemporary Torah authority legitimize this approach. I can dream, can’t I?

This approach will not answer all the questions either. It will not fix some of the built-in disadvantages that women encounter in halachic Judaism. But I think it is more honest and gives us a chance to continue to adapt and evolve if necessary and if our rabbinic leadership allows it. But freezing us in time as Rabbi Hoffman has done will not win every argument. In this case it only won four out of sixteen.

Link: VIN

If you want to see my handy dandy chart of the debate click here: Chart

Related posts:

1. Yossi Sarid Show Us the Ugly Side of Secular Extremism
2. Apropos of Nothing (well… maybe something): Rabbi Julie Schonfeld Edition
3. Rabbi J.H. Hertz’s Epic Introduction to the Talmud (with a little controversy mixed in)
4. The Orthoprax Rabbi Takes the J-Blogosphere By Storm
5. Correcting Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks on the Riots

I have a confession to make.

I read the recent op-ed written by Yossi Sarid and published in Haaretz. I found the article highly offensive, despicable and ugly. I thought I would “fisk” the article and counter each and every one of Sarid’s twisted, angry points. I got through about half of Sarid’s ugly diatribe and I was forced to quit. I could not win. I was unable to refute every one of his points without twisting myself, Chazal and halacha into a stale pretzel.

So I gave up.

Instead, I offer two independant points in this blog post inspired by Sarid’s disgraceful article.

Sarid’s main point is that the extremists in Israel are only applying the lessons that are taught in our holy tradition. He proceeds to quote several sources that demonstrate his view of the way Judaism treats women. A few of his sources are misquoted. A few others are opinions of one rabbi and not every rabbi. But by and large, one can build a solid case against orthodox Judaism’s approach to women using Sarid’s sources.

By pointing to these sources, Sarid proposes that the extremists are just following the logical conclusions of halacha and traditional Judaism. Therefore the problem is not the extremists, the problem is all Jews who adhere to halacha. All forms of Judaism that believe in the veracity of Torah are to blamed. This is akin to one of Hitchens’ more well-known arguments against religion. If extremists can follow the text of a religion and be bad people there is a flaw in the religion. Sarid lumps all Jews who follow halacha together. The extremists are extremists but only because they follow the same texts as I do, they just do it better.

Sarid is wrong. Dead Wrong. He is wrong because the extremists may be following the texts that he cites. But halachic Judaism does not follow those texts today. Yes. Believe it or not, even the most charedi of Jews do not have the same beliefs about women that some of our great rabbi had throughout our history. He claims that halacha prohibits teaching women Torah. This is obviously very easy to refute. Every orthodox Jewish woman studies Torah. This is an evolution of Judaism to conform to modernity. Some things are up for negotiation. Some things are not. But to represent orthodox Judaism as a whole by quoting a few obscure (and few less obscure) texts is ugly.

It is ugly because in practice, 99% of orthodox Jews don’t agree with the texts he quoted. The 1% who do are the extremists. Thus, is it disingenuous and provocative to lump all orthodox Jews together with regard to the way women are treated in orthodox Judaism. For this I am fuming with anger at Yossi Sarid. How dare he take a few quotes and a few crazies and paint the entire spectrum of orthodox Judaism with that brush? It is inexcusable. I hope he can find his way and retract his article. An apology would be appropriate as well.

The second point is that these texts do exist. They do need to be dealt with in a mature way. I am not qualified to dismiss these texts and I would not dare make a unilateral statement about these texts. But it would be wise for our rabbinic leadership (and by our rabbinic leadership, I mean the orthodox Jewish leadership from across the spectrum) to formulate responses and interpretations or dismissals of these texts. We need to have an approach that codifies the modern approaches that we have taken towards women over the last few centuries. The offensive texts cannot remain the only authoratative views on women.

It is clear and without a doubt that attitudes have changed towards women over the last 2500 years. This is not a Jewish phenomenon. Women have only had the right to vote and own land for a relatively short amount of time in the secular world. Jewish law has adapted as well. Women work outside the home. Women learn Torah. Women are expected to be treated with as much respect as one would like to be treated by others.

The problem is that the most authoratative sources that remain are those that are no longer followed by the majority of orthodox Jews. We need to educate ourselves and hateful people like Yossi Sarid that neither those texts, nor the extremists represent mainstream halachic Judaism.

I suggest you read Sarid’s diatribe. If only so that you should know what kind of perception one can have if one cherry picks from the traditional sources and to try to figure a way to explain these texts without becoming overly apologetic and without rejecting the sanctity of our tradition.

As much as I hate what the religious extremists are doing to pervert Torah Judaism, I hate what Yossi Sarid has written even more.

Link: Haaretz

Related posts:

1. Rabbi Yair Hoffman Responds to Yossi Sarid, Unconvincingly
2. The Future of Women in Orthodox Judaism
3. Women’s Suffrage in 2011 Crown Heights
4. The Accuracy of the Written Torah
5. In Defense of Yom Tov Sheni (The second day of Yom Tov outside the Land of Israel)

Thugs and hoodlums from extremist religious groups in Israel have been terrorizing fellow Jews for some time now. They have done so without fear of condemnation or retribution from the religiously adjacent charedi community. This recent wave of violence is not new nor is it shocking or surprising.

Spitting on young girls, calling women whores, forcing segregation at bus stops and on buses are all acts cut from the same cloth as the violence at Manny’s Bookshop and a political beating in Meah Shearim. We’ve known about this for a while. Nobody has said a word.

However, this time the media found out about it. So now it’s national and international news.

This has prompted responses and condemnations from rabbis, rabbinic authorities and lay people. That’s great. Finally. The problem is that these condemnations are so weak, hedged and long-winded that they, in my opinion, are a failure.

There is only one way to condemn violence and abuse towards women. That would be something like this:

We strongly condemn any and all violence towards women under any and all circumstances. Those who commit such acts of violence will feel the full effect and power of the religious and secular court system. They will be excommunicated from all religious circles and are heretofore to be considered persona non grata. If you know of any individuals who have abused anyone, whether verbally or physically notify the police and rabbinic leadership immediately.

What we don’t need is an explanation of how these people are not “real charedim”. We don’t need poetry on the majesty of tznius. We don’t need snide remarks about the secular media. Just speak out against violence, promise retribution and to take action.

Enough with the apologetics and handwringing.

Feel free to copy and paste my version of an appropriate condemnation on all the blogs and news sites that have published the watered down condemnations to this point. If you can, please credit this blog. Thanks.

Links: NY Times, Cross-Currents, YWN

Related posts:

1. If You Criticize Israel You’re Not a Jew?
2. The Difference Between Murder and Terrorism
3. Israeli and Palestinian Women Go to the Beach Together

I don’t remember where or how I came across this book, but when I saw Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism referenced somewhere, I knew I had to snatch it up. I saw it just after I wrote about the modern day exorcist here: Demons, Dybbuks, Devils and Exorcism. Buying this book was a smart decision. I read the book a little while back and neglected to do a review but I’ve wanted to tell you all about this book since I read it.

The author, J.H Chajes, is a professor at University of Haifa. He is a distant relative of the great Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chajes. Between Worlds is very scholarly and well researched. Yet, it reads like a novel, well almost like a novel, and it kept me engrossed in its content from start to finish.

Between Worlds chronicles the rise of recorded incidents of dybbuks and exorcism in the era of mystical writings of the Arizal’s students. Most of the book takes place in the 16th and 17th centuries. The book traces the relationship between Christian, Muslim and Jewish exorcism legends and practice as well. An appendix has full accounts of exorcisms found in rabbinic literature from that era.

As a skeptic, I found the restraint of Chajes astounding. It is almost as if he is winking the entire time that he is writing about demonic / disembodied soul possession. You just know that he can’t believe what he is writing as fact is even possible. But he writes as an objective 3rd party about rabbis and others performing exorcisms with a straight face.

There are a few points that I took away from the book that are worth sharing. First of all, the book mentions some disputes between rabbis. They were vicious disagreements. Accusations of philandering, abject immorality and horrible insults are hurled the way of one particular rabbi. I can only imagine what our rabbinic disputes will look like to historians some time in the future. Fascinating to read and fascinating to think about.

Second, the book supports the theory that “the more knowledge becomes accessible, the more some religious leaders will try to ‘esotericize’ their religion to maintain a level of separation between the masses and the public”. I know, that theory is a mouthful. With regard to exorcism it works as follows. The masses were becoming more literate throughout the world. Exorcism was an art reserved for spiritual leaders and scholars. It was not available to the masses no matter how learned they became. Thus, the existence of demons and dybbuks reinforced the need for leadership. It is similar to today’s maximalist position of Daas Torah. In a time that more orthodox Jews can study the sources and responsa on a given subject, the religious leaders have reserved a segment of inaccessible knowledge under the maximalist position of Daas Torah. I’m not saying this is wrong or intentional, rather it is a pattern and it happens.

My third point for this review is the nature of the relationship between Jewish scholars and their Christian and Muslim counterparts. It seems that there was much interaction between them and they worked together, at least for the sake of exorcism. It was nice to see cooperation instead of the stereotypical debates and polemics against one another. If they could do, so could we.

If you have ANY interest in dybbuks or demons or exorcism or 16th century mysticism, buy Between Worlds.

Related posts:

1. Demons, Dybbuks, Devils and Exorcism.
2. Book Review | Must a Jew Believe Anything?
3. Book Review | Hush
4. Book Review | The Search for God at Harvard
5. Book Review | The Color of Water

On Cross-Currents, Rabbi Adlerstein recommends a recent article written by Dr. Moshe Koppel. Seeing as Rabbi Adlerstein rarely makes recommendations, I decided to see what the fuss was about.

The article is a 36 page masterpiece. Honestly, I think it is the best article I have ever read and I read a lot of articles, especially on Judaism.

Dr. Koppel proposes an elegant theory of how Judaism changes, Jewish law evolves and how that relates to many of our social issues today. He touches on insularity, the one-upmanship of piling stringencies upon stringencies, the necessity of belief and many other topics in this far ranging article.

I found myself agreeing with most of Dr. Koppel’s arguments and assertions. He builds a grand edifice from which the article could have made many different points. I found the final point that Dr. Koppel actually made in the article less compelling than the edifice from which the point was made. But I think there are several issues that I do find compelling that can be analyzed effectively using the tools provided in the article.

Here are three very poignant items from the article that I think demonstrate the breadth and beauty of the article.

On the various versions of core beliefs that have developed over time for different segments of orthodox Judaism:

Related posts:

1. Yom Hashoah: Two Holocaust Survivors And Their Emotional Reunion
2. The Shelo Asani Isha “Discussion” (or does changing the liturgy remove one from orthodox Judaism?)

Chanukah Words

Yosef and the Light of (Economic) Wisdom and Kindness – Drasha Miketz

A New Chanukah Message

My Chanukah Message To You: Light Knows No Friend or Foe

PJC Chanukah Party 2009 Address

PJC Chanukah Party 2010 | Rabbi’s Speech

When Religious Holidays Lose Their Religion

Chanukah Music

Hanukkah in Santa Monica

How Do You Spell Chanukah? The LeeVees | Jewish Holiday Music

The Most Famous Chanukah Song | Jewish Holiday Music

This Year’s Hottest Chanukah Song: Candlelight by The Maccabeats | Jewish Holiday Music

No related posts.

It’s that time of year again. That time of year when everyone is supposed to be preparing for their respective holidays full of good cheer and spirits. What ends up happening is people tripping over themselves to be insulted or to make statements about their beliefs.

First, a bit of history. It might be that a lot of the grumbling comes from not understanding what this time of year really means for various people of various religions and faiths.

People have been celebrating holidays around the winter solstice for eons.

The Talmud makes the claim that Adam initiated the first winter solstice celebration. Having been created in the fall (Tishrei) and having sinned almost immediately upon his creation, Adam believed that he was being punished with less and less daylight. The day after the solstice he realized that such was the way of the world and the daylight period would be getting longer and longer. The next year he celebrated the 8 days preceding the solstice and the 8 days following the solstice as holidays. (BT Avodah Zara 8a). The Mishna which is being discussed in that Talmudic statement notes that there were several pagan holidays that were celebrated around the winter solstice during the Mishnaic era (circa 70-200 CE).

Clearly, there are very old sources that all orthodox Jews deem reliable indicating that this time of year was marked by celebrations. These celebrations predate Christmas and in the instance of Adam, predate Chanukah as well. Further, if the pagan celebrations noted in the Mishna were a few centuries old at the time, those holidays predate Chanukah as well. This is all according traditional, ancient Jewish sources.

Although Christmas celebrates the birth of the Christian religion, it was not celebrated widely for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Slowly, through the middle ages the holiday gained prominence. About 300 years ago the holiday was already very popular with many Christians but some of the factions breaking off from mainstream Christianity at the time deemed it a pagan holiday and banned its celebration. The Puritans, famous for their establishing of colonies on American soil fined anyone who dared celebrate this holiday. The holiday is not found in scripture so it was presumed by them to have been borrowed from pagans and was impure.

Sometime in the 19th century Christmas became a universally accepted Christian holiday. The Christmas Tree was incorporated into the celebration as well. Later, in the 20th century, the imagery of Santa Claus, his elves, toy soldiers, gingerbread cookies and other familiar Christmas symbols made their way into the lore.

The holiday surged in popularity and then in the 21st century, non-Christians began to feel barraged by the overt religious overtones of the celebrations taking place on “neutral ground”. The ACLU, atheist groups and others began asking, sometimes demanding, that Christmas not be celebrated in public places.

Many Christmas celebrators took offense to this. Plenty of arguments have been invoked trying to establish a reason that Christmas celebrations should be allowed in public schools, municipal parks, government facilities, retail stores and pretty much anywhere and everywhere else. Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly have been going on about this for years and Rick Perry spurned an Internet meme with his opinion.

Rabbi Adlerstein on Patheos and the LA Times have reported on the Santa Monica war over Christmas. For years, an elaborate Nativity scene decked the halls of a Santa Monica park. There are 21 spots for holiday displays. A number of groups entered a lottery to determine who would get the spots. Atheist groups won 14 of the spots, Jewish groups got three and the rest went to the Nativity.

The atheists are being pretty mean spirited about the whole thing. They are using this as a platform to poke fun and mock religious people. That’s not very nice. But I wonder how they would have responded if the displays had not been religious, i.e. The Nativity, and instead were the cultural symbols of Santa, peppermint candy and reindeer. Many of the Christmas displays are not signs of religion per se, rather a new-age version of a Christian holiday with winter symbolism that is not inherently religious.

Although, I don’t agree with Rabbi Adlerstein and many other religious Jews as well as Christians who want more Christmas displays. Last week I was at Disneyland with my family. The daily parade was holiday themed. Our younger son really, really wanted to see many of his favorite Disney characters who were not out and about during the day. We figured we would see them during the parade so even though we were not interested in the Christmasness of the parade we stayed to watch. He was thrilled and in that respect it was the right choice.

I watched the parade carefully. There was not one ounce of religion in the parade. Nothing that was particularly Christian or related to Jesus. There were reindeer, there were red hats, Santa and the Mrs. paraded on by, scenes from the Nutcracker, and other holiday stories were represented and there was a tree. But literally nothing in the parade was religious. Yet, we were all very uncomfortable. The symbols of Christmas have become part and parcel of the religious holiday despite not really being intrinsically related to the religious holiday. In other words, even though the parade was not religious, it offended our Jewish sensitivities. This was not our holiday. We were guests. It was uncomfortable.

Disney can do as it sees fit. But as a consumer I was disappointed. What is usually a highlight of the day was uncomfortable for everyone over the age of 3 because they chose to integrate a Christian holiday into a celebration of fun, magic and fantasy. It is unfortunate. And I can completely relate to the atheists who are offended by similar displays of holiday spirit and cheer even when stripped of their specifically religious elements.

That doesn’t justify their over the top protest. Not at all. But I do believe that public religious and symbolic displays that are Christmas and Christian-centric are not inclusive and do not need to be tolerated anywhere and everywhere by the non-Christian public.

Links: Patheos, LA Times

Related posts:

1. A Hijab I Can Relate To
2. Ethics Battle: Believers vs. Non-Believers

Way back in 2009, I did a review of iTalmud English for the iPhone. See: iTalmud English Edition: Review

A few months ago we got an iPad and I could not wait to try iTalmud – iPad Edition. Torah learning is much easier on a bigger screen and the navigation through an iPad app is less crowded than on an iPhone. I’ve been testing the iTalmud – iPad Edition and it with recent updates and the bigger screen the iPad app is one of the best apps I have used on the iPad. Period.

I figured to give you all a real taste of what using iTalmud – iPad Edition is like I would give you a walkthrough with photos.

Before we begin, I will just say that if you have an iPad and have any interest in studying Talmud, this is the absolutely best way to do it. The Torah is timeless and when technology can be leveraged to make the experience more accessible, exciting and convenient, it speaks to the eternal nature of the Torah and its people. When you think about it, it can be quite inspiring.

Here we go:

I always begin studying a page of the Talmud with the traditional page view.  iTalmud provides clear PDFs of every folio of the Talmud. It is a straight PDF with no iOS magic. Functional and perhaps enough to justify spending $40. Imagine having the entire Talmud accessible on an iPad!

To change pages, one taps the book icon on the top of the page and using the iOS selection wheel can turn to any Tractate and any page in that Tractate in an instant. It takes about 2 seconds to download each PDF over wifi. It does not feel like you are “waiting” when you switch pages. Here I have switched from Shabbos to Brachos in an instant. In real life that would mean going to a bookshelf and replacing one overly large tome with another. Amazing.

If you want to be able to read folio pages when offline you can download PDFs of every Daf View page and save them for later in the Download Manager. There is no charge to keep these on your iPad. Additionally, the app provides excellent audio classes for each page. These can also be downloaded and saved for later.

Let’s move on. Daf View is nice, but the other stuff is where we experience the real magic of iTalmud. I use landscape view for viewing the PDFs. It just seems more natural. But for the other modes I mostly use portrait view. (We will stick with landscape for now.) Switching modes is simple. Just tap the page icon on he bottom left. A menu pops up and you can select how you would like iTalmud to display text. Until now we have been using Daf View.

Now I’ve selected “Hebrew Text” and “Rashi”. As you can see, this view is just text without the traditional Daf format. But I have also selected Rashi and the commentary is displayed split-screen style on the left. The two columns are independent and can be scrolled on their own. So if Rashi is lower down on the page you can scroll the left side down but leave the right side where it is. This is great.

We also can select Tosfos and Tosfos will be displayed instead of Rashi. Everything else remains the same.

Another option is to have the English translation displayed. This translation is the Soncino translation with the Footnotes. If you tap a footnote and popup displays the text of the footnote.

I’ve switched the view to portrait. In this view, the secondary text, in this case Rashi, gets moved to the bottom of the screen. I have also tapped on the Daf Yomi shiurim menu. Here, we can see a list of local Daf Yomi classes and their locations. Languages are included so that you can find the class that best meets your needs. You can also enter an address and find  class near that address. Unfortunately, this feature did not work for me. The keyboard kept disappearing. I hope this is fixed in a future update.

Sometimes you want to go directly to a specific page. You can easily navigate to any page using the browse and search menu. The English Keyword search is also great. As I have beards on my mind (The Shave Heard ‘Round the World) I typed “beard” into the search and the results displayed everywhere the word beard occurs in the Talmud. This is a really super tool. Tapping a result sends you to that page. This is great, but could be better. The place on the page that the word occurs is not highlighted anywhere. This would not be so bad if there were a “search this page” option but iTalmud does not have that feature yet.

One of the coolest things in the iTalmud app is a $5 add-on. I bought it because it was useful to me and I think it is a great feature. To bring up the extras pop-up just tap on the Extras menu icon.

With Biblical References” add-on you can tap any verse from Scripture that is quoted in the Talmud and explore that verse. So just click buy and then it is automatically built into the app.

For example, I tapped a verse on Brachos 2a. Tapping the verse brings up a menu where you can choose which commentary should be displayed with the text of the verse from the Torah. I chose English. The verse is automatically highlighted and the commentary is inline.

I tried to select Rashi, but it was not working. That’s another kink that needs to be worked out. But the others work. Here is the Ramban on that verse.

And here is Ibn Ezra. It could not be simpler.

I also want to show you a full-screen view that removes the menus and just shows the text on the screen. This is the ideal method for studying. No distractions and it uses the maximum of the real estate. It would even better if iTalmud could do Airplay and be displayed on an external display. Maybe next version…

So there you have it. That’s how I use iTalmud English for iPad. I am sure many of you would use it differently. That’s part of the beauty of the app. It can be used your way.

I have one more suggestion for a future release (my father actually suggested it to me). It would be great if illustrations and models could be provided as well. The Talmud can be so well illuminated by diagrams and graphics. Some sections require illustrations. I hope a future release could provide pop-up graphics for these sections of the Talmud.

Other than that, search on the page and a couple of bugs iTalmud is one of the most complete iPad apps I have had the pleasure of using. I highly recommend the app and even more than the app, I recommend studying Talmud.

Purchase the app here: iTalmud – iPad Edition. Check out Crowded Road’s other apps and services on their website.

Disclaimer: Promotional consideration was provided by Crowded Road for the review of their iTalmud English for iPad app. I was given the app free of charge.

Related posts:

1. iTalmud English Edition: Review
2. The Joy is in the Anticipation: Thoughts On Waiting For The iPad
3. Some Note-Worthy Changes in the New Edition of the Bible
4. Apropos of Nothing (well… maybe something): Rabbi Julie Schonfeld Edition
5. Book Review | Hush

This morning, Matisyahu shaved his beard.

Matisyahu, the self-proclaimed chasidic reggae pop-star, has always identified as an orthodox, chasidic Jew since his rise to stardom almost a decade ago. His signature look was that of a chasidic man. He had an untrimmed beard, long side locks and wore the chasidic garb. All of this while singing songs that made it on the pop charts.

Matisyahu explained his sudden departure from religiously inspired hirsute facial hair maintenance:

No more Chassidic reggae superstar.

Sorry folks, all you get is me…no alias. When I started becoming religious 10 years ago it was a very natural and organic process. It was my choice. My journey to discover my roots and explore Jewish spirituality–not through books but through real life. At a certain point I felt the need to submit to a higher level of religiosity…to move away from my intuition and to accept an ultimate truth. I felt that in order to become a good person I needed rules–lots of them–or else I would somehow fall apart. I am reclaiming myself. Trusting my goodness and my divine mission.

Get ready for an amazing year filled with music of rebirth. And for those concerned with my naked face, don’t worry…you haven’t seen the last of my facial hair. – Matisyahu

Many people interpreted this as a departure from orthodox Judaism. They felt that this meant that Matisyahu was reverting to his pre-orthodox Jewish lifestyle and would no longer identify as an orthodox Jew. Heeb Magazine made this point in the most cynical way possible.

After an Internet firestorm, Matisyahu clarified his newfound religious freedom with a more careful statement:

For all of those who are being awesome, you are awesome. For all those who are confused: today I went to the Mikva and Shul just like yesterday.

So, it seems that all the bellyaching and nervous twitching over losing the one and only orthodox Jewish pop star and the first since my friend Evan from Evan and Jaron paved the way for Matisyahu, was premature and overly judgmental.

This leads me to two less than obvious thoughts. (I’ll save the obvious thoughts for the obvobloggers. You know who you are.)

First, Matisyahu must think that non-chasidic orthodox Judaism (NCOJ) has less rules than chasidic orthodox Judaism (COJ). This is not necessarily the truth. What is true is that COJ has more rules about appearance and external practices than NCOJ. Further, NCOJ is adopting more and more of the COJ appearances and rules on appearance.

By and large, I think this is a fair distinction. COJ glamorizes a certain mode of dress and appearance as holy. NCOJ also glamorizes a certain mode of dress and appearance as holy but it is less distinctive and less sharply enforced. So I hope Matisyahu is not too disappointed with NCOJ when it comes to appearances. That is, unless he will be self-identifying as Modern Orthodox or a Yekke. Those two groups are the least concerned with external appearances within the orthodox Jewish spectrum.

Second, the beard. To some, especially those in the COJ community, the beard is holy. It has religious significance. It is not to be touched by human hand, scissor, shaver, razor or garden shears. This idea is based on mystical teachings and kabbalah. This religiously inspired love for man-hair contributed to the shocking, but brief image of a religiously shattered Matisyahu. One blogger announced that he was “off the derech” because he had shaved.

When Matisyahu announced he had shaved, I was actually proud of him. To me, it meant that he was thinking critically about his Judaism and felt a beard was not necessary or integral to his love and service of God. I agree.

Beards in orthodox Judaism are a funny thing. They mean a lot to some people. But really they mean nothing at all. A beard does not make someone holy. A holy person does not need a beard to be complete. Let’s not forget that a beard is simply just that, a beard. The Torah prohibits destroying one’s facial hair. This law is similar to the law prohibiting cutting one’s self or getting a tattoo. Using a scissor or similar mechanism to trim or shave one’s beard is not a violation of law or the spirit of the law.

The emphasis placed on things of lesser importance is common in all forms of orthodox Judaism. It can be a harmful force if it causes us to lose sight of what truly is important. If Matisyahu can show non-Jews that being an orthodox Jew is a beautiful life let us hope he can also show orthodox Jews that even a beardless man can live a beautiful life as well.

Links: Matisyahu’s Blog, Heeb

Related posts:

1. Matisyahu, NBC and The Olympic Winter Games Make A Great Team
2. Book Review | Sacred Trash: The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Geniza
3. Confirming Our Suspicions That Jews Do Run The World
4. The Kingdom Tower: The Tallest Building in the World
5. Clothing Round Up, Now with Lawyers

GOP Candidate and Presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich has made headlines with his recent claim that the Palestinians are an Invented People. The responses from across the idealogical and political spectrum have been as wild and varied as to be expected.

On one extreme, representatives of the Palestinians fired back at Gingrich. In a statement, they called Gingrich racist and said that his was the worst kind of insult that would only help the cycle of violence. On the other extreme are those nodding their heads in agreement at the prospect of a President who agrees with their perspective on the Palestinians.

Incredibly, the fact-checkers have confirmed and debunked Gingrich’s claim. There is evidence that the Palestinians existed as a small subgroup in the land that is currently Israel. However, there is little evidence that they had any sense of national pride or unity as a group before the State of Israel was established.

What strikes me is how silly this whole thing is. Gingrich’s comment could be equally said about a myriad of nations and peoples. It could really be said about anybody! What qualifies a nation as a “non-invented” people? How long do those people need to be where they are to be considered legitimate?

Is the United States of America not invented? Is the United Kingdom not Invented? Is Mexico not invented? Even historically ethnic countries such as Japan or Sweden are practically speaking “invented”. They lived in close proximity for a long time and eventually created a sense of national pride and unity. But they were not magically granted the land in which they live by some objective method of determining land division. Clearly land is not given only to nations who are not invented.

Further, let’s assume for a second that Gingrich is correct. The Palestinians are invented and invented people don’t get land. Now what? What are you going to do about it? Nuke the West Bank? Manufacture a tsunami and drown Gaza? There are millions of these so-called invented people. What now? Point being, invented or not, there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. By simply saying they are invented does nothing to resolve that issue. In fact, it probably has the opposite effect. It entrenches both sides and polarizes the parties.

And what about Gingrich himself? He is a Catholic. Is that an invented religion? If it is not, well that means that all other religions are invented. So are they all not granted the right to exist simply because they are invented? Everything is invented. Mazel tov.

Which brings us full circle. Gingrich said that Palestinians are an invented people simply to anger some people and excite others. It was a political statement that carries less meaning than most political statements. It is the kind of broad brushed, meaningless statement for which politics is famous.

I think the voting public would prefer to hear about solutions to a decades long conflict instead of whimsical platitudes. I wonder if Gingrich has any ideas for the conflict or if he can’t be bothered to deal with invented people.

Links: Forward, Israel Matzav

Related posts:

1. Israel & The Jewish People | Connections 4/27/09
2. Some People Are Making Certain That The Typewriter Does Not Die
3. Do People Argue to Discover the Truth?
4. New York Department of Sanitation Complains That Too Many People Are Stealing Garbage
5. Stop Complaining About the "Anti-Semitic" Time Magazine Article

Several online news publications reported on the YU Beacon controversy from this past week. The Beacon is a student newspaper at Yeshiva University. It is a student voice for Yeshiva College and Stern College.

The controversy arose from a particular article that was authored anonymously. I will not get into the details of the content of the article. Generally, it was about a young woman studying at Stern who lapsed in her observance in a hotel room with a fellow observant Jewish male. The article’s entire point was that while it may have been exhilarating, it was shameful and she was full of regret.

An objective reading of the article would lead to several conclusions.

1) There is a tension in the YU community regarding intimacy before marriage.
2) There are some people who breach the barriers of halacha and are intimate before marriage.
3) The culture of YU does not “accept” this as normative behavior and it is considered shameful.

I don’t find any of these conclusions to be super offensive. I don’t think they place Jews in a poor light. I don’t think they place Modern Orthodox Jews in particular in a bad light either.

What happened next complicated things.

Apparently, MANY students complained that this article was offensive. It was pulled temporarily. After a meeting between the student council, The Beacon editors and some YU administrators, the article was reposted with a disclaimer and The Beacon is now independent of YU.

The next level of analysis that always follows instances such as these is – Was this a kiddush Hashem or a Chillul Hashem?

The answer is both. And neither. Every part of the story has nuances that can be interpreted as positive and negative. Which means, that like most things controversial, it cannot be decided by one metric. I don’t use the words Kiddush and Chillul Hashem willy nilly, instead I will just use the words positive and negative. What follows is my personal analysis.

DISCLAIMERs: I am not a YU alum. I have never even been to the Yeshiva part of the University. I have been the High School twice and to the Seforim sale once. Also, I have written for The Beacon.

The article was titillating. It was in a YU publication. I think that may have been negative. A school newspaper should reflect the student body. Much of the student body does not want erotica in their newspaper. The article could have been interpreted as erotica.

But the message was positive. I think that is clear. The message is that we all struggle. We all feel guilty when we fail. But most of all, we all try to pick ourselves up and stay true to the values in our community based on Torah.

Taking down the article in response to outrage was also positive. A student newspaper should reflect the mores and mentality of the student body. When it fails to do so, it should reconsider publishing the offending material. In this case, the outrage was so severe that it warranted removal.

Perhaps it would have been more prudent, mature and wise not get so worked up over the article. But college students can be very headstrong. Their minds were made. I think the outrage was a negative.

But the end game was completely dissatisfying. The Beacon dug in its heels standing up for some moral principle and refused to back down in the face of bullies. The student council did not back down either. They forced the Beacon’s hand. Both sides were stubborn and both sides reflected negatively.

Where is the publicity over this? On which point is the media focusing? That is the key question. If it is simply noting the stubbornness of two student organizations then that is clearly a negative portrayal. But if the media’s focus is on the more mature and positive elements of this story, I think we can say that we are neutral at worst and positive at best. In that case, perhaps there was a Kiddush Hashem here. Perhaps.

As for me, I wouldn’t have published the article. I also would not have complained if the article were published.

A note on censorship and freedom of the press: In an environment that mixes secular and religious values as YU claims to do, sometimes one of those value systems must trump the other. If the religious value system says that publication is not wise, then you can can cry freedom of the press and marketplace of ideas as much as you want, but in the end, sometimes religion wins out. Sometimes, freedom of speech loses to restrictions of religion. I agree that a conversation about the content of the article is a good thing. I don’t know that the manner in which this article was executed was perfect nor do I think the negativity towards it was perfect either.

I do hope that the article will serve its purpose. I hope that it will promote discussion and discourse on this very important issue and that after all is said and done we will all emerge wiser, more devout and committed to our religious values.

Links: WSJ, Fox News

Related posts:

1. In Madoff Scandal, Jews Feel an Acute Betrayal – NYTimes.com
2. ABC News Quoted Me
3. Judge Upholds the Law, Fox News Goes Insane
4. A Contentious Week of Rape Laws in the News
5. Ode To The Jews

This is something from a couple weeks ago. I know that there is a cardinal sin of blogging that prohibits one from writing about an article that is more than a few hours old, but timing is not a material issue to this article.

I refer to an LA Times article about a man who is on death row in San Quentin Prison in California. The man’s name is Jerry Stanley. By all accounts including his own, Stanley is guilty of several murders including the murders of a few of his wives. He admits to the crimes. He knows what he did was wrong. He knows he is going to be killed for his acts. He just doesn’t want to wait.

Stanley has asked for his execution. He doesn’t care how they do it. He doesn’t care if they want to test new drugs or methods of execution on him. All Stanley wants is to be killed soon.

Lawyers are assigned to all death row inmates and their job is to file appeals on behalf of their clients. Stanley has asked that no appeals be filed on his behalf.

It’s to the point that if he is not given an execution date, Stanley will stop taking his medications and will not eat until that kills him.

This has triggered a debate among supporters and opponents of the death penalty. In fact, my good old pal Dudley Sharp even got a quote in the LA Times article. (Dudley spent considerable time on this blog and DovBear telling us how not administering the death penalty is immoral. See: A Moral Argument Against The Death Penalty and The Death Penalty).

I thought about what the analogous case would be in Jewish Law. If a man is sentenced to death (very, very rare) and he committed suicide before the execution was administered or he was killed by a third party and not the executioners, I believe that the man would liable in Heaven for suicide and the killer would be liable for murder. (I believe. I have not done extensive research, but nothing that I can recall tells me this is untrue.)

Thus, there is a sanctity of life that cannot be tinkered with by non-court appointed officials. There is an “appeals” procedure in Jewish law whereby one who has information about the man on death row they can do so before the man is executed. I don’t think the person of death row can waive that time in between the sentencing and the execution (very short time period).

It seems that the only legal way for a human being to be killed is through the proper procedures and by the hands of the court. That is the only way. If so, I think it would be the same for Mr. Stanley. His life has sanctity whether he cares about it or not. We, the people, cannot take his life until all procedures are satisfied. Personally, I don’t think a secular, flawed justice system can ever satisfy those procedures, but that is a completely different topic.

In my view, Mr. Stanley cannot force the state to execute him. It is not his choice to make. It is decision that rests upon those who are entrusted with task of meting out justice. An unenviable task. But it is their job. It is not Mr. Stanley’s job.

Why would we place someone’s life in the hands of a murderer? Clearly, he does not have the respect for life that is necessary when making these kinds of decisions.

Postscript: I think this case sharpens an irony with regard to the death penalty. I am arguing that Stanley cannot be killed based on his own preferences because of the sanctity of life. Conservatives who would not mind killing this guy based on his personal decisions fight vociferously against DNRs and abortion based on the same argument. 

Link: LA Times

Related posts:

1. Death Row Inmate Wants to Donate His Organs But Can’t
2. World Against the Death Penalty Day
3. A Moral Argument Against The Death Penalty
4. The D.C. Sniper's Execution
5. Murder In Jewish Law and United States Law

In anticipation of the upcoming gift giving season I have compiled a short list of books that I think would make a great gift for the orthodox Jewish Rationalist in your life. If that happens to be you, ask for an Amazon gift card and buy these books for yourself!

Get an Amazon gift card here: Amazon Gift Cards

I have read all these books. I wholeheartedly recommend them. I have not done full reviews of most of these books on the blog but I have included a brief description and the rationalist significance of each of these books. I hope that if you have other books to recommend you will leave your suggestions in the comments.

The list:

Masterplan: Judaism–Its Program, Meaning & Goals – Written by Rabbi Carmell, this book is based on R’ Hirsch’s Horeb. It gives a framework for understanding the structure of Judaism and its commandments. It does so without using a single passage from the mystical sources. It is excellent.

Maimonides’ Confrontation with Mysticism – Written by Menachem Kellner, this book (without saying so) debunks a common claim made by contemporary orthodox Jews. The claim is that the Rambam would have been a mysticist if only he had received the Kabbalistic Tradition. This book shows that the Rambam specifically set out to forge a rationalist path of Judaism.

Hashgacha Pratis – Written by Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz, this book studies the various approaches to Hashgacha Pratis. There is a maximalist view that is prevalent in orthodox Judaism today. The rationalist is more likely to find meaning in the more minimalist views of the rishonim as they are documented in this book.

The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised – Written by Marc Shapiro, this book, in convincing fashion, describes the myriad of opinions on matters of faith. Most people assume the Rambam’s 13 Principles have universal acceptance among Jewish thinkers throughout the millennium. Shapiro demonstrates that things are not so simple. Every meaningful point in this book is made with a traditional, accepted orthodox Jewish source.

The Challenge of Creation: Judaism’s Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution – Written by Rabbi Natan Slifkin, this book is a rationalist explanation of Cosmology. This is a particularly difficult area of Torah to navigate without mysticism. Rabbi Slifkin does an excellent job in this book. All of Rabbi Slifkin’s books are excellent. This is the most crucial book for rationalists.

Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash – Also written by Rabbi Natan Slifkin, this book explains the various creatures that seem too fantastical to be real. Either they were real and magical creatures exist or they were not real and magical creatures do not exist. This book takes the latter position and explains many of these passages that have troubled rationalists.

DovBear on the Parsha – Written by DovBear, I did a review of this book here: Book Review | DovBear on the Parsha. This is a great book that opens the reader up to a world of pshat and medrash within our mesorah that does not embrace mystical interpretations. It also shows that with a little thinking and hard work, we can all contribute to Torah.

Bonus: In the Shadow of History – Written by Chacham Jose Faur, this is book that opens one up to a Chacham Faur’s writings. I could have chosen many of his articles and books. But I believe that this is the most thought provoking of his books and articles that I have read. It is not quite an indispensable rationalist text but Chacham Faur is indispensable so I have suggested at least one of his books in this list.

Double Bonus: Subscribe to Ḥakirah and read Rabbi Slifkin’s blog: Rationalist Judaism

Related posts:

1. Summer Reading
2. Book Review | Strictly Kosher Reading
3. Goodbye Brian Jacques and Thank You
4. It’s All A Gift | A Guest Post
5. Non-Rational Thoughts on the Fogels of Itamar

You might find it odd that the day after Thanksgiving I am writing about Thanksgiving. The truth is that I am not really writing about Thanksgiving rather some of the nutty things that happened this year on Thanksgiving.

Of course I am talking about some the controversies that arose regarding the celebrations of Thanksgiving that don’t fit the mold of the religious Christian Thanksgiving. Two incidents in particular created some buzz but I am sure there were others as well.

First we turn to the Butterball Turkey situation. One blogger called upon her readers to boycott Butterball because they dared to have their Turkeys Halal certified. This means that it is slaughtered in accordance with Islamic law. It is very similar to Shechita, the method of slaughter required by Jewish law. According to Ms. Geller:

“Halal turkey, slaughtered according to the rules of Islamic law, is just the opposite of what Thanksgiving represents: freedom and inclusiveness, neither of which are allowed for under that same Islamic law.”

First of all, Thanksgiving DOES NOT represent freedom or inclusiveness. It never has and never will. I can provide Ms. Geller with a hint as to what the holiday represents – it’s in the name. Oh yes. It’s thanks and appreciation.

More importantly, any religious ceremony is by default not free or inclusive. Jewish law, Canon law, Islamic law, any religious law that makes specific requirements is not (on the surface) “freedom”. They are restrictions. Moreover, religious law is never going to be inclusive. It calls for rituals that make the performer of the ritual a religious person and by default the one who does not perform the ritual irreligious. This can create a barrier between the religious and irreligious. All religions suffer this potential flaw.

Just look at my Tim Tebow post from a couple days ago: Tim Tebow’s Relationship With His God. Not everyone is so comfortable with Tebow’s religious proclivities. But have a look at the comment left by the Christian fellow in the comments. Do you think his religion is “inclusive” of me? (Or Ms. Geller?) Is that the sound of freedom? In Ms. Geller’s world that makes Tebow the commenter people who should not allowed to celebrate Thanksgiving. They are not inclusive enough.

Ms. Geller calls Halal slaughtering a form of torture. This is obviously offensive to all kosher eating people as well.

But the real point is that Ms. Geller is being as two-faced as one can be. By denying an entire group the right to have a Thanksgiving dinner, Ms. Geller is being as freedom hating and non-inclusive as one can be. But that was obvious.

Finally, I imagine that the reason Butterball markets Halal turkeys is because it is good business. To me, that’s just the free market that Ms. Geller loves so much.

Now we turn to controversy number two. The President gave the traditional Presidential Thanksgiving address and neglected to mention God in his words. The president dedicated this year’s holiday celebration to the troops fighting our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also thanked the volunteers in soup kitchens across America. So what was the problem? He did not mention God. This is a terrible sin that violates the ancient and holy laws of Thanksgiving.

Never mind that in the Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamation he did mention God.

The omission set off a firestorm of vitriol toward the president.

A particularly bombastic twitterer called Obama a “militant atheist” for not mentioning God in the address. As irresponsible and insane of a statement it is to “out” someone as an atheist when they clearly are not an atheist, the tweet ignores the Proclamation and Obama’s 2009 and 2010 Thanksgiving addresses where he did mention God.

How is this reconciled? Was he a believer before but now he is all of the sudden a “militant atheist”? Or maybe he was a “militant atheist” all along but he has finally decided to own up to his true non-beliefs?

As far as militant atheists go, Obama would hardly be very successful. He goes to Church, says the appropriate God Bless Americas and to my knowledge has never engaged a believer in debate trying to convince the believer that belief in God is wrong.

Obama is not an atheist and certainly is not a militant atheist. This the kind of message that someone tweets to pander to right wing conservative Christians and bait left wing liberal non-Christians. It’s a call for attention. Well, he got it. Congratulations. But at what cost? Credibility. You can only say so many crazy things before everything you say is considered crazy.

All the silliness aside, I think that Thanksgiving is one day that should be enjoyed and celebrated by people of all faiths and people of no faith. That Ms. Geller and the bombastic twitterer feel that Thanksgiving must be celebrated in one way and in no other is a fallacy. Thanksgiving is the perfect time to push aside our differences and be thankful for the wonderful things in our lives to whomever or whatever we attribute them to.

The irony is that both Ms. Geller and the bombastic twitterer are Jewish and that they would prefer a Christian version of the holiday than a non-denominational celebration tells me that they have sold out the ever important freedom of religion and inclusiveness of America’s Constitution for the sake making friends in religious right.

Thanksgiving is for everyone. Let’s keep it that way.

Links: American Thinker, Twitter

Further Reading: Economist, Gawker

Related posts:

1. Thoughts on That Basic Religion Test in the New York Times
2. A Collection of Thoughts on James Kugel’s Recent Book
3. Non-Rational Thoughts on the Fogels of Itamar
4. Small Church Does Something Nice for Muslims and All Heck Breaks Loose
5. In Defense of Christopher Hitchens, an Atheist in a Foxhole

Sports fans know that the NBA is currently undergoing a labor dispute between Ownership and the players represented by their Union. The dispute has led to two drastic measures.

First, the owners “locked out” the players. This means that the owners of the teams told the players that they would not allow them to play or earn paychecks unless they negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement. They tried negotiating. No deal was struck.

Next the players decertified their union. They are now individuals negotiating and no longer a union and they are suing the owners for anti-trust violations.

There are several very interesting things to note about these negotiations that would interest non-sports fans. This post deals with one.

Normally, unions are supported by liberals and ownership is supported by conservatives. I don’t need to explain this is too much detail it is fairly self-evident.

So knee-jerk reactionists, I know one particularly bombastic fellow in particular, will define their allegiances in this dispute based on their social / political beliefs. So knee-jerk conservatives will side with the owners and liberals will side with the players.

This is a mistake.

The NBA is not like any other business for several reasons. What is relevant here is that the owners are not the same as any other group of ownership. In the NBA the owners have already imposed a team wide salary cap and maximum contracts as well as highly regulated contracts over the course of the first five years of every single player’s career.

This means that the best, most valuable players are unable to earn their actual value. Let’s take Kobe Bryant. Kobe is slated to earn $25,244,000 this year. That sounds like a lot of money and it is. But he is actually worth MORE than that. So the owners have regulated the salaries to the point that Kobe CANNOT earn market value for his services. It would be like the banking industry saying that a CFO can only make $5 million dollars a year even if he brings $35 million of revenue each year. This is not something conservatives should support.

Further, at this point in the negotiations, the players are fighting for issues regarding movement of players. Owners want the salary cap to be so draconian that a team would not be able sign players that really want to play for them. The owners want to keep players in the places where they drafter for longer. The players will have little to no say as to where they work. This is not very free market like either. Again, not something that conservatives should support.

Another factor to consider is that small market owners are unhappy that they are not making money. There are many reasons a team might not be making money. But the single biggest expense for most teams is the salaries of their players. Teams with less income cannot afford to overspend on players. Yet, this is exactly what they do. A small market team gave Rashard Lewis, a two time NBA All Star who is a typical second or third best player on a team, $22,152,000 for this coming season. That is the second highest NBA salary. It is a terrible contract. Is it any wonder that the team that made that deal is losing money. Irresponsible spending is a huge factor in the bottom line of NBA teams. Whose fault is it if that team does not make money? The players? No. It is the owner’s. There are many many bad contracts in the NBA. Dumb owners are demanding a bailout and future safety net. Regulating contracts to the degree that it is impossible for an owner to make a mistake is not Capitalism. This is not something a conservative should support.

It turns out that in these negotiations, the union is arguing for conservative economic principles and the owners are arguing for more socialist principles. Conservatives should support the players. As hard as it may be to say the words “I support a union” or “I support labor” in this instance, the union and labor are the side that is more aligned with conservative beliefs.

(I believe that liberals should also support the players but that is not the point of this post.)

Background: The offer that should have been accepted (ESPN Truehoop)

Related posts:

1. The Psychic Benefit of Owning an NBA Team (or a Yeshiva)
2. Clothes and the NBA
3. How Did We Get Here? Explaining the Unabashed Support for Rubashkin
4. Less Football Does Not Equal More Crime, or Does It?
5. A Support Staff | A Guest Post

The moral outrage over the Penn State scandal is reaching epic proportions. In the NY Times, David Brooks raises a salient point and it got me thinking. Brooks says that humans have a bad track record of speaking up when something needs to be said.

Everyone is horrified by the heinous acts alleged to have been committed by Jerry Sandusky. But there is another level of disdain for Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary and the police that investigated the accusations over the years. These people all contributed to the abuse. They either created or fostered an environment that tolerated abuse. They did not follow through on their professional responsibilities. They let the victims down.

It is easy to point the finger at these guilty parties and say they were wrong. It is also easy to say that if we were in their situation we would have acted more responsibly. Maybe many of us would have acted differently. We have no way of knowing for sure.

Similarly, we point fingers laced in guilt at the complicit parties in the Catholic Church scandal. I know there is the same sentiment among many orthodox Jews regarding abuse in the orthodox Jewish community. The finger pointers always say that they would not have covered it up. They would have done the moral thing and blown the whistle. Maybe they would have. But we we have no way of knowing for sure.

My point is that this is the third scandal with the same kind of structure. An infallible leadership, concern over reputation, self imposed regulation and policing etc and all three scandals followed the same form.

Someone finds out about the abuse and the information is locked down. Nothing is done for years.

I used to be really mad at people who know about abuse and don’t say anything. I am still mad, but less mad. It seems that this cycle is almost inevitable. The people who did the covering up are just like you and me. They probably never thought they would not blow the whistle either. But it is not as easy as it seems.

When things happen and we judge others based on what we would have done, we are being disingenuous. There is no way for us to know if we would have had the courage to act in the way we think we would have acted.

Hillel, one of the great rabbis of the Mishna says: “Don’t judge your friend until you reach his place. [And you will never reach his place.]” – Avos 2:5

The point is that we can all feel morally superior but we have no idea if we would have actually acted differently.

Our true anger should be directed at the systems that allow such a casual approach to such horrible things. The people who are in the system and don’t say anything are just part of a corrupt system. Sure, their complicity gives them a role in the system too. But I think it is very hard to buck an entire system. It is hard to swim upstream. It is hard to blow that whistle. That is why the whistle blowers are such heroes.

So in retrospect, looking at the feelings of anger and resentment I had toward the people in the institutions who did not do everything in their power to curb abuse, I feel differently now. I see a pattern that almost does not allow for whistle blowing. I am still upset that they did not do the right thing, but I can understand better how hard it is.

But this only increases my anger and disdain for the “system”. A system that is structured perfectly for predators will have predators. The system is bad, it is to blame, and must be fixed. The NCAA will look at their system, the Catholic Church has looked at their system and orthodox Judaism has also been looking at their system. But it will take courage to fix the system so that these heinous acts do not repeat themselves and force us to count on heroism.

We should not need to rely on heroes to save children from abuse. That is the most horrible thing about abuse in these communities. To protect children we are relying on heroes. We should be able to rely on the system.

Link: NY Times

Related posts:

1. Joe Paterno Should Step Down (But not for the reason you might think)
2. A Terrible Solution to a Failed Criminal Justice System
3. Innocent or Guilty, Jerry Sandusky is a Very Strange Man
4. Inspiration. As easy as 1-2-3! | Connections 1/12/09
5. Book Review | Hush

In a mind boggling decision, Jerry Sandusky agreed offered to be interviewed by the great Bob Costas. This was curious.  But some of Sandusky’s responses were even more curious.

Costas asked all the tough questions and I recommend reading the transcript and / or watching the video.

The thing that caught my eye the most was a Sandusky response to a very provocative Costas question.

Towards the end of the interview Costas asked Sandusky:

Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?

To which Sandusky, in classic Talmudic fashion, responds with a question:

Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?

At this point every single normal human being is thinking this:

DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION? HOW IS YOUR IMMEDIATE ANSWER “HECK NO!”? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT?

Being the nice guy (at least on Camera) that he is, Costas offers him a second chance and answers Sandusky’s ridiculous question. So Costas says:

Yes.

Sandusky realizes he better answer the question so he replies:

Sexually attracted, you know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I’m not sexually attracted to young boys.

WHAT?! It took him three prefatory phrases to get to the word “No”. To me, this indicates something very significant.

Like most predators, Sandusky is oblivious to the peculiarity of his behavior. He thinks it is normal. He is not phased by the fact that someone just asked him about being sexually attracted to young boys. This is not normal.

At this point it is fair to say that whether Sandusky is guilty or innocent, he is a very strange man.

If someone would ask me or almost any of you reading this blog post the question that Bob Costas asked Jerry Sandusky I am confident that 99.99% of the group would react strongly and assertively that we are not attracted to young boys. Sandusky didn’t.

I believe that this fits the pathology of sexual predators. They don’t see themselves as doing anything wrong. They see their acts as normal. Perhaps at one time it was normal. I have heard of historical societies that did not frown upon this kind of behavior. That does not make it right, it just makes it less objectionable. But in our society it is considered abuse and a crime to do the things Sandusky is alleged to have done. It is objectionable. And it is up to us to be vigilant in protected our children and those who are dependent on us from predators.

Penn State failed the victims. Society failed the victims. But it is even more disturbing to get a peek into a twisted mind and see what is so patently obvious now but was ignored far too long.

That is, Mr. Sandusky is a sick man. Sick men will do harmful things to people.

Video here:

With a slight tip of the hat to Colin Cowherd.

Links: Transcript

Related posts:

1. Joe Paterno Should Step Down (But not for the reason you might think)
2. Bob Costas and Controlling your own destiny
3. What Do Boys Want?
4. How Many Is Too Many?
5. What Is The Appropriate Reaction?

A couple of weeks ago the New York Times featured a Fashion and Style article that caught my attention. I never read that section. But the headline grabbed me because it was not really about fashion or style. It was about religion and Mormons in particular.

The article talked about modern Mormons trying to fit in with their non-Mormon social circles.

I have a “thing” with Mormons.

Of all the religions in the world, I think the closest religion to Orthodox Judaism in many respects is Mormonism. I don’t mean in a theoligical sense. I mean in a practical, real world sense.

The kinds of challenges and successes that Mormons have resemble that of orthodox Jews. Both are minority religions in a predominantly “Traditional Christian” country. Both give their adherents opportunities to thrive in the modern world. But both also have a bit of a tradition of reluctance to modernity. So it is striking that both have embraced modernity in their own ways.

Brigham Young University is a Mormon college. It strikes me as being very similar to Yeshiva University or even my alma mater, Ner Israel. I wrote about that sometime a while back: The BYU Honor Code and Me

To me the article in the NY Times sounded a lot like Modern Orthodox Judaism. Young people who aspire to achieve success in the secular world who are also extremely restricted by their religion within that secular world. The restrictions are different between but they are similar as well.

For example: Clothing. Mormons are required to wear modest clothing on the outside but also a religious article of clothing on the inside. Orthodox Jews have the same. Different in the details but similar in spirit.

Another example: Social Drinking. Alcohol plays a huge social role. Parties serve alcohol, bars are frequent places of meeting and Mormons are forbidden from drinking alcohol altogether. Orthodox Jews are allowed to drink. But there are many restrictions that prevent (perhaps by design) absolute fraternization with non-Jews. Wine must be kosher. Mixed drinks must contain only kosher ingredients. Social drinking can be cumbersome.

I think these sort of parallels reflect a greater parallel between the two religions. This all leads me to one important thing to consider.

We live in a country that is predominately Christian. By and large, Christians have been wonderful friends to the Jews and particularly to Israel. But there is always the sneaking suspicion that we are still “the other”. I know I sense it. Similarly, Mormons have also been subjected to feeling like “the other”.

I am not criticizing anyone for making Jews or Mormons feel like “the other”. I am just saying that it exists and sometimes it rears its ugly head.

Rick Perry’s campaign has managed to make both Jews and Mormons feel significantly like “the other”. First Jews at his Prayer Rally and then Mormons when a member of his staff said some not-nice things about Mormons.

So Mormons, we know how you feel, in more ways than one…

Link: NY Times

Related posts:

1. Esther Petrack: Modern Orthodox Jewish Girl on America's Next Top Model Drops Shabbos on Television
2. A Message for Orthodox Jews in the wake of Joel Alperson’s Op-Ed on Tikkun Olam
3. Thoughts on That Basic Religion Test in the New York Times
4. Reform Girl Tries Out Orthodox Judaism For a Week
5. Orthodox Jews and E-Readers

I wondered aloud (on Twitter, where one does such things) if last time 11/11/11 11:11:11 came along if anybody cared about it.

It seems silly to me that numerology is so important to some people. It reminds me of the Ibn Ezra from Lech Lecha that berates Rashi for hanging an interpretation on a gematria. In his words:

“… the Torah does not speak in gematria, for anyone who desires can use gematria to interpret any name for good and for evil.”

My thoughts exactly.

Anyway, I decided to do some research and put my NY Times subscription to good use. It turns out that the paper reported on the significance of the date and time. The article also mentions 11/11/1111 but does not expect to find some recording of it because the Monks would not have been so imprecise as to record a date 11/11/1111 in that manner. They would have certainly used November 11, 1111.

The last line is the best line:

As none of us is likely to be living in the 11111, it would be well for those who delight in curious trifles to take their of enjoyment out of this method of dating today, 11-11-11.

Seeing as I take no such delight, consider me “just reporting”.

Link: NY Times (subscription only to see entire article)

Related posts:

1. Thoughts on That Basic Religion Test in the New York Times
2. Irresponsible Journalism From the New York Times
3. Interesting New York Times Video of Ezekiel's Tomb in Iraq
4. Happy 160th Birthday to the New York Times
5. Matza in the NY Times and In Our TImes

In a widely read article in the New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell explains Steve Jobs in a nutshell.

He was a tweaker.

We talk about Jobs like an inventor but the truth is that he didn’t really invent anything. He did figure out how to make existing things better, how to advance a product’s efficiency and usability. He understood that design could make or break a product. He was a master at selling products and the little nuances that made his products different and better.

But in the end, he was a tweaker.

Gladwell argues that tweaking is the jet fuel of progress. Revolutions can begin with a tweak and it usually is the tweakers who advance society. He then goes on to poke fun at the irony of Jobs tweaking endlessly with the ideas of other people and being so self absorbed that when others did it to his ideas and tweaks he would explode.

Like all of us, Jobs was deeply flawed.

The article got me thinking about the difference between inventors and tweakers in a social sense. I have a running “debate” with some of my friends about this idea.

They say that to make change it necessary that there been confrontation and strong revolutionaries leading the charge into a head-on battle. Old vs. New. Right vs. Wrong. Right vs. Left. Tradition vs. Progress.

My position is that progress can be more effective and more likely with tweaking. Nudging things along in a new direction can make a huge difference over time. I think that those kinds of changes are more likely to be accepted and are more likely to spark revolution. But a different kind of revolution. An iPod revolution.

In 2001 many people had portable music players. Apple didn’t invent the thing. They just tweaked it so that is was more user friendlym, fun to use and pretty to look at. A revolution ensued. Now, all music players are called iPods. The market share peaked over 80% and remains above 75% according to the numbers I found. That is incredible. And it all began with a tweak.

If Jobs had introduced a device like none other and a product that was revolutionary, there is a strong chance that the market would have rebelled. They might not have accepted his idea. But since it was a tweak it was palatable.

We all have ideas about how things can be better. Sometimes I think we resign ourselves that things will never change and even if they do, the change will be so small that no one will notice. I disagree. I think the smallest changes, the ones that barely feel like changes can make the biggest difference in the long run.

Confrontations, conflagrations and conflicts might seem like they will change the world. But unless everyone is on board with your ideas, they are likely to be met with strident opposition and fall flat.

Embrace the tweakers. Embrace your inner Jobs. Think Different. Think tweak.

See Also: Patience Is A Virtue and An Important Ingredient For Change

Link: New Yorker

Related posts:

1. Malcolm Gladwell Doesn’t Use Twitter or Facebook But He Is Pretty Sure They Are Useless
2. Malcolm Gladwell and "Perfection"
3. Andrew Sullivan Sticks it to Gladwell and Rich on Social Media (and I absolutely agree)
4. Another Gladwell Gem | How David Beats Goliath
5. Loyola Law School GPA / Curve Inflation: Explained

A scandal has rocked the NCAA Football landscape. A former Penn State football coach, Jerry Sandusky has been implicated by a grand jury. He is accused of sexually abusing young boys while he worked in an official capacity at the school and while working in an office on campus as part of a non-profit.

His boss was famed and revered football coaching legend Joe Paterno. Paterno is 84 years old. At some point the coach learned of the abuse and reported it to his boss, the Athletic Director. No further action was taken and Sandusky remained on the coaching staff at Penn State. The university administration did not report the abuse to the authorities. As mandated reporters this broke the law. They further complicated their situation by lying to the grand jury. Two administrators have been arrested for perjury failing to report the abuse.

The grand jury testimony contains some very graphic instances of abuse. It truly is horrifying.

An abusive person would be wise to position himself at a university. There is plenty of access to victims and the circumstances of working at a university make it easier to get away with abuse.

I think the NCAA can be compared to the Catholic Church and orthodox Judaism to a certain degree. They are each closed environments with their own set of rules, codes and regulations. They give their leaders a lot of autonomy and hardly subject them to public scrutiny. Many of their proceedings and policy decisions are kept secret. And they have all had a hard time dealing with abuse in their communities. (The NCAA is beyond corrupt but that’s another topic entirely…)

In my opinion, the best way for reluctant leaders to “repent” for their missteps with regard to abuse is by taking strong steps to ensure it does not happen anymore.

Many people are clamoring for Paterno to step down or for the university to fire him.

In this situation the most effective course of action will be one that will create a breach in the cone of silence within the NCAA and prevent future misdeeds and harm, especially with regarded to abuse. I don’t care if the abuse could be attributed to Paterno or not. I don’t care if Paterno broke the law or not. But I do care that more young boys not be abused in similar situations.

In this light I believe that Paterno should step down and make a strong statement saying that he is sorry for what happened under his watch. He should strongly condemn the acts and admit that his silence was wrong. He should put all abusers on watch and more importantly put all their protectors on watch. He should step down to say that he failed those young men who were abused and because of this he feels he is inadequate to continue in his capacity as Head Coach. He should talk about the horrors of abuse and the compounding effect that silence has upon victims. He should speak loudly and eloquently, like a good football coach.

He should not step down because he is too old nor should he step down because he failed the young men who were abused. He should not be fired for not doing the right thing nor should he be fired for protecting an abusive person. Rather, he should do whatever he can to make sure that the culture that permits abuse will not continue. I think the best way to do that will be for Paterno to use this platform, awareness and outrage to fix things for the future. I believe he can do that and if he would do that he would change his personal legacy from “abuse enabler” to “abuse fighter”.

It is too late to prevent the abuse that already happened but he can play a role in writing the future story of how the NCAA handles and deals with abuse.

Similarly, the religious institutions that have committed similar acts of tacit approval of abuse should use future or present incidents to make strong statements against abusers and their protectors. For the victims of these institutions and their abusers nothing can be done to change the past but if the institutions are strong enough to take a hard stance on future abuse their legacy in the arena of abuse can be changed forever.

I hope they do.

Link: NY Times

Related posts:

1. It’s Not as Easy as It Seems
2. Another Reason I Don't Like LeBron James
3. Glenn Beck and PETA in Lockstep (Goose Step?) on International Holocaust Remembrance Day
4. Book Review | Hush
5. Innocent or Guilty, Jerry Sandusky is a Very Strange Man

UPDATED! See bottom of the post.

Last week, forty seven states in the union had anti-bullying statutes. This makes it easier for schools to fight bullying. It also gives potential bullies reason for pause and hopefully can stave off some of the bullying that is going on in schools across America.

Bullying can have a very negative affect on the victims and several suicide deaths have been attributed to the lingering trauma of being bullied in school.

Perhaps the easiest targets of bullying are young people who do not conform to specific teenage archetypes.

For a little while I was working for JSU (a wonderful organization) and went to Public Schools every day during lunch and mentored Jewish clubs. I had to walk through the common areas where hundreds of teens were hanging out and enjoying their lunch. It was uncanny. Little groups formed all around the school. In each group, very specific types of kids were enjoying time together. Goth kids in one area, jocks in their jerseys in another with cheerleaders in their uniforms nearby, Asian kids texting in one corner, minority groups, African American and Latino teens in their respective areas. It was jarring to see such a diverse school divide itself during free time into small social groups of mutual self-identifiction.

I used to say it felt like the set of Mean Girls. Maybe now I would say it felt like the set of Glee.

It’s easy to see how a social misfit could feel absolutely isolated in school. Add to that the humiliation and abuse of bullying the burden can become too much to bear.

For what it’s worth, teens who don’t fit in with typical gender roles are particularly maligned. If a guy is too feminine or a girl is too masculine their suffering at the hand of cruel classmates can be compounded. It gets even worse if the victim already feels guilt from their parents, religion or negative self perception.

Michigan is one of the last holdouts and does not have an anti-bullying statute. But now it has something else. It has a statute that actually protects certain types of bullies.

A bill was proposed a while back to create strong anti-bullying legislation. It passed this week. But one provision was added at the last moment that completely turns the law on its head. The provision states:

“This section does not abridge the rights under the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States or under article I of the state constitution of 1963 of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian. This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.”‘

So if my “sincerely held religious belief” says all Jews are subhuman and I call all Jewish kids in the school names and taunt them about their subhuman status, that’s “protected” by the bill. If me religious beliefs says all Christians are infidels, then I can bully all the infidels. If my religion says that gay people are causing earthquakes and tsunamis then I can bully all the gay kids.

Sure, there are some bullies who don’t invoke the name of God into their bully tactics. But that’s all changed now. If you want to bully somebody and avoid punishment just make sure you can justify it in the name of religion.

This is horrible. Not just because of what it does for bullies and does to victims. But because of what it does to religion.

Once again, religion is being used as an excuse for destructive and harmful behavior. Once again religion becomes a shield for bad behavior. This is what give religion a bad rap. People using religion to kill infidels, avenge the death of a god, hate people who are different, demonize the other. That is everything that is wrong with religion.

If your religion says that somebody is wrong or bad, keep it to yourself. Don’t use your beliefs as a way of harming others. If you want to live in a place that only allows your kind of religion and permits religious persecution to others LEAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (please) and find a place that will let you do it. That’s what they should have said. Instead, they turned Michigan into a safe haven for hate, bigotry and pain. It’s a disgrace.

This is not what religion is supposed to be. But thanks to the Michigan State Senate we are told that religion is precisely just that. A weapon in the hands of hateful people.

There is also an irony here. The bill is named for a victim of bullying, Matt Epling, who committed suicide. His family has been involved in the crafting of this legislation to help protect kids from bullies. But now they are forever attached by name to a bill they never would have supported thanks to some bullies in the State Senate. First Matt was bullied by his peers and now his parents are being bullied by the legislature.

I hate this law because of what it does for bullies but I also hate the law for what it says about the current state of religion in this country.

Watch State Senator Gretchen Whitmer passionately respond to the bill:

Links: Time, MattEpling.com

UPDATE: The exception has been dropped!

Related posts:

1. Johnny Weir Gives Into Bullies and Changes His Fur Costume
2. Where Did Religion Come From?
3. Thoughts on That Basic Religion Test in the New York Times
4. Mona Eltahaway: An Important Voice of Progressive and Passionate Religion
5. When Religious Holidays Lose Their Religion

A few days after Gilad Shalit was released from captivity he and his father spent some quality catching up time at the beach. What could more sweet? It warmed the heart to see a young man enjoy our beautiful earth in a way he might have never dreamed he ever would. Here he was tasting the intoxicating elixir of freedom and nothing could make us happier.

There is always someone who wants to rain on every parade.

In this instance, Matzav.com editorialized the story by crafting an insidious headline: Photos: Gilad Shalit Spends First Free Shabbos at the Beach

The implication in the headline could have been interpreted as a negative spin on a very touching moment that was recorded for time immemorial by coincidence. It appeared that Matzav was trying to fault Shalit for spending time at the beach on Shabbos. Matzav would much prefer he be in shul like his more religious counterparts. Reading the headline in this manner was borderline offensive. But Matzav further editorialized the headline by publishing dozens of specific comments that criticized Shalit, sometimes harshly for not having a religious epiphany and becoming religious following his release. Some commenters went so far to take credit for his release and took Shalit’s failure to repent as a slap in the face to them. (Sounds crazy, I know, but read the comments.)

Never mind the fact that they downloaded the photos from Haaretz and then superimposed their Matzav.com watermark on top of the photos. What are they nervous about? Someone is going to steal their stolen photos? So myopic, it is amazing.

At the time, I was offended. But I figured it is not worth writing a post about a few knucklehead commenters on a fringe orthodox website.

But now I read that a Knesset Member from the Shas party recently made similar criticism of Gilad Shalit.

What is with these people?

Do they not understand that many very passionate Jews are not observant in the same way they are? Do they not realize that not being born into that kind of home makes it nearly impossible for one to flip a switch and become orthodox? Do they think that by yelling and screaming these insane complaints about not observing Shabbos as they would like, Gilad Shalit is going to start observing Shabbos the way they would like?!

Further, going to the beach on Shabbos might not even entail a single biblical or even rabbinic prohibition! He may have observed Shabbos after all! But insulting people, making people feel badly, especially people who have suffered for the simple fact that they are a Jew is a severe prohibition. The priorities here are so skewed that it almost seems satirical!

If an MK or a Matzav commenter want to have a conversation with Gilad Shalit and try and impress upon him the importance or the beauty of keeping Shabbos by all means, go right ahead. But to publicly criticize the poor guy for doing as he always did on his first weekend home is so far from how a Jewish person should treat a fellow Jew, let alone a Jewish hero.

It hurts me that my co-religionists have become so insulated and so one track minded that it has become acceptable to speak this way. I am embarrassed and I hope that this is the voice of a few knuckleheads and does not reflect the overall attitude of the orthodox Jewish community.

Links: Matzav, YNET

See also: Rationalist Judaism

Related posts:

1. Moral Equivalency in the Media: Gilad Shalit and Terrorists
2. Small Church Does Something Nice for Muslims and All Heck Breaks Loose
3. You’re Not Crazy Blogger Visits The Shul on the Beach
4. Happy Hanukah Too: Kosher Machine Only Serves 24/6 Because It's Shomer Shabbos
5. An Ex-Chasidic Reality Star Breaks Barriers (and Halacha)

The day before Hoshana Rabbah I received a phone call from an ambitious, young photographer named Jason Jackson who is working on a documentary about orthodox Jews. He asked if he could take pictures of us at The Shul on the Beach.

Normally, there is not much to photograph on weekdays and we would not be comfortable with someone taking pictures. Last time we had photographers in our shul it was Purim. It was an interesting time to take pictures but hardly a “typical day” in the life of an orthodox Jew. But it does make for a spectacular presentation. If you have not already seen it – please check that out over here: Pacific Jewish Center Featured on MSNBC.com

I told the caller that the only chance I thought he had of photographing something worthwhile would be Hoshana Rabbah, the next day, at 7 AM. I told him about the Four Species and the circuits around the Bima. He said he would be there. We had a date.

Below you will see a slideshow of some of the photos he took at The Shul on the Beach that morning. The photography is outstanding and really captures the services. I hope Jason’s documentary is a success and appreciate the time and effort he put into these photos. We also really appreciate his sharing them with us.

Thank you Jason!

Enjoy.

Related posts:

1. Venice Historical Society Visits Pacific Jewish Center at the Shul on the Beach
2. High Holidays Services / Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur in Venice California / Santa Monica / Los Angeles with Pacific Jewish Center at The Shul on the Beach
3. Pacific Jewish Center Featured on MSNBC.com
4. Pacific Jewish Center on Gizmodo.com (well, not really)
5. Become a Fan of Pacific Jewish Center on Facebook