*Be the Change You Want to See In the World

B'chukotai 5774

In light of the pain that struck the Jewish world this week via vandalism of our own doorstep...(see link below)

This shabbat we read the final portion of the Book of Leviticus, parshat B'chukotai. As is the practice for concluding each of the Five Books of Moses, the community will stand for the final verses of the book and say, “Chazak, Chazak v'nitChazek” (BeStrongandWewillbeStrengthened). For those present, it is a moment of great emotion and communal unity as we rise together, pronounce together, and bid farewell together to the book of the Torah that we have engaged with and which we will long for until we return to it next year. At that moment, there is a sense of standing again at Mt. Sinai; a band of folks from different houses, of various opinions, multiple styles and flavors who, by having a common ancestry and by sharing similar adversities at the hands of the non-Jewish world, forge a bond of brotherhood stronger than any pernicious force that others send our way. Indeed, as history has proven, the holiness of the Jewish People is predicated on us and no one else. Each and every community is a part of the connective interlocking tissue that serves to strengthen our People – no matter the malice of others or even our own, we will not waver in fulfilling the duty of our residence among the People Israel, in the Land of Israel, for the State of Israel.

To view news coverage of vandalism:  Click Here

Kapparot -- Yom Kippur Ritual

 

Arab/Israeli Conflict: Legitimate Solution?

Below is the conclusion of a longer piece posted in May 2010 found here:  http://adamfrank.typepad.com/adam_frank/2010/05/a-tale-of-two-states.html

My 'solution' is to use these next 20-30 years to improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians and to lay the foundation for a future peace agreement. 

 

- A priority would be to protect the safety, security, and dignity of the Palestinians.

 

- A priority would be to improve the standard of living for Palestinians and show the benefits of peaceful co-existence.

  

- A priority would be to create a tolerance whereby Israel can feel a Palestinian State is not a threat to the Jewish State's security.

  

- THE priority would be the security of Israel's citizens. It certainly is fair to prioritize the security of Israelis over the security of the Palestinians as the Palestinian leadership condones, supports, and engages in its stated goal of eliminating the State of Israel – there is no such reciprocal goal or acts of Israel toward the Palestinians. 

  

If the Obama Administration and international opinion supports the idea of imposing conditions onto the players in the Middle East in order to prepare the region for a resolving of the Arab/Israeli conflict, consider the following: 

 

Impose on the Palestinians of West Bank and Gaza:

1. An international investment in the infrastructure of Palestinian institutions including government services, the economy and the manufacturing of goods, hospitals, roadways, police force, and judicial systems and the like.

  

2. A reform of the educational system that eliminates the vilification of Israel; that teaches the history of loss of both sides; that recognizes a Jewish State of Israel; that fertilizes the dreams concomitant with peaceful coexistence.

  

3. A no-tolerance policy on clerical, religious, political, or media-driven breeding of hatred toward the State of Israel and/or the Jewish people.

  

4. An active no-tolerance policy toward hate groups of Israel, the Jewish people and Western culture, including the dismantling of all groups committed to the active or passive liberation of Palestine.

 

Impose on Israel:

1. The immediate construction of comfortable modern 'passage centers' whereby residents of the West Bank and Gaza can respectfully and efficiently be recognized by Israeli authorities as non-dangerous for entry into Israel for the purposes of work and family visits.

 

2. The removal of all roadblocks between roads connecting Palestinian West Bank cities.

 

3. The release of Palestinians held without charges in detention jails.

 

4. The necessary utilities support to help the Palestinian infrastructure and economy advance and develop.

 

5. A no-tolerance policy toward anti-Palestinian activity.

 

6. A halt in construction of new site settlements and permission to expand currently settled areas of that have populations of 20,000+.

 

7. The dismantling of small, illegal settlements with an eye toward dismantling other settlements whose location purposes are no more than to frustrate a future land designation for a Palestinian state.

 

The separation wall stays up and is completed. Any breach of the wall is considered an act of terror.

 

International monitors who have been agreed to on by both sides will oversee and report to the P.A., Israel and the Quartet on the implementation.
 
At 5, 10, 15, and 20 years there will be incremental and appropriate steps toward an independent Palestinian State in 2035. Time is necessary to build trust -- trust cannot be imposed.

From Jerusalem,

Adam

Video-Vort Korach 5772

There is a 'Jewish' way to argue.....

 

Only in Israel: of Child and of Parent

My son attends public school in Israel. He is in second grade (7 and 8 year olds). This photo is a of a page of one of his school workbooks – see translation below. [At end you are requested to respond]

Entitled: A Bomb at the Bus Stop

 

Yossi wanted to ride the bus and stood at the bus stop.

Suddenly, he saw a black bag under the bench.

"Whose bag is this?,” Yossi asked to the people at the bus stop.

No one answered.

"Does anyone recognize this bag?,” Yossi asked again.

Again, no one answered.

Yossi ran to the public phone and called the police.

Immediately, a mobile police unit arrived with officers and a bomb disposal expert.

The bomp sapper checked the bag and found a ticking bomb inside of it.

The officers moved everyone away and the bomb sapper detonated the bomb.

Yossi was invited to the police station and the station's captain said to him:

"You did something important; you saved all of the people in the area.”

The captain gave Yossi a certificate of appreciation and a badge of the Israeli Police.

PLEASE WRITE A COMMENT WITH YOUR REACTIONS/THOUGHTS ~ Adam

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.