Be the Change You Want to See In the World

Video: Differences in Theology and Ideology of Reform, Conservative & Orthodox Judaism

 

Iran, Israel and the USA -- Is it an Issue?

 

[My friend, the television news journalist in Tampa who ask me about Obama, Israel and 2012 US Presidential Elections, has spawned the following:]

 

What are your thoughts on Iran? Are they for real? What are your thoughts on the US role in that dilemma?

In short, the threat from Iran freaks Israelis out (though not me – as I have an unhealthy ability to compartmentalize). 

The right question is not "Are they for real?" -- nobody will be able to answer this question with certainty if they do/will have nuclear warhead capabilities.

The question is:  "Can Iran be trusted to act responsibly with nuclear weapons?"

1. Is Iran currently satisfied to have sovereignty over its own borders or does it believe it is justified to extend its reach beyond its borders? (recent arrests in Thailand and India give some answer to that, so does its financing and arming of Hezbullah, Hamas and Syria).  The Iranians are the prime suspect in the JCC bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994, too, amongst other international terrorism crimes...

2. Does Iran's current leadership deal rationally and fairly with its own citizens who disagree with its policies?  If not, it is reasonable to believe that it will deal far worse with those who they deem its enemies, yes?

3. Regarding making a case against a suspected murderer, three terms are mentioned:  means, motive, and opportunity.

We know Iran has the motivation -- both its political head (Ahmadinejad) and its Islamic religious head (Khamenei) have spoken publicly about the desire to eliminate the State of Israel (the little devil) and the United States (the big devil).

Means and Opportunity are one-in-the-same as soon as Iran has nuclear warhead capabilities as it currently has the means and opportunity to deliver an indefensible missile strike on Israel and other U.S. Interests. 

4. Do we have reason to trust that Iran is not intent on creating nuclear warheads, rather, just using nuclear energy for its domestic energy needs?  (Reminder:  Iran sits on one of the largest crude oil reserves in the world).

Has Iran been forthcoming in allowing inspector/observers to see the current uranium enrichment production in order to determine the intended use of the uranium?

Question:  If, during the Cold War, Cuba (i.e., USSR offshore) were known to be enriching uranium and had publicly espoused an attack on the U.S., would the citizens and government of the U.S. hesitate to prevent those weapons from being developed?

That is, if Cuba were a modern day satellite of Iran would there be reason enough for U.S. to obstruct/intervene in the development of enriched uranium?

The duplicity of Western world leadership on this matter is farcical and...despicable.

Do I think Israel should attack Iran?  No. 

I think the international community (IC) needs to sanction Iran to the point of impotence.  If the IC won't do that -- then I do believe Israel should do whatever it evaluates it needs to do to protect itself and the U.S. should be its partner in doing it.

President Obama in 2012 Election?

In contemplating the 2012 Presidential Election, a friend in the U.S. recently contacted me here in Israel and produced the following correspondence:

What's your take on President Obama's policies and interaction with Israel -plus the comments he made about 1967 borders?

A.F.: I think President Obama came into the role of president with genuine desire to resolve the Arab/Israeli conflict starting with Israel and the Palestinians. I think he believed that if he showed the Arab world that he respects them, their customs and cultures and validates their hurt and pain over the *results of the Six Day War then they would meet him half-way in being prepared to make the painful concessions being asked of both Israel and them. I was not upset over his Cairo speech as I saw it as the above, and -- were the U.S. and Israel dealing with another Westernized country/people it would have been the right approach. As I see it, the problem is that the West is not respecting the culture of the non-Israel Middle East enough to treat it according to its approach to matters of conflict. The international community is trying to impose Western diplomatic tools on to a conflict for whom not all the participants react similarly to those tools. It's like respectfully bowing to someone -- but in the culture of the person receiving the bow it is seen as a sign of submission....

I think President Obama feels like most in the international community -- since Israel is the modern, Western country it is in the better position than the Palestinians to intellectually and emotionally understand the conflict and should be willing to make the decisions necessary to appease the other side and bring the problem to an end. Of course, this opinion falls into the same trap as that expressed above re not respecting/understanding the position of the Arab/Muslim population.

Regarding the president's comments on 1967 borders -- it was a mistake for him to say it.

(*part of President Obama's misunderstanding of the situation is to believe the hurt and pain of the Arabs is the result of the Six Day War – in fact, it includes the war in '48.....)

Would what he said stop you from voting for him? I remember you saying any US administration is viewed the same way by Israelis. Essentially, outside of Ron Paul, everyone has the same stance.

A.F.: The 2012 election is a tough question (I do get to vote as I am a U.S. citizen). Truthfully, I'm undecided. The only real qualm I have with President Obama is the Israel issue -- because it's been 3 years of him not changing his approach that has been unsuccessful and damaging. I'm looking for his wisdom and leadership on the matter and I'm not seeing it -- it's fine to make mistakes...I don't see where he has significantly changed or tweaked his approach to this conflict that gives me confidence that 4 more years of him in office will be good for the future health of the Arab/Israeli conflict. I do want to be clear regarding Israel and how I vote in the U.S. Elections – unless I feel sure that a candidate's approach to Israel is damaging/harmful/dangerous to Israel, then the other elements of ideology will persuade/influence my vote. I felt as you describe re Bush II/Gore, Bush II/Kerry, and Obama/McCain. In each of those elections I voted for the Dem. I'll have to see who is the Rep. candidate, and I'll have to decide if I think the current president shows enough wisdom and clarity on the Israel matter by changing approach before I cast my vote.

How was/is Obama's approach damaging? Are Israelis generally distrustful of the President now?

A.F.:

1) I think that Israelis do not believe President Obama is particularly favorable toward Israel. He's as favorable toward Israel as he is the Palestinians which is to say that he doesn't really recognize Israel as being much a victim to the Arab world's anger, anti-Semitism and propaganda....or that the 60+ years of U.S./Israel friendship warrants any greater fidelity to Israel.

2) Anything 'pro-active' the current administration has done to advance the peace process has been to make demands on Israel and not on the Palestinians.

3) President Obama's manner and policies has emboldened the Palestinian leadership and people to feel that the U.S. will continue to press Israel toward up-front concessions without the Palestinians having to make any themselves.

4) President Bill Clinton was in awe of Yitzchak Rabin and had a deep respect for Israel's leaders and its people for the country that Israel is despite all the reasons it should have failed. President Obama gives me the impression that Israel is a headache to him and that there is no greater moral imperative concomitant with Israel's existence – even in the light of the history of the Jewish people – than there would be for any other country.

 

 

Chosen to be Uncomfortable

[Recently posted by CIF WATCH]

Though born and raised in a proudly Jewish and Zionist home, I was not exposed to the term Pintele Yid until reaching adulthood.

Literally, the words mean 'the little point of a Jew,' though colloquially it refers to the idea of the Jewish spark inside each member of our community. Pintele Yid is a term that has been used to refer to some element of the essence in each Jew that refuses to be extinguished. Some give labels to pintele yid such as chutzpah or determination or stubbornness or soul. Unarguably, for those who accept and embrace the concept of pintele yid, it does serve to distinguish a Jew from others.

Recently, I engaged in a thoughtful conversation with a Jewish friend for whom the idea of 'Chosen People' is an anathema. Simply put, she does not believe that Jews are different from the other peoples of the world. While I certainly understand the discomfort that one may feel over the Torah's reference to our nation as 'chosen,' I believe wholeheartedly in the Jewish people's unique and unambiguous relationship with Gd and, accordingly, with the rest of the humanity. Still, does the People Israel being 'chosen' pertain to each individual or is it a collective label?

For guidance, I look to our tradition's teachings and belief that stems from the Torah's verses, You all stand here today before Adonai your Gd....that you enter into a covenant that Gd makes with you this day that you are His people... not only with you standing here today but also with those who are with us but [physically] not here this day. (Deuteronomy 29:9-14)

Begrudgingly or willfully, our people is defined as involved in an ongoing, unbreakable covenant with the universe's one and only Gd. Each one of us stood before Gd that day and committed to a relationship of great privilege and even greater responsibility. Begrudgingly or willfully, consciously or involuntarily, each member of the Jewish nation is among the chosen of Gd's people.

The existence of each individual Jew in the world is neither random nor happenstance; and each Jew's existence is the result of calculated and uncompromising decisions of the chain of generations that came before us. Through all of the persecution, all of the oppression, all of the pograms, crusades, libels and massacres – the existence of each and every Jew alive today is deliberate and purposeful; and, our survival has no doubt been assisted by our belief that we are unique, different, and essential.

Pintele Yid is the fiber in each Jew that resists the darkness of the complacent and the ordinary. Like the menorah in the time of the Maccabees, the spark of each Jewish soul refuses to be extinguished.

Conversion Reboot: "Who is a Jew?"

[At the end of this post, I propose a significant departure from normative halakhic thinking regarding conversion to Judaism] _____________________________________________________________________________

Historically, radical changes have been an essential element in the survival of Jews and Judaism.  This change does not refer to offshoots or 'reformers' from the Jewish establishment but of the mainstream establishment itself in its own recognition for necessary change. 

 

Examples:

- After the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple the sages changed the focus of Jewish worship from sacrifices to prayer and study.

- Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi broke with normative Jewish law and compiled a written record of the Oral Law – a previously forbidden composition in written form.

- The loopholed permission to conduct business with Gentiles beginning in the Middle Ages heretofore prohibited (see paragraph “Laws to Separate Jews from Idolatry”)

- Rambam's creation of a summary of Jewish Practice to simplify the ‘how to’ of observance of mitzvot without concomitant study (Opposition to Mishneh Torah)

- Codification by Shulchan Arukh to reduce variations of Jewish practice (Opposition to Shulchan Arukh)

- Ba'al Shem Tov's creation of Chassidic Movement to break monopoly/elitism over Judaism by strict Torah scholars who rejected Kabbalah.

 

Applicaton of Radical Change to “Who is a Jew?”

The definition of Jewish identity has also experienced radical change.  During the times of our forefathers/foremothers, patrilineal descent was the birthright to being Jewish.  Thus, Jacob's 12 sons were the heads of the Twelve Tribes of Israel despite two of the biological mothers (Bilhah and Zilpah) not acquiring foremother status.  (For the skeptic and/or scripturally inclined – see Leviticus 24:10 and Rashi on that verse's words “Among Bnei Yisroel”)

In antiquity, the members of a household were defined by the household's patriarch.  Women were defined by the dominant male in whose house she lived – a father, husband, brother or uncle.  Culturally, patrilineal descent made sense in the ancient world as it was the greatest way to insure continuation of the Jewish people for whomever a man married came to live with his household and became part of his clan/people.  Sons brought brides into their own clan and fathers married their daughters into other Israelite clans.  

The earliest legal mention of the move to matrilineal descent is found in the Mishnah codified in 200 CE (see last line of Kiddushin 3:12/13).  Most believe the move from patrilineal to matrilineal descent occurred during a time when war waged against the Jews threw into question the paternity of babies born to Jewish women. 

Critical to this conversation is the fact that prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, a person's conversion to Judaism was defined by living amongst the society of Jewish people (as Ruth says to Naomi – “your People shall be my People, your Gd shall be my Gd” Book of Ruth 1:16), accompanied by the rituals of circumcision for males and ritual immersion for both males and females.

One result of the Destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of Jews throughout the world (70 CE) was that conversion requirements evolved to include a commitment to observance of Jewish law since no Jewish societal milieu existed.  When Jews were thrown out of the Land of Israel, lost was the sovereignty of Jewish society.  For the next 2,000 years, Jews were hosted by, and lived among, strictly gentile societies.

Fast forward to modern day:  though the proportional number of Jews in the world decreases yearly and the number of people opting out of Jewish identification is rapidly growing,  I believe the halakhic requirements for conversion to Judaism that have developed over these 2 millennia should remain unchanged in the Diaspora. 

HOWEVER, for those people who move to Israel under the law-of-return but do not have halakhic status as Jews; who choose to leave the land of their birth and to come the world’s only Hebrew speaking society; to live by the Jewish (not Gregorian) calendar; who are prepared to serve or have their children serve in the Israeli Defense Forces in order to protect the Jewish State; who take upon themselves the challenges of living in an Israel that is under constant threat because it is a Jewish State...Perhaps a return to the Jewish societal milieu model for those who are prepared to undergo circumcision and ritual immersion should be sufficient for halakhic conversion status. 

The interest, desire, and motivation to convert to Judaism for those immigrants who are non-halakhic beneficiaries of Israel’s law-of-return are waning.  Though most new immigrants to Israel have the wish to be recognized as Jewish and are willing to participate in a formal conversion process, the requirements of the ultra-conservative Israeli Rabbinate imposes such strictures on applicants that just a decimal-percentage of those wanting to convert are allowed to do so. 

The radical difference in Jewish life provided by the State of Israel – a phenomenon unknown in the world for 2,000 years – certainly qualifies for a re-imagining of “Who is a Jew?” 

For the health of Jewish identity in Israel and for the untapped potential of Jewish possibilities in the Jewish State…Amen. Selah.

"The Israeli Government Can Stop the Terrorist Threat Immediately"

In a Jerusalem park one morning in 2004, I had a conversation with a sweet, elderly Yemenite Jewish man in his late eighties. His handbag sported a white ribbon and an orange ribbon – at the time, the State of Israel was debating the withdrawal of its citizens from the Gaza Strip: White favored pullout and Orange favored staying. We spoke for a long while and his kind and loving manner toward me and my year-old son coupled with his support for both sides of the painful debate to leave/stay in Gaza showed him to be a sensitive, thoughtful person.

As over 100 suicide bombings inside Israel's borders had taken place in the previous 3 years, at some point I said, “Our poor country finds itself in such danger these days.” His response was immediate and swift, “The Israeli Government can stop the terrorist threat immediately but it doesn't want to. We could stop the terrorism tomorrow, but the leadership is afraid to do it.”

Speechless, I asked him to explain.

He told me the story of his early 20^th century childhood in the Silwan area of Jerusalem. Silwan was a tense village of Yemenite Jews on one side and Arabs on the other. One evening, shots were fired from the Arab village and Jewish children were killed. The Arab villagers denied any knowledge, participation, or responsibility for the shootings. Two days later in broad daylight his older brother and a group of others went to the two Arab houses from where the shots were fired, took out all the inhabitants of the houses and killed them. There was never another incident or threat of danger from their Arab neighbors.

Speechless.

[POSTIFICATION: I DO NOT CONDONE, ENCOURAGE, OR DESIRE FOR ISRAEL AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE TO UTIILZE THE TACTIC DESCRIBED ABOVE.  MY DESIRE IS FOR ALL PARTIES CONCERNED ABOUT ISRAEL TO EITHER: A) BE REVOLTED BY THE VULGARITY OF THE ACT, AND/OR, B) FACTOR INTO THE EQUATION THE REALITY OF MIDDLE EASTERN CULTURE EXPRESSED IN THE STORY WHEN CRITIQUING ISRAEL’S SECURITY DECISIONS – AND PROPOSING ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS]

 

Women, Taboo and Liberation

Menstrual cycle, impurity, prohibitions, blood, uncleanliness, hushes…

Judaism actually celebrates menstruation as a women's ability to create life and the tradition encourages the fruitfulness possible due to this gift to women.  Still, rabbis scratch heads pondering why the family purity laws (those laws that legislate sexual relations between spouses) get such bad press and has fallen into disuse even amongst observant Jewish couples.

Here are 3 examples of how traditional Judaism misrepresents the beauty of a woman's power to be Gd's partner in the process of Creation….

1. Anyone who has ever heard that a woman is forbidden to touch a Torah scroll has also heard the following reason:  if a woman were in her menstrual state of restrictedness ('impurity') she would transfer impurity to the Torah by touching it.  The explanation – and prohibition – is a complete fabrication and untrue.  The surety of proof comes from the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) ritual that we just read in synagogue last week.  There we learn that anyone who comes in contact with a dead body either through touch or even presence (like in a cemetery or a hospital) is ritually impure.  The only way to be rid of this impurity is through a Temple ritual using the ashes of a completely red-haired cow.  For the last 2,000 years, there has been no Temple and no such ritual.  The majority of all men, therefore, are ritually impure.  How is it we can touch the Torah scroll – because the Torah cannot receive impurity.  I've sent many traditional yeshiva students back to their teachers seeking to refute this proof.

What is the reason for this bubbe meise (old wives' tale)?  What is the resulting attitude of boys, and girls, and men, and women, toward menstruation?  Why hasn't this myth been shattered?

2. Have you ever noticed in America that Orthodox-observant couples do not hold hands? The reason for this abstinence is because for them it is forbidden for a male to touch a female who is a niddah (ritual impurity caused by her period).  After her period and her visit to a mikveh, touching is permitted again.  At least 2 weeks every month a couple is permitted to touch – so why not walk together hand-in-hand in public?  Were the couple to hold hands during the permitted days, then others would deduce that when the couple is not holding hands the woman would be experiencing her period and this knowledge would somehow be immodest or embarrassing.  But, why?  In Israel, religious couples can be seen walking hand-in-hand in every city….

3. As a rabbinical student 15 years ago, I was hosted by a fellow Conservative student and his wife for Shabbat dinner.  In a respectful way, I asked them to explain to me how they traverse the issue of Judaism's family purity laws. The response I received was the one most often delivered – and most likely to slam the door to the curious – "those are private issues for a couple and not to be discussed."    

The answer is not to abandon the family purity laws; the answer is to abandon the rabbis' adolescent discomforts….

Israel's Indignation: Understanding my Pain

I scratch my head trying to identify why American Jewry's criticism of Israel is so difficult for me.  I live in Israel and see the societal and political ills up close, so the reason is not because of a loss of my innocence or the destruction of a vision of utopia that I harbor for the Jewish State.    

I recently read an article telling of a society where most cases of reported sexual abuse and harrassmnet never go before a judge because there is a culture of tolerance for such male behavior.  It elicited an analogical awareness:

In the face of a woman's being violated by a man there is the tendency -- and even the desire -- to try to find the woman somewhat responsible for the act (a flirtatious personality, the way she dresses, she allowed herself to be alone with him, we know what happens in fraternity houses and she should have known better than to go to the party, she grew up in an abusive home so is attracted to violent men, it wasn't rape because they were on a date, she's a spurned woman making accusations out of revenge....).  By finding her at all culpable we try to bring order to the chaos/randomness of the violent act so we can reduce anxiety about our own chances for being victimized, and it helps us to deny the extant evil of the perpetrator.  Additionally, it allows for those persons who do not agree with certain expressions of femininity to be critical of that womanliness.  And, it also causes a reduction of sympathy for the victim.  In a way we do it regarding cancer, too -- lung cancer -- was he a smoker? does cancer run in the family?  (as if it reduces the horror of the cancer or the tragedy of it because it could be predicted). 
 
To even raise the issue of the female's behavior is to diminish the act of the perpetrator. 
 
Settlements, roadblocks, separation walls, blockades, Operation Cast Lead, intransigence toward a Two State Solution, right wing coalition forces....these are accusations and explanations used (by Israel's detractors and others) for Israel somehow deserving to be victim to ideologies that do not condone Israel's existence and deserving to be victim to cultures that justify the perpetration of barbarism as legitimate means of protest. 
 
Though American Jews who argue for 'honest debate over Israel' do not agree with these ideologies and cultures, they do use the same terminology as Israel's true enemies and by doing so it reduces the perpetrators' evil and points an accusing finger at the victim. 
 
I understand legitimate difference of opinion regarding Israel's approach to its national security, I need not validate those whose very arguments abet and vindicate -- even unintentionally -- the pernicious enemies of Israel.

New York Times' Thomas Friedman is whacked

My lettter to NYTimes Editor in response to the following:

Reality Check

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: December 11, 2010

---

Thomas Friedman treats readers and world leaders like children as he consistently presents facile solutions to deeply profound and complex problems.  Most recently, he teaches readers that the lesson behind the Israeli and Palestinian refusal to accept U.S. help – and generous incentives –  in brokering a peace agreement is due to the arrogance and disconnection to reality of the regions' leaders (Reality Check 12/11/2010).  Perhaps the arrogance and disconnect belong to Friedman and others who cannot fathom that the reason the Israeli/Palestinian leaders do not enter into a peace-agreement-process is due to their understanding of the region and its populations; their assessment that there is not enough substantial trust between the inhabitants to stand behind an agreement at this time.  That is, a forced U.S. led peace agreement will be no more than paper and ink which is certain to fail and set back the chances for a sincere peace agreement in the foreseeable future.   Friedman's misread of the situation and, most importantly, his presentation as certainty of fact exhibits the very disconnect from reality that he readily attributes to others.

Do Animals have a Soul?

[This post was originally written for www.jewishvaluesonline.com]

 

As part of a forum of rabbis assigned to answer questions, I was tasked the following:

 

Do Jews believe dogs and cats have souls?

 

There is no doubt that Jews of all backgrounds and practices may believe that dogs and cats have souls; accordingly I would like to reframe the question and respond to the following: 

 

Does *normative Jewish thought support the idea that dogs and cats have souls?

 

The question assumes that 'soul' is a given, understood term and as such need not be defined; however, without clarifying its meaning any answer would be fallible.  For the sake of this response, 'soul' is understood as the Jewish concept of a non-corporal entity that consciously influences physical behavior toward either good (yetzer ha’tov) or bad (yetzer ha’rah).  Action which is only instinctual or learned while void of an ethical decision making process – e.g. sleep, hunger, thirst, reproduction, survival – is not a sign of the Jewish concept of 'soul.'

 

The Biblical verse that communicates the Jewish understanding of ‘soul’ is found in Proverbs 20:27 נר ה' נשמת אדם – Gd’s light is the human soul.  ‘Soul’ is that part of a person's constitution which manifests Gd’s image  – that part of us that **incorporates intellect, emotion, psychology, wisdom, experience, thoughtfulness, consideration, expectation, humor, loyalty, relations, consequence, ethics, morality and more as we attempt to interact with the world.  In other words, ‘soul’ is the Gd part of humans as expressed in thought and action.  As such, humans are capable of altruism and unselfish behavior for the sake of others even to our own detriment.  Much of human behavior is the result of calculated thought whereby we decide to act in our own best interests – dogs and cats and most all animals also act in their own best interest but their behavior is the result of an amoral decision making process.  Much of conscious human activity is action that can be classified as having moral overtones.   

 

There are certainly recorded incidents of animal behavior that goes against the natural instincts of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.  Those instances are not the normative, recognizable behavior of animal species.  Whereas it is fair to claim that human understanding of animal behavior is limited by our imperfect ability to communicate with animals, it is also fair to claim that 'soul' is a term reserved to label a feature exclusive to humans. 

 

It is understandable that many people, Jews and non-Jews alike, want to attribute the personality and intellect of animals to the concept of soul.  There is no doubt in this author's mind that animals have a connection and relationship to Gd, have the capacity to be in friendship with others, and whose behavior is influenced by a decision process.  However, to label these characteristics as 'soul' is to misrepresent the Jewish understanding of soul.  

 

In closing, it would be incorrect to believe that if animals do not have a ‘soul’ they are merely ambulatory organisms not worthy of consideration or compassion.  Though Judaism does not place animals on the same plane as humans in terms of capacity to manifest the attributes of Gd, human treatment of sentient creatures is legislated by Jewish law.  Our tradition recognizes that animals with a perception and consciousness of pain and pleasure – physical and/or emotional – deserve the benefit of human employment of the very soul that would have us act responsibly, compassionately, and with humility toward these virtuous creatures with whom we share Gd’s world.

 

 

* This response does not incorporate kabbalistic/mystical Jewish teachings regarding animals.

 

** That someone may have a disability and is therefore not able to incorporate the attributes of Gd into her daily life does not mean that a soul is absent.  The soul certainly accompanies such a person throughout her lifetime, but the expression of the soul is stymied by the bio-physical limitations of the person.