Battle of the Court Jews

I know, it's not nice to call people Court Jews. Or Uncle Jakes. Or suck-ups, or pansies, or whatever. And, to be fair, Shmuley Boteach isn't always a Republican/Christian tool. He's just generally weird.

Anyway, it's interesting to compare Shmuley's reaction to Ann Coulter's bit of theological opining with Dennis Prager's and Yaakov Menken's. And fun to see who can be more simplistic and self-righteous. Let the games begin!

We start things off with one of the lesser-predictable CJs, Shmuley. Though actually, in cases of perceived antisemitism, Shmuley has a pretty well-established track record- he usually gets very mad, very loud, and more than a tad off-track. Not that it's a bad thing to get mad, just that he often goes on to say things that make the situation worse (see his famous "Jews aren't the problem in Hollywood, SECULAR Jews are the problem" riposte to Bill Donohue). Thanks for representing the tribe, Shmoo.

Shmuley, understandably, is a tad pissed by Ann's dopey comments. Unfortunately, his response does not involve calling her a media-whoring jackass, which she is, or identifying that, as her defenders are saying, this is a fairly incontrovertible position among traditionalist Protestants, and thereby use it as an opportunity to discuss some of the stickier issues in the Protestant-Jewish alliance. No, Shmuley always has to go for the one-up-manship. He does this by trying to demonstrate that he is more knowledgeable about Christianity than the Coulters of the world- specifically, that Jesus was a Jew, and exclusively practiced and preached Judaism.

Jesus derived all his principal teachings from Judaism. His aphorisms are restatements of earlier biblical verses, and his allegories are mostly teachings of the rabbis that are found in the Talmud.

Pretty much, but this isn't the same as:

Judasim was the faith practiced by Jesus for his entire life, and from which he never wavered.

This discounts all the areas of the Gospels where Jesus and his disciples deliberately break the law. I wrote about this subject a number of times in college, and basically concluded that the problem is a lack of clarity from Jesus on how he defines the law. Shmuley quotes extensively from the Sermon on the Mount to demonstrate how Jesus cribs it from rabbinic sources, but clearly doesn't understand how it functions rhetorically. The Sermon is significant because it defines the contours of Jesus' teachings as going even farther and stricter than the rabbis. Now, this does not preclude Jesus from still upholding the law, in fact it strengthens many of them- at least, the ones he mentions. But most of Jesus' supererogatory amendments are to ethical, not ritual, laws, and there's nothing, other than his ambiguous statement that "I have come to fulfill, not destroy" that tells the reader where he stands on ritual law. By contrast, the Gospels record quite a few occasions where Jesus and his followers violate associated purity and Shabbat laws, with nary a cross word from the big guy.

Shmuley goes so far as to bring out the big gun, the best example of Jesus breaking Shabbat, the cornfield incident. Shmuley tries to maintain that this still demonstrates Jesus' Jewishness because he uses a Jewish argument to justify himself.

In trying to prove Jesus' break from the rabbis and tradition, the New Testament relates that Jesus allowed his apostles to desecrate the Sabbath. But in justifying the desecration, Jesus famously says: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." This pronouncement is actually a classic rabbinic statement.

Jesus' disciples were in a field and they picked corn, which indeed violates biblical law. And while the New Testament does not give us the story's background, the nature of Jesus' answer to the critical "Pharisees" seems to supply us with a clue.

He refers to an incident in the book of Kings where David is fleeing his enemy with a few loyal men. Their lives are in danger and they have no food. David allows his men to eat the showbread in the Temple in order to save their lives, even though they were not priests and were thus not permitted to eat the showbread. What Jesus is thereby inferring is that he has allowed his students to break the Sabbath and pick corn because their lives are in danger and they are in desperate need of food.

The Talmud says, 'The Sabbath was handed over to you, and you were not handed over to the Sabbath.' This maxim, directly echoing Jesus' words, is found throughout the Babylonian Talmud, for example in Yoma 85b. The Talmud takes it for granted that human life must be saved at all costs, and the question of keeping the Sabbath when life is endangered is quickly brushed aside.

All of this is technically true, but Shmuley himself is brushing aside the larger question of what this example means. At best, Jesus is playing rabbinic pilpul. At worst, he's acting like a Jewish Rasputin or Jacob Frank, claiming to be fulfilling the law by violating it. Suggesting that this definitely proves his position on Jewish law one way or the other seems quite a stretch.

What I find so annoying about all this isn't just Shmuley's lazy scholarship, but the fact that he's side-stepping the issue. If what Coulter said was offensive, then he should talk about that on its merits, not waste his time trying to show that she's a poorly-educated Christian because she doesn't know how Jewish Jesus was. It makes no different if he was an Orthodox Jew or a Hare Krishna, that isn't the point. The answer to assholery is to identify it as such and explain why, not cry that Christians should be nice to Jews because they kind of are Jews, kind of. We don't need to prove Jesus' Jewishness to justify ourselves to Christians, and the implication that we do is a very old world, shtetl-ish, "please, benevolent Christian lord, save us from the mob" kind of thinking that I for one find rather unattractive.

Now that we've dipped our toes in with Shmuley, it's time to really go for a dunk in the Minstrel Mikvah. Yaakov Menken, you're up!

What happened was that Donny Deutsch, a Jewish talk-show host, asked her what her dream America would look like. And she said it would "look like New York during the Republican National Convention." Note, of course, that for her to want everyone to be Republican is not considered offensive. No one would dare condemn her for thinking her political ideology is correct. After all, Teddy Kennedy and MoveOn.org have the same flaw in a very different direction.

This is crap. See the longer Prager fisking below.

But Deutsch isn't satisfied with the answer. He says no, no, not just the politics, what's the country going to look like. And she says "Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like Joe Lieberman, the Republican Party would look like Duncan Hunter…" Hey, did you notice? Her model Democrat is a kike!

Hang on, Cross-Currents censors comments like Satmars burn billboards, but KIKE gets in? Nice quality control there, guys. That's super heimishe for the frum yiddishe bochers. And what a coincidence that her model Jew is perceived by many as a total stooge for the Republicans and their Judeo-Christian hegemony. Isn't that a little like Bill Donohue saying his favorite Jew is Cardinal Lustiger? Or Shabbetai Zvi?

Deutsch isn't done, so he keeps after her until she says "Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they…" and we'll never find out what else they are, because that's when Deutsch leaped down her throat.

Truly, the greatest tragedy for man's intellectual advancement since the day Moses smashed the tablets, or Dickens' wife burned the first draft of Tale of Two Cities. Maybe someone should write a piyyut about it for Yom Kippur Yizkor Service: Cossacks, Inquisition, Hitler, Ann Coulter getting interrupted! Gasp! ("Forgive us, pardon us," Thump, thump, thump.) Or it could go in the Al Cheit.

In reality, Coulter shows a pretty liberal Christian perspective. Deutsch says to her "So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?" Her answer: "Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not." Catch that? Her view is that a better America would be a more religious America.

Cop-out. She goes on to say that the ideal model is Christianity.

She also says, "We believe your religion, but you have to obey." Judaism isn't wrong according to her version of Christianity (as I said, she is pretty liberal).

Compared to who, the Klan? Most Christian denominations believe some version of this, even Catholics. They also have the good sense to shut up when it comes to "who's really right," knowing it doesn't go anywhere good.

Is this a surprise? In the words of Iago, the obviously, stereotypically Jewish-sounding parrot in Disney's Alladin—the Jewish character is the one with the mile-long shnozolla, and no one gets upset at that—"I think I'm just going to die from that surprise!" [Yeah, he's Jewish all right.]

A few things:

A- Yaakov watched a movie? Does his Rav know?

B- That movie doesn't promote Jewish values: it whitewashes Islam and the Arab world (no dhimmis), glamorizes a life of crime and homelessness, promotes witchcraft and sorcery, encourages materialism and deception, and of course, Princess Jasmine's outfit is definitely not tznius.

C- A Disney movie? Doesn't he know Walt was a huge antisemite? What's next, buying a Ford? Or maybe a Mercedes, God forbid?

D- The actor playing Iago, Gilbert Godfried, is a huge Jew, but the voice was not specially created for that character- he's like Fran Drescher; that's how he ALWAYS talks (more's the pity).

E- Parrots have large beaks. That's just the way their face looks. Are we going to claim Pinnochio is a MOT next? How about Flipper?

F- Not to state the obvious, but a parrot cannot be Jewish.

It's completely acceptable to think your politics are right and everyone else's is wrong, but to think your religion has it right is evil and backwards—even if she acknowledges that practicing Judaism would contribute just as well to making America a better place. Again, the true target here isn't Coulter, but religion, and the true intolerance here is coming not from Coulter, but from Deutsch.

Wrong again. Menken's answer to people supposedly out of context is to take Coulter out of context in order to suggest she's actually a semi-ecumenical religious liberal. Nobody's buying it. Look at the larger context of what she's saying and it seems fairly apparent she buys into a "Christianity-dominant" model of faith. Her right and prerogative, obviously, and not worth pillorying her, IMO. But to congratulate her for being a jackass and act as if she's actually pro-Judaism, as Menken seems to be trying to do, gives a whole new meaning to the term denial.

Last, and always least, my favorite whipping boy after Abir, Chuck Norris, Bill O'Reilly, and Rabbi Lazer, there's good ol' Dennis.

Those who label Ann Coulter an anti-Semite do damage to the battle against anti-Semitism.

I say this as a committed Jew, a religious Jew, a Jewish writer and lecturer, a past college instructor in Jewish history, co-author of a widely read book on anti-Semitism, recipient of the American Jewish Press Association's Prize for Excellence in Jewish Commentary, instructor in Torah at the American Jewish University, and a man who has fought anti-Semitism all his life.

Ah yes, who could forget Dennis' magnum opus, "We aren't really sure why people hate Jews but since they do, don't forget to marry one."

There is nothing in what Ann Coulter said to a Jewish interviewer on CNBC that indicates she hates Jews or wishes them ill, or does damage to the Jewish people or the Jewish state. And if none of those criteria is present, how can someone be labeled anti-Semitic?

Well, one could argue that Christian chauvanism is a form of antisemitism, which has been an accepted Jewish view for quite a while. Hence Jewish apprehension about things like Christian Dominionism, Dispensationalism, End-Times stuff, and of course the Christ-Killer myth.

And, not to contradict ol' Dennis, but while suggesting someone's entire belief system is fundamentally flawed and bankrupt isn't hate, per se, but is sure isn't a compliment. "Thank you Miss Ann, may we have another?" Besides, using Dennis' criteria, he has no business shitting on George Soros for being anti-Israel/Jewish, either.

What damage has she ever done to Jews?

Your answer to this probably depends on whether you think people like John Hagee, Pat Robertson or Tim LaHaye have ever done anything to Jews.

What is wrong with a person believing that it would be better if another person adopted their faith?

Stupid question. There's nothing inherently wrong with most philosophical positions, in theory. However, in practice, there are a number of ways in which having a "Conquistador"-style view of religion (or politics, for that matter), can be, shall we say, less-than-fantastic.

First, it demonstrates the potential to have a huge degree of self-righteousness, blindness to all one's faults, etc. Second, it suggests the possibility of a limited, simplistic, or even strawman interpretation of other positions. Not even Prager would suggest that Coulter came to her conclusion regarding Christianity's superiority to Judaism only after a careful period of religious study of the two faiths.

Third, and perhaps most important, lies in the delivery and the audience. The lack of a martyrdom and persecution tradition in Hinduism probably means they don't react to conversion talk in the same way as, say, Hugenots.

Is there one liberal who doesn't believe that a conservative would be better -- "perfected," if you will -- by embracing liberal beliefs and values?

This reminds me of the time Dennis said that smearing someone's good name was equivalent to raping them. On behalf of all the liberals I've met, and I've met a lot, let me be the first to call Dennis Prager a giant moron. While many liberals (and conservatives, for that matter), may think their political opponents are wrong, I don't think I've heard anyone used the "perfected" line. But that's bullcrap hyperbole strawman rhetoric for you. I'd also point out that usually there's a substantial difference from talking about perfection or, say, damnation in political contexts versus spiritual or religious ones.

Why is it laudable for a liberal to hope that conservatives convert to liberalism, but dangerous and hate-filled when a Christian hopes that Jews or anyone else will go to heaven (that is, after all, Ann Coulter's and most other Christians' primary concern) by believing in Jesus?

Actually, both are problematic because both are either-or scenarios. A better alternative is suggested by Judaism, with its scenario of a base consensus of agreed behavior and laws, which creates in effect a broad coalition of the righteous, all of whom will be rewarded. A sort of common-ground bipartisanship, if you will. An example might be Dems & Reps working together on Health Care, Natl Security, or reminding the Prez that he wasn't elected Pope of America. Forget turning everyone liberal. I neither need nor particularly want that to happen. I'm not on a crusade to turn Alabama into San Francisco. I'd settle for common sense and civil discussion back in politics and government. If we can't agree on abortion or gay marriage, let's at least try to fix public education or housing, or SOMETHING. I'd prefer negotiated and principled compromise to forced conversion. But maybe that's just me.

I have read Jewish and non-Jewish writers who argue that Ann Coulter's words will lead to another Auschwitz. How does one respond to irrationality? How does one respond to hysteria?

First, who actually said that? Are you sure it wasn't just the voices in your head? Second, how are you responding to Coulter?

There is also a move to boycott Ann Coulter, so dangerous are her words. Of course, there is no such Jewish or liberal boycott of former President Jimmy Carter, who has done real damage to the Jewish people by describing Israel as an "apartheid" state in the very title of his anti-Israel book... But for many Jews and liberals, real hatred, real damage to Jewish security can only come from the right, especially from Christians on the right. So Ann Coulter, who has done nothing in her life to compromise Jewish welfare, is to be boycotted, but Jimmy Carter is worthy of invitations to speak. Jewish groups even invite John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, the authors of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," which is essentially a tempered modern-day version of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." But Ann Coulter is beyond the pale. And she said nothing to harm Jews.

Prager's right that boycotting is a stupid move from the ADL. Blanket labelling of people as anti-semites is also a bad move. Much better would be a detailed analysis and explanation of why something or someone is antisemitic, or a debate. That goes for Carter, W&M, and Coulter. Hell, throw Ahmedinajad in there, too.

She said she believes that Jews who accept Jesus as their savior are "perfected." I fail to see why this is some form of hate-speech, let alone the basis of anti-Semitism, as stated by Abe Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, which often defames conservative Christians, whom he and his organization hold to be the greatest domestic threats to America.

Take your Jewy well-poisoning elsewhere, Dennis. The reason the comment is offensive is fairly obvious; if Jesus-accepters are perfected, where does that leave the rest of us? She doesn't say, but chances are it's somewhere below perfection. That's her perrogative, but it's hardly surprising that this might raise some people's hackles, particularly given her delivery.

As a practicing Jew, I do not agree with Ann Coulter's theology any more than those attacking her do. But I am neither offended by her nor frightened by her or her beliefs. She believes that Christianity is better than Judaism. So what? Why is that in any way different from liberals thinking that liberalism is truer and morally superior to conservatism? Or conservatives thinking that their values are superior to liberal values?

To a certain extent, it's not, not that this necessarily justifies it, as I said above. However the fact that it's about religion and identity rather than merely, "If Democrats had brains they'd be Republicans" makes it substantially more PERSONAL, particularly given the bad track record Jews have had with Christians thinking they were less than perfect due to their position on Jesus. It's an old wound, and apparently still pretty raw. It doesn't make her antisemitic, but it does suggest she either isn't that bright, or revels in being an asshole (or some combination thereof, which, based on past behavior, seems pretty likely).

Liberals not only believe that conservatives are philosophically imperfect, but they often believe that conservatives are bad human beings (something in no way implied by Coulter about Jews).

Now we get to jump off the deep end. Yes, Dennis, all liberals think conservatives are eeevil- totally unlike the firebrands on the right, especially the nutjob Protestants like Robertson, Dobson, Falwell, Reed, and so on. They just love liberals, right? Ask someone who calls abortion "a Holocaust" how they feel about liberals; I guarantee you you'll be in for a treat.

Howard Dean has said that conservatives don't care about children who go to bed hungry.

So you have a thick skin as a Jew, but not as a conservative? Conservatives say Hillary's the godamn anti-Christ!

Liberals yearn for a world without conservatives at least as much as most believing Christians want a world without non-Christians.

As usual, Dennis is now applying characteristics that may apply to a group of liberals to the whole, something just fine for him to do but which would cause him to scream bloody murder were anyone to do it to his beloved Christians or Conservatives. The only argument left is his cherished chestnut, "but wait, liberals also do STUFF!"

The difference is many liberals are immeasurably more likely to impose their views on others than Christian Americans are.

Uh huh. So slavery, Jim Crow, Nativism, hell, restricting abortion and gay rights, those are all liberal causes? Yeah, Dred Scott, that was one hell of a liberal decision, Dennis. Come off it. Everybody in any position of power generally uses that power to advance their ideological views. Go tell a Planned Parenthood worker in the South (or a gay couple) that Christians don't impose their views on people. You self-righteous, hypocritical, totally oblivious, black-pot-kettle doofus.

Liberal judges impose their views -- e.g., on same-sex marriage -- on society.

Judge. Roy. Moore.

And liberal educators force young students to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," the former vice president's hysterical beliefs about impending doom -- and offer no countering viewpoint.

Abstinence-only sex-ed. Intelligent Design. "Evolution is just a theory" stickers in biology notebooks. And of course, bezerk PTA Moms petitioning school libraries to remove Harry Potter books.

Next he'll be complaining liberals solicit money over the Internet.

this past Sunday night I was the keynote speaker at the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. Since 1981, the church, led by Pastor John Hagee, has had an annual "Night to Honor Israel." ...Those are Ann Coulter's people, and they are, by and large, the best friends the Jewish people have today. And since Judaism teaches that we judge others by their behavior, not their beliefs, this Jew thanks them. And fears those who fear them. One day, God forbid, should there be real anti-Semitism in America, these hysterics will have cried wolf so many times that no one will listen.

Fair enough, don't call things antisemitic if they're just assholeish, but also don't whitewash the complexities of Jewish-Christian interaction in America just because John Hagee likes dancing the horah. Uncritical friends of America, or Jews, IMO, are not particularly valuable or useful- or, frankly, sincere. Like Jews for our accomplishments. Like us because we're nice people. Like us for philosophy, or even our religion. Don't like us because you think God will squish you if you don't. The issue is about respect. It still is unclear why and how conservative christians like Jews so much- and for many of us, the answer seems to be that they see us as reflections of themselves, and God's chosen people, and all the rest of that end-times stuff. Great. But that means they don't see us as real people, and don't see our religion or beliefs as authentic or worthy. And yes, that is sort of a problem if you're going to present them as our new best friends because they don't say we're going to hell (exactly), and they give money to Israel. it reduces us to cartoon characters and, bluntly, Court Jews, Jesters.

And that isn't a relationship I think is good for us to be in.

The Trouble With Assholes

Did you hear about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in San Francisco? Went into a church, got communion, dressed like this? Yeah. Kinda weird. But offensive per se? Well, that seems to depend who you ask. The usual mouthpieces, of course, are all a twitter- O'Reilly & company it sound like the Sisters took a whizz on the host before eating it.

Choice quotes from the Americans for Truth site:

Allyson Smith, an analyst for Americans for Truth, commented, “San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer did not condemn the depravity of Folsom Street Fair, which occurred in front of one of his own parishes (St. Joseph’s on 10th Street), or the blasphemous antics of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence there. Yet one week later, he gave Holy Communion, which Catholics believe is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, to these same twisted ’sisters’ who were dressed in full drag costumes. This begs the question: Does Archbishop Niederauer approve of or identify with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and their sacrilegious and disordered homosexual behaviors? If so, then he is unfit to shepherd San Francisco Catholics and should be immediately removed from his post by Pope Benedict XVI.”

Yeah, Archbishop. The only reason not to be against gays is if you are gay. You're not gay... are you?

“I doubt that even Judas would have done such a perverse thing as this,” Gonzales said. ”Not only did Niederauer sell out our Lord for human respect but deliberately crucified Him again within the very sanctuary of the Church that he was consecrated to protect. If Rome does not remove him immediately from his position and excommunicate him for this evil, then Rome itself becomes complicit in the crime. Enough is enough!”

Wait, he crucified him AGAIN? But I thought you guys thought that was a good thing... And besides, if he crucified him again, what happened to the first Jesus, the one supposedly hanging out in heaven? Was he brought back to earth just to be stuck up there again? Or is this some weird Catholic metaphor thing, like, "Mother Mary cries when you touch yourself"? Also, I like the Judas bit. Nice touch. Sort of the Catholic equivalent to Godwin's Law.


First O'Reilly piece:

Last Sunday, at the Catholic Church of the Most Holy Redeemer, Archbishop George Niederauer was celebrating mass. As part of that ritual, holy communion is given to Catholics by the celebrants. Two gay militants in bizarre dress took communion from the archbishop in an attempt to mock the mass and the man. — The people who did this are members of a militant homosexual group that runs around San Francisco dressed as nuns.

I find the "militant" designation hilarious, given that in this day and age it's used mostly as a PC way to describe folks like Hamas. The Sisters aren't my cup of tea (though apparently they do have their good points- hey, giving to charity? They are Hamas!), but I'm curious as to exactly how they fulfill the qualifications of "militant."

Here's the second O'Reilly piece, on the SF Chronicle's coverage:

The article went on to quote some people who said the archbishop was correct in giving the gay militants communion. Then why did he apologize for doing it? The article doesn't say.

Presumably, because some people are now giving him crap for not batting an eye when handing communion out to them, mime make-up and all. Now, some of that ire is understandable and even, IMO, justified, but there's a difference between local SF Catholics that were actually offended (of which there seem to be a sizable number) and jerkwads like yourself that are just stirring the pot.

This isn't to say I agree with what the Sisters did. The idea of drag nuns just sort of rubs me the wrong way, and particularly going into that religion's sanctuary and attempting to participate in a holy ritual is, to me, a bit beyond the Pale- not unlike, say, some lesbian activists dressing up as Hasids and trying to read Torah in an Orthodox synagogue. Some things just aren't cool. The fact that this was being filmed also makes me pretty uncomfortable. The Sisters claim that they were just there for communion and appreciate that the Archbishop and church made them feel welcome, and indeed, some liberal Catholics are praising the Archbishop (though judging from his apology, that really isn't what he wants to hear right now as he attempts to re-establish credibility with his base and bosses). Still, the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I suppose it comes down to intention. At the end of the day, this still feels like a stunt, and in that regard I think it's inappropriate. Do your thing outside or at the fair, or have a group of committed gay Catholics come to Mass and ask for Communion. Then the issue would be different. But don't crash a church service. It remains unclear to me exactly what the goal of the Sisters' trip to the Church was and how going there and looking like jerks benefited them, local Catholics, or the gay community. Someone please explain it to me.

All this said, the manufactured outrage from O'Reilly and his peers is really something. The latest from Bill is that the Sisters "invaded" the church, which, as Debra Saunders points out, is pretty ridiculous, given that it was a public mass. (See her blow-up with Bill here- he comes close to reaching through the TV and slugging her, it's pretty impressive.)

Speaking of Saunders, I'm impressed with her being willing to demolish some conservative sacred cows about the Baghdad by the Bay, particularly when it's clear her politics don't jive with the majority's. This is the second time in a few weeks she's stepped out of line, pointing out that the distortion the right was spinning about the city banning the Marines from making a commercial in the city's downtown area was, well, bullcrap. (You better hope Bill doesn't show up on your doorstep, Deb.)

Newsom had a point when he said that critics of The Special City will not "allow the facts get in the way." Stories about Ess Eff turning away a crew filming a Marine recruitment ad apparently were much ado about nothing. The city did issue a permit - if not for the day the Marines wanted - with the result that the production company shot the Golden Gate Bridge from the Marin County side.

Saunders goes on to explain why she thinks the city is still anti-military- mostly having to do with plans to close JROTC and the City Supervisors' foolish decision to stick it to the military by refusing to berth a newly-retired battleship (thereby proving once and for all that they're totally, like, anti-navy, dudes, and earning the unending hatred of thousands of children). And along the way she throws out a tirade about gay marriage too, just for the heck of it.

Don't bother looking for an apology or retraction from anyone at Fox "News" or anywhere else for the fake story, though. They don't want to hear it. In fact, check out the angry comments on the Free Republic comment board- not a single one reacts to Saunders' bit of news about the story-that-wasn't. Instead they seem to persist in hoping the city gets hit by a tsunami, bitching about the mayor, and of course, the requisite penis jokes. Priceless.

That time I blew up Wikipedia

As the observant of you know, I've been lax in blogging lately. Times are hard, and what with work, TV and remembering to floss, it's been hard to make the time to get in some good quality blog time.

Luckily, however, it seems there are some people that are reading the blog whether I'm updating or not, and it's all apparently thanks to my one shining moment of pseudo muckraking Jewish journalism. Yes, it's the hard-hitting Abir series, which has apparently become used and linked to on that paragon of web integrity, Wikipedia. Through some bizarre series of events, my I-can't-believe-Abir-is-on-Wikipedia rant generated an astounding number of hits. This is even more entertaining because now I get to read how my rant is not an official source of information- totally unlike, say, the fairy tale on Abir's web page.

Best line: "[The] main 'source' and 'proof... for debunking the abir article is from a blog and the emotionally written blog post is certainly not a reliable source."

...And now my work belongs to the ages. I feel so important, sort of like Maimonides, or maybe Simon Dubnow.

Oh, for the curious, apparently the Wiki-Jews decided to split the Abir article into two different things- one is a well-sourced and expansive article on Jewish Military History that looks rather interesting. The other is a personal masturbation session talking about how Yehoshua Sofer's ninja brit is not only gigantic, but once defeated 400 Samurai Arabs in hand-to-wang combat.

The Shmita Revolution and why it matters

Every seven years, Jews in Israel are supposed to let the land lie fallow. However, like many things the Torah says, this is not always that easy to do, and so, as in many cases, the rabbis came up with a loophole. In the late 1800s, the widely respected Lithuanian sage Yitzhak Elchanan Spector (known for, among other things, some interesting "modernist" halachic decisions, as well as quite possibly one of the coolest-looking yarmulkes around), came up with an ingenious "out"- shmita only applied to land owned by Jews. Therefore the Jews in Israel could get around the shmita by selling or leasing their land to non-Jews for the year, not unlike selling your chametz to someone during Passover. This ruling, called a heter mechira, was also backed by the head of the modern Religious Zionist movement, Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook.

Personally, I find this to be another case where the fact that one has to create a justification to avoid breaking what is clearly a burdenous law should really be an indicator that one should rethink this law- if shmita is such a pain, don't reinvent it, just stop doing it. I feel similarly about eruvs, kitniyot, and, while we're at it, "selling" chametz.

That aside, though, I do admire the ingenuiousness of Spector, and understand the economic necessity of finding a shmita loophole.

In Israel, however, this has been a problem, apparently for quite a while. The Modern Orthodox like and follow Spector's way and receive sales permits from the Chief Rabbinate. The haredim, on the other hand, don't, and apparently don't think very well of the practice.

Now in theory, this doesn't have to be that big of a problem- live and let live, right? Except that the haredi leadership doesn't see it that way (has it ever?) and continues to adhere to an "our way or the high way" worldview, even when the people getting hurt are their own fellow ORTHODOX Jews! Since 2000, the haredim have been increasing pressure on the MOs to follow shmita "their way"- and, apparently dissatisfied with just arguing with them, moved on to attempting legal coercion (which itself is fairly absurd given that technically, shmita is voluntary and the Orthodox are the only ones who follow it).

The last time this came to a point was when the former Chief Sephardic Rabbi, Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron (along with Rabbis Yisrael Meir Lau and Ovadia Yosef) took a public stand and said that, despite pressure from Degel HaTorah's Rabbi Elyashiv, he was still going to go ahead with issuing sales permits. In response, Bakshi-Doron and his family were threatened with excommunication and ostracism in Elyashiv's newspaper. In a meeting with the President of Israel, the 60-year-old Bakshi-Doron, prominent member of the Religious Zionist community and holder of the supposedly highest rabbinical office in the land, burst into tears. He later capitulated to Elyashiv, saving himself from becoming an outcast, but sacrificing his community's principles and beliefs to a crude and disgusting blackmail. (The fact that this incident did not spark more protests and outrage, from the MOs or from any self-respecting haredim, still boggles the mind).

Now it's all starting up again- but this time, the MOs are standing firm. Leading the charge is Benjamin Lau, nephew of the aforementioned former Chief Rabbi. Rabbi Lau the younger had an excellent essay in Haaretz a month ago in which he described the history behind the heter mechira. Unlike Kook, who went from a strict shmita follower in the Diaspora to a pragmatic proponent of the loophole upon seeing the fragile reality of Israel's agricultural and economic situation, Lau says the haredim see shmita as simply another example of a stringency that should be followed no matter what. The emphasis remains on trying to make shmita slightly more bearable for the consumer by buying imported produce from abroad, rather than thinking about what the impact of a de facto boycott of Israeli produce will be.

Only people totally oblivious to Israel's social situation could possibly issue a blanket prohibition of this permit. We, the members of Israel's Zionist community (in all its various forms), must stand firmly beside Jewish farmers in this country and not let those with narrow vested interests control major intersections in our lives. In the face of the advertisements of merchants extolling non-Jewish agricultural produce, we must formulate a policy for Israeli consumership. We must declare in the nation's schools, youth movements, synagogues and in every other possible forum that each purchase of non-Jewish agricultural produce unravels another thread in Zionism's flag.

For years, Israeli agriculture has waged a defensive war of survival. One shmita can become for many Jewish farmers here another obstacle leading to their collapse.

Although some Israeli farmers try to strictly observe shmita and do not work their lands, and although others have found ways of skirting its restrictions within the halakha's boundaries, much of Israeli agriculture still depends on the permit. We must protect them and not allow the situation to be controlled by small-minded, exploitative merchants who, for the sake of their own profits, are willing to import foreign produce that seriously undermines Israeli agriculture.

We must apply the original idea of the shmita, a year when commercial competition is suspended and we refine our qualities, to other channels relevant to most Israelis. It is neither correct nor moral to subjugate our small community of Jewish farmers to a commandment whose observance is no longer possible.

On the one hand, Lau delivers a standard defense of MO philosophy: halacha is to be respected, not skirted, but its inherent malleability should not be overlooked, particularly when a precedent already exists and there are good and humane reasons to consider leniencies. Most groundbreaking, however, is the suggestion from Lau that shmita itself, at least in its literal farming context, may in fact be outmoded, even anachronistic. And this coming from an Orthodox rabbi! How, well, refreshing.

And Lau isn't alone. A number of rabbis from the Religious Zionist Tzohar group (who apparently include a bunch of settler rabbis that ordinarily I can't stand) organized and said that, like it or not, they were going to save the Chief Rabbinate from itself.

Of course, the state institutions and their respective lackeys saw this as a threat:

Rabbi Moshe Rauchverger... said that Tzohar threatened to break the rabbinate's monopoly over religious services and open it up to Reform and Conservative streams of Judaism.

"If Tzohar starts providing kosher supervision, what is to stop Reform and Conservative from doing the same?" said Rauchverger.

What a concept! I could give a damn about kashrut, but even if the Reform movement (or other non-Orthodox movements) don't give a fig about kashrut as law, they should still be engaged in these kinds of debates and conversations. The Conservative movement's Hechsher Tzedek, for instance, is an excellent way to make non-Orthodox Jews think about exactly what "kosher" should mean to them. What makes something "fit"? Animal cruelty? Fair trade? Whatever. The point is that just as they haven't allowed the Haredim (or the Orthodox in general) to monopolize Jewish values in other areas, so too, the idea of food being sanctified through a series of actions and preparations shouldn't be abandoned wholesale. Others have pointed out that another unfortunate element of the shmita wars is that it obfuscates the larger lessons that could be learned and applied from a slightly less literal interpretation of what the practice is and should be about:

A serious religious leadership would take advantage of the shmita year to promote a modern translation of the mitzvah instead of strictly adhering to its ancient version. Thus, for example, it would have been possible to promote Rabbi Yoel Ben-Nun's idea to implement a sabbatical year for all workers in the economy (not only teachers and academics), or alternative ideas such as a covenant on reducing the exploitation of natural resources by one seventh, or creating a giant fund in which one seventh of the profits of business tycoons would be contributed toward reducing economic disparities. In this way, shmita could be transformed from a despised word to one that bears tidings for all of humanity.

A shmita that isn't about letting your tomatoes turn into mush? Not on Elyashiv's watch. And really, if there's anyone that knows about Torah-true farming, it's some guy that spends all his time in his Jerusalem apartment and shteeble. (Yes, the guy's a major deal. He also looks like a bearded Count Chocula. When was the last time he even went outside?)

There are a bunch of issues going on here, of course, and the biggest one, as Lau says, is the idea of a rabbinical monopoly. There's never been a Jewish Pope and it's always been one of Judaism's biggest strengths. If the haredim want to do their thing, go nuts. But they have no more business forcing Israel's farmers to let their fruit rot on the trees than they do in stoning their cars or spraying tourists with bleach. The Chief Rabbinate's trying to cover its butt by saying it's just giving autonomy to individual rabbis in granting kosher certification to growers, markets and restaurants. This omits the fact that the ones with the autonomy (all anti-loophole) are the only ones with the authority to give out kosher certifications- meaning it's their way or the highway. So there's both an overt and subtle trickledown monopoly going on here.

The good news is that the Tzohar group seems to be succeeding, finally getting some much-needed government backing. Last week, they established their alternate shmita hechsher program in a number of Israeli cities, apparently specifically designed to counteract the areas where haredi rabbis are not allowing the leniency.

I say bravo. Despite my political disagreements with these rabbis, I have the utmost admiration for their courage to stand by their convictions. You can see why they are respected by their students and communities.

Rabbi Lau says that what is needed is bravery from the Modern Orthodox to stand up to the haredim. Even more, I think, is unity from the rest of Israeli society. This is an excellent opportunity for everyone to show the haredim that they do not own Israel, that diversity of opinion is not heresy, and that at some point, central authority must compromise with the real and everyday issues of the people. The Shmita revolution marks the first time in a long while that we have seen anyone in the Modern Orthodox (or pragmatic haredi, like Ovadia Yosef) establishment come out and say, "No. Not anymore."

The haredim are entitled to do what they want. They aren't entitled to drag the rest of the Jews along with them. And I'll admit it, I want this mindset to spread. I want to see the traditional leaderships, especially the rabbinical chains-of-command, challenged. I believe in pluralism and heterodoxy, and though I doubt I agree with most of anything else a lot of the Tzohar rabbis might say or do, I have to believe that Israel, and Jews in general, are a lot better off with a multiplicity of views and approaches than a single approach that crushes or marginalizes anyone that dares challenge it.

So congraulations to Benjamin Lau and his friends. Will they weaken the authority of the Chief Rabbinate? Will they weaken the authority of the haredim, Elyashiv in particular? Or will they just shake the movements up a little and force some people to think critically about what they believe and about the rabbinical power structure in Israel?

Whatever comes from this, I'm all for it.

Let the revolution begin.

(Not too surprisingly, Sultan Knish sees things a little differently. Take a look.)

New Post

Over at Too Cool for Shul.

You'll like it, trust me.

Totally not work safe

So be warned.

I happened to be traipsing through the electronic daisy field that is the Jblogosphere today and came across this post over at Jack's, in which he describes a losing battle with his three-year-old after she announced that a cartoon's moose's schmeckel was misplaced in a drawing.

This made me think of an amusing (at least to me) story of my semi-bygone youth. Specifically, body part vocabulary.

From the time I was very small, I liked knowing the exact words for things. My parents, while not being overtly into the sex ed thing (that was saved for the playground), didn't, and I consider this a good thing, feel the need to coddle me by coming up with ridiculous synonyms for boy-and-girl-bits. As I very hazily recall, I learned the name for my distinctive anatomy one of the first times I took a shower with Abbot Yid. "What's that called?" I pointed.

"That's a penis."

"Oh."

End of conversation.

Cut to pre-school. Me and a group of friends, all talking smack about something. The conversation gradually drifts around to wang-dang-doodles. Someone makes a remark, another one counters. Suddenly, I wake up and cock my head, with that pensive look I get sometimes (SG can back me up on this).

"What's a dick?"

Laughter ensues.

"You don't know what a dick is?!"

"That's because you don't have one, probably!"

"Yeah, Friar doesn't know what a dick is! Teehee!"

Eventually, one of them makes a gesture or a comment and I realize they mean the thing in my pants. "Oh, that?"

"Yeah, that! What do you call it?" The faces stare at me, waiting to hear what ridiculous name the petzel is called around the Yid house.

I shrug. "A penis."

The mouths drop. I walk away, feeling on top of the world despite my three-foot-frame.

I am King of the Dicks. If only for a day.

It's that time again

A Shanah Tova to all my readers, perusers, and occasional commenters. Please enjoy this blast from the past.

Usually I'm good about not singing my stupid songs when actually in shul, but today the rabbi pulled a dirty trick on us and made us sing Avinu Malkeinu twice, without any justification, so I felt zero guilt belting it- it wasn't as if people could hear me, anyway.

Oh, and our standby Reform shul, Temple Ol'Faithful, really needs to switch to Mishkan T'Fillah or some sort of transliterated holiday machzor. Seriously, guys, the Conservative Movement has transliterations for the High Holidays, why can't you?

Also, I realize the cantor is in mourning for her lifelong friend and mentor Pavoratti, but doing her impression of him while attempting to get through services really isn't helping anything.

Finally, many thanks to the shul's community library, which gave me a chance to snag a book actually printed in English, and thereby have something to do this morning (shut up, In My Father's Court is a totally acceptable siddur substitute. I probably got more Jew-points from that than most of the people sitting with me.)

Zayde

My Zayde (not to be confused with My Zayde).

My Zayde lived alone in Brooklyn,
We rarely met, he never put me on his knee,
I tried to ask my relatives about him,
And they spoke, but with a bitter memory.

They told me about the times he used to hit them,
About his inventions that never seemed to sell,
And they spoke about the day he thought he heard God speaking,
And the messages he warned him not to tell.

Yes, Zayde made us laugh,
But Zayde made us cry,
And Zayde never backed down from a fight,
And despite it all I still loved my Zayde,
Because Zayde still taught me wrong from right.

One day Zayde decided things had to change,
It all seemed so logical to him,
The modern ways of America,
Were causing his family to sin.

So he made the announcement,
He said he had no choice,
He said God had told him this was right,
So he packed his things and then he was gone,
Off to live with the righteous in Crown Heights.

I don't know how he could have let it happen,
He didn't speak to us for about twenty years,
He cared more about us being Jewish than a family,
And somehow never seemed to shed a tear.

Yes, Zayde made us laugh,
But Zayde made us cry,
And Zayde never backed down from a fight,
And despite it all I still loved my Zayde,
Because Zayde still taught me wrong from right.

Because of Zayde my Papa never went back into a synagogue,
Because of Zayde my brother thinks it's all a crock,
Because of Zayde, I will always feel haunted,
Between what he wanted, and what I know I'm not.

Who knows what my Zayde would think of me,
If he could see me standing here today?
He'd probably ask me why I don't have peyos,
And tell me to send my shiska girl away.

But my children will be different,
My children will laugh and sing,
My children will know the beauty of Yiddishkeit,
And my children will know that I love them always,
Even if they do things that I don't think are right.

Zayde has been gone for many years now,
But his spirit still lives on, it's true,
And I know that when I'm a Zayde, things will be different,
Because he taught me all the things not to do.

High Points of the Chabad Telethon

- Hearing Abraham Freid sing "My Zayde", which tells the loving story of how a Zayde spent all his time talking about "the antisemites" beating him up, and ends on the up-note of guilt-tripping the audience by accusing them of not being as authentically Jewish like zayde. (Of course, this doesn't always work in families like mine, where the zaydes were, say, Godless Communists.) Fried's voice was nice, though a tad too quivery for my tastes. Also, you may have noticed that I'm a bit too cynical for it to have the desired effect on me.

- Watching Dennis Prager make a giant boob of himself:

"Here's Ruchel Schwartz! Wait, what? Labor? You're in labor?

"...Fine, fine... Labor Ruchel. I knew her as Ruchel Schwartz, now she's... ohhh.

"...My apologies, Rabbi Leiber. You have a very nice wife."

*Headsmack*

- Finally realizing who Rabbi Cunin's voice reminds me of.

Because it's been too long

And you know you missed me. Time for a "recent search"-stravaganza.

- "Avi Weiss, Making Aliyah." This is Avi Weiss, signing off, in front of the reconstructed Wailing Wall I built next to the Riverdale Temple Car-Park. Am I in Zion yet?

- "Is Making Aliyah More Important than being a Diaspora Jew". Wow. That is what I call a super-specialized question. It's not everyday people seem to actually be asking questions that have to do with something I write. (I feel bad for my one reader from Warsaw that was just minding his own business looking for a picture of the Imrei Emet and somehow wound up in this dreck-hole. Sorry!)

- "Do you have to be circumcised to be old-orthodox." Depends what you mean. If you're talking old-school Orthodox, then yes. Back in the ancient days of yore, yesteryear, and Moses, all babies that weren't lucky enough to be born circumcised like Adam Avinu were considered cursed freaks, and possibly some sort of devil-spawn, so they were left out in the wilderness to die, Spartan-style. The Talmud refers to the ritual by the name of "quality control".

- "Moschiach Pulsa Denura." For those of you wondering how Chabad could possibly top last year's telethon.

- "Feminist Egalitarian Divrei Torah." And another thing, what's the deal with the Torah being written on scrolls? Can we say phallic? A Judaism truly committed to egalitarianism would have its scriptures written down on some nice pottery (with lead-free paint, of course), or at least a Georgia O'Keefe painting. Patriarchy!

- "Abir Sofer." Old news.

- "Amnon de Hartog." Ditto.

- "Godwin Yid." An as yet undiscovered distant cousin. Probably on Dad's side.

- "Satmar vs. Bobov." And you thought Satmar vs. Chabad was fun. I hope you get Pay-Per-View.

- "Schmuley vs. Hitchens." Hey, why shouldn't CSPAN get in on the cage fighting action, too?

- "Treif pronunciation." You mean YHVH? Jehovah? Bacon? There are so many ways this could go.

- "I don't deny Jews their right to a national existence but I don't want to be a part of it." Heretic.

- "Aliyah Guilt." Only from the Israeli government, the Reform movement, and everyone in the West Bank. That still leaves... um... Denmark still has some Jews, right?

- "Difficulty Accepting Son Making Aliyah." They say the first step is to kidnap him and send him to a cult. I hear Chabad's accepting applications (also the Moonies).

- "Aliyah Funding." You mean taxes?

- "Sicarri Tales." I'd buy that book. Hell, I'd write that book. Hands off my intellectual property, jerk.

- "What does Devil's Advocate Mean." Just Go Away. Stupid.

- "Satmar Lexus." Giggle.

- "Does a religious friar get paid?" So far, nope.

- "Frum Orthodox Jewish Women Nude Pics." I see you saw my Craigslist ad.

- "Ex Frum Jews." Why does this take you to me? I was never frum.

- "Schick Brother Riot Brooklyn." When you're in a rioty mood and can't find some black folk, black hats can work just as well.

- "Klingberg rebbe." Rest in peace.

- "Sexy Chussid." I didn't know you cared.

- "Meir Kahane Arm Wrestle." Few people know that before he started the JDL, Rav Kahane had a promising career on the amateur championship arm wrestling circuit. Of course, back in those days, the league still followed Greco-Roman rules, requiring all matches to occur in the nude and the competitors be covered with liberal amounts of olive oil. Still, somehow young Meir kept his faith... all this and more will be explored in the new children's biography, "Making of a Nutjob," which goes on sale in Tishrei 5768.

- "Ovadia Yosef andsexual." I don't even want to know.

- "Frier Jewish Heritage Florida." Hi Grandma!

- "The Procedure for Checking Shatnez." I can only assume it is time-consuming and boring.

- "Habbani Jews." Presumably annoyed that some random schmoe from Jamaica by way of New York and/or Hebron is claiming to have re-discovered their mystical martial arts. Also, that they aren't getting a cut.

- "Leviticus Swordfish Conservative." And lo, Moses was just about finished writing the Torah and skipped ahead a few chapters, and said, "Who the hell is this Schetcher guy and why does he get swordfish?"

- "Existentialism versus Judeo-Christianity." Whatever your feelings about existentialism, the fact that it is an actual system of thought, as opposed to the BS pastiche that makes up the poorly defined, rarely explained morass that is vaguely alluded to as Judeo-Christianity, seems to give it a solid advantage here.

- "Maran Harav Eliashiv." You spelled moron wrong. This is what you get for studying Gemarah instead of English.

- "Segulah for sex with your wife." I don't know what the hell a segulah is, but I'm always down for having sex with your wife.

Godamn it, Reform Movement

Can all the movements of Judaism please stop imploding? Pretty please?

Oy Bay has a post on a recent debacle that occurred at a Reform Summer Camp. Apparently the Camp, Camp Kutz (I can only imagine how many times that sign's been defaced), has been the site of a growing number of mitzvah-observant Reform kids. This has been something of an issue for the Reform leadership, but as long as it didn't make waves (or headlines), they were happy to ignore it, as well as the ramifications for their movement.

That was, until the Kutz Kids started testing their limits. The moment of truth happened at a Friday night service on July 4th. A performer set the prayers to easy-listening Jazz with an electric keyboard and guitar. And a lot of the campers just weren't having it. By the time the service ended, about a quarter of those in attendance had spontaneously walked out, forming their own minyans elsewhere on the camp grounds.

Asked about why they did what they did, the campers said that the music just wasn't what they were looking for- too nontraditional, some even called it offensive. The Jewish Week notes,

In addition to demanding more traditional prayer, a small but growing number of campers and young faculty there are wearing yarmulkes or tzitzit, even tefillin along with prayer shawls. One of this year’s campers had shuckling — the rhythmic prayer-rocking usually done by fervently Orthodox men — perfected. For the first time, song leaders taught the chasidic songs of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach alongside more modern Reform tunes.

There are even “rumblings” of interest in making the camp, which is now kosher-style, really kosher, said Kutz Director Rabbi Eve Rudin. “We first started seeing kids lay tefillin two or three years ago. Certainly we saw it last summer. It’s a handful of kids. Tzitzit are more widespread; quite a few kids are wearing them.”

The Jewish Week identified Kutz as one of the first real battlegrounds between the old and new generations of Reform Judaism. It rightly points out that Kutz "attracts the most-committed Reform teens from around the country", which means it can't be considered representative of the whole movement, but I definitely think it's indicative of an emerging trend, as young Reform Jews, who actually believe the rhetoric they've been taught about Reform being about honest individual explorations of mitzvot and tradition coming up against an increasingly rigid hierarchy that is, it seems, just as static in its own way as the Orthodoxy it still claims to be rebelling against. At Kutz, faculty were prevented from observing Kabbalat Shabbat in a traditional manner because it goes against Reform practices. Supposedly the issue there was trying to avoid confusing the kids or giving them a religious inferiority complex. The Director, Eve Rudin, said,

“We as a faculty are here to enable the experience for the kids, so if the kids see that the faculty are not pleased with the worship, what are they going to think about their own Jewish practice? I want every camper to feel proud of the Jewish choices they are making and not to feel that ‘more is better’ or ‘more traditional is better.’ ”

No, more traditional isn't automatically better, but neither is less traditional! Why not give the kids an option?

Enter Head Reformie Eric Yoffie, who, I'm sorry, maybe I'm being unfair, but I'm increasingly not really liking this guy. He is NOT doing it for me as far as promoting Reform Judaism as an open movement that welcomes others, regardless of faith or sect. Hell, he makes the Kutz kids out to be part of the Meah Shearim Modesty Patrol just for having an opinion and personal preference about their style of worship:

“They were so afraid of offending these kids [the more religiously inclined] that they were too intimidated to proceed in their desire to bring creative approaches to prayer, something we normally do in virtually any youth setting”

First of all, horsecrap. When the kids start burning trash cans, throwing rocks or breaking out seltzer bottles of bleach, then you can play the intimidation card. These kids walked out and did their own thing- EXACTLY what Abraham Geiger and I.M. Wise did in their day.

Second of all, Yoffie is totally wrong on this. A truly creative and open approach to prayer should include more than just experimental jazz riffs. It should have the option of trying all sorts of different flavors, not just ones that have passed with the seal of approval from liberal focus-groups. Even the kids that stayed said they did so not because they found the service meaningful or relevant, but out of respect for group unity (an interesting prospect that I'm having difficulty deciding on). Jazz versions of the service shouldn't be banned, but neither should Carlebach. Reform should be putting its money where its mouth is, noticing what the trends among the youth are, and incorporating those elements into their ongoing desire to be pluralistic AND relevant. You don't sing Kabbalat Shabbat psalms? Why not try it one night? You can do jazz one week and Carlebach the next, and freaking Kabbalah-yoga the week after that- I don't care, but to act as though you can't do something because it goes against Reform tradition is to build your own laws into stone, create your own Torah-mi-Berlin (or Pittsburgh), and I honestly don't think that many people are interested in following Yoffie down that road.

Yoffie continues to be unhelpful, speaking out both sides of his mouth:

“No aspect of the tradition should be foreign to us. We should be prepared to explore everything. Even things that would have been unthinkable to parents and grandparents... Some people may want to go and become either Conservative or Orthodox. So be it.”

There are limits to what the Reform movement can encompass, he said. “We’re a mitzvah-oriented tradition, not halacha-oriented,” he said, referring to Jewish law. “If you take it all upon yourself as an obligation rather than as a choice, you’ve reached the point at which you’re no longer a Reform Jew.”

But if you preclude people from even looking in that direction, you aren't being true to the spirit of choice, either- you've already decided for them. What's the difference between that and the most cloistered and insular yeshiva?

I understand Yoffie's bind. It's not unlike the one going on in Conservative Judaism- where are your lines? What tradition do you keep? Who do you try and tailor yourselves to? But the Reform Judaism I've read about is supposed to be committed to individual paths. If you truly believe in co-opting adopting the Reconstructionist dictum of "the past has a vote, not a veto," you have to actually be willing to deal with the consequences of some people in your movement wanting to follow that vote- otherwise all that personal choice stuff goes out the window, and you really do lose a lot of the ideological integrity that keeps Reform together as a movement. Without at least giving lip service to the idea that more traditional approaches are legitimate, Reform becomes just as tyrannical and closed-minded as its favorite Orthodox punching-bags. And it alienates its more traditional-minded members at its peril: one of the reasons Reform has been in ascendancy has precisely been its perceived turn back towards tradition, not necessarily in a binding way, but in a potential way that doesn't close the door on being a Reform Jew and say, keeping kosher, or wearing tzitzit. To make that break definitive is to totally change the dynamic, in name if not fact, that Reform Judaism has been trying to perpetuate since the 1950s. No, you shouldn't be freaking out the adherents of "classical" Reform (all 25 of them), but wake up and smell the free-trade haroset: pushing out the traditionalist contingent from the movement is going to lead to disaster- they will go to Conservative Judaism and give it the boost it needs, and what's more, Reform will no longer be an "automatic" next-step feeder for the non-affiliated American Jew. It will essentially become a larger and fancier (and slightly more theistic, but who knows if the rhetoric will match the reality) version of Humanist Judaism. And as much as I think Humanist Judaism serves a purpose, I don't think it's going to become the next big thing anytime soon.

Yoffie's watch is going to determine Reform Judaism's future for the next generation. He should be very mindful of that.

Oh, and the triumphalist Orthodox such as Levi Brackman would do well to cool their jets. Brackman practically drools over the news of the Kutz standoff, saying that "We have now come full circle and Reform Judaism itself is losing some of its finest members to traditional Judaism."

Well, yes and no. Reform is certainly losing people to other movements (though as of right now my impression is Conservative is losing the most to either side. I would be curious as to how many Orthodox apikoroses just leave Judaism alltogether, or stick to their own individual worship, as opposed to joining up with another movement), but it's far from the deluge Rabbi Brackman seems to be hoping for. At least not yet. The true test, though, is going to be in how Reform Judaism deals with people like that a more traditional style of Judaism.

Brackman is brain-dead if he thinks that the kids at Kutz are BTs in the making. At best, they'll wind up in the Conservative or Reconstructionist movements. What they really want, though, is to be allowed to be who they are WITHIN the Reform movement. These kids, even only in their teens, are asking to keep the traditions and melodies of their families, of their own childhoods, not be forced to put them away because they don't tow the party line. One camper said she didn't like the music because it wasn't what she had at her Bat Mitzvah. Call me crazy, but I don't see her hopping over a mechitzah anytime soon.

Yet Brackman will ignore all this to get in some cheap (and fairly nonsensical shots):

the elite Reform youth are getting interested in religious ritual, demanding kosher and turning their back on “innovative” types of prayer services. This growth from within the Reform Movement removes the raison d’être of Reform Judaism.

...By modernizing Judaism... [early Reformers] hoped to make it relevant to the modern, emancipated Jew and thus salvage it from certain demise.

....So in fact Reform Judaism was not meant to be an ideology; it was a response to a perceived problem that modern societies posed to traditional Judaism. Unfortunately that response has failed on a number of levels. Statistics show that, instead of saving Judaism, Reform just allows it a more peaceful death...

Clearly, Reform Judaism has lost its very reason for existing.

Undoubtedly, what we are witnessing is the beginning of the end of a failed experiment called Reform Judaism.

Brackman should calm down and take another look at the Jewish Week article. These kids are not abandoning Reform, nor are they trying to bring their movement down. Reform may yet collapse, but Brackman would do well not to confuse wanting a more traditional Judaism with wanting to be Orthodox. These kids are still very much within the Reform mindset of choosing their own paths. They just happen to be choosing one their parents and grandparents don't like.

The more things change...

Newspeak comes to Israel

Time for a Vocabulary Quiz. Which of the following acts is illegal?

A: The existence of a crematorium for the consensual (and paid-for) job of helping deceased Israelis fulfill their last wish of how they wish to rejoin the earth after death.

B: The burning of said crematorium to the ground by a crazed mob.

Let's ask Yehuda Meshi-Zahav, ZAKA founder, Neturei Karta asskicker, and former Shabbes-warrior:

Yehuda Meshi Zahav told Israeli Army Radio he thought an arson attack on the crematorium would be justified.

"It was an illegal activity, a desecration of the dead and I applaud the destruction of this building, which was destined to disappear in flames."

You know, it's nice that every once in a while in the jaded blogger world, I can still be surprised. Thanks, Yehuda.

Thought Experiments

Courtesy of Dennis Prager.

This week, we have a real treat- a double-Dippy-Dennis-Feature. First up, did you know excitement and happiness are mutually exclusive? I certainly didn't. In fact, if I'm honest, I guess I even thought they sort of went hand-in-hand, you know, "Oh my god, you got me a pony? Wow, I'm happy AND excited!"

But according to Dennis, people like me are dicks. Not only dicks, but we're also screwing up the kids of the future. Let's try and follow this burning wreck of a logic train:

If you want your children to be happy adults and even happy children – and what parent does not? – minimize the excitement in their lives. The more excitement, the less happy they are likely to be.

If you can, it's best not to even let them go outside. Did I mention I'm selling an exciting new brand of head-shaped plastic bags? Now in child-size!

Ok, so if having a million dollars is my goal, does that mean I can't pursue that goal and also have a simultaneous goal- say, wearing pants?

When we give our child a present, he experiences excitement, and we are delighted when we see how happy he is. When done occasionally – a holiday, a birthday – this is perfectly fine and even beneficial. Children should have those special moments and remember forever that wonderful Christmas, Hanukkah or birthday present.

Yeah, I know, I skipped Kwanzaa. Don't bother writing in, it was intentional- up yours, Ron Karenga. There, I said it. Also, I refuse to acknowledge that Muslims exchange gifts- and in fact, if Keith Ellison was any kind of American, he would dress up in a Santa outfit right now just to prove his loyalty. Sorry, what was I talking about?

But because we parents so delight in the excitement we see in our children at those moments – because they seem so happy then – we can easily fall into the trap of providing more and more exciting things to keep them seemingly happy at just about every moment. And they in turn come to rely on getting excited to keep them happy and to identify excitement with happiness.

Luckily, Dennis hit on a brilliant way to bridge the gap years ago: giving his children the same gifts over and over- "You're giving my puppy back? Thank you so much, Daddy?"

Even better, some years he gives them broken toys! Sort of a reverse-psychology excitement thing.

But beware, parents, if you think you can buy your children's happiness with mere excitement.

But excitement is not happiness. In fact, it is the ultimate drug.

Well, sort of. Actually there continues to be a range of discussion over exactly what constitutes the "ultimate drug." The hippies were pretty happy with LSD or shrooms, and of course Woody Harrelson likes hemp in all its forms. And you just can't beat cocaine if you're a washed up 80s hair band. Apparently when asked, James Brown still stood by his original answer that "God" is a great drug, but then he was asked to leave the focus group.

It is excitement that people seek when engaging in any destructive addictive behaviors. Excitement is a major part of what people seek in doing drugs, in having sex with multiple partners, in gambling (from slot machines to risky stock purchases) or in having an extra-marital affair. And even for many criminals, excitement is a major lure of criminal behavior.

Kind of, sort of, I guess? Maybe? But, like, aren't they also seeking excitement when they, say, learn a new talent (ballroom dancing?) or go on vacation (ohmigod I'm going to Hawaii!), or learn to skydive? Sorry, Dennis, but I'm finding it a little hard to condemn hangliding as "destructive."

Also, people are also seeking money when they steal, or gamble. Does this make money automatically bad? People doing drugs are also looking for a sense of euphoria. Does that make any instance of "feeling good" bad?

It is argued that we are programmed to desire excitement. But we are also programmed to be lazy, to be irresponsible and to eat unhealthy foods. And just as these other natural instincts do not lead us to happiness, neither does excitement.

Wait, WHAT? Whose ass did you pull that out of? Early man couldn't afford to be lazy or he starved to death, between bouts of running around to avoid getting stepped on by woolly mammoths. And I'd love you to point me towards this "attraction to French Fry gene." Help me out here, Dennis, pretend I'm stupid. Hell, just pretend I'm a fan of yours, that should do it.

Today's young people have the ability to experience excitement more than any generation in history. Outside of school, excitement is available almost 24/7. MTV is exciting (MTV has done far more damage to this generation than has the tobacco industry); video games are exciting; the nearly all-pervasive sexual stimuli are exciting; MySpace (largely a human cesspool) is exciting; getting tattooed is exciting; piercings are exciting; many pictures and videos on the Internet are exciting. The list of exciting things many children experience is as long as there are hours in the day.

Sons of bitches, I bet my kids are home getting excited right now! Hey, kids, get your asses in the box right now! Don't make me break out the Prager-bags!

But all this excitement is actually inhibiting our children's ability to enjoy life and therefore be happy. All this excitement renders young people jaded, not happy. To cite a simple example, many children today would refuse to watch a black and white film – "It's boring," they say. They would even refuse to watch many of the greatest color films if they lacked the amount of excitement – usually meaning violence but also frequently meaning foul language and sexual content – that they are now so used to seeing in films. Plot development is "boring"; blowing up people and buildings is exciting.

Dennis, yet again, you have demonstrated yourself to be a moron. Excitement is in the mind of the beholder. Kids being lazy and having short attention spans has to do with the fact that they've been exposed to dreck and find it attractive, not that excitement=dreck. If you raise a kid away from TV, he's going to think books are exciting. If you raised him without books, he'd think animals were exciting, or trees, or rocks. Someone finding something exciting is not an indication that this something is flawed. What crack have you been smoking? And how little confidence do you have in today's children to have the slightest bit of taste? From the way you talk, we could assume that the last best movie was made in the 70s. I've got news for you Dennis: not every black and white film is timeless. Some actually are boring, and some are simply overrated. That doesn't mean today's kids are Philistines or midget excitement junkies, it means, shock of shocks, that they have different tastes than you. This argument is like arguing that somebody that prefers red to blue has brain damage, or perhaps is under demonic possession from the color red. People have different preferences, Dennis. Deal with it.

That is why the frequent complaint of "I'm bored" is often a sign of a jaded child, i.e., a child addicted to excitement and therefore incapable of enjoying life when not being excited.

Dennis, get over yourself. Children have short attention spans. Somehow I doubt even you were so supposedly content as a child that you got through long car trips by reading your Weekly Reader version of the Wall Street Journal.

All this excitement in their lives bodes poorly for the future happiness of millions of American children. Real life, let alone daily life, will seem so boring to them that they will not be able to enjoy it. And more than a few of them will opt for lives of constant excitement, often in ways destructive to themselves and others.

My God! And instead of dealing with it like their parents, they just... won't! They'll be juggling flaming chainsaws while waiting on line at the DMV, and when they run into traffic jams, instead of just stewing in the car and slowly developing ulcers like good little boys and girls, they'll probably climb onto their roofs and start an Ultimate Frisbee tournament/pizza party! The Apocalypse is at hand!

The solutions are as simple to offer as they may be difficult to enforce. Limit the amount of excitement in your children's lives: the amount of video games, the amount of non-serious television,

So, does that mean only PBS? Or Fox News?
the amount of music whose only aim is to excite.

Could lead to dancing, you understand. Damn that Elvis and his seductive hips. Only funeral dirges and Gregorian chant CDs in this house, young lady!

If they are bored, they will have to remedy that boredom by playing with friends, finding a hobby, talking to a family member, walking the dog, doing chores, reading a book or magazine, learning a musical instrument or foreign language, memorizing state capitals, writing a story or just their thoughts, exercising or playing a sport, or just thinking.

Except what if they start getting excited from that, Dennis? What then??? What if they start engaging in unhealthy "x-treme" dog-poop related sports? It's a vicious, vicious cycle.

Next up, Dennis shows us just what a partisan, shit-for-brain hack he can be, as only he can. Inasmuch as Dennis has a point this week, it seems to be that the Democrats rely on various minority groups to be pissy in order to garner votes, totally unlike, say, any other party. Because, you know, the way to get evangelicals to vote for Republicans isn't to rattle them up with gay marriage, it's to remind them how nice America is. Yeah, let me know when they start that campaign.

Hey, give us some moronic examples, Dennis!

If African Americans come to believe that America is a land of opportunity in which racism has been largely conquered, it would be catastrophic for the Democrats. The day that most black Americans see America in positive terms will be the day Democrats lose any hope of winning a national election. Whatever one believes about the extent of racism in America, one cannot deny that the Democrats need black Americans to feel victimized by racism. Contented black Americans spell disaster for the Democratic Party.

Uh huh, what else?

If women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party. Single women are an essential component of any Democratic victory. Unmarried women voted for Kerry by a 25-point margin (62 percent to 37 percent), while married women voted for President Bush by an 11-point margin (55 percent to 44 percent). According to a pro-Democrat website, The Emerging Democratic Majority, "the 25-point margin Kerry posted among unmarried women represented one of the high water marks for the senator among all demographic groups."

After women marry, they are more likely to abandon leftist views and to vote Republican. And if they then have children, they will vote Republican in even more lopsided numbers. The bottom line is that when Americans marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party; when they marry and make families, it is disastrous for the party.

Wow, that was pretty stupid. Surely you can't top that one.

If immigrants assimilate, it is not good for Democrats. The Democratic Party has invested in Latino separatism. The more that Hispanic immigrants come to feel fully American, the less likely they are to vote Democrat. The liberal notion of multiculturalism helps Democrats, while adoption of the American ideal of e pluribus unum (out of many, one) helps Republicans. That is one reason Democrats support bilingual education – it hurts Hispanic children, but it keeps them from full assimilation – and oppose making English America's official language.

Concerning the economy, the same rule applies. The better Americans feel they are doing, the worse it is for Democrats. By almost every economic measure (the current housing crisis excepted), Americans are doing well. The unemployment rate has been at historically low levels and inflation has been held in check, something that rarely accompanies low unemployment rates. Nevertheless, Democrats regularly appeal to class resentment, knowing that sowing seeds of economic resentment increases their chances of being elected.

The most obvious area in which this rule currently applies is the war in Iraq. The Democrats have put themselves in the position of needing failure in Iraq in order to win the next election. And again, perceptions matter more than reality. Even if America is doing better in the war, what matters most for the Democrats are Americans' perceptions of the war. The worse the stories from Iraq, the better for Democrats.

...The list is almost endless. Thus, when pro-American foreign leaders – such as Nicolas Sarkozy in France – are elected, even that is not good for the Democrats. The more the Democrats can show that America is hated, the more the Democrats can argue that we need them in order to be loved abroad.

Oh Dennis, you always manage to rise to the challenge. Any parting thoughts?

I am not saying that in their hearts all Democrats want black America to regard America as a racist society, or want Hispanics to remain unassimilated, or Americans to feel economically discontented, or fewer families to be formed, or America to lose in Iraq, or foreign nations to hate us.

But what most Democrats want in their hearts is not the issue. The issue is that if Democrats want to win, they can do so only if bad things happen to America.

Fascinating thesis, Dennis. Let me try one:

The only way Dennis Prager can get ideas for his column is to have some sort of severe brain tumor. I am not suggesting that Dennis' fans, or even Dennis himself want him to have a brain tumor that affects his mental capabilities along with his ability to construct simple logical arguments as well as basic sentence structure, but what he wants is not the issue. The issue is that if Dennis wants to have dipshit ideas by the time the press deadline runs around, he either has to be stoned out of his gourd, or poke his tumor with a pencil until it starts jiggling around in his brain and starts generating some "ideas." Good column = bad brain.

So I guess what I'm saying, Dennis is, I want you to get help. Medication, maybe some surgery. Hell, if we had socialized medicine, you wouldn't even have to pay for it.

But I understand why you wouldn't go for it. Got to make those house payments and all. Well, I, at least, appreciate your sacrifice.

Almost.

In Defense of Sherwin Wine

This isn't really about Sherwin Wine the man. I'd only heard of him a few times, and it was only in passing. It's more about Humanistic Judaism as a concept. One of the things I was surprised to see in the Jblogosphere after Rabbi Wine's death was some pretty harsh comments about what a terrible person he was for leading people away from Torah. With all due respect, I think those people don't really understand who Wine's audience was and who he was appealing to.

I've used the term before, but I really believe it's apt- I, and I think many, Jews today, are essentially post-modern Jews. We don't believe in absolutes, and especially not on the big issues. I for one am not an atheist, but a rather a convinced agnostic. For me, agnosticism isn't about humans being so great and superior, just the opposite, actually: from what I've seen of humans while I've been on this planet, I'm pretty sure that if God's out there, we sure as hell aren't the ones who can know one way or the other. My father, brother, and a lot of other people I know are in the same boat, if not more extreme towards atheism.

So how can I practice Judaism? I get this question a lot. Sometimes it's with disdain, and sometimes even with outright anger by people that can't understand how me, a smart guy, an intellectual, who lights Shabbat candles and prays to a God that isn't there?

For me, the God issue is secondary. I don't pray for God, I pray for me. I do what I want and what resonates with me. Part of that is the traditional(ish) liturgy and the concept of a God. My bottom line is that I do the practice for its own sake, not because I think it's linking me up to the grand poo-bah. He could be up there, he could be nowhere, there could be no him and be a giant Martian named Buzz. It doesn't matter. I'm in shul to be a Jew, not to talk to God. Maybe that doesn't compute for some people, but that's the best way I can explain it. I know it's a contradiction, but I don't mind.

For others, though, the God thing is too much a barrier for them to get past, and they get stuck, on the one hand maybe being curious about Judaism or wanting to be able to do more, but just not being able to move beyond the basic contradiction.

That's where people like Sherwin Wine come in.

Like I said, I don't know much about Rabbi Wine. I don't know the specifics of his theology. I don't know exactly how he got around the issue, one of THE biggest issues for modern Jews in our time. I don't have to believe Rabbi Wine was RIGHT to know that what he was doing was important. "Jews without Torah?" you might ask. Optimal, maybe not. But better than nothing. It's the old "ride to shul on Rosh Hashanah or don't go at all?" quandary. For me, whatever keeps alienated Jews connected to being Jewish is nothing but good.

Is there no God? I can't say. But, to me at least, that doesn't matter- it shouldn't matter. The beauty of Humanistic Judaism, of someone like Rabbi Wine, is the ability to give articulation and representation to that group of Jews who look up and can't see what everyone else sees- or says they do, or make themselves believe they do, because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. Rabbi Wine gave those people a voice, and gave them an option beyond merely keeping their mouths shut or walking out on Judaism forever. To me, that's a wonderful thing. I'm biased, I happen to like Judaism, at least the way I do it. It works for me. I think it's very sad that people like my father and brother are so dead-set against God and religion in general that they're closed off from seeing anything positive there, anything in philosophy, ritual, or community. I wish there were more people like Rabbi Wine. People that could show them it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Rabbi Wine, if nothing else, was a brave man. He looked up, and wasn't afraid to say that he didn't see anything. That wasn't the brave part, though. The real bravery was in moving forward, going past that, and saying, "We are more than this. Judaism is more than this. We don't have to forgo our heritage just because we can't relate to one part of it. We can keep going. There is still a place for us."

Rabbi Wine created a Judaism that wasn't afraid to be focused inward, and which didn't force people to keep quiet about what they knew, what they believed, to be real.

The people that say Rabbi Wine led people away from Torah are dead wrong. If anything, it's the opposite. Him, and people like him, helped keep alienated Jews tethered to a community, to their heritage. Whatever his faults, whatever his flaws, he can only be praised for that.

Triumphalism Pisses Me Off

It's my 400th post (wee!), and seeing as how a lot of my ire seems to get focused on Haredi Jews, I thought I'd try to amend this by pointing my lens over at the other end of the spectrum: Reform. Now, ideologically, I'm pretty close to Reform Judaism. I like that it's honest about picking and choosing mitzvot and customs, and that it isn't afraid to say so. I also like that it hasn't shied away from reversing itself when it was proven wrong (its shift from anti-Zionism to Zionism is one example, its return to more traditional Jewish ritual and education is another). And I think that the pioneers of Reform Judaism, especially in America, were fascinating individuals who accomplished a lot for their communities.

But here's the rub: deep down, it's hard to escape the stereotype that Reform is:

A) Convenient, by which I mean designed to be convenient, not necessarily meaningful or deep, and

B) Elitist. A big part of that is its history- long the movement of the rich and acculturated Germans, there's still some significant cultural baggage there for good ol' shtetl-descendants like me. As Reform has become increasingly political, this subtle sneering has seemed to increase.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like other denominations don't do this, too. But it's particularly tricky for me because, in a perfect scenario, there wouldn't be so many details about Reform Judaism in practice that turn me off and thereby prevent me from yelling loud and proud, "I'm Reform! Where do I sign up?" Instead I seem to be stuck between Conservative, whose theology I disagree with but whose everyday worship and scholarship seems to resonate with me, and Reform, whose theology I like, but very little else.

Whatever the answer to my personal dilemma, I'm sure of one thing: guys like Robert Heller, head of Board of the Union for Reform Judaism, aren't helping.

Heller is right in identifying that today Judaism demands active identification, and that Reform Judaism has more to offer people than merely "not Orthodoxy."

They -- we -- are choosing Reform Judaism because it stands for something and enables us to engage in Jewish prayer, study and action that has meaning and relevance for us in today’s world, not because it is not Orthodox Judaism.

Amen. But there's a problem. Heller goes on to articulate six points of "attractive" Reform tenets- none of which are exclusive to Reform. Let's take them one at a time, and out of order for dramatic effect.

1: Egalitarianism. A wonderful thing. But it's not new, and it's not just Reform. These days, any place that isn't Orthodox is egalitarian, and even some Modern Orthodox folks are trying to test the boundaries, for instance, by having women sing psalms during Friday night worship.

2: Inclusion. Also great. Also not limited to Reform. Conservative has a ways to go on the gay thing, but for the most part, this is an issue of degrees, not principles. And incidentally, it's a little weird to hear about the inclusiveness of Reform while they're simultaneously trying to nudge non-Jewish spouses to convert. Just saying.

3: Pluralism. Here I admit that Reform is in pretty good standing, but part of that is because it's the most liberal denomination. Unless it's going to say, "halacha is bullshit and you're all idiots," it's kind of a given that they're going to be the ones championing a many paths to God mantra. Also, Heller's reference to people being made in the image of God seems to be a total nonsequiteur. Everyone is made in the image of God, that doesn't mean that every path or position is legitimate (ex: Jihadism).

4: Prophetic Voice. Again, Reform has been at the vanguard of social justice, and I for one appreciate the fact that they extend their gaze beyond "Jewish only issues." At the same time, while relevance to the outside world and putting your faith into practice is great, a critique I've heard is that a Reform bar mitzvah is more about volunteering at soup kitchens than learning Hebrew. I'm not saying tikkun olam isn't a good thing, just that it can't (or shouldn't) be the only thing.

5: Lay people. Where has Heller been? What community or congregation DOESN'T have lay people involved? Even Orthodox communities do this. I don't know who Heller's comparing himself to here.

And lastly, the big H.

6:

Proper role of halachah: We know that halachah is a set of man-made rules (and I mean man-made – women have not been a significant part of their development). We respect that tradition and understand its evolution over time in different places, but we also understand that halachah was not handed down from on high at Sinai or anywhere else. Hence, we give it a voice, not a veto, and we interpret it in light of modernity and the realities of human experience.

Ok, I totally love the vote not veto thing, but it seems to be undermined by the fact that the general trend among Reform is to eschew a lot of traditions and mitzvot automatically. If Reform is as committed to "personal choice" as it likes to say it is, there should be a larger spectrum of practices within the movement, and the synagogues and rabbis should be the ones encouraging this exploration. Heller's drash of halacha seems more contemptuous than anything else. I don't care much for it myself, but I'm also not constructing a whole belief system here. Heller would be better served here by at least cherrypicking a few mitzvot he finds meaningful and talking about the beauty in Reform allowing people to freely choose how to live their lives with a clean conscience.

In fact, a lot of my issues with Heller aren't so much the things he's saying as how he's saying them- the construction of his 6 points seems to be almost along marketing lines: "Don't directly attack your competition, just talk about how good you are!" That'd be fine for a brochure, but it doesn't work so well here.

Heller ends with an appeal towards the countercultural trend embedded in Jewish tradition itself, which I like. But I'm still suspicious that the average 3rd or 4th generation Reform Jew is cognizant enough of tradition itself that they can make informed choices, particularly in regards to creating their own adaptations and modifications. I guess one of the things I want from Reform theologians and leaders is for them to "show their work," to show the starting-point from Orthodoxy (there's that old tricky fallacy of contemporary Orthodoxy as the gold standard!) to where they are now, and explain how we get there and why. I want some guarantees that people in Reform are there because they actually believe it, and not just because it's convenient.

Maybe that's too much to ask. But I think it's a legitimate question, and a serious one. You only get to claim authority from tradition if you actually know the tradition in the first place. Without that, Reform loses its "no BS" legitimacy with me. Radicalism plus time becomes stagnated traditionalism of its own, and is nothing to cheer about.

Edit: Poop, 400th post technically, only 389th posted. Well, back to work.

The Aliyah Guilt Trip

There's been quite a lot about aliyah in the news lately. All three of the major US denominations issued statements encouraging aliyah back in 2003, but some recent developments suggest this may be more than the same ol' lip service.

In July, Rabbi Avi Weiss spoke about making aliyah with his entire congregation:

Rabbi Avi Weiss, of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, says the question of his having not yet made Aliyah (immigrated to Israel) is one he asks himself every day. “I only feel very alive in the Land of Israel. I don’t feel that alive - in a Jewish and emotional sense - in the exile.”

Hang on, this is the rabbi that's been trying to create a whole new niche in American Orthodoxy, who founded a brand new yeshiva less than ten years ago in New York? For someone supposedly agonizing over how he can call himself a real Jew in the exile, Weiss hasn't exactly been a slouch.

“The only place where we can fully express the mission of the Nation of Israel is the Land of Israel. For me, Israel is not only important as the place that guarantees political refuge, not only as the place where more mitzvot can be performed, not only the place that, given the high rate of assimilation and intermarriage in the exile, can guarantee continuity – it is much deeper than that. The Land of Israel is the only place where we have the potential to carry out our responsibility as the chosen people. In the exile we are not in control of our destiny. It is only in the Jewish state that we have the potential to be a beacon of light to the larger world.”

Which must explain why the Haredim in Israel have been doing so much to deal with global issues like world poverty, AIDS, and the Darfur crisis!

Amazing how us all clustering together in a place the size of Jersey somehow translates into us being a light unto the nations. I guess I get it, but I also don't get it. Is this the same principle as a laser? Someone help me out here, I flunked physics. Is the idea that the concentration of Jews in one place will have an uplifting effect, thereby improving us and supposedly making us an excellent example for everyone else? Doesn't that run counter to everything we know about Jewish dynamics? And besides, how will the outside world even know about us? If the Haredim get their way, the only form of communication will be pashkevils. We'll become a Jewish Shangri-La.

“A Zionist is someone who lives in Israel,” said Rabbi Weiss. “Who is a talmid chacham? The man or woman who is versed in Torah. A benefactor of a Torah institution is very important, but is not a talmid chacham. Similarly, a Zionist is one who lives in the State of Israel, who lives in the Land of Israel. I take the position that I am not a Zionist. I am a strong supporter of Zionism - a doresh Zion – seeker of Zion.”

Well, if that's how you really feel, Rabbi, then by all means, head off.

Weiss spoke more about the subject in a drash, where he comes to the crux of his argument:

But whether or not one maintains that Rambam believes it is a mitzvah to live in Israel, doesn’t this commandment, as certainly understood by Ramban, fly in the face of our mission to be an or la’goyim? How can we be a light to the nations of the world if we don’t live amongst Gentiles and are ensconced in our own homeland?

Good question. Rav?

One could argue however, that the mandate to live in the chosen land of Israel is crucial to the chosen people idea. Being the chosen people doesn’t mean that our souls are superior. Rather it suggests that our mission to spread a system of ethical monotheism, of God ethics to the world, is of a higher purpose. And that can only be accomplished in the land of Israel.

...In exile, we can develop communities that can be a “light” to others. But the destiny of the Jewish people lies in the State of Israel. Israel is the only place where we as a nation can become an or la’goyim. In the Diaspora, we are not in control of our destiny; we cannot create the society envisioned by the Torah. Only in a Jewish state do we have the political sovereignty and judicial autonomy to potentially establish the society from which other nations can learn the basic ethical ideals of Torah.

As we near Tisha B'av... this position reminds us of our obligation to think about Israel, to visit Israel, and, most important, to constantly yearn to join the millions who have already returned home. Only there do we have the potential to be the true am ha-nivhar (chosen people).

So... the answer is to put the emphasis on Jews being as good Jews as they can possibly be vis-a-vis mitzvot, and the goyim just sort of take care of themselves or absorb our good vibes via osmosis? That's quite a plan. Now tell me, how do we deal with issues like antisemitism or anti-Jewish prejudice when, after mass aliyah, most of the rest of the world will have little to no contact with Jews? Or will we not need to care because we'll be in Israel and have the IDF to protect us? Just curious.

I have a few issues with Rabbi Weiss' argument. First, the suggestion that the dividing line between authentic and inauthentic Zionists is voting with your feet seems to be a major shot across the American Jewish community's bow. I consider myself a Zionist though I've never even been to Israel and have no intention of making aliyah, at least no time soon. I suspect, though, that my Zionism and the Zionism Rabbi Weiss is speaking about are of two different types. I am a Zionist because I support Israel and care about what happens to it and its people. Even more than that, I identify with it. Out of all the countries in the world, what happens in Israel matters to me. But that's not the same thing as longing for Zion. My "longing" amounts to little more than the fact that I'd like to go sometime and visit my cousins. Oh, and that people would stop dying there.

So on a personal level, the not-so-subtle accusation that anyone in Exile is not a real Zionist isn't that big of a deal. But I think that on a national level, it's a pretty big shakeup in terms of Jewish consciousness. Zionism has long been a central prism through which the majority of American Jews, or at least Jewish movements, have conceived of their Jewish identity. To pull that out from under them is a big shock, to say the least.

This kind of rhetoric, while sensationalist, isn't too surprising from Modern Orthodox circles. Modern Orthodoxy has long been one of the most involved groups in sending kids to Israel and making aliyah themselves. There is no question that Israel is a priority for them. AFAIK, most of the few hundred North American immigrants that go every year are MO. What's really interesting is the new push from the other movements, particularly Reform, which has traditionally not put a very big focus on aliyah.

Currently, less than 5% of North American immigrants to Israel, or olim, identify as Reform Jews, according to the Jewish Agency for Israel, but the movement hopes to grow that number. In recent months, Reform organizations have launched several initiatives aimed at increasing the movement’s grass-roots presence in Israel, including a concentrated recruitment drive, conducted this week, aimed at bringing 10 Reform families to the booming Israeli city of Modi’in.

The efforts are intended, in part, to increase the power and influence of Israel’s fledgling Reform movement, which in recent years has fought in the Israeli courts to win the official recognition and funding traditionally reserved for Israel’s Orthodox institutions. At the same time, the new attention to aliyah reflects the increasing traditionalism of the American Reform movement, the country’s largest Jewish denomination.

Even secular Jews are trying to make aliyah attractive:

today, for the most part, the Jew living in America or Europe is under no physical threat. Yarmulke-wearing Jews can live comfortably throughout the Western world while enjoying the perks of a first-world lifestyle.

Today, it is the secular Jew living in America who is in cultural peril. And assimilation is the imminent threat to his or her Judaic existence.

In Israel, if a youth rebels against his or her traditional upbringing, wanting to pursue a more secular life-style, he or she can escape to Tel Aviv. There they might not keep Shabbat or kosher anymore. But they'll be present when the siren goes off on Holocaust Remembrance Day. They will speak Hebrew. They will still take off work for Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur - even if it's to take a three-day cruise to Turkey.

And chances are they'll marry another Jew.

In Israel, being Jewish is organic; in America it is not.

In America, a cosmopolitan Jew who is completely secular and not culturally connected to a Jewish community has no connection to our people. So in New York City, Los Angeles or London, such a Jew would have little reason to have a Shabbat dinner or take off work for Rosh Hashana.

Falling in in love with a non-Jew is a very real possibility. And, over the generations, those Jews' lineage would likely come to an end. Thus, the secular Jew, no longer attached by faith, also risks detachment from tradition and peoplehood by living in America.

BEING JEWISH in America requires a special effort. Although most of the Jews making aliya from America today are affiliated with some branch of Judaism, it is secular Jews who need Israel the most. Only Israel can save them from long-term cultural decline. Only in Israel can they redefine what it means to be a Jew.

Now, I understand, and actually support, the idea that more non-Orthodox Jews making aliyah is a good thing. I would love to see Israeli Judaism be a more open system, and to end the Orthodox monopoly on state funding and services. And I also acknowledge that the only way this can happen is by getting more feet on the ground (same principle as settling the land, really). I get all of that. I also get the fact that, no matter how Israelis feel about Reform Judaism, more Jews means a larger population buffer against the Arabs, Israeli and otherwise. But for some reason, maybe because this sounds so much like a sales pitch ("we need you, we love you, it's yours, come home"), it doesn't quite sit well with me. (Damn my distrust of marketing!)

On the other side of the coin, as much as I'm wary of the all-smiles, "Israel loves you and wants you here" of the Reform article, the secular aliyah op-ed from the Jerusalem Post makes me downright recoil. In some ways, it's even more grating than the religious language of Avi Weiss. Saying that any Jew who isn't in Israel is somehow deficient rubs me the wrong way. So does suggesting that aliyah is the only way to safeguard one's Jewish identity, of course, with the obligatory specter of intermarriage and "what about grandchildren" handwringing. One is a guilt trip, the other a scare tactic. None are good enough arguments to encourage me to go to Israel.

I like America, I'm comfortable in America, and, sorry to say it, but America seems a lot saner than Israel, in a whole bunch of ways. As a pseudo-secular Jew, I can be content to appreciate Zion from afar. As someone with a strong Jewish identity who's also in a relationship with a non-Jew, the threat of intermarriage, and assimilation, both seem laughable. I've seen the enemy and it's me, and it's not going to change if I jet-set over to Tel Aviv.

The real irritation I feel with the aliyah push, though, is the inferiority complex it assigns to American Jews and Judaism. It resurrects the question of what the center of Jewish attention, thought, etc, should be: Israel, Diaspora, America, etc? I have no ill will towards Israel, but it's not the center of my universe, Jewish or otherwise, and I resent the implication that it should be. Israel is a real country with real people and real problems. My moving there is not going to cause a mystical transformation that redeems the world and magically replaces two Mosques with a giant Temple. I appreciate the dream, but I have a real problem with undermining and downplaying the accomplishments and struggles of the reality of millions of Diaspora Jews, past, present and future. Furthermore, there seems to be a real undercurrent of abandoning Diaspora life as being "too hard," which is particularly ironic given that a longstanding element of Israeli culture has seemed to be a smug satisfaction at how much more authentic and yes, challenging, life they were leading in Israel compared to the "comfortable" Americans in exile.

But as the guy writing the secular aliyah piece pointed out, being a Jew in Israel isn't hard. It's natural. If anything, Israel is conceived as an all-purpose safety net. "Maybe he won't be religious, but he'll speak Hebrew. Maybe he won't give a fig about the holidays, but he'll have to take Rosh Hashanah off." Why is speaking Hebrew some great accomplishment? Why is Israeli culture and identity, no matter how watered down, somehow seen as the equal of, or superior, to being a committed Diaspora Jew?

If some people want to make aliyah, go for it. I wish them the best and hope they lead wonderful and fulfilling Jewish lives, and that they make Israel the better for their being there. But Israel is not the be-all and end-all of Jewishness, and those of us who choose to stay put should not be chided for that decision. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons to choose to go or stay, and it'd be nice not to be pitied or written off as soon-to-be-extinct branches of the Jew tree (which, incidentally, seems to be how a lot of people see the intermarried these days). Like it or not, most of the accomplishments of the Jews in the past couple thousand years have been in the Diaspora. Most of the rabbis we study today were Diaspora Jews. Are Maimonides' or the Baal Shem Tov's accomplishments any less because they never made it to Jerusalem?

Diaspora Jews, and specifically American Jews, have a lot to be proud of. While Israel is important, we shouldn't elevate it at the expense of our own achievements, and we should challenge those who do.

We are not inferior. We are not defective. We are Jews too, regardless of where we choose to plant our feet. Long for Zion all you want, but don't forget about (or ignore) the people right in front of you.