Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » Cross-Currents

How to Issue a Condemnation of Violence

rabbifink — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:57:46 +0000

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

Suggestion: Read “Judaism as a First Language” (right now)

rabbifink — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:07:20 +0000

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:

While for some, it may be enough to believe that Judaism has evolved helter-skelter from some special origins in the murky past, others might need to feel certain that every detail of Judaism such as it is today can be traced directly to an original revelation in a specific place at a specific time. While for some, it may be enough that the process is limping forward in some vaguely understood, positive direction, others might need the ultimate destination of the process to be specified in terms of concrete political events and/or miraculous interventions, and signs of the imminence and inevitability of such events to be already discernible. While for some the satisfaction of leading a life bound to Torah is its own reward, others might need to be assured that the righteous reap rewards and the wicked suffer punishments in the most prosaic of ways, preferably instantly and in plain sight.

On acts that demonstrate that a person is associating with orthodox Judaism:

The effectiveness of signals can, however, vary with time and circumstance. In the world of American Orthodox Judaism, the refusal to eat non-kosher meat or Hostess Twinkies was once regarded as sufficiently onerous, due to the dearth of alternatives, that it could serve as an effective signal. But then the easy availability of kosher meat and snacks rendered such signals ineffective, because they were insufficiently costly. As a result, the old signals were replaced by new ones that were onerous enough to serve as signals. Kosher was replaced by glatt kosher, which was replaced by hasidishe shechita, yashon, hydroponic vegetables, and so on up the ladder of costliness and strictness. The easier each of these becomes to obtain, the less useful it is.

On the increased emphasis on the infallibility of the sages and demonization of the non-observant:

The need for the faithful to signal loyalty to ever-narrower splinter groups has led to increas- ing emphasis on precisely those aspects of tradition that are obscure and unnatural, while the lack of opportunity for constructive sacrifice has given rise to socially costly signaling. Like- wise, the need for the faithful to affirm an articulated narrative has become much greater, just as the specificity of the narrative has become more pronounced. Affirming the belief in the genius of the sages, the powers of the righteous, and the inevitable downfall of the wicked has become a litmus test of loyalty. Increasing monasticism and obscurantism have led to in- creasing defection. Each of these reactions has been triggered and exacerbated by the others and together they have constituted a vicious cycle, driving the community further and fur- ther away from a good equilibrium.

These examples are a mere taste of the amazing insight prevalent in the article.

I selected these sections as they support many of the ideas that I have written about on this blog. Much of our current “system” – if we can even call it that, is a result of social choices, consequences and needs. They are not specicically spiritual or halachic in nature. They evolved parallel to halacha but from a human perspective.

This does not mean that they are insignificant or that they are wrong. But it does mean that they need to be treated differently than halacha.

I think Dr. Koppel’s theory can be applied wonderfully to women rabbis and other contemporary issues facing orthodox Judaism today. In fact, I thought that is where he was going with the first 30 pages. Then he took a turn into an issue that I am as concerned with. But as I said above, the edifice is a platform for explaining and understanding many issues.

I hope you will take the time to read the article in its entirety and consider its message. It is long, but absolutely worthwhile.

Find it on Azure’s website here: Judaism as a First Language

Link: Cross-Currents

There is No Tent

rabbifink — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:53:45 +0000

Originally Posted on YUBeacon.com: There is No Tent

Lately it seems like everyone is trying to define Modern Orthodoxy. The purpose of these attempts revolves around one specific institution and its graduates, Yeshiva Chovevei Torah (YCT).

Four articles (1, 2, 3, 4) on a prominent Centrist-Orthodox blog tried to tackle the YCT issue (see links below). Three of the articles called on Modern Orthodoxy to disaffiliate with YCT. One article explained that YCT deserved to be included in the Modern Orthodox tent. Much ink has been spilled over YCT and the more that is written, the more things stay the same. Platitudes and proclamations have done nothing to stop YCT. Indeed, they serve a need within Orthodox Jewish community. They tend to those who would like to be Orthodox but find some its social constraints too limiting. There is a place for YCT. However, there is no place for the articles calling for its demise.

The articles assume there is an umbrella under which some institutions, rabbis or individuals are permitted to take shelter. The outsiders are subject to excommunication and ridicule. It is a tent where like-minded people share common goals, appreciation and self-congratulation. In their opinion, YCT belongs outside the tent.

A second assumption in the articles is that Modern Orthodox Judaism needs a definition. It must be codified lest it suffer some horrible end. Without a definition it is doomed to be over-inclusive and possibly even under-inclusive. There is talk that YCT is “counterfeiting Torah” and that must be ousted from the Modern Orthodox camp.

All this talk of camps, umbrellas, tents and definitions is misplaced. Similarly, limited denominations such as Orthodox, Conservative and Reform are misplaced.

Tackling the second assumption first, it seems that Modern Orthodoxy has a complex. It needs “defining.” It is as if Modern Orthodoxy feels that it is novel form of serving God or an aberration from the classic style of Jewish life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Modern Orthodoxy needs to have the confidence to positively assert that Modern Orthodoxy is not the “kid brother” of big-boy Charedi Judaism. It is the Charedi world that is an aberration from almost every Jewish society in recorded history.

Jewish life for over 2500 years has been determined by fealty to God, Torah and Mitzvos all while living with one foot in the general society. Tannaim held typical jobs and conducted conversations with Greek philosophers. Similarly, Amoraim discussed religion with Roman royalty. During the period of the Geonim and Rishonim, Jews had jobs, educated Jews studied the sciences and philosophy of their day and the great Torah scholars were well versed in many disciplines including Torah. Even during the period of the Achronim, many of the most famous interpreters and codifiers of law were proficient in science, mathematics and philosophy.

Where is the societal precedent for today’s isolationism and shunning of all wisdom outside of Torah? Why does Modern Orthodoxy not proudly assume the mantle of traditional Judaism? Why does it always feel like Modern Orthodoxy needs to be explaining and defining itself?

Modern Orthodox Judaism is a straight shot from the Jewish life that was lived for thousands of years by Torah observant Jews. There is nothing for Modern Orthodox Jews to be ashamed of other than not realizing this important point. Torah observance is primary; there is no doubt about that. Wisdom found outside Torah has always been valued and there is no reason that should be any different today.

As to the first assumption, that of the tent: Judaism is the only necessary denomination. Everything else is just the narcissism of small differences.

Throughout Jewish history, Jews with varying degrees of observance and a variety of beliefs lived side by side. Sometimes they quarreled, oftentimes vociferously, but their disagreements took place in one tent. It was unwise and unfruitful to divide and self define into small groups. More significantly, there was no social benefit to doing so.

In Ashkenaz, for their non-Jewish neighbors, the Jewish people were “the other.” For the Jewish people, the non-Jewish people were “the other.” There was no need to drill down into subgroups. There was no social benefit to subgrouping.

When non-Jews ceased to be “the other,” as Ashkenazik Jews became more integrated into general society, a new “other” was created. The more integrated group branded the more isolated group as “Orthodox” and the more isolated group branded the more integrated group “Reform.” Jews were now “the other” for other Jews.

In truth, this was a tragedy. Judaism is not just a religion. It is a family. We are all united as Jews by common ancestry. We are also united as people who follow the Jewish religion. But one can be a non-religious Jew. This is not so with other religions. By calling one another “the other” we cast aspersion across the religious spectrum. Fights and disagreements ensue. Communication is halted. And this is where we start erecting self-serving tents. There should be only one tent. A tent that is large enough for our entire family, no matter how they observe. Our family should all be able to live under one tent.

This is not a pipe dream. At least three contemporary Jewish communities function in this way. These communities are the South African, Persian/Iranian and the Syrian communities. In these communities there is no segmentation based on Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox. Rather, everyone is part of a larger community and within the larger community some families are more observant than others. Yet, many different levels of observance will be found in one shul or one school

It wasn’t too long ago that this was the case in Ashkenazic communities in North America. In the 60’s and 70’s, children from non-observant homes went to school with children from very observant homes. The greater Jewish community was not strong enough to tolerate subgroups and segmentation. Our strength has become a curse. We are now very strong and we now are willing to exclude fellow Jews from our tent.

These subgroups do not serve a religious purpose. Judaism has always been about performing the mitzvot as prescribed in the Torah. It is a personal relationship between Man and Creator. There is no allegiance that must be paid to human dogmas. People are supposed to study, learn and forge their own relationship with God.

To this end, what purpose does the tent serve? Who needs a tent and tenets of the tent to tell them what to do and how to act? The Torah, its interpreters and codifiers have given us all that we need. The tent only serves one purpose: to exclude others.

It is true. Most Jews are not Orthodox. Most Jews do not celebrate Shabbat and the holidays the way that Orthodox Jews celebrate those days. Most Jews do not adhere to the strict rigors of halacha. So what? Why should those factors determine who is the tent? Who benefits by not allowing them into our tent? No one does.

The differences in observance might matter at some point. A Shabbat invitation will require that both parties are comfortable with the level of kashrut. A dating couple will need to be religiously compatible. There are a few examples, but they are only a few. It is up to the individual parties to try to find common ground. A tent is not needed to make these decisions for us.

Are we scared that some exposure to less halachically observant Jews will cause or own to run off and frolic in the fields with the less observant? Is the current edition of Orthodox Judaism so flimsy that mere interaction with others will cause it to crumble beneath the weight of enlightenment? I should hope not. If we have the truth, and I believe we do, what are we so afraid of?

As the rabbi of a shul that calls itself Orthodox but is a spiritual home to Jews (and non-Jews) of every single level of observance, I can attest that it can be done. Not only can it be done, it can be done in spectacular fashion. Our shul has something akin to a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Anyone who wishes to pray and learn in our shul is welcome. There is no “Tzitzis check.” There is no subgrouping based on observance. And it works. Sometimes there are awkward moments. But our relationships are more important than those moments of discomfort and I don’t believe any of us would trade our friendships and shul family so that we would never have to think critically on our own about how we interact with others. I believe we have a viable model. I believe that we have a preferable model. I believe our tent is big enough for every Jewish person to find spiritual shelter together. I believe that firmly grabbing hold of the Modern Orthodox, non-isolationist view, we can return to a more authentic and traditional Judaism that empowers us to embrace Jew of all textures and flavors. It will allow us to break free from the limitations of a tent and it confining walls. Following this model, there is no tent.

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

rabbifink — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:07:38 +0000

The orthodox Jewish world is in tumult over the recent essays published by a local Los Angeles rabbi. Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky wrote a series of blog posts in varying tones explaining why he is unwilling to say the blessing where men thank God for not making them women. The exact text of the blessing reads: Blessed are You, Lord our G-d, Master of the world, who did not create me a Woman.

This blessing comes from the Talmud quoting the Tosefta. It has been part of Jewish liturgy for nearly 2000 years. Any tradition, be it religious or not, that has that kind of cachet cannot be discarded willy nilly.

Indeed, Rabbi Kanefsky justified his position by articulating something that many have felt when reciting or hearing this blessing: by its plain meaning, and by the simple smell test, it has the effect today of justifying our lack of progress, and of affirming for us that women do not possess the spiritual dignity than men do.

There has been a very strong response from more traditionalist orthodox rabbis.

One blog has dedicated no less than four of its 28 blog posts in August to distancing itself from Rabbi Kanefsky and either by association, implication or explicitly tossed Rabbi Kanefsky out of orthodox Judaism.

There is much to say on this topic and much has already been said. My purpose in this blog post will be to deal with two separate issues. They could just as easily have their own independent blog posts. But I prefer one landing place for both of these issues.

The first issue relates to the actual blessing in question.

The second issue relates to the response from the traditionalists.

The Blessing

It was 11 years ago that Senator Joe Lieberman famously said on Imus in the Morning that he does not say this blessing. My less than 20 year old brain was met with the tension between tradition and modernity. I decided then that it was necessary to understand the blessing and what it meant.

There are several apologist explanations for the blessing. They all basically say something along the lines of women are really on a higher level than men, they don’t need to do as many commandments, they can if they want, but they don’t have to, men need the commandments to lift men out of the abyss, the blessing recognizes that men are appreciative for having those commandment to elevate them and thanks God for that opportunity. It is not insulting to women because it is not about who is better, it is about appreciating having more commandments.

While this is somewhat enticing, it falls short. The next logical step is that if the commandments are not indicative of higher status rather lower status, why are we blessing God for that? Could it be that it is something like tziduk ha’din – thanking God for the bad as we do after a death? Unlikely. The other morning blessings do not follow this form.

Further, there are several medieval sources that actually say that the blessing is to thank God for for not making man a woman because women are not as special as men. It is certainly a viable explanation for the blessing. As I have written previously, I don’t blame the rabbis of the Talmud for thinking that way – if they did. They were subject to the social values of their era.

Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks offers this explanation:

“…they are acknowledgments of the special responsibilities of Jewish life. Heathens, slaves and women are exempt from certain commandments that apply to Jewish men. In these blessings, we express our faith that the commandments are not a burden but a cherished vocation”

In other words, the blessing is an affirmation that extra commandments are a privilege. Well, why doesn’t everyone have this privilege?

It is easy to see why the blessing is an affront to many women. It implies inferiority at worst or less opportunity at best. It could be argued that just because Judaism has some specific roles for men and women does not mean it deserves a blessing to that effect. I completely understand why some find it offensive.

Rabbi Kanefsky’s feelings about the blessing are justified. His actions are what are subject to scrutiny. His feelings are not.

The Response

Rabbi Shafran takes a strong stance against Rabbi Kanefsky. Rabbi Shafran’s approach to orthodox Judaism is that things are not supposed to change. Commitment to orthodox Judaism and its mesorah mean accepting the status quo and not changing anything. In his mind, not saying the blessing is a change and simply because Rabbi Kanefsky is “big enough” to impose a change in orthodox Jewish liturgy, he can’t. Not only that, but making such a change is enough to push Rabbi Kanefsky out of orthodox Judaism.

The punchline:

But when a contemporary rabbi, particularly one who has not yet garnered the wisdom that comes with many years of living and learning, proposes to reject an element—any element—of the Jewish mandate, there can be no question about his having relinquished the right to call himself Orthodox.

Speaking of change, a friend of mine put Rabbi Shafran’s opinion in perspective. The biggest innovation in the history of orthodox Judaism is that there is no innovation in orthodox Judaism.

This is especially true with regard to liturgy.

In orthodox Judaism there are three primary nuschaos (prayer styles). They all follow a basic formula but transferring from one to the next is a difficult proposition. There are enough words, sentences and paragraphs that would make it uncomfortable for one who prays using nusach A to lead the services for a nusach B congregation.

How did this happen?

Simple. Different communities felt different prayers were important enough to incorporate into their services. Some did. Some didn’t. Over hundreds of years some prayers were added, others were deleted.

In the Aleinu prayer a line was taken out because it was offensive to the non-Jewish community. Some have said it should be put back. Others leave it out. No harm; no foul.

My great-great-grandfather, Reb Elya Lopian, a Torah giant with impeccable credentials (the Brisker Rav said of him: He is what R’ Yisrael Salanter had in mind when he created the Mussar movement) adjusted his personal prayers several ways. In the introduction to his classic work, Lev Eliyahu, we are told that Reb Elya did not say “ki shem Hashem ekra…” before his Mincha amida, When Reb Elya would lead the services on the High Holidays he would omit the line “hineni he’ani mi’maas nir’as v’nifhad…” because he felt it was not honest. He felt he wasn’t really afraid so he just skipped it. Reb Elya also changed the words of “Elokai nitzor l’shoni” into “Elokeinu nitzor l’shonenu” because he felt that the author of the prayer was honestly trying his hardest to avoid the things mentioned in the prayer, but we don’t necessarily try our hardest so how could we ask God to do it for us? Instead Reb Elya switched the words to be general prayer on behalf of everyone.

I have been told, although I can’t find it in the book, that on Tisha B’Av Reb Elya even omitted the references to Jerusalem being desolate and destroyed. His reasoning was how could he say those words when they were no longer true?

In short, prayer for Reb Elya was an exercise in truth and honesty. The rigidity of the words in his prayer book were not impenetrable barriers to be accepted without careful consideration.

There is precedent for changing prayers and adjusting the liturgy based on many factors.

Of course Rabbi Shafran knows this. His problem with Rabbi Kanefsky is two-fold. One, he is not “choshuv” enough to make changes. Two, Rabbi Shafran makes that disingenuous claim that orthodox Judaism does not change.

As to the first claim: This is a classic ad hominem attack. If the change is valid, the source of the change is irrelevant. Very weak argument by Rabbi Shafran.

As the second claim: The entire concept is a lie. Things do change, especially in the liturgy.

Rabbi Shafran, and anyone else for that matter, would be taken much more seriously if he would make an actual argument against the change other than “we don’t change”. Does he have such an argument? I don’t know.

What does Rabbi Shafran really mean to say?

I think he means to say that changes that were made in the past were either needed, necessary or important enough to make. This change is not. In his opinion, the sensitivities of women who find this blessing offensive are not sufficient to warrant a change to the liturgy.

This is fair position. He can say it is not important enough and others can disagree. But by drawing the lines as he did, there is no room for discussion. One side is presenting halachic analysis and reasoning. The other is just closing its ears and saying “I can’t hear you”.

I think the way forward is to have a genuine discussion about the liturgy. Tossing your opponent out of orthodoxy doesn’t make the issue disappear nor does it win any argument.

As always, debate and discourse will provide the best way to analyze the issue and give orthodox Jews the tools they need to make the most appropriate informed decision for themselves.

Links: Morethodoxy, Cross-Currents

Yom Hashoah: Two Holocaust Survivors And Their Emotional Reunion

rabbifink — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:02:19 +0000

Today is Yom Hashoah. It is a day designated to Holocaust Remembrance. In the spirit of this special day I would like to share a story with you.

Over on Cross-Currents, Rabbi Adlerstein has linked to a very powerful article in the Detroit News.

Most Orthodox Jews have heard the song called “The Man From Vilna” by Abie Rottenberg. It tells a powerful story in post liberation Europe. It was the day of Simchas Torah, a grand celebration at the completion of the weekly Torah readings. Typically, the day is marked by feverish dancing and rejoicing for hours while holding the Sefer Torah Scroll. However, on this dark day the synagogue in Vilna had no Sefer Torah. They had been destroyed by the Nazis.

A Jewish Russian soldier spotted a young boy. This was an anomoly as most young children were killed in the holocaust. But this boy was hidden in a convent during the war and had survived. The soldier scooped up the boy and danced with the boy as if he were the Sefer Torah Scroll. His act symbolized to all that although the physical Torah Scrolls were destroyed and Six Million Jews had been killed, the Torah and Judaism live on through the next generation of children.

After that moment, they never saw each other again.

Until last week.

They finally met for the first time in 65 years. They both remembered that incredible day and that poignant moment all this time. It was a very emotional reunion.

Like many great stories, people thought of this as a legend, with perhaps some basis in reality. But these two men confirmed its veracity. It also identifies the two men as prominent Jewish leaders. Abe Foxman was the boy and he is the New York based director of Anti-Defamation league and Leo Grossman, was the soldier and became the Rabbi of Shaarey Shamayim Synagogue in Oak Park Michigan. Their story and inspiration became inspiration for others as well as action in their lives for others.

I recommend reading the article in the Detroit News.

Someone has taken the song and made a homemade music video. I have included the video below:

Why The Earthquake in Haiti Happened

rabbifink — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:01:11 +0000

This post has been crossposted to DovBear. More discussion there.

Since the Earthquake in Haiti many have attempted to figure out “why” the tragedy occurred.

There are 4 prominent versions going around the web right now.

Rabbi Shafran Version 1: God punished the people of Haiti because of evil speech.
Rabbi Shafran Version 2: We don’t know why God punished the people of Haiti but the lesson is that we should learn is not to speak evil speech.
Rabbi Levin: The earthquake and Tsunami and 9/11 happened because of Gays in the military.
Rabbi Feldman: We can’t know why the earthquake happened, but it happened for “a reason”.

What has been missing from this is a more rational approach predicated on the teachings of Rav Yaakov Weinberg Ztz”l Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisrael.

Let’s start with a hypothetical question.

Gerald is driving through the desert. He gets lost and runs out of fuel. He gets out of the car to start walking to find a gas station. He wanders for a little while. Eventually he runs out of water. He dehydrates and eventually dies in the desert.

Why did he die?

That is easy. He died because he ran out of water in a desert. The rules of nature that God created and recreates every moment dictate that when a man has no water in a desert he will dehydrate and probably die shortly thereafter. God does not bend or adjust the rules of nature to save him. Nor should God bend the rules of nature. The relationship God has with the world is that of a hidden God. God hides behind the mask of nature and does not show Himself.

There is a fault line the lies beneath Port Au Prince. It was suggested by geologists in late 2008 that there could be a severe earthquake in Haiti as a result of this fault line. In January 2010 the plates along the fault line shifted. A massive earthquake ensued. Thousands of people died and many more were injured.

Why did they die?

That is also easy. They died because there was an earthquake. The rules of nature that God created and recreates at every moment dictate that when tectonic plates shift it can cause a massive earthquake. God does not bend or adjust the rules of nature to stop the earthquake. Nor should God bend the rules of nature. The relationship God has with the world is that of a hidden God. God hides behind the mask of nature and does not show Himself.

What about the stories in Chumash and Tanach (Old Testament) that report miracles to save individuals or groups of people?

Once in a while God does bend the rules of nature. This is rare and only happens in extreme circumstances. We call this a miracle. It is really a misnomer because everything is a miracle. Nature is a miracle just as much as the supernatural. But we only recognize or would recognize the supernatural miraculous. Miracles can happen, but we don’t rely on miracles nor do we expect miracles as part of the usual system and order of the universe. The universe follows the rules of nature that God created and recreates every moment.

What about the words of Chazal (Talmudic Rabbis) that blame natural disasters on sin?

I can’t answer with certainty but there are a few options:

- For lack of scientific information they did not realize that earthquakes or other phenomena were “natural” and supposed they were supernatural events thus requiring a Divine reason.

- They were referring to a place and time where God did intervene on a constant basis.

- They were speaking polemically and urging Klal Yisrael to improve their ways and as a way of admonishing them they used exegesis to connect disaster with sin.

- They were misquoted or quoted out of context.

Then there is the Rambam. In hilchos Taanis, the Rambam states that when harm befalls the tzibur it incumbent upon klal yisrael to do teshuva and attribute the suffering the “way of the world” rather the bad things that happened were because of their evil sins.

This has been misquoted and misapplied in many instances. The Rambam is talking about a tragedy that happens to the tzibur. The tzibur refers to the Jewish community. So a harm among the a specific Jewish community is the time that we must attribute the harm to OUR sins.

What Rabbis Shafran Version 1, Feldman and Levin are doing is trying to use this Rambam in an instance of a tragedy that befell ANOTHER group of people. The earthquake was not a disaster that happened to the Jewish tzibur. It happened to another tzibur. Thus, the Rambam does not apply.

When would the Rambam apply? At most a tragedy that targets the tzibur. Most strictly constructed it would be when a harm is specific to the Jewish people.

So what are we supposed to do when tragedy strikes? When there is a Hurricane like Katrina, a Tsunami like there was in Southeast Asia or Earthquake like in Haiti?

We work on our compassion. We work on our empathy. We help as much as we can. We remember that life is fleeting and it can all end in a moment. We try to reenergize our relationships. We improve in our avodas Hashem. We find a way to use the tragedy to inspire us. It is personal.

For anyone to assume they know why this tragedy happened fails on three counts.

1) It did not happen to us. It happened to someone else. Do we believe in a God who punishes another party for OUR sins?

2) Maybe it did not happen for a reason? If it was natural then how are you going to apply some sin as the cause for nature? Do you blame sin every time a lion eats a gazelle in the African plain? How about when an innocent bystander is killed by a drunk driver? Did the bystander “deserve it”?

3) Even if it did happen for a reason, who are you to tell me why it happened? You think YOU know? Your puny little brain can figure out why God acts in the way He does? You know all the factors that go into “causing a natural disaster”? At best it is presumptuous at worst it is extreme arrogance bordering on apikorsus.

For anyone to guess why this happened fails on another count.

Nevuah (prophecy) ended thousands of years ago. A Navi (prophet) was like a spiritual doctor, one was able to see a Navi and ask why bad things were happening to you and the Navi could tell you why. The Navi was connected to God. That is over. It ended a long time ago. I am suspect of anyone claiming to know what God is “thinking” because they have no way of knowing.

Trying to pretend like we know why the earthquake happened, even if we assume it happened for a reason, is wrong.

But at least Rabbi Shafran Version 2 and Rabbi Feldman are telling US to improve our lives in the wake of the tragedy.

Only one goofball has the gall to tell OTHER people how to act in response to the tragedy. Only Levin has the audacity to tell the Government of the USA that it’s “their fault” this happened. Only Levin completely abrogates himself and places the blame on something that is external to him and his group.

It is akin to telling a grieving mother that her son who was run over by a car was run over because the lady across the street had an affair. Ridiculous. Irresponsible. Self-righteous. Idiotic. Moronic. (Help me out here… I am sure there are more words…)

In summary, there are varying levels of what I believe to be errors in the wake of this tragedy. The least egregious is trying to figure what the precise message of the earthquake is. The most egregious is telling a 3rd party that they caused the tragedy of another.

My view, as I stated just after the earthquake, and the view of my Rebbeim is that the tragedy was a natural disaster. There was no malicious intent or direct message being sent to the people of Haiti or anyone else for that matter. However, it is useful for us to use the incident as inspiration to improve our lives and live each moment we are fortunate to be alive as a way of making the world a better place.

Postscript: A worthwhile read is Rabbi Dov Kramer’s approach which is very similar to what is written here just comes from a different direction.