A Tzimmes in a Teapot

As a general rule, Jesus is not a particularly well-understood figure in Judaism. Since the topic dovetailed with my undergrad thesis, I spent lots of time examining Jewish attitudes towards Jesus in college-- ranging from the medieval polemic Toldot Yeshu, to philosophers like Profiat Duran, Jacob Emden and Moses Mendelssohn. I also looked at Enlightenment and Reform thinkers like Graetz, Geiger, Kohler, and the rabbis Wise (I.M. and Steven), as well as Yiddish modernists like Melech Ravitch, Itzig Manger, Peretz Markish, Abraham Sutzkever, Lamed Shapiro, Zalman Schneour, H. Leivick, Sholem Asch, and even Uri-Zvi Greenberg, all of whom incorporated depictions of Jesus into their writing at various points.

So when I hear that Shmuley Boteach has a book coming out about how Jews should relate to Jesus, forgive me if I'm a little skeptical already.

It's not that the topic should be off-limits. It's that Shmuley is neither a scholar, nor a historian, nor, indeed, even a philosopher. He is a salesman, a popularizer. These things can be fine, but when the "products" you decide to sell are people's deeply-held beliefs, it can lead to a volatile mix-- just ask Sholem Asch, who got tossed out of the Yiddish canon for his series of Christian novels. This is also not helped by the fact that Shmuley is one of the Jewish world's most self-aggrandizing and least humble personalities (also like Asch!), a man who never met a media outlet he didn't like, and who can't write an op-ed without either name-dropping a celebrity friend he hangs out with or trying to sell his new book, TV show, or half-eaten sandwich.

Simply put, Shmuley is not the right person to try to market Jesus' Jewishness. And all the more so since he apparently knows very little about the field he is purporting to comment on. As fellow Judeoblogger Izgad points out, there has been a ton of scholarship on "the historical Jesus" over the past 100-plus years, from both Jews and Christians. And unless new material is discovered, at this point it's frankly rather hard to draw any new conclusions about Jesus' identity or ideology without just making stuff up. The Gospel accounts are often vague or contradictory, and their value as reliable evidence is already questionable. Shmuley mines Haym Macoby at length and casts Jesus as a patriotic Pharisee, but it's not the only conclusion one can draw. One early Reform intellectual, I.M. Jost, saw Jesus as a brilliant man trapped by Pharisee culture, which he secretly despised. Heinrich Graetz, by contrast, thought Jesus was an Essene operating on the fringes of rabbinic Judaism. (Most Reform thinkers followed Abraham Geiger's idea that Jesus was a principled Pharisee fighting Sadducee literalism and corruption, a theme echoed by Asch in his novels.)

Frankly, the Gospels are just not all that clear. You can read Jesus any way you want to and find textual evidence for it-- that's part of the reason why there are so many Christian denominations in the world. One quick example is Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. In it, he says that he has not come to abolish the law-- and this claim is backed up within the sermon, as he procedes to create various fences around the Torah, just like the Pharisees did. On the topics of murder, adultery, oaths, and divorce, his pronouncements are far stricter than the Biblical prohibitions or rabbinic interpretations of the day. But at the same time, some of his reformulations of other themes are either more liberal than standard Pharisee teachings (kashrut being one good example), or so radically reformulated that they can't really be compared (loving your enemy and an eye for an eye come to mind). And elsewhere in the Gospels, we see Jesus doing various things that are clearly at odds with Jewish law, such as violating the Sabbath to pick food. He doesn't really justify himself there or clarify why he's doing it, he just does it.

When you look at his actions, the conclusion seems to be that when it comes to Jewish law, Jesus is (by Pharisee standards) inconsistent. Some things are very important, and some things aren't important at all. Does that make him beyond the pale of Judaism for his time period? I'm not knowledgable enough about second Temple-era Judaism to comment, but I sure do wish that when talking about the "historical Jesus" more people would take the time to read what the Gospels say he did and said, as well as get historical context about the mileu he lived in, so they can understand what was and wasn't controversial about what he was doing, instead of reading him through historical prisms from 2000 years later.

And this leads us back to Shmuley. At the end of the day, though I would prefer Shmuley stop writing books altogether, and certainly about topics as dicey as these, I find it absolutely laughable that segments of the Orthodox community sees Kosher Jesus as such a threat that they are banning people from reading it or wringing their hands that now evangelicals will think they've got a rabbi on their side. Evangelicals have been pushing Jesus on us long before Shmuley and if they're expecting an uptick in saved souls thanks to this book, I think they'll be disappointed. Besides, Shmuley lives for publicity and it's a particularly bad move to give him any excuse to claim his new "groundbreaking" book is making him the target of persecution. If you're going to talk about his book, talk about why it's either bad scholarship or extremely obvious marketing pandering.

At the end of the day, the Jewish community have to figure out what it is they don't like about Shmuley and his book. If it's that it's a crappy book, and that there are much better-- and substantive-- things to say about the topic, that's one thing. If it's that they're personally not interested in it, that's fine too. But if part of the backlash to this is that they're worried people are going to convert over it, I would say calm down and give your fellow Jews some credit. Even if that was his goal (and it's clearly not), Shmuley simply isn't that good a writer.

P.S.

If people are interested in getting a more scholarly Jewish view of Jesus, or of actually "building bridges" between Jews and Christians like Shmuley says he is, one good resource to check out might be this book. I haven't read it yet, but I'm intrigued. God knows it's got to be better than Kosher Jesus.

When Jewish Names Aren't

It seems like a while since I've been able to find some good Jewish content for the blog. Luckily, there are a number of high-quality Jewish websites out there, and plenty of them have nice, chunky bits of bizarre goodness. Take the "Ask the Rabbi?" section of Yeshiva.org. As anyone who reads the blog knows, I am a huge fan of "Ask the Rabbi" segments, be they Lazer Brody or random Chabad dudes on Arutz Sheva. .


Lots of times the questions are above my head, like whether women are allowed to say amen to certain prayers or whether you're allowed to eat a slice of bread on a bus if there's nowhere to wash your hands (not even kidding). But there are some basic categories I think I can handle, like what names are kosher. I particularly liked this question:

My spouse is very interested in giving the name "Adam" to our son who was recently born. I am concerned about this because I truly believe that the name given to a child affects his future and I heard that the name Adam is problematic, perhaps because of Adam’s sin, what should I do???

Wait, so you can only name kids after sinless people? Guess there's going to be a lot of Jesus Goldbergs going around.


The rabbi tries to play both sides:

The Chida (Rabbi Chaim Joseph David Azulai) in his book Birkei Yosef quotes Rabbi Moshe Miterani (1500 – 1580) in his Responsa Hamabit 1, 276, that it is not proper to give the name Adam or Noah or Shem and Eber because one should not name after people, only from Abraham onwards, and one who is called by the name Japheth etc. from the names prior to Abraham is not amongst “whose labor is in the Torah and who gives pleasure to his Creator”. 

Wow, those are some harsh standards. I know a lot of Adams and Noahs who are going to be pissed. (Other names this would disbar from the Jewish canon: Seth, Jared, and of course, Tubalcain.)


Oh wait, fake-out! Looks like all the other rabbis thought this one guy was a few matzot short of a full box.

The Rabbi author of Kenesset Hagedolah wonders at him, as we find R’ Benjamin son of Japheth, and Heaven forbid that the father of R’ Japheth breeched a safeguard and so forth, see there. Similarly should be noted from Akabia ben Mahalalel. The Chida concludes that people are not concerned about this and do give the names Adam Noah etc. 

So you can trust these great sages Rabbi Chaim Benveniste author of the "Kenneset Hagedolah" (Constantinople 1603 - Izmir 1673) and the Chida (Jerusalem 1727 - Livorno 1806) and give your son the name Adam. And particularly in this case that it involves Shalom Bayit (domestic harmony) and great is peace. There is another option to give the child a name in addition to the name Adam.

Man, no fair! Being reasonable? Trying to promote compromise? What kind of rabbi is this guy? I bet this guy is really some half-Jewish, hippy-dippy Reform faker. Hear that, "Moshe Leib Halberstadt," if that is your real name? I'm calling you out!


Other entertaining name questions: Why do stupid people name their kids Nimrod, (answer: they're stupid) and OMG, my namesake married a Goy, what should I do? (answer: nothing, stupid.)

And apologies to Beit-El Yeshiva, which is apparently not as nutty as I thought.

Barking Kiruv up the Wrong Tree

I know I rarely agree with R. Harry Maryles. And that's ok. I know we're worlds apart on most things. But he's usually pretty nice about it.

Recently, though, R. Harry seems to be trying to lay the kiruv work on a little thick. First he posted about Susan, a committed patrilineal Reform Jew (see her response here). R. Harry, trying to be nice, gives her a few back-handed compliments, and then draws his line.

Here is a person who sees the beauty of Judaism and actually tries to fulfill many Mitzvos. She may in fact have somewhere within her the inner soul of a Jew waiting to come out. But she is not Jewish according to Halacha neither according to Orthodox Judaism nor Conservative Judaism. Despite her best efforts she is not Jewish in the eyes of vast numbers of the people she identifies with. Her Jewish soul beckons to come out. But the only way she will have universal recognition is if she undergoes a full and formal conversion that will be unquestioned by any denomination.

R. Harry assumes that this is a major issue for Susan. Of course, I would guess that if this was the case, she would have done something about it sooner.

R. Harry holds out the carrot of universal "recognition" and suggests that Susan wants nothing more than being accepted by all the "people" she identifies with. People like who? Going out on a limb, most Reform Jews I know don't spend that much time with Orthodox Jews. I'm not putting words in Susan's mouth, but I'm guessing this just doesn't come up that much. Not to mention the fact that, as I pointed out in March, Orthodox Jews only make up 14% of the global Jewish population. Sure, they're visible, and sure, they're vocal, and sure, in some places they're outright in charge, but if you're just talking numerical acceptance, Reform honestly ain't that bad.

R. Harry keeps going with a modified version of Pascal's Wager:

Even though she disagrees with the Orthodox definition and considers herself Jewish – what harm can there be in doing so? If she is as sincere about her Judaism as she says (and I have no reason to question that) why not do this thing so that there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind about it?

Yeah, just do it in case you ever decide to care about what the Orthodox think. Come on!

Of course, what's missing here is any ability-- or attempt-- to see the situation through Susan's eyes-- and in effect, it relies on the premise of convincing her that she has a defect that needs to be fixed by conversion. It's like trying to tell a healthy or fairly attractive person that they're fat or need plastic surgery. "Sure, I know you think you look fine... but what harm is there in a little lipo? If you're sincere about wanting to be pretty, why not just do this one thing so there's no doubt in anyone's mind?"

That was last month. This month, R. Harry blogged about Zach Emanuel. He had a Bar Mitzvah, you see. But it turns out his mom "only" converted via Conservative auspices. Dun-dun-dun!

How can anyone think of themselves as fully Jewish if a major segment within it rejects their validity as a Jew? Shouldn’t that be enough to seek a conversion that is universally accepted?

Again, R. Harry seems to be applying the logic of high school popularity contests to Jewish life. How can you really be Jewish if not everyone thinks you are? (I suppose by that logic, Reform rabbis should start trying to get Orthodox shmicha, just to cover their bases.) Never mind that Reform and Conservative Judaism, numerically far bigger than Orthodoxy, reject plenty of elements of Orthodox practice. If we're going by the numbers here, then why don't we use that argument to convince the Orthodox to abolish the concept of mamzerut or agunot? Oh wait, because no denomination of Judaism sincerely cares about what the other ones think as long as they can't actively hamper them? Wow, I can't believe I forgot that one.

It's true not being accepted can be upsetting to some people, such as small children or emotionally needy teenagers. But I would hope that most adults, particularly in this age, accept that not everybody agrees with them, their politics, their lifestyle, or their values, and live their lives and craft their communities accordingly. If the Orthodox don't accept someone, guess what, there are plenty of people who will. Outside of Israel, it's not that big a deal.

And honestly, that's the problem for Orthodoxy when it comes to outreach. Unless someone has a fundamental change of perspective and decides that they believe Orthodoxy is the true path, OR they have low Jewish self-confidence and/or self-esteem and feel a tremendous need for acceptance (take, for instance, many of the young Baal Teshuvah folks recruited into specialized yeshivas that emphasize their lack of knowledge and appeal to their desire to do things in an "authentic" way), there simply aren't that many compelling reasons to become Orthodox. If you don't believe Orthodox theology is true or accept Orthodox interpretations of halacha, Orthodoxy becomes just one more opinion. And viewed within that context, honestly, who cares if one particular group doesn't accept you as long as there are others that do?

From what I've seen, universal Jewish acceptance is just simply not most people's-- especially the youth's-- biggest issue these days. And, in light of all the misheggos going on with Ortho rabbis in Israel invalidating conversions, this carrot increasingly appears to be an unobtainable pipe dream anyway.

The sad part is I know that this is coming a sincere person trying to expand Orthodoxy's big tent. But it really just demonstrates how divergent Jewish perspectives have become. The Orthodox don't-- and can't-- understand why people wouldn't want to live Orthodox lives, or at least convert Orthodox so they have their bases covered and can be "in the club." They don't get that for many Jews around the world, their particular club is not one they really care to belong to.

Oh please

Not another "The Sabbath saves the Jews" story. Really?

Oh yes.

Yeshiva World News wants you to know, yes, you, that observing Shabbos saves Jewish lives.

Shabbos Observance Saved Yidden from Ill-Fated Polish Flight

According to Chabad shaliach in Warsaw, Rabbi Shalom Ber Stambler, a number of leaders of the local Jewish community are alive because they canceled their participation in the official state delegation, realizing the flight was on shabbos.

Rabbi Stambler stated the Polish president who was among the many government officials that perished in the crash was a true friend of the Jewish People and Israel. He stressed that President Lech Kaczynski showed his solidarity with the Jews by his actions, not just with words.

He pointed out that when the late president served as mayor of Warsaw, he played a major role assisting in the construction of the Jewish Museum, which is soon to open in the location of the Jewish ghetto area.

Rabbi Mordechai Shudrich, the chief rabbi of Poland, was among those invited to accompany the president on the ill-fated flight. The rav explained he told the president that he cannot fly on shabbos, and his explanation was received and understood.

Ok, first of all, I've only ever heard the rabbi referred to as "Michael." A comparitive Google search backed me up. Only 1 result for "Mordechai Schudrich," and 4 for "Mordechai Shudrich." "Michael Shudrich" got 1,200 hits and "Michael Schudrich", his actual name, resulted in over 6,900 hits. Given that you are ostensibly a "news" site, I'm not sure why you can't be bothered to research and use his actual name, unless of course Michael seems too goyish for a rabbi.

But not only is this piece sloppy and in terrible taste (Group hi-five, guys! Yes, the top echelon of Polish politics was wiped out, but go us for keeping Shabbos!), the unspoken premise being advanced-- God saves Jews who keep mitzvot-- is ridiculously untenable. Ordinarily I wouldn't even bother to point this out because there are so many counter-examples. But in this case, it's contradicted by another YWN article posted the SAME MORNING.

Avreich Stabbed in his Jerusalem Home on Shabbos

Rav Nachman Yonah Leib [ben Raizel Shoshana) was seated at the shabbos table with his family on Friday night in Jerusalem’s Ramat Shlomo neighborhood when he noticed a significant amount of water on the balcony. He assumed a pipe had burst, perhaps in his neighbor’s home upstairs, prompting him to go upstairs to inform his neighbor of the situation. When the door opened upstairs, R’ Nachman was greeted with a punch to his face, knocking him down, followed by an attack with a knife. He was stabbed three times in his abdominal area.

The family heard screams and ran upstairs, horrified to find R’ Nachman on the ground, bleeding from his wounds. Emergency officials were summoned and Ichud Hatzalah was first on the scene, with first-responders working to stabilize his condition. He was transported to the trauma unit of Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital and following a number of surgical procedures, he is listed in moderate-to-serious condition.

Version 2: The neighbor and assailant, described as a “baal tshuva”, came downstairs requesting that the family sing zmiros in a lower tone, explaining they were disturbing him. An argument resulted and the neighbor stabbed R’ Nachman.

The attacker was lightly injured and he was transported in custody to Shaare Zedek Medical Center. He explained to police that his downstairs neighbor was disturbing his shabbos and that prompted him to direct a water hose onto his balcony.

Let me try to synthesize these two articles...

"God saves those who observes Shabbos! Except when you sing too loud!"

Geez.

Change by any other name...

So it’s interesting, I was looking at the OU’s "Jewish Action" webpage and they’ve got an article by a Rav explaining all about kitniyot… and in the midst of bending over backwards trying to rationalize a totally ridiculous custom he lays out this line:

It is important to realize that the value of a minhag is much deeper than the reason for its original inception. A minhag is our link to Jewish history; it is the way our ancestors observed Judaism for hundreds and even thousands of years. In fact, perhaps there is no greater time to appreciate the value of minhagim than at the Pesach Seder.

All well and good, of course, except that the Orthodox approach is to demand that all Ashkenazim follow this silly minhag whether or not they get anything out of it…

We dare not abandon minhagei Yisrael even when the reasons no longer seem applicable, for a family that abandons its traditions severs its connections to the past.

I love this. The suggestion that all traditions are deserving of equal support and protection is mind-blowing. Isn't this fetishization of the past the stuff that leads to certain Hasidic groups quarreling over who wears the "right" kind of hat? I mean, my ancestors had plenty of ridiculous traditions that quite frankly, I have no interest in perpetuating. Alcohol abuse and domestic violence come to mind. Defrauding the government is another good one.

Next time you avoid eating rice or corn on Pesach (if you are Ashkenazic), remember that by doing so, you are connecting to the magnificent history of the Jewish people.

Got that? So abandoning a minhag is not allowed because it will sever your connection to the past.

But here's the funny thing... in the same issue, you have no fewer than three articles, talking about NEW, yes, new, approaches to Jewish day school/Talmud education curriculum!

Some fifty years ago, following the birth of his first son, Rabbi Yitzchok Shlomo Zilberman undertook the study of the sources concerning the mitzvah of talmud Torah. After consulting with the Torah leaders of his day, and receiving encouragement from the preeminent Torah sage Dayan Yechezkel Abramsky, the well known educator from Jerusalem created the method that bears his name.

Created it, you say? Well, that sure sounds new, doesn't it? But wait, then they'd be no better than the dirty Reformies, right? Oh, the horror.

If that wasn't enough, there's another article by an Orthodox lady talking about how the MO world has gradually done a complete 180 in its position regarding Bat Mitzvahs. Bat Mitzvahs? I didn't even know that Orthos were having them. How nice that they've come around. However, using what limited English language comprehension skills I have at my disposal, I'm still having a problem seeing how this could be seen as anything other than "change."

My attitude toward the Bat Mitzvah celebration was not a mere idiosyncrasy: Rav Moshe had denounced it in a famous responsum written in 1959.

In the era when Rav Moshe penned his responsum, the Bat Mitzvah celebration was linked to the Conservative and Reform movements’ efforts to modernize and Christianize ritual in an attempt to “normalize” Jews in America. Orthodoxy was engaged in a battle for authenticity, fiercely preserving its distinctiveness. The prevailing opinion in frum circles was that it was better to avoid celebrating the Bat Mitzvah altogether. Certainly a pageant with white wedding dresses was far too close to the Catholic confirmation for comfort.

We began thinking about our daughter Bruria’s Bat Mitzvah nearly fifty years after Rav Moshe wrote his responsum. Today, the Jewish world is transformed; Orthodoxy is ascendant.2 It has triumphed in its struggle against the other denominations, and no longer has to judge itself based on the practices of others.

But wait! This can't be "change!" It can't be "new!" No, of course not!

Prominent posekim published response disagreeing with Rav Moshe, sometimes vociferously, permitting and even encouraging the Bat Mitzvah celebration.

In his zeal to stem the post-war flight from Orthodoxy, Rav Moshe apparently believed that the community was best served by doing nothing for girls reaching maturity. By maintaining this position, he discounted the Orthodox tradition of celebrating the Bat Mitzvah that existed in the early part of the twentieth century in Ashkenazic communities in Russia and Lithuania, as well as in Sephardic communities in Egypt.

See, the OU says so. That should be enough, right? Oh, and ditto for the article on the Zilberman method:

Far from being a revolutionary approach, the Zilberman method draws upon traditional teaching methods as outlined by Chazal and championed by the Maharal and Vilna Gaon.

Got that? Would-be Haredi Inquisition? I mean, sure, it works, and, yes, apparently, it's way more effective than the other method, and yes, this guy is getting credit for coming up with it FIFTY YEARS AGO, but no, it's not new. Of course not! On the contrary, it's so “traditional” that no one had heard of it for the last 200 years. Hmm, finding a new approach that makes more sense and then scrounging around for a historical precedent to back it up? Are we sure you guys didn’t go to JTS?

So, yeah. Just to recap: we dare not abandon silly outmoded food prohibitions lest we sever our connections to our past. But reinventing the entire way kids study Talmud or pulling Bat Mitzvahs out of nowhere, that’s cool.

Got it?

I have to say, this reflexive denial that any innovation is actually something new seems to almost verge on the pathological. It certainly takes the Chasam Sofer’s ridiculous mantra to a whole new low.

A History of Lawlessness

R. Harry at Emes-ve-Emunah has a question following the sentencing of the Spinka Rebbe:

Are Chasidim more prone to fraud against the government than other religious Jews? Is it common in their circles? According to this document it is not only common but generational.

I just received and read a copy of the US attorney’s sentencing recommendations for the Spinka Rebbe. It seems pretty clear that the type of thing that the Spinka Rebbe was found guilty of is a fairly common and widespread practice among other Chasidic groups.

...It is very apparent that they see nothing wrong with cheating the government in this way. That it is so widely done is a shameful black mark all of Jewry. This is an almost unprecedented Chilul HaShem in scope and size. I am embarrassed and ashamed that those who pride themselves on being the most religious among us are so deeply involved in governmental fraud.

Looking at the question from a historical perspective, I have a couple of thoughts. First, although I think it is unfair to categorize Jewish crime as a specifically Hasidic issue, it is interesting to look at the origins of the Hasidic movement insofar as they might inform Hasidic self-perceptions when it comes to dina malchuta dina. The Baal Shem Tov and his followers were rebelling against the authority of their day. Initially this was just against the rabbinical establishment, but it soon spread beyond that as the rabbis attempted to bring the secular authorities, particularly in Russia, in on their side. As the Hasidim struggled to sustain their movement against both religious and state opposition, I assume they also must have had to develop a mentality of doing "whatever it took" to keep themselves going, whether it followed "the law" or not.

To a large degree, this is not really surprising; this approach has been part of Jewish thought for millenia: if you outlaw practicing Judaism than the Jews who practice it become outlaws. There are many stories about noble Jews defying laws to practice their faith. While these characters and their actions are often characterized as brave role models, they also contain a core value which condones, or even encourages, defying authority when that authority is seen as illegitimate. You see similar dynamics when Jews start getting drafted into the Russian Army- people doing everything they can to get out of it, providing Jewish access and services to Jewish recruits despite Russian law, etc. None of this actions are objectively bad, but they provide another precedent where secular law is superseded by Jewish law. The "Jewish rebel" phenomenon happens over and over again: The Kotzker and Gerrer rebbes on the run from the Russian Army, the pre-State Zionists gathering arms and policing their own communities rather than relying on apathetic and untrustworthy government forces, etc. There is a long Jewish history of bending or breaking the law when Jewish leaders feel that it is necessary.

So, when push comes to shove, plenty of Jews have shown, again and again, that just because the law says something doesn't mean they intend to follow it. To a certain degree this a good thing; it shows an independence of thought and conscience and a skepticism of government and law that, given the precarious Jewish treatment at the hand of governments throughout history, is perhaps only healthy and natural. Government and law shouldn't be put up on a pedestal. We should always question potentially immoral laws and follow our consciences.

The problem, though, is that this reasoning, if stretched, can also be used to justify almost any illegal action-- if the community feels persecuted, if they feel they "really need" to do something to help themselves (i.e., steal or cheat), if they perceive the government or the government agency as being antisemitic, anti-Orthodox, anti-whatever. This danger is compounded in cases where the rank-and-file have been educated to view only their own leaders and community as legitimate, and where secular law is seen as, at best, not terribly important, and at worst, irrelevant. This is an issue that affects Hasidim, Mitnagdim, and even Religious Zionists in Israel. Have some leaders who teach that the government is illegitimate and that its laws are unfair or unimportant, and you have a perfect system in which the law will be systematically ignored or broken. If your primary loyalty and values are to God, your religious leader, and your community, NOT to the state, not to the larger area where you live, not to the rule or law or to your fellow citizens, then you basically have no civic background in which you can really value law. The sad part as it relates to Mafdalim in Israel is that you have groups of people who have previously been the most patriotic and the most committed to helping the state who are now feeling persecuted and disenfranchised and (some of whom) are in the process of turning away from it and actively disobeying its laws.

So no, it's not just a Hasidic problem. It's not even an exclusively Orthodox problem. All sorts of Jews engage in illegal activities, and as recently as World War Two (and certainly World War One) you still had secular Jews in Europe whose Jewish identity may contributed to the feeling that "goyishe" laws did not apply to them. I would attribute this in part to the sense that they were not represented in their countries' governments, not treated as citizens, or explicitly discriminated against. In short, they were disenfranchised and alienated from their countries, and therefore saw no reason to follow their laws.

The question is what has changed since. In Western democracies, Jews do have a voice. They are treated equally. They can succeed financially and politically. In Israel, Jews can participate in just about any sphere of activity they chose. But within some sectors of Orthodox Judaism, you still see a very dramatic sense of "us and them." They do not feel like they are part of the state-- any state. And that is where you see a cultural and even political association with breaking the law-- where Jewishness itself becomes a rationale for why the law doesn't apply.

Dina malchuta dina... Unless you're Jewish and don't feel like it. In which case, never mind.

Weird Coincidences, p2

Just what is it with Orthodox Judaism's weird iconography parallels with the Latin Kings? Last week it was the 3-point-crown. Then what should I notice during Yom Kippur while staring at my Artscroll Machzor but this:


Hang on now, a 5-point-crown, too?

This is starting to get a little creepy.


Ok, so what have we learned? Clearly, as the Zohar teaches us, this is a case of "as above, so below." Therefore: Chabad is just like the Puerto Rican faction of the gang, because they're both from New York and maybe slightly past their prime. Artscroll, on the other hand, is a little more mainstream, perhaps a little better known, just like the now ascendant 5-pointer Mexican bangers.

The only question now is: who is going to start going after more turf? My money's on Artscroll, those guys must be raking in paper with all the books they sell. (Sorry guys, but how many copies of Tanya or The Principles of Kingism does one person really need? The key, as Artscroll has discovered, is to diversify.)

Weird Coincidences

I'm at home watching a documentary about the Latin Kings, a violent Chicago-based street gang. A gang member explains the symbolism behind the gang's iconography:

The three pointed crown stands for Knowledge, Wisdom, and Understanding.

Hang on a sec. Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding? Where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah.

The name "Chabad" is an acronym for Chochmah, Binah, Da'at: Wisdom, Understanding, and Knowledge.

And look at their two flags:



Interesting.

WND throws Jewish readers a bone... made of stupid.

One of WorldNetDaily's two or three court Jews (I'm looking at you, Aaron Klein) must have mentioned that yesterday was a Jewish holiday or something, because the bozos are whipping out as much Jew-related content as they can (all, coincidentally written by the same Klein). Observe:

- Jews call Obama racist. Which Jews, you ask? Why, lovey-dovey kumbaya rabbis like Eliezer Waldman, one of the erudite and measured thinkers involved in inciting the murder of Yithzak Rabin. Darn, he's not pro-Obama? I'm just shocked.

"How dare he tell the Jews where they can or can't live! The era when Jews were banned from living in different places has ended," Waldman exclaimed.

Yes, while the era where everyone else (including Jews) tell Palestinians where they can live is still going strong. Three Huzzahs for selective morality.

"Obama beware. This insolence will bring about the downfall of the American leadership. Anyone who dares give an order to prevent Israeli life in Jerusalem or anywhere else in the land of Israel is destined to fall," he said.

Hmm, sounds a little omnious. Obama better hope he doesn't have any Jewish ancestors lurking in his family tree, someone might decide he qualifies as a Rodef.

Pinchas Wallerstein, director of the Yesha council of Jewish communities in the West Bank, told the crowds, "This week the American pressure reached new highs that are a shame to democratic societies."

Ah yes, if there's anyone who should be lecturing the State of Israel on how to be a responsible member of a democracy, it's the director of the Yesha council. (The backup speaker was the head of Eda Haredit.)

The construction project at the center of attention, financed by Miami Beach philanthropist Irving Moskowitz, is located just meters from Israel's national police headquarters and other government ministries. It is a few blocks from the country's prestigious Hebrew University, underscoring the centrality of the Jewish real estate being condemned by the U.S.

No kidding it's blocks away from Israeli landmarks; that's because it's in East Jerusalem, which, miraculously, happens to be right next to West Jerusalem. Proximity does not equal propriety. Guess what? The Temple Mount is right next to the Western Wall. Too bad there are some pesky mosques on top of it. So much for my plans to build a giant Borscht Belt resort on top of it (but where will Jackie Mason go?).

Klein goes on to parrot the govt. line about the house in E.J. formerly belonging to the Mufti of Jerusalem. Gershom Gorenberg put it best:

That the mufti supported Hitler is undeniable. The logic connecting that fact to moving settlers into Sheikh Jarrah is unfathomable. Though the competition for cynical use of the Holocaust is stiff, this surely deserves dishonorable mention.

- Not convinced/nauseated yet? Don't worry, there's more. See? Obama is "like Rome."

"The Obama administration is following in the footsteps of Rome. He is trying to do what the Romans did, passing anti-Jewish decrees at the time of the destruction of the Temple," Nadia Matar, the protest organizer, told WND.

Try to follow the logic:

A- Holding Israel's feet to the fire regarding settlements (much of which previous govts already cynically agreed to but never bothered to enforce) = anti-Jewish decrees.
B- Rome was one of hundreds of governments to pass "anti-Jewish decrees" (which apparently can be defined however it's convenient to Matar).
C- Therefore Obama is "like Rome."

Yeah, he's also like Rome insofar as he bathes regularly. Come to think of it, so is Matar (I hope). I guess the only thing left to do is to let these two Roman lovebirds have an old fashioned Roman orgy.

"We surrounded the Old City walls like a bride goes around her groom at the marriage canopy (during a Jewish wedding) and the couple pledge allegiance to each other," Matar told WND.

"We are married to the land of Israel and the Temple Mount and Jerusalem, and we are not ever going to give it up," she said.

Geez, Nadia, get off the sex thing already. Just decide, either you and Obama can go at it like crazed pagan Roman sex fiends or you and pure, demure, Jerusalem can get a room. But you can't swing both ways. That wouldn't be halachic. Also, 2 journalism points to Klein for fabricating his quoted headline (Obama 'like Romans who destroyed Jewish Temples') instead of just writing what Matar actually, you know, said.

Showing his usual disregard for facts and details, Klein also throws in ye olde BS about Tisha B'Av being the unluckiest Jew-day in the Jew-calendar for WND's goyishe readers, presumably to guilt them into sending more money to John Hagee or Yechiel Eckstein:

Aside from the destruction of the Jewish Temples, a remarkably large number of massive calamities befell the Jewish people on Tisha B'Av. Jewish rebellion leader Bar Kokhba's famous revolt against Rome failed in 135 B.C. Following the Roman siege of Jerusalem, the razing of Jerusalem occurred the next year. The first crusade pogrom against Jews in Palestine began on that date in A.D. 1096.

The Jews were expelled from Britain on Tisha B'Av in 1290 and were expelled from Spain that same day in 1492. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising was crushed by the Nazis on that day in May 1943, resulting in the slaughter of about 50,000 Jews.

Nationalists here also mourn the removal of Jews from the Gaza Strip in 2005, which began the day after Tisha B'av.

Lazy Aaron should read more J-blogs.

Birthright Issues

Garnel Ironheart has a post about Birthright Israel's success or lack thereof. A new study shows that almost half of B.I. participants (44%) don't engage in any Jewish activities after they come back. Garnel is even more pessimistic, saying he doubts that even the most committed members of the study (5% participate in 5 Jewish activities or more after coming back) are engaging in religious activities (the example he gives is morning minyan).

First, I think that he's cherry-picking his example-- morning minyan is an activity that Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism do not really emphasize. Even for Conservative Jews, who do have more of an emphasis on morning prayers, depending on your circumstances-- location from shul, school requirements, etc., morning minyan may simply be impossible. A better religious ritual to look at for a simple baseline would be one that is a little less arduous to fulfill-- making it more about personal choice and the person deciding, from their own motivation, that it's something they want to do. Say, lighting Shabbos candles, hosting a seder, or going to Friday night or morning services on Shabbat.

Also, I think it's a mistake to only consider the religious component of Jewish life in whether we determine Birthright to be successful-- as I understand it, the original goal was simply to have young Jews connect more to their Jewish identity, and, presumably, to Israel, Zionism, and the Jewish people in general, none of which can necessarily be measured through religious activities (or "activities" generally). I also think there's a legitimate argument in claiming that Jewish identity is more complex than merely one's religious behavior-- i.e., more religious Jews are not de facto "better" or "more serious" Jews. (I do not expect Orthodox Jews to agree with this perspective, but the beauty of my perspective is that that's ok.)

Moving on to Birthright, I have a few thoughts.

Part of the problem with Birthright is that this generation (people around my age, twentysomethings, and younger) has the capacity to be incredibly materialistic and superficial-- a behavior that is reinforced everyday through media, technology, and everything being shoved at them under the general rubric of "youth culture." This can then be exacerbated by absentee parents who are clueless about how to communicate with, or show affection to, their kids, aside from buying them ever-more-stuff or giving them free rein over their behavior and activities, regardless of whether they are making smart or particularly good decisions.

I wouldn't mind a free trip to Israel, but frankly I'm not interested in going with a bunch of strangers I'm likely to have nothing in common with aside from Jewish parents. In my early teens I went on a student tour to Australia and New Zealand. I was interested in sightseeing and learning more about the local culture; most of my "peers" were interested in getting drunk, buying drugs, and having sex with anyone that seemed the remotest bit interested. (One kid got offended when I told him I would never try heroin and accused me of being "closed-minded.") Needless to say, I did not have the best time.

The real issue is that Birthright is trying to justify itself to the parents of the kids who go on its trips, as its their goodwill that help the organization sustain itself-- but it's the kids who are actually going. I suspect Birthright does quite a bit of tightrope walking and doublespeaking when it gives its pitch to different audiences-- they might tell the parents they'll get to see a kibbutz and go the Wailing wall, experience a Shabbos, etc--not only are these fairly unidimensional experiences, which you would not EXPECT to appeal to everyone, they are also nostalgic, superficial representations of what Judaism in Israel has to offer. It's a postcard pitch. At the same time, to hook the kids, they chat up how awesome the bars are, how hot army girls are, etc. More postcards.

In both cases, they're giving very superficial pitches-- we can all agree that Israel is more than just Tel Aviv night clubs or Jerusalem cholent. The size of the organization means they have to try to attract everyone, which also means their standards-- for activities, for staff, and for participants-- suffer. No one is holding them to a higher standard and demanding more.

A much more productive and worthwhile way of doing this would be to try to find different ways of experiencing Israeli and Jewish life, thought and culture (because no, I don't think that merely taking them to Mea Shearim or Mercaz Harav is going to get them a lot of takers) that are actually appealing to young people on an intellectual and personal level, rather than trying to get them to associate Israel with a vapid "good times" tourist experience. If you offer substance and look for people that are serious about it, you get serious takers.

Of course, that's also a lot more work, and wouldn't guarantee the massive turnouts or media presence that Birthright uses to tout its "success."

It all works out in the end

I'm a skeptic, I'm a pessimist. I admit it. I get it from my family. My grandfather's motto was "Don't Bullshit a Bulshitter," and my father's are, "Life's tough and then you die." Actually, he has two- the other one is, "Not only is the glass half-empty, it also has dust on it." When I was younger, I used to suggest he amend it to, "and it's full of acid," but somehow, that never took off.

Anyway, one of the things I really can't stand are "inspirational" stories, the saccharine, sappy, brain-rending stories that convince you that ultimately, everything's going to be ok. I had a conversation with a friend a week ago in which he was reading off a set of "Table Topic" cards and one of the questions was, "What do you think Heaven was like?" I told him I thought the afterlife was a nice idea but had no evidence to suggest it was true. He got mildly annoyed and said, "That's why it's called faith." True, but being raised on no faith, I can never get past the objectivist standpoint- there is no reason for me to assume that one version of "What happens after you're dead" is any more likely than 500 other ones. That's sort of how I feel about the world, too. World Peace is a nice idea, and I think it's worth trying to achieve it (at least in pockets), but at the end of the day, I think I believe more in fallibility and unattainability than the contrary.

ANYWAY, the point of all this is that I've come across a few "miracle stories" on the Jblogosphere that, quite frankly, drive me crazy. Interestingly enough, they're both related to women's roles in Orthodox Judaism.

The first one is from a story in Jewish Action from several months ago. The story is a heartfelt hesped, a eulogy, given by R. Norman Lamm of his recently departed niece, the principal of an Orthodox girls' high school and the director of a women's learning program. While R. Lamm's eulogy is moving, the tag-line on the top of the article, taken from this paragraph, drove me to distraction:

I often think of Judy: what if she were born a male instead of a female? I am convinced that if she were born male, she would have been a rosh yeshivah. On second thought, not a rosh yeshivah but a rebbe, who would command the loyalty of hundreds of Chassidim, who would teach not only by words but by example of love and of chesed and ma'asim tovim, guiding her Chassidim in all facets of their lives, perhaps even to the point of receiving kevitlach. That was the kind of personality she had.

It must be my nature, but reading that paragraph makes me not only sad, but angry. R. Lamm is basically saying, perhaps unconsciously, that his very accomplished and talented niece had the capacity to be a wonderful spiritual leader- ah, but she was born the wrong gender, too bad, so sad, good luck next incarnation. If this was my mother or sister, I would be enraged that she lived in a community where her gifts were recognized and appreciated, but still deemed "not enough" to break the rabbinical glass ceiling. To have this then be inverted and presented as a compliment makes it even worse. R. Lamm's attempt to honor his niece only highlights how capricious and arbitrary strict gender norms can be, to the point that people who are acknowledged as being specifically gifted in an area are still discouraged from following their path (or "encouraged" in another) because they have the wrong gender. Never mind quality, energy or passion, we need guys with beards. I read R. Lamm's hesped and my first thought is not, "I'm glad she lived a happy life," but rather, "I'm sad she did not live in a community where ALL of her talents would have been valued and appreciated."

Next comes a story from R. Lazer Brody from an Orthodox woman who apparently hands out Lazer's book Garden of Emuna (plug, plug) out like candy. She gave one to a friend of hers several months ago and she liked it so much she decided she was going to name her daughter Chava Emuna (faith) instead of Chava Baila. Only problem was, this lightning-flash of insight came while her husband was at shul naming the baby.

Yesterday morning she was sitting at home nursing the baby while her husband was at shul naming her. She was going to name her Chava Baila and she just kept looking at her thinking it wasn't right for her. She looked down at her copy of Garden of Emuna (which of course happened to be sitting right there, Baruch Hashem!!!) and screamed!!! CHAVA EMUNA!!!! But she was home all alone, so she prayed to Hashem that one of her friends would stop by her house on the way to the shul. Knock Knock!!! Our friend just happened to be stopping by! Long story short, our friend RAN to the shul to stop the ceremony. She burst into the shul just in the nick of time! And now, because I told her to read the book, Chava Emuna has her beautiful name.

I THINK this is supposed to convince us that God works in mysterious ways, everything works out and has a reason for happening, and we all need to give Lazer's book to anyone we ever meet, because it could have an impact on something, somehow. (If nothing else, it will create a ton of girls named Emuna.) But me being a spoil-sport, I couldn't get past the fact that none of this would be an issue if BOTH PARENTS were at the shul to name the damn kid in the first place! You don't have a bris in absentia, I don't understand why you would do it without the daughter and mother present, either. Not only that, why not just call the shul? This wasn't on a Shabbos, so there was no reason the wife couldn't communicate with her husband and let him know she changed her mind. Is there an Amish group of Breslovers I haven't heard about?

One last one and then I'm done. There has been a major slide to the right taking place in the Orthodox world for more than a decade. Everyone knows this. One of the biggest ways this plays out is in terms of conversion standards. (Long story short: the Orthodox don't accept the standards of anyone who's not Orthodox, so the converts aren't Orthodox by their definition of halakha.) In America, it's not as big an issue, since people who aren't converting Orthodox usually know what they're getting into and don't plan to be interacting with the Orthodox community. In Israel it's a big issue because the Orthodox are the law of the land and control things like who can get married, and to whom, there being no civil marriage law.

For a long time, non-Orthos have been warning Modern Orthos that the Haredi-ization of Jewish standards was not going anywhere good. This was generally ignored or swept under the rug- Modern Orthos are still Orthos, after all.

Then there was this. And this. Followed by this and this. Now this. All of which of course, led to this. The best write-ups of these problems, pre-Druckman, were by Gorenberg and Shmarya.

So it appears that the Haredim are on the attack now, cutting huge swathes in the legitimacy of Modern Orthodoxy. Some MOs are justifiably pissed. Some non-Orthos are gloating (I recall seeing one blogger flat-out-say, "we told you so").

And then there are some people whose reaction to being told that they aren't Jewish is basically to bend over and say, "thank you sir, may I please have another?" From this month's issue of Jewish Action, by an anonymous author going by "Gila". To be polite, I will not make any lizard jokes.

A student of our host was also there with his non-religious parents. The student wanted his parents to meet his rabbi’s family, and I think we were invited to represent “normal” people who had come to Torah on their own. I cannot remember how the conversation began, but at some point the boy’s mother commented that she had grown up without knowing her father’s parents and half of her cousins very well because they were not Jewish. I naïvely remarked, “That’s just how I grew up; all my mother’s relatives are not Jewish.” I think it was then that I heard the rebbetzin gasp.

Gasp? Why gasp? The rebbetzin has no information to go on here. She has no justifiable REASON to gasp. In fact some people with more backbone might have been insulted. But does Gila call her on it? Does she challenge the rebbetzin's assumption that Gila may not be a bona fide convert?

I had learned enough Torah to realize—and the gasp confirmed—that maybe something in addition to my dishes was going to need converting.

And we're off on the low-self-esteem train to Ortho-town.

My mother had converted to Judaism in a small Indiana town in the early 1950s in order to marry my father. Her conversion was overseen by the rabbi of the local Conservative synagogue, to which my family belonged throughout my childhood. Mom became a dedicated Jewess, learning as much as she could despite the limited resources available to her.

... Rich Jewish memories bound our family members to one another, but as I built my own family in a large city far from my childhood home, I found that that was not enough for me. I sought to connect to the deeper riches I saw that Judaism had to offer. With the help of outreach programs and the religious families we met, my husband and I found a great treasure in authentic Torah observance.

I wonder how your mother reacted to being informed she had done a really nice job raising you with inauthentic observance.

Soon after my revelation at the Shabbat table, the niggling suspicion that we were headed for roadblocks in our path to greater observance grew into the realization that I needed to look into my mother’s conversion. I had the conversion certificate, so Allen and I met with the rabbi of the Conservative synagogue where we had been members since our marriage.

After reviewing the forty-year-old document, the rabbi confirmed that some streams of Judaism would question my mother’s conversion—and therefore my Jewish status, as well as my children’s. But not to worry, he said, he knew of an Orthodox rabbi who was coming to town in a few months who could fix the problem if we wanted. Otherwise, I was “Jewish enough” for him.

But not for herself. Gila's own standard is stricter. Which is her right (though I'm confused why she stays at a Conservative shul then) but this next part drove me bananas:

As I questioned my halachic status, I slowly started to understand that even with my background, my memories, my desire to grow … it was not enough. It wasn’t that I wasn’t Jewish enough—I wasn’t Jewish at all.

That's bull. Your Jewish status may not be what you thought it was, but you do yourself a disservice when you buy into communal brainwashing that says you're either halachically Jewish- as determined by the strictest authorities- or a full-blown Gentile. Maybe it was your binary thinking that attracted you to becoming a BT.

After thirty-eight years of participation in Jewish life, my desire to deepen my commitment brought me face-to-face with the realization that I—who had endured hours of after school classes to learn Hebrew and prepare for my Bat Mitzvah, who had been active in Jewish youth groups and went to Jewish summer camps, who shunned bread on Pesach and all food on Yom Kippur—was not a Jew. I, who reined in my enthusiasm for Torah growth until I thought my husband was ready for each step, could not only enjoy fluffy muffins on Pesach, but could also heartily eat shrimp on any fast day I pleased. Allen, a prime candidate for intermarriage who had never met a rabbi until we were engaged or stepped foot into a synagogue until we were dating, was a 100 percent kosher Jew. And he had indeed intermarried.

Her use of various kiruv terms like "prime candidate for intermarriage" is making me crazy. It reads like it was taken from a brochure. I understand the self-identification thing is a major issue, but if you are living the lifestyle you want then it seems ridiculously hyperbolic to dismiss your marriage and commitment to live as religious Jews with the line, "he had intermarried," implying that he might as well have been married in a church and had your children baptized. This is not an all or nothing scenario. It sounds like Gila is an outsider passing judgment on another couple rather than someone actually involved in the relationship.

Next Gila checks with three different Orthodox rabbis to get their opinion; apparently the rabbi of her shul doesn't count since his answer wasn't strict enough. Eventually one tells her the harsh truth she had been secretly waiting for. After a year she becomes Orthodox, converts, her children convert, she and her husband remarry, and all is well. Look, she even got an article published in Jewish Action magazine!

If this was the end of it, that would be one thing. But Gila also drops little nuggets of advice throughout the rest of her story prophesying the woes of being the child of a non-halachic convert and how this ruins children's lives.

Just as when a ba’al teshuvah (BT) introduced to authentic Torah values often feels cheated by the vapidity of the religious system in which he was raised, the child of an illegitimate convert who does teshuvah feels doubly betrayed. He may think and feel Jewish to the core. A born Jew, whether he is Orthodox or agnostic, remains a Jew regardless of his actions or affiliation. But a non-halachic Jew who remains committed to his Jewish identity may one day be faced with the devastating reality that he is not, at his essence, the person he thinks he is.

Only if he lets the Orthodox define HIS identity, and unless someone decides to cede their personal autonomy to Orthodox authority, there is no reason this should happen. It's not all or nothing, even if Gila thinks it is.

As the clock ticks, we are running out of time to save the millions of remaining Jews from adding to the skyrocketing statistics of intermarriage. Kiruv professionals have the monumental challenge of touching as many Jewish souls as possible and cannot possibly be expected to spend their precious resources counseling the child of a non-Jewish mother.

Which is why they get "victims" of intermarriage to write about it for them. Oh gag me. Better yet, gag yourself. If people want to be Orthodox, then they're out of luck; they're going to have to follow their standards of rules, as ridiculous as they seem to be getting. If they don't give a hoot about Orthodoxy, then find another path. But there's no reason to assume that someone's children or grandchildren will be drawn to Orthodoxy over Reform or, say, Buddhism (especially given the "skyrocketing statistics").

All these spiritual Orthodox stories seem to have a couple of things in common. They try to present a scenario in which everything works out for the best, everything happens for a reason and ultimately, all the problems can be overcome. What they fail, or refuse to realize is that it is only because they live in these communities that the problems existed in the first place.

I'm glad the three women in these stories made the best out of their situations and managed to find silver linings. But I can't help but wonder if they wouldn't have been better off avoiding the clouds.

Turning an old debate on its head

Being an occasional reader of the Jewish Leadership blog, I've come to expect a fair share of narishkeit from its hallowed pages. But this latest one is quite impressive. OU activist Rabbi Nachman Kahana has figured out how to finally win the great debate with Jewish heretics. Sort of.

For years I have taken the intellectual initiative to convince "stragglers behind the camp" of the truth of the Torah; of our being chosen by HaShem as His people and of our historic right and obligation to Eretz Yisrael etc.

And? What has your success rate been?

But, as I view things today, I am convinced that in this upside down world in which we live, even this activity is distorted.

Distorted, eh? That doesn't sound very good.

It is not for us to convince Jews of the truth in our heritage, quite the opposite, the onus of proof is upon the "break away" to justify his rejection of 3500 years of Halachic Judaism and the 175 generations of unbroken conviction that HaShem revealed Himself at Mount Sinai and there He gave us His Torah.

Wait a minute. For several decades you've been beating your head against a wall trying to convince wayward Jews why they're wrong. Now you do a 180 and say that they need to rationalize their lives to random Orthodox folks? On what grounds? And how about the fact that you're already skewing the debate by assuming that "Halachic" Judaism is static, unchanging, and the same now as it was at Sinai, assuming there was a Sinai in the first place?

It is not I who has to prove that God created the world, it is the break away who has to explain the origin of all existence.

Um, actually, since you're the missionary, yeah, you sort of do. Wow, I sure am happy the Mormons haven't thought of this strategy. "You have three seconds to rationalize why you're not a Mormon, otherwise, you're getting baptized right now, mister!" Look, Rabbi, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, much less lead you off the derech (though there are certainly plenty of arguments and sources that could help). The assumption here that non-Orthos are all tacit participants in some great Disputation (apparently by virtue of randomly encountering you on the street) is quite odd.

The break away is the one who has to prove that the ham sandwich and the marriage to a gentile is true, whereas Avraham, Moshe, King David, the Bet Hamikdash are fiction.

No, they don't, because they aren't making an ARGUMENT about a ham sandwich! Are you kidding me? Maybe people that were raised keeping kosher and then decide to stop need a coherent reason, but people that are merely continuing in the same path they always have? Again- what is the argument for them to NOT do so?

That the teachings of his professor of philosophy 101 can stand over the TaNach, Mishna, Gemara, Shulchan Aruch, tens of thousands of talmidei chachamim [talmud students] who have dedicated their lives to the study of Torah, and the many millions of Jews who have stood steadfastly in their beliefs.

Whereas science and philosophy professors, of course, are just in it for the money and prestige. The rabbi actually has a point here in that one should try to learn more about a belief before dismissing it, but there are a few issues here:

A- Why should we assume, by simple accident of birth, that Judaism, specifically Orthodox Judaism, is the One Truth?

B- There are a heck of a lot of beliefs in the world, religious and otherwise. It'll take a while for all us honest seekers to make our way through all that paper, especially if we have to start by learning Talmud.

C- This would be a whole lot more convincing if your average Orthodox curriculum included a smattering of secular subjects, including higher science and non-Jewish philosophy, if only to give them some easy strawmen to compare to the clearly-established Truth. Having failed to do even that, how can we possibly give any credence to the Rabbi's suggestion that the reason secular Jews don't flock back to the faith in droves is because they're too lazy to do the homework?

There's more, you lucky dogs. The rabbi is trying to use his same topsy-turvy argumentation method to convince Jews to immigrate to Israel.

The truth is that we do not have to convince them. It is they who have to justify their remaining in the galut [Exile], when the hand of HaShem is shown daily here in Eretz Yisrael and the dangers in galut loom ever greater with each passing day.

Again, no they don't. It is YOU who want to encourage them to change the status-quo. It is YOU who wants to precipitate a change in THEIR lives, not vice-versa. Switching the goalposts and telling non-Orthos it is now their responsibility to justify their lives and decisions to you is not only nonsensical, it's also confirmation that you can't convince people with your arguments.

For the record, a lot of us DO have reasons for our decisions. We DO have arguments for why we aren't Orthodox or moving to Israel. And if you'd ask, we might even share them with you. But this kind of condescending message from a would-be (or perhaps "former"?) outreach rabbi doesn't deserve any substantive response. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. You claim Divine Communication, the existence of God, the unbroken chain of Tradition, and, oh yeah, a literal, entirely historical view of the Tanach.

With all those answers, Rabbi, YOU'RE the one that should be making your case to us. If you can't it's your own failing, not ours. Though if this article is any indication, maybe that's a sign that you should look for a new job.

Finally, Christians and Atheists find something to agree on

Namely, those darn Jews.

Apparently was an Orthodox Jew last Wednesday who made the mistake of praying on a United Airlines flight. The NY Times has the complete story:

The passenger, a bearded Orthodox Jewish man wearing a black hat and a long black coat, went to the back of a United Airlines jet with a small prayer book and started praying, according to a witness who was aboard. Two flight attendants tried to get his attention, but he ignored them, according to the witness, Ori Brafman, who was sitting a few rows away.

The flight attendants returned with a third attendant, who also failed to get the passenger to return to his seat on Flight 9, which was scheduled to leave for San Francisco at 9:15 p.m.

Two friends traveling with the man explained to the attendants that once the prayer is started, it must be finished without interruption, Mr. Brafman said. The man returned to his seat after he finished the prayer, which lasted about two and a half minutes, Mr. Brafman said, but the attendants had called a customer service agent.

“He was sitting in his seat, and said, ‘I don’t know what to do,’ to his friends,” Mr. Brafman said. “He had an oy vey moment.”

The agent ejected the man from the plane. There were no raised voices during the incident, and no other passengers complained, Mr. Brafman added.

So here's the thing. I don't exactly remember what my reaction to a similar situation a few years ago was, but it probably wasn't super-sympathetic. It's sad to see some of the comments on the old Ynet article:

"The Hassidim here in Montreal are gentle and prayerful, but they are lacking in any sort of social grace when it comes to interacting with the general population. Maybe B'nai Brith could spend its time sensitizing the Hasidic community to the level of paranoia on airplanes at present and recommend informing the flight crew in advance that they are going to be behaving in an unorthodox manner."

"I can understand passengers freaking out- jews are so hated and maybe they thought he knew something, plus the hasidic dress is so starnge looking-like the arabs dress."

"no weirdos on planes: You need to just chill on planes these days: no hats or loud prayers or calls to God or Allah. "

"Praying like that does not belong on a plane; do it in private. Why the whole world has to see that you are so devout. Some consideration can be shown to fellow human beings, who do NOT want to be confronted with this. That people, not familiar with this way of praying freak out is understandable. "

"Whether it's Christianity, Judaism, or Islam it should all be practiced in private places, not public."

And one could make the case that the Air Canada case was even less justified than the United one, because the man was just sitting in his seat, as opposed to United, where the man was standing up in the back of the plane. (Interestingly enough, the same story on a non-Jewish news site seemed to have more people arguing for the man's civil liberties.)

However what really irks me about the United thing are all the comments to the news story. The worst ones were on ABC:

"I pray too, but this is reducing it to showmanship, a parody of faith."

"f you don't follow safety instructions, you should not be able to fly, that doesn't change because of someone's personal religious preference - they should have carried him off while praying, why wait? It's pretty simple. He can pray, but not when it inconveniences or puts the safety of others at risk -- he was an inconsiderate, selfish, pious, arrogant person. I wish they had arrested him and put him in jail overnight."

"I for one am glad that Prayer Boy got booted off the flight. He could and should have finished his prayers BEFORE boarding the aircraft, thus not subjecting his fellow passengers to being delayed while he got his religious freak on. People need to start realizing that the airlines are not Burger King - you don't always get it "your way". "

" Jesus condemned this showy display when praying and he was a Jew (Read Matt. 6:5-7)...Think about it."

"When you pray, you're just talking to yourself. How much longer are people going to delude themselves into thinking that they have magical abilities to communicate telepathically with invisible and non-existent sky-fairies?"

" He must have been "clinging" to his religion. I suppose at least he wasn't also "clinging" to his gun... There is that."

"I wish people would stop paying respect to the completely irrational, and often dangerous, superstitions of religious individuals..."

"Why did he have to be standing in the back, why didn't he start in time to be finished when he needed to be in his seat. I respect anyone's choice of faith, but no one should think their faith and rituals are more important than the other 100-200 people on board."

"Wow, this God guy is tough. He demands that you ignore flight attendant instructions. He requires that you inconvenience all those around you. And he'll smite you down if you pray from your seat."

"ALL RELIGIONS State that we should love and/or respect our fellow Man. This shows blatant disrespect for the other people on the plane. This has nothing to do with anyones respect for a straingers religion as much as It has to do with a Religious Zealot Who (as through-out history) has let their EGO control what they think the word of God is. ( Remember the 1st commandment???: " I am the lord your God. You shall have no other Gods before Me." This means; Don't think your self as a God. Keep your EGO Minimal."

"Religion and stupidity walk hand in hand. This story is just another ridiculous manifestation of both. Religion and stupidity are the reasons we have to take off our shoes while boarding the plane and can’t bring a bottle of water."

"He was praying to the tooth fairy!! When are supposedly intelligent people(?) going to realize the mass delusion in which they place themselves. Our planet is not likely to survive unless we rid ourselves of such insanity. There is not one iota, one shred of evidence to support such preposterous notions. For the sake of my grandchildren and those who come after them, please wake up."

"Pretty much the last person I'm going to want to see on a plane is someone that is acting like a religious zealot. The terrorists on 9/11 were deeply religious too, in their minds. I'm glad they kicked this buffoon off."

"I can't understand some thing. If he was supposed to pray at this time, Why didn't he plan another time to fly? I've never meat someone who can read scriptures but could tell time. ( This does not look too good for the Jewish Faith)."

"Would all of you who are defending this jerk be doing so if he was a practicing member of a Santaria church and sacrificing a live chicken on the plane? Its getting so that anybody can do anything in the name of religion and its supposed to be ok. When did the 21st century become the 10th century? "

"Orthodox jews..think that they can do this when ever they want (I am jewish by the way)...I recall one of them cutting the line at the airport and made up some story that he has a heart problem..just to not wait in line with the rest of us."

"Any type of religious extremism on a plane is very unsettling. Don't forget the 9/11 hijackers brought along their religious books on the plane as well. I'm not saying you can't pray on a plane, but doing so standing up and ignoring instructions indicates a lack of mindfulness of the world around you, and this is something that has caused many people do to crazy things."

"this guy is a classic jerk, imposing his ideas on all the passengers...it really gives the orthodox jews a bad name..and they deserve it ..ps i am jewish...and am tired to see orthodox jews give the communities they live in problems by not following common sense rules."

"When you pray, you should do do in private. This is what the Bible commands (Matt 6:5). I KNOW what you are going to say. He is Jewish. Even though Jews do not recognize (I chose that word very carefully) Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, does this mean that they should ignore anything and everything He taught ?"

"Isnt it typical that terrorists pray prior to committing their acts? Thus, he should have been fully aware that his behavior was suspect & warranted his removal."

"How did they know he was a real Orthodox Jew and and not a terrorist disguised as one? If he had blown up the plane everyone would have said" Why didn't they throw him off?""

"Do your freak'n praying at home or your place of worship, don't inconvenience other for your ignorance. If you need to pray on an airplane, make sure you are in your seat. How stupid can these people get. I agree with the flight attendants 100% to throw this idiot off the plane."

"If this bozo is given two minutes then the fair thing would be everyone on the plane gets two minutes. Let's see 2 minutes x 100 people.... fair is fair right?"

"If we let one religious twit do this we have to let them all do it. You think the Hasidic Jew was distracting wait till the Wiccan wants to light candles."

"Why didn't this nut case pray prior to getting on the airplane. This guy just wanted his 2 minutes of fame and he got it!"

"religion, and it's extremists, is what brought the 4 planes down on September 11, 2001. There can be zero tolerance with religion-all religions are the same-when it comes down to protecting me, airlines, and what's left of our sad state of government. To defend this person's urge to act inappropriate in public, on a plane no less, is ludicrous."

It gets better. There's also USA Today:

"It doesn't matter if the praying was done by a Christian, Jew, Muslim or Hindu, there are too many examples of terrorist praying and then blowing up wherever they are. Rules are rules and should pertain to everyone."

"Why did he feel compelled to do what he did at that very moment? What a dork. There's a time and place for everything. He was on an aircraft for cripes sake!... He became suspect when he did not respond to flight attendents. He could have been doing that as a farewell before a bomb went off. Hey, it's okay to be anal and nervous now at days. ...too many freaks out there."

"If he is orthodox why he flying and not riding a horse?"

"What a moronic comment!! Because they "explained the ritual". that makes everything just oh-so-right????? If my friends explained that I was pleasuring myself in the back seat because it was a stress reliever before a flight, should I also be allowed to remain on the plane??"

"What an a-hole. They shouldn't have put him on another flight. Let him pray all the way to California on a Greyhound bus."

"What a whack-job! This man needs to be "grounded" for the remainder of his time here on earth, and the FAA needs to place him on the "international flight ban" list."

"I am so sick of people hiding behind "religion" to act like jerks and weirdos. This guy knew what he was doing was going to cause problems."

""And when you pray, you are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you."- Jesus (Matthew 5:5-6)"

"Yes, there is nothing more PHONY than people praying in public. In the real world that "2 minutes" would likely be more than ten minutes and the whole flight schedule would be in a holding pattern - all for one narcissistic fool."

"I honestly think some people pray in public just to be seen praying, why I don't know. i wouldn't doubt if he did this just to see if he would get a reaction, now my gut tells me to watch and wait for the lawsuit...."

"let him stay home if he wants to pray. Prayer is a private matter and should be kept to yourself. Maybe some of these nut cases will learn to shut up and sit down in the future."

"Don't schedule your flight if you have to pray at that time. Easy enough for your cult religion."

"His ritual of Judaism could have waited until the next time he attended Synagogue. Keep it out of the airplane..."

And Gothamist, which started things off on the right tone by including a little editorial of its own- "Kids, this is why you ‘Just Say No’ to prayer.":

"why did he start praying outside his seat? i've sat next to plenty of Orthodox men on flights and they usually just say their prayers right in their seat. this guy was an idiot."

"Orthodox Jews only listen to their God. They don't care what some stickin stewardess says. Serves him right."

"When many suffer for one it's wrong. If the guy wanted to pray let him, as long as others don't have to hear his shit or be delayed or in any other way be involved in his mumbo jumbo crap. He should be banned from all UA flights and take a cab along with that bitch Naomi Campbell next time he wants to go from point A to point B."

"i know many flight attendants (long story) and they all agree that orthodox and hasidic jews are the rudest, most pushy passengers on any given flight. you might construe this as anti-semitism, but you'd be wrong."

As for myself, I think the man made a mistake, both in his timing, in choosing to stand rather than sit, and in not explaining to the attendants either before-hand or during his prayer. And I think the airline also overreacted, particularly given that by the time the agent came to deal with him, the man had already finished and was back in his seat (something a lot of people seem to be overlooking). But a lot these comments are just hateful, ignorant, or both. Conflating an Orthodox guy davening maariv with the 9/11 terrorists is a particularly good one. There's plenty of fault to go around here, but the comments are by far the worst part. He's an idiot, whack-job, zealot, twit, nutcase, a-hole, inconsiderate, arrogant, a faker, or gunning for a lawsuit. He should be jailed or banned from flying. Wow. And how lovely that sandwiched between all that hostility from atheists are a few nuggets of Christian readers who take the opportunity to remind us all just how NOT CRAZY Jesus was, you know, just saying.

One interesting thing is that in every comment cluster, a few people invariably say, "If he was a Muslim no one would have cared," usually followed by someone saying, "If he was a Muslim he'd be dead."