Hell in a Handbasket

Because Darfur isn't enough, you know?

- Christians are under attack in Gaza. I can't say I'm surprised; you don't hear Hamas and think ecumenical. Incidentally, I wonder who the Palestinian Christians tend to support politically? Are they pro PLO? Or maybe some of the smaller third parties? And I must confess I don't know much about their stance vis-a-vis Jihad against Israel. My recollection is that almost no Christians have been involved in attacks during the past Intifada, but there might have been a couple. Also, I was under the impression that most Palestinian Christians lived in Bethlehem, but apparently there are still some in Gaza and, of all places, Ramallah.

- Yet another religious/ethnic group in Iraq is being massacred. Ever heard of the Mandeans? I think I have once before, that's about it. I've recently finished reading S.Y. Ansky's Enemy at his Pleasure about the Soviet-Ukranian wars of the 1920s and all the people- especially Jews- caught in the middle. Much like the Marsh Arabs and Assyrian/Chaldeans, Mandeans are stuck in the same position; neither Sunni nor Shiite, just screwed.

- Pakistan is self-destructing. A necessary step to keep control over Islamists? Or just the latest in Pervey's attempt to hold on to power? Maybe both?

- Hugo Chavez is pushing ahead to make himself President-for-Life. Never let a little thing like massive protests harsh your buzz, I always say.

- Burma is still a hellhole. Nuff said.

- I for one am getting a bit annoyed at Turkey. I'm not a fan of the PKK (I hadn't heard of them until last week), but Turkey, it's not like your shit don't stink. Kudos to Maliki for saying that he's willing to work with the Turks to clamp down on the PKK, because God knows we can't do it. Incidentally, I'd feel a lot more confident if Maliki had a better track record on, say, doing anything he promises to do.

- Speaking of broken promises, remember that whole Taliban thing? Yeah. So glad we finished that job. Oh, and way to go on finishing that war on drugs thing. Two birds with one stone.

- The Mukasey water boarding thing. I'm stuck somewhere between this and this.

Looking at the state of the world, I feel like now is the time to ruminate on Sultan Knish's post earlier in the week about how Americans (specifically Conservatives) should respond to the fact that some of the strongest anti-Jihad voices in Europe happen to be, well, neo-Nazis. Here is the first of three posts on the subject, in which he points out some very bitter truths:

In the United States... the part of the Conservative Culture movement that tended to add the "White" part and threw in doses of explicit bigotry and either openly sympathized with the Nazis or penned apologetics for them, were the paleoconservatives who split from the Republican party. Figures like Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Scott McConnell and Taki Theodopolus formed a splinter group that went on the attack against the Republican party and formed the right wing of the Anti-war movement. Unlike the Christian Conservatives who represent the Conservative Culture movement today, these are more likely to be Catholic and to be enraged against America in a way that reaches nearly Westboro Church proportions.

In Europe the divisions aren't anywhere as neat because in Europe the war against Islam is a domestic cultural affair. The reality is that despite the insidious penetration of the Koran and Islamization into public schools, it will be decades before this is a real cultural threat to any significant number of Americans. By contrast in Europe it is a threat today. In America the resistance to Islam is primarily a struggle abroad. In Europe it is a domestic cultural war, rather than a foreign one. That is why European Anti-Islamic movements are much less likely to be involved in a foreign War on Terror and much more interested in a cultural war against the Islamization of their countries.

Where domestically white power groups continue to view Blacks, Jews and other minorities as the real threat, while paleoconservatives focus on liberals, atheists, big government and of course the Jews-- in Europe, paleoconservatives and white power groups generally (with exceptions like LePen) have focused on a campaign against Muslims.

In American, both conservatives and the Patriotic Movement have the luxury of being able to avoid the white power and the more bigoted fringes of the right, mainly because the right and the white power movement want nothing to do with them anyway. At the moment they're on the side of Islamic terrorism. That makes things a lot easier.

European movements don't have that convenience and as the experience with Ron Paul supporters should be telling Republicans, the far right is good at infiltrating organizations and movements. If you think getting rid of Ron Paul supporters is tough, try the real European variety. It's one reason for some of this controversy.

But the more practical reality is that in Europe, Christian Conservatives are not multi-racial the way their American counterparts may be. They want a version of Europe that predates the wave of post-war immigrants and in which other races know their place. And yes that often includes Jews too.

American Conservatives have increasingly created a 'big tent' of sorts that at least admits other races and gives Jews a limited place at the table. But American Conservatives were a lot closer to European Conservatives a century ago. Some like the Buchanan and Sobran crowd still are.

What does all this mean? In practice a lot of the European conservative movement is going to be racist by our standards. The people most likely to want to do something in European countries, particularly states like Sweden or Belgium where real opposition is all but illegal in some ways, are going to be people on the right.

We can't dictate to the European movements who they're going to put forward, from a purely practical standpoint. It doesn't really matter what we tell them anyway. By exposing some of the far right roots in a Vlaams Belang we're not reforming them, we're just joining the choir of their existing critics. European anti-islamization movements in the end will have to define themselves and inevitably a proportion or even more than a proportion of their membership will be racist. Some even Neo-Nazi. This is unsurprising because the Nazis tapped into the nationalist and conservative movements of many European countries. Where the American Far Right has become anti-nationalist with Ron Paul as their figurehead, the European Far Right remains nationalist.

The reality is that wars are not won by carefully selecting your allies for ideological purity. In WW2 we allied with Stalin. Our mistake was not in an alliance with Stalin, our mistake was that in allying with him, we insisted on pretending that he was something other than what he was. That made it easier for him to stick the knife in our back.

In the long term, a Muslim takeover of Europe is far more likely than a far right takeover of Europe. The far right does not have the numbers or the demographics on their side and we can't fight both Hitler and Stalin at the same time. We have to pick one and ally with the other. The grave threat to us, as Americans and Jews on a global scale, comes from Islam, not from the far right. The sporadic bursts of violence by the far right are of concern to Jews still living in European countries but France's meltdown alone should be a lesson in where the real threat lies.

We are facing a global war against Islam and we have to back anyone willing to fight them, Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Communists, Fascists, Satanists, Democrats.

...You deal with the people who are out there. You fight the Nazis by backing the Communists. You fight the Communists by backing the Islamists and you fight the Islamists by backing anyone willing to fight them. It's not pretty and as any idiot can tell you, it has consequences. But that's war. Wars don't end neatly. There's always a price to pay for them down the road. There's no such thing as a free lunch, just a battle worth winning.

On the one hand I understand real-politik. On the other hand, I have a really serious problem with the premise that the enemy of my enemy is necessarily my friend, regardless of any evidence suggesting that he's basically just as big of a douchebag. It's disconcerting that a great many numbers of hot spots around the world seem to at least partially be due to American (or, before them, European) attempts to divide and conquer, to support the seemingly better option over another, who then turned out to basically be a bastard, too. Most of South and Central America, along with the Middle East, shows this story. Time after time we supported ruthless dictators as long as they were anti-Soviet. I'm not saying Soviet puppet states were great, either. But how can you look at a guy like Pinochet or Marcos, or freaking Saddam or the Shah (or the Mujehadin) and say, "Job well done?" I understand the desire to both improve the world as well as manipulate affairs for our own benefit- after all, the three rising superpowers Russia, China and India aren't likely to give a shit about helping us out. And I want to resist the conclusion that maybe part of the reason places like Iraq and Afghanistan still want to butcher each other is because they aren't ready for democracy yet (not that this helps us, or them, much). What do you do when all the options are bad? What do you do when your choices are Taliban warlords or the other warlords? Is America better off having less allies and more principles (hooray for us being buddies with Turkey and Egypt, supposedly moderate Muslim states; too bad their human rights records are atrocious)?

As America looks like it may be losing its influence, how do we hang on to our dignity? To our moral, if not physical, power? Is it foolish to throw away our moral credibility to try to sustain our empire for another few decades? Or vice-versa, to sacrifice strategic advantages, whether economically or security-wise, to gain an illusory moral high ground?

I just don't know. But saying that we should always go with Stalin because at least he's not Hitler... I don't know if I can accept that. I don't know if I can respect that. And I don't think a lot of other people can, either. Isn't part of the problem with America's image abroad the perception that our foreign policy has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with advantage? We're basically strategy and business whores. It would be one thing if we were honest about it, but it kills me that we still wrap ourselves in "freedom for all" horsecrap. That's what I find offensive. Pure and ruthless utilitarian pragmatism makes me ill but at least it's honest (and in some ways, a lot less annoying). But of course, if we came out and said that, you'd have a lot fewer people enlisting in the military (to say nothing of the other advantages you get in international politics via the wonders of spin and advertising).

Sometimes maybe it's better to stand alone and take the disadvantages and risks that come with that in exchange for being able to truly stand by your conscience and principles, to hold our heads high and say that no, we don't partner with brutal dictators, even if they're supposedly the "good kind." Sorry Pakistan, sorry Egypt, sorry Saudis. Sorry China, sorry Belarus. How about some elections, Jordan? Get your shit together Russia. Cut that shit out, India.

And, call me an optimist (that'd be a first), but maybe we also need to give the rest of the West a little more credit. Perhaps part of the reason our perception is that everybody else intends to lie down and submit to the terrorists is that America has been at center-stage for so long. Before America started being a big mucky-muck, I doubt that England or any of the European powers thought we were capable or even interested of taking care of business. We laugh at supposed idealists in Scandinavia and Europe, but if some of the weight of the world was falling on their shoulders, they might be more realistic- AND might have some positive influences of their own on helping the West deal with its own problems, as well as with addressing global issues, including Islamic terrorism.

Maybe we'd be better off having a different standard of who we choose to ally with. It would be a lot lonelier, but we might gain something else in return.

Or maybe we'll all get blown up by suicide bombers. Still better than living in Burma.

Reform and Tradition

I was eating lunch two weeks ago and got an unexpected phone call from CCAR Press.

My first reaction. "CCAR Press? Sounds familiar. Hmm... I don't remember submitting anything to CCAR press. But maybe they've heard about my interminable ongoing novel-in-progress... Or maybe they somehow came across my blog and want to publish me. Or maybe they telepathically identified me as a frigging genius whose voice just begs to be heard!"

Oops. Turns out CCAR Press publishes the Reform prayerbook, Mishkan T'filah. Shucks.

It turns out there's good news and bad news. The good news is that the siddirum are selling like hotcakes. The bad news is that this means that little old orders like mine (shuls get a price break at around 100 copies. Yet another reason it's too bad I'm not a shul) won't get filled until sometime next year.

Anyway, it turns out this call was semi-fortuitous, because the siddur is in the news. Apparently some Reform traditionalists (chew on that for a minute) are up in arms because they think the new prayer book is on a mission to make Reform "Conservative-esque."

Scholars say the editorial decisions reflect the evolution of Jewish culture, theological ideas and history. But some rabbis and congregants who champion classical Reform Judaism believe the book endangers the identity of the movement and blurs the distinction between Reform and Conservative Jews.

"I'm really sorry it's happening this way," said Rabbi Michael Sternfield of Chicago Sinai Congregation. "I give [the editors] an A for effort. They know their stuff. But I think their mind-set is to make the Reform movement as much like Conservative Judaism as we can."

Knobel said the book responds to a demand for choices from congregations, many of which have started producing their own prayer books.

"[That's] symbolic for us that people were becoming dissatisfied with what we were providing," he said. "We really feel people are hungry for something."

Note to Rabbi Sternfield: it's not about stealing from CJ, it's about giving RJs the option to be more Jewishly literate. To deny them this ability in both your siddur and your Hebrew schools is grossly unfair, particularly if it's becoming something that more and more RJs WANT, and negates any pretense that Reform Judaism is actually about choice. Just because some Reform rabbis don't want Hebrew doesn't mean they should be in a position to cockblock everybody else, anymore than preferences involving facial hair should lead to you shaving any Reform Jews that still have beards.

Fans of the book say its beauty lies in the multitude of options. Four versions of each prayer are laid out on a two-page spread intended as one extra-wide page. On the right are the prayer in Hebrew, its pronunciation and a more literal English translation. On the left is a more poetic translation of the prayer, followed by a metaphorical or meditative passage reflecting on the prayer, or commentary about the prayer's origins. It is the first Reform prayer book to include commentary.

"The way sacred texts remain important, meaningful and relevant is through an ongoing process of commentary," Knobel said. "We're constantly looking at the sacred texts we have and looking for a meaning in them that speaks to us in our day and age in our own personal and communal teachings."

Unlike previous prayer books that have dictated when congregants sit, stand and read aloud, the new book leaves it up to the worship leader to give stage directions at their discretion. Knobel said it's also up to leaders to build in larger blocks of silence so congregants have time to absorb and reflect on supplemental texts throughout the service.

Choices and commentary? Heaven forbid! Some confused congregant might accidentally think they're reading the Talmud or something.

But some critics consider the book a giant step in the wrong direction. They say its inclusion of more traditional prayers kowtows to conservative pressure.

"I do really feel this prayer book is a mistake," said Sternfield, whose congregation wrote its own prayer book seven years ago. He said "Mishkan T'filah" reflects a shift toward the Conservative Jewish movement.

"Reform Judaism has an authenticity unto itself. The more we try to be like other movements, the less authentic we are to our own core values," Sternfield said. "I'm very much in hopes that our pendulum will swing back to a different position from where it is today. It may take the disenchantment over this book for the movement to come to its senses a little bit."

Funny me, I thought the whole Reform Judaism thing was supposed to be about changing to fit the needs of the times. At least that's what this brochure says. What do you want, Rabbi Sternfield? Do I need to personally emboss each page of MK with an imprint of I.M. Wise? Who, incidentally, knew Hebrew. Also, if your OWN congregation wrote its own siddur, clearly they weren't being served by Gates of Prayer.

JTA has more, with a specific focus on the prayer calling for the resurrection of the dead (which I find interesting, but largely a non-sequiteur).

But befitting a prayer book conceived to appeal to diverse beliefs and practices, members of the editorial committee offered various and sometimes conflicting explanations for the prayer's return. In particular they differed on whether the change reflects merely a new comfort with liturgical metaphors or a deeper change in Reform theology.

The movement's Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 explicitly rejected the notion of bodily resurrection, an idea considered unmodern, unscientific and irrational.

"Certainly to the 19th century reformers, the idea that Judaism believed in resurrection of the dead seemed to them the antithesis of the kind of rational Judaism that they thought most Jews wanted and expected," said Jonathan Sarna, a Jewish history professor at Brandeis University.

In prior Reform prayer books, the traditional blessing of God as the one who revives the dead -- in Hebrew, "m'chayeih hameitim" -- was changed to "m'chayeih hakol," literally "who gives life to all." The new prayer book includes the modified version, but also offers worshipers the ancient formulation as an alternative.

Many if not most of those involved in the production of Mishkan T'filah continue to reject the idea of God literally raising dead bodies from the earth. As metaphor, however, the phrase is thought to be sufficiently meaningful for people that it was worthy of restoration.

"For a number of people in our movement, reclaiming traditional language feels very meaningful," Frishman said. "And when that language resonates positively, people want it."

Editorial committee members provided various metaphoric interpretations for the prayer, from the reawakening that occurs after surgery to the notion that the Jewish people were resurrected after the Holocaust in the rebirth of the State of Israel.

Others, however, are less willing to dismiss the idea of resurrection as pure metaphoric fancy, arguing that if there is an afterlife -- a notion that Reform has never renounced -- it will have to be a bodily one, since human beings do not know themselves in any other way.

On the one hand, maybe this puts Reform in something of a similar quandary as Conservative- putting something on paper that the rank and file don't really believe. On the other hand, given that MK is supposed to be all about giving people options, I don't think it's quite the same thing as CJ continuing to profess that the movement is uniformly halachic (see Neil Gillman's critique of this self-conception in his speech back in Dec 2005).

Actually, the Gillman episode is an interesting one to compare to the oresent MK brou-ha-ha, because as in 2005, one of the first responses we heard was the unabashed triumphalism of folks like Jonathan Rosenblum, who said Gillman had validated the critiques of Rabbi Avi Shafran, head mouthpiece of Agudat Israel of America, who had said way back in 2001 that CJ's claim to be halachic was disingenuous. Never mind that Gillman went on to say that he still identified as a CJ and thought the movement was a legitimate one, or that plenty of CJs disagreed with Gillman's analysis- Rosenblum had his sound-bite and that was enough.

So, guess who do we find crowing about the new MK and its turn towards tradition? None other than the esteemed Rabbi Shafran, back again.

That the unveiling of a new Reform prayer book didn't elicit applause from the Orthodox world was hardly surprising. Despite media hailings of the movement's new liturgical offering as a turn toward Jewish tradition, the new prayer book, Mishkan T'filah, still pointedly omits vital elements of traditional Jewish prayer (indeed of the Torah) that its editors found discomfiting.

The essence of the Jewish religious heritage does not change; the very premise of Reform theology (and, as has become increasingly evident, Conservative theology no less) is that Judaism can be redefined according to the wishes of contemporary Jews. As a Reform leader once candidly explained, he examines each mitzva and asks himself, "Do I feel commanded [to heed it]?"

Hang on, they still believe in the right to choose things? What a lousy bunch of Orthodox Jews. Oh, wait.

And anyway who said that the goal of MK was to get Orthodox brownie points?

Rabbi Shafran also takes note of the new prayer for resurrecting the dead:

...I can't help but imagine an astute Reform worshipper motivated to indeed ponder the kind of techiyat hameitim we witness daily, like decaying organic matter fertilizing the soil, spurring dormant seeds to unfold into plants and trees. And then being stirred further to consider the relationship between such everyday "quickening of the dead" and the ultimate one that the Torah teaches lies, for those who merit it, at the end of history.

...The editors of the new Reform prayer book may insist that its users needn't subscribe to the Jewish belief that the righteous will one day rise from their graves. But their inclusion of the blessing of resurrection, however they may have sought to soften it, reflects unquestionably the deep stirrings of Jews alienated from our eternal beliefs groping uneasily toward their acceptance.

It may be naive to imagine that changes in the Reform prayer book hold out hope that Reform-affiliated Jews might yet come to consider returning to the fullness of the Jewish religious tradition.

But I'm not willing to consider a million-plus fellow Jews as nothing more than a desiccated limb of the Jewish people, hopelessly destined to wither and fall away.

Not only because there are encouragingly many once-distant-from-Judaism Jews living fully Torah-observant lives today.

But because I believe in techiyat hameitim.

Wow, so once again we get insight into Rabbi Shafran's incredible love and respect for all his Jewish brethren, that is, the ones that see the light and realize that their true purpose is to become good little BTs.

Though I'd like to be as accommodating and gracious as Harry Maryles or Daniel Treiman, Shafran comes off more as snickering than giving credit where due. That he refuses to even mention the obvious gray area between "practically extinct" and full-fledged Baal Teshuvah seems to indicate a pretty major blind spot. A true acknowledgment of the importance- and positive turn- of the new prayer book would be to encourage Reform Jews to be more observant, not merely say, "I can't wait for them to become real Jews like me."

I can accept that most frum Jews aren't going to be ok with picking and choosing. But there's no down side to more Reform Jews praying in Hebrew. And on this topic, the Orthodox would be well-served to take a page from Chabad's playbook and encourage non-Orthos to go AS FAR AS THEY WANT, rather than saying, "we look forward to seeing you in our shul next week." Even if that's what you actually believe guys, Jesus, don't say it out loud. Oh, and calling Reform Jews spiritually dead isn't exactly a way to get on their good side, either. Chalk up another lost kiruv opportunity (to be fair, the Orthodox aren't the only ones who can be provacative).

Also check out this Jerusalem Post article from last month that chronicles where the Reform movement is headed and how it's getting there. Liberally-quoted money quotes:

Gates of Prayer - a compilation of 10 themed services published in 1975 - sought to accommodate these trends. The siddur included an unprecedented selection of new prayers, readings and meditations to accompany the Hebrew texts, some geared toward Holocaust remembrance and Israeli Independence Day. The success of GOP was immediate with sales reaching 50,000 in its first year and nearly 1.5 million copies to date.

But despite its achievements, Gates of Prayer was criticized almost from the start for being more of an anthology than a cohesive prayer book and for relying on the masculine in its language. Some congregations reacted by returning to the UPB, but many compiled their own prayer books, often editing the texts for gender sensitivity.

'MISHKAN T'FILAH'

By 1985 a new siddur was in the works.

As work began, Rabbi Lawrence Hoffman, professor of liturgy at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, the Reform rabbinical seminary, prepared a monograph describing the changes in Jewish worship patterns over the course of the last generation. "A new prayer book," he wrote, "needed to take into account a number of trends: a growing emphasis on personalism as opposed to peoplehood, the individual's search for the sacred, the presence of many diverse constituencies within Reform congregations, the expansion of ritual occasions (such as new rituals for the New Moon), a new interest in the choreography of worship, and the influence of Jewish feminist thought on language and imagery in referring to God." In a radical proposition, he asserted that a new prayer book needed to take into consideration the opinions of the laity.

...After years of discussions, and trial runs, the resulting text is Mishkan T'filah: A Reform Siddur, which has sold 150,000 copies prior to publication.

Rabbi Elyse Frishman, whose proposal won an initial competition, conceived of the approach to the layout: Each prayer is set as a two-page spread. The prayer itself, fully transliterated and with a faithful English translation, appears on the right-hand page, and on the left are thematically related prayers, quotes by Jewish thinkers such as Martin Buber and Milton Steinberg, and meditations that include texts from the Talmud or contemporary poetry. Worshipers who prefer a straightforward, traditional service can choose to stay entirely on the right-hand side, while others might choose to say one or more of the alternative prayers on the left.

"Now we understand there is no single theology we represent," said Hoffman. "Rather, Reform theology is an amalgam of many voices coming together. Instead of many services there is one with many different voices on each page."

MORE TRADITIONAL?

Yes and no, said Hoffman.

"It's not so much a return to tradition as much as it an attempt to present the fullness of Jewish tradition modified by principles that animate Reform Judaism," he said.

Rabbi Daniel Bronstein , a congregation scholar at Congregation Beth Elohim in Brooklyn said it's more traditional than anything that's been done in a Reform siddur in terms of the restoration of traditional liturgy, drawing from more traditional sources, the inclusion of much more Hebrew and much less responsive English reading. But there is also a greater presence of women thinkers and rabbis, more renewal and non-rabbinic voices as well. "It reflects that on the one hand Reform is becoming more traditional and aligning itself with Klal Yisrael, but at the same time it's always going in the progressive direction."

The names of the prayer books, carefully chosen, offer some insight into what they package. Rabbi Levy, director of the School of Rabbinic Studies on the Los Angeles campus of HUC, points to the name of the latest siddur as the first indicator of the Reform Movement's embrace of tradition.

The Union Prayer Book was an attempt to create a book that all Jews could use, Levy explained. With Gates of Prayer, the emphasis is on being at the threshold. "Now we are inside the mishkan," said Levy. "Being inside reflects a wider embrace of Jewish tradition."

..."Most of us feel that it's keeping with the movement, which originally saw itself as responsive to change," said Levy. "If Torah is seen as continued revelation, then changing times help us see Torah differently."

The language of the Pittsburgh Platform, which said "at this time we reject the practices of diet and purity," opens itself up to such an argument, he said. "Whether by 'at this time' they felt it would always be so, or at another time could prove something different is open to interpretation."

The 1937 Columbus Platform, which came as a response to the Pittsburgh Platform, was created with the realization that the Reform Movement needed to affirm the synagogue as an important center of Jewish life. Similarly, the realization that holding on only to a "religion of reason" needed to be expanded was part of the motivation behind the 1999 Pittsburgh Platform. "With that platform we affirmed what had been happening for 10 years, namely an increase in spiritual life and dedication to study," Levy said.

With its origins in the 19th century, Reform Judaism was a response to an increased sense of alienation from Orthodoxy. Its founders looked to universalism as a way around the stringencies and ghetto mentality of the Orthodox world.

"Whereas in the 19th century we needed universalism, in the 1970s we needed particularism, and we did that by restoring several prayers that emphasize the particular destiny of the Jewish people," said Hoffman. The Aleinu prayer which centers around the notion that "our lot is not like theirs," was initially removed.

"By the time of the 1970s history had demonstrated that Jews have a unique destiny, like it or not, so it was restored," said Hoffman. "The issue now is no longer medieval heritage, now it is secularity."

...Deliberations about the Shema, one of the oldest known prayers, were probably the most divisive. In traditional siddurim, the Shema includes not just the Shema Yisrael and V'ahavta, but two more paragraphs which American Reform prayer books have omitted since the 1890s. The editorial committee was urged to reinstate the last two paragraphs, as part of a movement to recapture some of the traditional liturgy. But the third paragraph links divine reward and punishment to human merit and sin - an implicit suggestion that sickness or suffering may be Divine retribution, something Reform Jews reject. So Mishkan T'filah omits this paragraph, but readopted the second.

"We didn't include some traditionalist prayers that, in all good conscience, Reform Jews cannot say," said Frishman, who likens the decision to include more of the traditional liturgy to cooking. "The more I become aware of different herbs and vegetables, all become possibilities to create an amazing dish. The generation before might have rejected certain things because they were imposed on it, but we are not imposed upon, so we look at everything more openly."

CRITICS

A glance at today's critics reveals just how much the embrace of tradition has been solidified. A decade ago when Levy introduced his Ten Principles arguing in favor of greater ritual observance, critics argued the movement was caving in to Orthodoxy. Today those who point to shortfalls in the siddur say it fails to go far enough in its embrace of traditional liturgy.

"A strong editorial hand doesn't give justice to profound poetic impulse that humans have expressed over the last 2,000 years," said Rabbi Andy Bachman of Congregation Beth Elohim. "I am among a whole variety of rabbis across the generations who are uneasy with too many changes to the siddur so that it makes it unrecognizable."

Rabbi Leon Morris, executive director of the Skirball Center for Adult Jewish Learning in New York, urged the editorial committee of Mishkan T'filah to include the Shema in its entirety.

"One of the things I am asking is whether the 21st century provides us with a different way of thinking about what we do with inherited classical texts." he said.

Jews today are not looking to the prayer book to reflect their theology, explained Morris, who is part of a younger generation of Reform Jews who feel a connection to the traditional liturgy. "This is a post-modern turn - we are very much aware there are different ways to read texts and, increasingly, liberal Jews are appreciating and drawing meaning from classic texts even when they clash with our own personal beliefs."

Comparing the late 19th century with where the movement stands today, it is hard to deny the trajectory toward a greater embrace of tradition, said Morris. "But it is much less guided by a deepened commitment to Jewish law and more guided by a greater openness to tradition." No one, he said, felt a "halachic obligation" to include all three paragraphs of the Shema.

"It's not that Reform Judaism has no relation to Halacha, it's that the authority of Halacha is more in its ability to be persuasive than inherently authoritative by virtue of being Halacha," he said.

Today's generation of Reform Jews doesn't carry the same baggage as the founders of the movement, Morris said. "In a certain way Reform Judaism today is rebelling against secularism rather than Orthodoxy. Today Jews need to assert they are Jews."

Will adopting more traditional liturgy and ritual practice eventually make the Reform Movement indistinguishable from the Conservative Movement from which it sought so desperately to distinguish itself?

Levy hopes not. "I think a merger of Reform and Conservative Judaism would be terrible - difference helps keep vibrance," he said.

For Bachman it remains clear why he is a Reform Jew: "I am Reform because I believe humans wrote the Torah with divine inspiration, I believe men and women are inherently equal, I believe in welcoming gays and lesbians and intermarried families - and the movement that has those principles at the core is Reform."

Very interesting stuff. Looking forward to getting my own copy. Eventually.

Jewish Role Models

Cross-posted with fancy pictures to Oy Bay.

In a recent post I mentioned that these days, mostly thanks to what I've been picking for reading material, I've been conceiving of Jewish identity through the prism of early 20th century Eastern European writers and poets, such as I.J. Singer and H. Leivick. If I had to have a top 3, though, I think it would be this bunch:

1- The aforementioned Singer. Nowadays he's mostly forgotten due to his brother's successes, but old I.J. was the original literary success of the family. He wrote about the same Polish Jews as I.B., but with a much more critical eye (see his "Brothers Ashkenazi" or "Yoshke Kalb," which I'm still working through). There is little redemption in Singer's world, and no patience for I.B.'s flirtations and soft spot for mysticism or holy men. On the other hand, Singer's memoir "Of a World That is no More" is one of the most honest portrayals of Russ-Poland you'll ever read, warts and all. At a time when many of his peers were running away from their families and religion into the arms of Communism, I.J. was standing apart, unable to return to the shtetl or yeshiva, yet also realizing that Socialism, particularly in Russia, had the terrible potential to turn into yet another Golden Calf.

Singer's unflinching honesty is tempered by real love for his family, but it's clear in his work, especially his memoir that, emotionally, he feels stuck. How do you tell your parents you think their lives have been a waste? How do you not let your contempt for your childhood (cue the "abusive cheder experience" trope) color your perception of your religion and culture? Singer's sudden death of a heart attack at age 50 prevented him from ever delving deeper into this problem. Had he lived, he might have been the one to get the Nobel Prize- and something tells me his speech would have been a lot punchier than I.B.'s.

2- The incomparable Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg. Back when I was trying to find something resembling a Jewish identity (post-reading The Chosen, pre-going to shul), I stumbled across Hertzberg's "Jews" and was immediately impressed. The book, while relatively thin, covered an impressive historical scope, tracing Jewish history through the eyes of some of its greatest personalities, as well as its rebels. Hertzberg introduced me to the Baal Shem Tov and Dona Gracia, a Wallenberg-esque figure in Inquisition Spain, as well as Spinoza and his tragic predecessor, Uriel Da Costa. Hertzberg's passion for Judaism and Jewish history flowed through his writing, and his biography "A Jew in America" confirmed it. Hertzberg came from a similar rabbinical background as Singer, but spent his formative years in America, which also allowed him to see its influence on rabbis of the old school, like his own father, a Hasidic rabbi from Galicia who would probably be considered a liberal MO in Hadisiche clothing by today's standards.

More than his respect and mastery of his topics, however, what really inspired me about Hertzberg was his ever-present confidence: despite being a liberal on many issues, both political and religious, despite moving away from Orthodoxy to the Conservative movement, there was never any question that Hertzberg knew his stuff and, even more importantly, that he considered himself to be an equally authentic aspect of his family's and people's tradition. To see a real Jewish liberal who still knew what he was talking about when it came to Judaism, who actually had that old school background and knowledge, had a tremendous impact on me.

3- Yet another rebel: Hillel Kook, aka Peter Bergson, aka a major pain in the ass to just about everyone he ever met. This one took a while for me to accept; Kook is one of the few Jews on the right-ish side of the political spectrum that I can tolerate (I basically did a victory dance in middle school when I realized that there was a left-and-right wing element in Zionism, which allowed me to root for "my" side, Labor, and blame all the evils of Israel on the Revisionists), yet reading about his life made me change my mind. Kook was an early fighter for Jewish independence and self-defence in then-Palestine, and was Jabotinsky's right-hand-man when he began working in Europe to raise funds for the Revisionists. During the war years, Kook and his small cadre of allies operated as a front for the American branch of the Irgun, but quickly modified their mission to battling American and Jewish indifference or inertia to the horrors of the Nazis in Europe. Kook was constantly nipping at the heels of the Jewish and Zionist establishment, using some of the most effective weapons of the 20th century- PR- for his own struggle. At a time when the conventional wisdom among Jews was to keep quiet, not bring attention to yourself, and trust in President Roosevelt to do something about the Nazis, Kook was aggressive, unapologetic, and sensationalist, never afraid to speak his mind about what was happening in Europe, or how American and Jewish leadership were failing to do much about it.

But even more than embarrassing the American powers-that-be during the war, Kook's life is fascinating due to his willingness to speak truth to power among his own countrymen in Israel. A member of the first Knesset, Kook continued to speak out against anyone and everyone that he felt deserved it- whether towards Ben Gurion when he shelved Israel's Constitution (going on 59 years and counting), or Menachem Begin when Kook felt he was hijacking the late Jabotinsky's legacy to further his own political vision. Dismayed by his peers' willingness to settle for political "business as usual," Kook first resigned from Herut, then left the Knesset after his first term, eventually departing Israel itself. Yet he kept occaisonally rearing his head to take pot-shots at Israel's now-illustrious heads-of-state, and to send a few shots across the bow of some of Israel's most cherished orthodoxies. A non-Jewish President? Why not? A Palestinian state? If it could safeguard the country's longevity, sure. Kook's "principled flexibility" continued to shock everyone through his lifetime, even loyal little liberals like me, who thought we had the right-wing figured out. Kook, who was on the Altalena, arrested during the Haganah "Season," worked with Jabotinsky, fought with Begin, and eventually became the first Israeli to wear "post-Zionist" as a descriptive, not pejorative term, showed me that no movement is a monolith, and that questioning authority, even Jewish ones, is no sin.

What do these men have in common? Well, they certainly reflect my Ashkenazic interests and biases, and I think it's interesting that all three are rebel sons of Orthodox rabbis, and mostly intellectuals, to boot. But more than anything, I guess these men, my pseudo-trinity, if you will, are important to me because they taught me that there is a dignity and legitmacy to creating your own path. They showed me how to find my own way as a person and a Jew. They weren't perfect men, and their lives weren't perfect, either. Things didn't always go their way. They alienated a lot more people than they befriended. But one thing you can say about all of them is that they were fearless, smashing the idols of their day and communities, even when it wasn't fashionable, and regardless of the consequences. Status and respectability be damned; they could have kept quiet and not made waves and had an easier time of life, but instead they spoke their consciences and made their own way.

Orthodox, certainly not. But to me, at least, they were all faithful sons of Abraham.

Your turn. Name your top three (or five, or ten, or eighteen) Jewish role models. Famous or not, doesn't matter. Give some background on them (long and expansive or short and sweet, you pick) and then tell us why and how they affected you. Post in comments or on your own blog.

Catching Up with Tzvi

It's been too long since we've visited Tzvi Fishman's blog. In between consuming tons of pornography and communing with assorted agents of Baal, it occurred to me that Tzvi might have come up with some more interesting (or hilarious) ideas. So I traipsed on over and found the motherload. Some of this will be paraphrased but just as often it's more amusing to let Tzvi speak for Tzvi. Please accept an early apology for the length of this post, to say nothing of its content.

Here Tzvi regales readers with "the secret of Yom Kippur." First he talks about the Hatam Sofer, famous Ashkenazic rabbi, having pains in his genitals. Rather than visit a doctor, the Hatam Sofer instead deduces that it must be divine punishment for some sort of sin. But wait, the Hatam Sofer knew better than to abuse himself! So what could his sin have been? Apparently, God was punishing him for not talking enough about "Guarding the Covenant," which, as it conveniently happens, is Tzvi's super-duper-pet issue. Great story, really heart-warming. Nothing makes me more eager to commune with the divine than hearing about one of the most respected rabbis of the ages getting God-herpes for not warning little kids against playing with themselves. Tzvi makes things even better by adding this gem: " Studying the teachings of Rabbi Nachman, one realizes that everything on Yom Kippur has to do with Tikun HaBrit."

Sort of like how studying pot makes one realize that everything on Yom Kippur has to do with playing Sergeant Pepper's backward?

More on the secret of the brit (there always is with Tzvi). I couldn't understand it all, but for some reason he includes a very attractive picture of a mule. Oh, and he concludes with this:

"our forefather, Avraham, who never gazed upon his wife in a lustful fashion"

Hey, maybe that's the real reason Sarah didn't conceive until 90!

Here Tzvi rants about how Diaspora Jews aren't, well, good Jews:

The reason that the aliyah rate from North America is a dismal .006 percent is because the Jewish education there fosters the strengthening of Judaism in America and Canada. In a past blog, I already gave two clear examples of this, which I will repeat here.

Once, when visiting my parents in Florida before they moved to Israel, I noticed a flyer on the bulletin board of the local Orthodox shul. Its headline invited the congregation to come on a trip with the rabbi to “our nation’s capital.” The photograph on the flyer was the Capitol Building in Washington D.C., and not Jerusalem. Since when, I wondered, had Washington become the capital of the Jewish People?

Those bastards! How dare they cave in to PC geography!

On another occasion, I had to be in Toronto to raise funds for a yeshiva. While I was waiting to speak in one of the large Orthodox synagogues, I glanced at the weekly Jewish journal. On the front page was a photo of the Toronto landmark skyscraper that looks like a needle. The caption read: “Looking Forward to the Next Decade of Jewish Life in Toronto.”

I was startled. After all, a Jew is supposed to yearn for the next decade of Jewish life in Jerusalem. This is what we pray for three times a day. And, “Next Year in Jerusalem” is what we all say at the conclusion of the Passover Seder and our Yom Kippur prayers. Are we supposed to mean it, or are we just mouthing the words?

If you haven't guessed, Tzvi tends to be easily startled.

Don't worry, there's more:

First, we thank G-d for the Land of Israel because a Jew is supposed to be living in the Land of Israel, and not in France or Canada. The sad fact that there are Jews living outside of the Land is in punishment for the sins of our past. When we were cast into exile a long time ago, our Rabbis decreed that we should continue to practice the mitzvot, even though G-d gave them to us to observe in Eretz Yisrael. This was in order to make sure that we wouldn’t forget how to do them during our long absence from our Land...

Hmm. Seems a little counterintuitive to me. Wouldn't God casting us into exile suggest he not want us to fulfill the mitzvot? Maybe he was trying to send us all a message? Maybe he was allergic to the sacrifice smoke? Or techelet? How do we know all this mitzvot observance today isn't just getting him continually more annoyed?

Here Tzvi says we should abolish the term "Jew" and instead conceive of that particular people as Israelis of various degrees:

Some of us are Israelis who have been blessed to live in Israel, and others are Israelis who live under the curse of the exile in foreign lands, but they are Israelis too. Call them Israelis in captivity, or Israelis in exile, or Outcasts of Israel. Why call them Jews? This is misleading. It is a formula for the schizophrenic thinking that so characterizes Diaspora Israelis, who think that they are American Jews, or French Jews, or Australian Jews, when in fact they are the Children of Israel. Their nationality isn’t American or French. Their nationality of Israeli. They are Israelis who live in the captivity of America, or Israelis who live in the exile of France. If you educate a child to understand that he is an Israeli living in the exile of a foreign land, then when he grows up there is an excellent chance that he will opt to come home to Israel. But if you tell him that he is an American Jew then you are dooming him to a life in the exile of America.

To be fair, Tzvi's right. Unfortunately, I also happen to think he's a little nuts. Captivity? Are you shitting me? Whoever heard of voluntary captivity? For better or worse, Hillel Kook was right when he said "The exile ended on May 14, 1948"- the Jews of the world chose. As painful as it may be to accept that a great many Jews have no interest in being Israeli, surely the better option is to face reality rather than try to abolish the word "Jew." Also, Outcasts of Israel makes me think more of Israeli expats than Jews that have never even been to visit. Incidentally, Outcasts of Israel could easily be the name of the next Jewish rap group.

Here Tzvi gets melodramatic that everybody keeps calling him on his horseshit and threatens/jokes to quit writing.

How can I exhort you to change your old, routine t’shuva tapes, and come clean before G-d, when I myself continue on with the same old polluted tune?

First of all, my arrogance. It screams out to Heaven. The Big Blogger! As if I have something to say! What a joke! What a laugh! Yes, I could tell you how to write a screenplay, but to pretend to know something about Torah, or about the complexities of Am Yisrael – what a fake! True, I have tried to quote real Sages, so that readers may benefit from their words, but on many occasions I wrote as if I were the expert on this subject or that, when it is all a big bluff. I know nothing! Yet I pretend to be the voice box of the nation. The Almighty hates arrogance and pride. So how can I continue?

And what about all of those nasty punches I dealt to Diaspora Jews? Doesn’t G-d love them too? Is this OK? Can I pass this over as if it is OK to blast away at a Jew just because he or she lives in the stinking cesspool of the exile? Several readers commented on this lack of Ahavat Yisrael. Would Rabbi Kook write in this fashion? With satirical illustrations to boot? Certainly not!

And yes, I confess, my eyeballs have been gooooooooogled and yahoooooed out of my mind. Filters, shmilters. You search for a photo of the universe to explain the phenomenon of t’shuva, and the first image that appears on the screen is a picture of Miss Universe lying naked on a beach! TILT! TILT! TILT! TILT! GAME OVER!

I’ve had it. I quit. I’m getting a job in a yeshiva, working in the kitchen. Like some have suggested, I am going back to my cave. Maybe when I emerge, I will be a humbler, kinder, holier person.

Frankly, the best part of this piece is the picture of Tzvi hanging out like Baloo the bear (ironically, the search filters Tzvi so strenuously argues for might have prevented me from finding that image, under the theory that I was actually looking for gay porn). Stupid telepathic search filters.

Tzvi, miraculously returned from his one-day quitting sabbatical, nevertheless continues to plug ahead. Here he is complaining that not living in Israel means one can never be truly frum- dooming even the most religious Jews to the not-very-complimentary designation of "Conservadox," or even worse, pickers and choosers!

For instance, a Jew who becomes a baal t’shuva in Chicago has only returned a part of the way home. While his personal character and behavior have been sanctified by aligning his life on the pathway of Torah, he has traveled only half of the journey home. The “t’shuva train” is continuing on to Israel. The final stop is Jerusalem. Every Jew needs to bring his little light home to the Holy Land where it can join the great flame.

Chuckle.

He has to uplift his private, egotistical life, to the higher life of Clal Yisrael, and to merge his personal goals with the goals of the rebuilding of the nation.

Tzvi must not read the news. Chief Rabbinate?

Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda HaCohen Kook would stress to his students that an Orthodox Jew does not pick and choice mitzvahs, saying “This commandment is pleasing to me, I will do it, but this commandment is too difficult, I will pass.” This is the way of Conservative Jewry. If Shabbat is too much of a burden, they don’t observe it. If wearing tzitzit is too embarrassing, or uncomfortable, or old-fashion, then it isn’t for them..."

Sucks to be you, Satmars.

There's more. Tzvi's come up with another reason all Jews need to make aliyah. And it involves aliens. Well, not aliens, per se. More like, "evil prayer-intercepting angels." Tzvi calls them "celestial ministers." I don't know about you, but that makes me think of Heaven's Gate.

Hashem has appointed celestial ministers to rule over the countries of the world. As the Ramban explains, outside of the Land, the prayers of a Jew and the Torah he learns are carried up to the celestial minister who rules over that land, and not straight to Hashem. This gives strength to the angel, and thus to the foreign land and culture which the angel personifies. In this sense, serving Hashem outside of the Land is like serving other gods, ie, serving the angels who preside over the lands of the gentiles. Only in the Land of Israel can a Jew serve Hashem directly without having to contend with any intermediary powers (Ramban on the Torah, Achrei Mot, 18:25).

This is the reason that Avraham Avinu wanted to come to Israel, so that he could worship Hashem directly without intervening celestial messengers. Because we are the children of Avraham Avinu, we have inherited his genes and his spiitual strengths. As the Ramban explains, the deeds of our holy forefathers are signs for us to follow. Just as Avraham went forth to the Land of Israel, trusting in G-d, we all can too.

I have to admit, I did not see this one coming. Question, though. Doesn't this mean that it's bad to pray while in exile? And that essentially, the reason that so many bad governments have stayed in power so long is because Orthodox Jews kept praying to God? Just think about it: Russia, the Ottomans, etc. The secular Jews were really doing the right thing!

Oh, and what about when Israel was occupied? Did the Romans get the prayer-power? Or did it not count because it was legally Jewish? And how are we counting the boundaries? Is this a Greater Israel thing or not? What about, say, the Sinai? Should the settlers there have prayed or not?

Come on Tzvi, we need ANSWERS!
In case some of you still weren't sure, here Tzvi writes about how generally nuts he is. I think this probably qualifies as another "your wife must be so happy to be married to you" moments:

During my first year as a baal t’shuva returning to the Torah, when the holiday of Succot came alone, I erected four poles on the roof of the eight-story apartment building where I was living in Manhattan. Not having learned the laws of the festival, I stretched a blanket over the poles as a succah roof and slept outside in the wind and rain throughout the holiday. Though my makeshift succah was invalid and not a succah at all, I am sure that G-d was pleased with the well-meaning weirdo on that lonely New York City roof.

The next year I was invited to spend the first Yom Tov of Succah at the home of a shaliach from Israel who was working on an aliyah project in New York. When it started to rain at the beginning of the meal, he ordered his family to abandon the succah and move everything into the house. I refused, saying that I was staying in the succah since Rabbi Nachman taught that the mitzvah of succah is a segulah (special blessing) for coming to Eretz Yisrael. My host argued that the halachah stated that a person could leave his succah because of the discomfort and health hazard of rain, but I stubbornly stayed in the succah all night. Five minutes after the Yom Tov ended, the telephone rang. It was a co-worker of the shaliach from Israel. He said that they needed me to accompany a TV film crew that was flying to Israel in two days and that there was an El Al ticket for me waiting at JFK. “You see,” I told the startled shaliach. “Rabbi Nachman was right!”

Oy. God knows what mitzvah Tzvi will discover next. I'm guessing it involves fire-ants.


Like idiot theodicy? Here Tzvi recycles two-year-old narishkeit about God swamping Katrina because of gays. Only one problem: the French Quarter SURVIVED the hurricane. Details, details.

And having gotten onto the topic of natural disasters, Tzvi decides to go all out.

Hashem has many messengers. The Almighty can use anti-Semitism and persecution to shatter the dream of galut, or He can use fires, earthquakes, or floods to drive Diaspora Jews back home to Israel. The destruction that the conflagrations have left in their wake, and the staggering number of homeless, make the evacuation of Gush Katif seem like peanuts. And the fires are still raging. Brothers and sisters, we have been saying it all along. Life is much more dangerous in America and France than it is in Israel. Wake up already! Get the message, boys and girls. Read the writing on the wall before it is too late. Your bastions, and country club memberships, and Jewish Federations won't help you. Not in California, nor Monsey, nor Long Island, nor even in Boca Raton. Don't make the mistake by pretending that this ongoing inferno is just a freak outburst of nature.

Everything that happens in the world is from G-d, and it's all for the sake of the Jews. So take some good advice and sell your houses now before there is nothing left of them but smoke. Come home to Israel while you can, before you are shipped here in a coffin.

Save them from what? God being an asshole? Am I missing something? Are there no fires in Israel? (Is that related to the water shortage?) Also, the idea that God is so hell-bent on getting Jews to Israel that he will KILL THEM to make them leave is so demented I'm really close to speechless.

Tzvi's next column deals with the residual consequences of making a boneheaded statement like, "God is punishing you with fires to make Jews go to Israel." What about non-Jews, Tzvi? Ah, but that's easy- California is full of sin!

Is it coincidental that this week’s Torah portion tells the story of Sodom and Gemorah? Once upon a time, I lived in Southern California, and that’s exactly what it is. It is a land of narcissism, perverted sex, and greed. The iron gates, electric fences, and prowling guard dogs surrounded everybody’s mansion send out the clear message to strangers – “KEEP OUT!” Just like in residents of Sodom.

...Just last week, California’s governor, the son of a Nazi, signed a new law making restrooms in schools co-ed.

Tzvi, you really are a boob. CO-ED BATHROOMS were so offensive to the Almighty that he killed fourteen people? Also, again there's the problem of nature not really giving a crap about how sinful you are. Most of the people evacuated or who lost homes were not eeevil Hollywood moguls or sex-filled celebrities. They were regular families whose only sin was daring to live in the same state as these supposed evil-doers. How stupid are you?

Quite stupid, apparently, because he keeps going. Fishman's third article on the fires goes after Chabad and other Jewish CHARITIES for wasting their time trying to help Jews in need, rather than schlepping them off to Israel.

Jews of California – the people of Israel are with you in your sorrow. But as you contemplate the task of rebuilding, why waste your time rebuilding your lives in exile. Your tragedy will only happen again. Whether by fire, or earthquake, or persecution, or assimilation, the future of Diaspora Jewry is doomed. What point is there in rebuilding your houses and shuls in galut when you can build new homes and Chabad houses in Israel?

...Nowhere is South California, or Toronto, or Antwerpen mentioned in the Torah. Hashem told Avraham to go to Israel...Brothers and sisters, don’t be like the Jews who wanted to remain in Egypt, slaves to a foreign culture, dreaming to be accepted by idol worshippers and engage in their pagan perversions. Remember what happened to them. They died in the plague of darkness, the darkness of swimming pools, and Volvos, and Jewish Federations.

Brothers and sisters, Judaism is more than gefilta fish and getting drunk at the weekly sumptuous Sabbath Kiddush, and going to the latest movie on Saturday night. Judaism is building a holy nation in the Land that G-d bestowed to the Jews. The choice is before you. You can rebuild your private houses and reconstruct your private swimming pools and private home Jacuzzis and gyms, or you can dedicate your lives to helping to rebuild the Jewish Nation in the Jewish Land...

Hashem tests us through dangers. He tests our faith in Him and our love for Him through the dangers we have to overcome, and through the sacrifices we have to make on His behalf. This is how he builds us into being His people. He doesn’t want one-day-a-week Jews, lovers of California six days a week, and lovers of Hashem on Shabbat. He wants us to love Him completely, with all of our hearts, with all of our souls, with all of our might, even more than we love our mansions, and swimming pools, and Cadillacs and shiksas. It isn’t enough to say, “In G-d we trust,” by stockpiling dollars in the bank and buying some Israel bonds. G-d wants us to trust in Him more than we trust in the dollar.

So to all of the homeless... and Chabad rabbis, wherever you may be, when you gaze at the ruins of your exile dreams, be happy. The exile isn’t supposed to last forever. Step out of the darkness and see the light. Your future and the future of all the Jewish People is here, in Israel, just like in the days of our forefathers.

Wow, Tzvi, your timing on this is really... wow. Living in America equals being a Gefilte fish, one-day-a-week Jew, and people should DANCE on the rubble of their homes. It's funny Tzvi mentions lost causes, because everybody with eyes to see seems to recognize that the settlers aren't going to be able to hang on to every last grain of sand in Israel. Yet somehow Jews are crazy for wanting to rebuild in SoCal? At least no one's shooting rockets at them. At least all the governments of the world aren't constantly pressuring them to leave. Something tells me that there will be a new Chabad house in San Diego before there's one in Gaza.

Speaking of which, I don't recall GAZA being mentioned all that often in the Torah (certainly not in comparison to, say, Jerusalem or Hebron). Would you give the same advice to those homeless Jews, Tzvi?

Winding down... Tzvi leaves us with two final articles. One reprints an article by Meir Kahane for his yarzeit. Tzvi must think he's being particularly clever by running Kahane's dire predictions of things like "fire from heaven" next to pictures of the recent California fire. Because, again, things like fire don't exist in the Holy Land of Israel, which is why there are no differences today between Jews and Karaites. Tzvi also has a picture toward the end with the caption, "impotence of the Diaspora Jew," which is not only funny because of Tzvi's obsession with all things wang-related, but also because the Jews in California are in a much better position to bounce back than say, the people living in the ongoing hellhole that is Sderot.

Lastly, we conclude with Mr. Fishman's latest masterpiece, why Jews shouldn't celebrate Halloween. Halloween is apparently extra bad because it comes from so many different goyish cultures- Christians and Celtic pagans and Roman pagans, oh my!

Jewish Law states: “A Jew should not follow the customs of the gentiles, nor imitate them in dress, or in their way of trimming their hair, as it says, ‘You shall not walk in the customs of the nation which I cast out before you’ (Lev. 20:23), and ‘Neither shall you walk in their statutes’ (Lev. 18:3). These verses all refer to one and the same matter of not imitating them. A Jew, on the contrary, should be distinguished from them and recognizable by the way he dresses, and in his other activities, just as he is distinguished from them in his knowledge and his beliefs, as it is said, ‘I have set you apart from the peoples’ (Lev. 20:26).” (See, Rambam, Laws Regarding Idol Worship and the Ordinances of the Gentiles, 11:1).

And of course, since nobody else on the planet wears skullcaps or grows beards, Tzvi is safe on this account. Hey, if you really want to stand out, why not implant a giant billboard that says, "JEW" in neon? I'm willing to bet my streimel that nobody else has thought of that before?

When it comes to the question whether Jews can take part in gentile holidays, the halachic discussion differs between clearly religious holidays like Xmas, which are forbidden, and purely secular holidays like Labor Day, which are permissible. Halloween’s religious origins and pagan history place it in the category of gentile holidays that are forbidden to celebrate. Though Halloween in America has been secularized and commercialized to the point where it is now a frivolous time of costumes, candy, and pranks, it is still celebrated in places like Scotland and Ireland as a Celtic festival of the spirits, and in other places as a holiday honoring the Christian saints. Therefore “Trick or Treating” is a no-no for Jewish children.

The law prohibiting our participation in gentile holidays and customs comes to protect our special Jewish holiness and cultural distinction. If you allow your kids to participate in the pagan rites of a gentile culture, they will grow up with pumpkin heads instead of Jewish heads.

But what if he grows a beard? Can't he split the difference?

But wait, Tzvi forsees a problem with his strict code! (I hope he didn't consult any witches for this prophesy.)

On the other hand, if you try to safeguard our distinction as Jews and not let your children go “Trick or Treating” with all the other kids in the neighborhood , they will grow up hating both you and Judaism for turning them into freaks in the eyes of their friends. Either way, as a parent, you lose.

What to do, Tzvi? Is the answer to use your brain and create a reasonable compromise? Or at least a thoughtful and well-articulated explanation to your children?

Move to Israel.

Ah well, I tried.

The only place you will see a pumpkin here is in the supermarket (a small yellow one that looks more like a squash).

Ah, but is it shmita?

If you truly love your children and don’t want them growing up with pumpkin heads, then the only solution is to bring them to Israel where they will grow up like Jews without hating both you and the Torah.

Because, of course, no Israelis have any hostility towards Orthodox Judaism. Silly me.

To illustrate, today my nine-year old son went on a class trip to Hevron in honor of this Shabbat’s Torah portion, “Chaya Sarah,” which recounts how our forefather, Avraham, purchased the Cave of the Machplah and the surrounding field for a burial site for his family. Since Hevron is the City of our Forefathers, fathers were invited to come along. So while Jewish kids in the Diaspora were trying on their Goblin and Spiderman Halloween costumes, my son was treated to an educational tour of Hevron, the world’s oldest Jewish city.

I dressed up three years in a row as a Hasidic Jew (and one year as an Amish in the same costume with the mustache tucked down). Don't I at least get half a point?

Who is more likely to grow up with a Jewish head – the Jewish kids in the Diaspora who go “trick or treating” with the goyim, or the Israeli kids who spend the day learning about their Jewish forefathers and praying in the Cave of the Patriarchs?

This is sort of like saying, "you went to the Museum of Natural History today, I went to a hockey game, which of us will be the Nobel Prize winner." Of course, nothing precludes you from doing both, and a single activity is far from conclusive as to an indicator of a future worldview or lifestyle. Why should Halloween be considered any more of a lasting mark on a child than Purim?

Sorry, I forgot. Tzvi doesn't need details like that to confuse him. He's too busy guarding the brit and blaming fires on God. Sorry, Jews.

What will the future hold for Tzvi? We'll have to wait and see. Somehow, I don't think he's done yet.

Shmita Update and the State of the Chief Rabbinate

Better late than never. A recap:

The Israeli Supreme Court told the Chief Rabbinate to shove it. The reactions are split pretty predictably. Haredim mad, everybody else pretty happy.

UTJ politicians said that the court, particularly Justice Elyakim Rubinstein, basically are being halachic ignoramuses and are putting ideology above halacha. In this, they're partially right. Justice Rubinstein is Modern Orthodox, and this ideology affects his interpretation of halacha. But only a blockhead like Moshe Gafni would say that this disqualifies Rubinstein from making a ruling:

"It is sad, but not surprising, that the author of the ruling, Justice Rubenstein, decides on Halakhic matters that are outside his purview in opposition to the opinion of professionals in the field - the member rabbis of the Chief Rabbinate Council."

As with the De Hartog case, some Haredim's view of non-Haredim is so dim that any who cross them, even other Orthodox Jews, when they cross the Haredim, are deemed Jewishly illegitimate, or in this case, illiterate.

Meir Porush also chimed in

"When we see the Supreme Court intervening once again in the affairs of the Chief Rabbinate, we should ask ourselves if the time has not come to do away with this relic of the British Mandate. After all, the Supreme Court is a result of the British rulers' decision that appeals against the High Commissioner should be heard before a court of British judges. This anachronistic body later remained even after the establishment of the State, up until this very day - while in other former British colonies that received independence, it was not preserved at all."

Remember Porush's comments. We'll return to them later.

OU spokesman Avi Shafran went into full spin mode:

This year, Israel's Chief Rabbinate declared that while it still did not oppose reliance on the heter mechira, it was, for the first time, permitting municipal rabbis in Israel's towns and cities, when issuing kashrut certifications, to decide for their localities whether to rely on that fall-back standard or opt for the original one.
From the reaction, one might think that the chief rabbis had declared an extra year of shmita rather than simply taken a pluralistic stance on religious standards. Israel's agriculture minister, Shalom Simhon, thundered a threat to forbid imports from Arab-owned land (which meet the higher shmita standard).
...Even in cities where the municipal rabbi has not granted kosher certification for heter mechira produce, nothing prevents a vendor from selling such produce (sans a Rabbinate kashrut-sticker) - which will surely be less expensive than the rabbinically-sanctioned fruits and vegetables.

Shafran is leaving out two sources of information. First, increased haredi control within the Chief Rabbinate means that it is not reflecting the plurality of views within the Orthodox spectrum of the country (to say nothing of non-Orthodox Israelis, but leave that aside). Second, by its very nature, the top-down system of giving the municipal rabbi the final say on what produce is kosher enough precludes religious Jews in the area from making their own decisions about what to buy and from whom. It's probably particularly obnoxious for Modern Orthodox residents who are used to following the state rabbinate and are now being forced to choose between their own traditions and understandings of halacha and what "the new guy" says (and this is particularly ridiculous since historically the haredim haven't CARED about the Chief Rabbinate because it wasn't kosher enough for them!) The Chief Rabbis' decision was essentially giving the go-ahead to all state rabbis in the country to impose the stricter view of shmita on everyone in their area for no other reason than that they felt like it. It is about as far from religious pluralism as you can get. Gil Student pokes a few more holes in Shafran's argument here.

A TRUE example of religious pluralism would be for the state rabbis to issue no edicts about shmita, to issue as many heter mechira licenses as people wanted, to give their communities the information, and, if pressed, their own opinions, and to let the PEOPLE decide, rather than impose their views on their flocks and by default engage in economic boycotts against non-Haredi farmers.

Another angry state rabbi opined,

"The High Court over the years has gradually chiseled away at the religious establishment's autonomy," said Arussi. "The court has intervened in cases dealing with divorce law and conversions, and now it is overruling the Chief Rabbinate on the issue of shmita. This decision is another serious blow to the Chief Rabbinate."

No, what has undermined the Chief Rabbinate is it being abused by partisan forces that want to capture its power to enforce their own points of view. Nothing prohibits people that want to be stricter than the Chief Rabbinate from doing so.

So now we come to the larger question- what's this all about? A lot of people think the shmita
issue goes to the core issues of religious Judaism in Israel: how modern is too modern, how strict too strict, and, perhaps most crucially, who gets the final say-so? Unlike in America, Israel still uses the top-down Chief Rabbinate system, which has meant that instead of people following halacha because they necessarily want to or believe in it, Jewish law is forced on people in a variety of ways (some obviously less extreme than others). That it has taken something like this to make the MOs in Israel realize that a religious monopoly isn't necessarily a good thing is refreshing, if also sad. Non-Orthodox Jews have been saying this for years. The problem with the authoritarianism inherent in the Orthodox monopoly of state Judaism was that the MOs never saw anything wrong with it until their bulls started to get gored. Now that they realize some of the flaws with the system, the question is will it serve as a catalyst to argue for greater democratization of Israeli Judaism, as some of the more liberal rabbis in Tzohar seem to imply, or is this fight going to be restricted to the two camps of Orthodoxy fighting for control over the state institution, struggling to stay on top while everyone else turns away in disgust?

Two last views, this time examining the institution itself. Haaretz points out that yet again, the Chief Rabbinate has been given a black eye. In some ways this is even worse than the personal scandals of Metzger and Amar. At least those could be blamed on men, not the office itself. But now people are seeing just how problematic it is to have so much power be placed in the hands of so few, particularly when those in charge are little more than puppets. How much longer will this go on before the people finally throw the whole rotten system out? The Jewish Week nails the problem on the head:

Bottom line, one must ask whether Israelis, the majority of whom feel alienated from and bitter toward religious life, would have a more positive attitude toward Judaism if they didn’t have to deal with a state agency that controlled matters of their personal lives, from marriage to death. And it surely doesn’t help matters when those chosen to represent the height of spiritual character and religious leadership are perceived by most Israelis as uncaring if not downright unethical.

So Meir Porush, whose father wouldn't have even recognized the Chief Rabbinate, should maybe think twice before talking about booting out the Supreme Court, or chastizing it as an anachronistic relic of Mandate times. Like it or not, Israel needs a Supreme Court. But it is becoming more and more apparent that it may not need a Chief Rabbinate.

What's Eating Rabbi Sacks?

British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks made news a little while ago when he came about against the big M- multiculturalism. In his latest book, Sacks said the big M is a threat to free speech and liberal democracy. He added that the big M has led "not to integration but to segregation," creating a "culture of victimhood," endless discussions about identity politics, and different groups demanding special treatment.

As you might expect, the liberal pinko in me takes issue with this. But not just because I think Multiculturalism is a perfectly fine idea, but also because Rabbi Sacks seems to come off as a hypocrite. First of all, what is he is proposing as an alternative? Sacks says he wants to see "integration without assimilation," which makes sense, given that he certainly supports the British Jewish community staying apart from the average Briton, for instance, through their own private religious institutions and schools. But from where I'm sitting that doesn't seem to be at odds with the larger theme of multiculturalism. I consider multiculturalism to be an "outward-looking" descriptor- how does the society as a whole view the goal of different cultures? What Sacks seems to be talking about is more the issue of internal group dynamics and perspectives- of whether the goal is to integrate into your host country versus remaining as separatist as possible. (A-la, for instance, Hispanics, or say, Haredim.) By blasting multiculturalism as a whole, Sacks seems to be suggesting that by merely acknowledging the potential legitimacy of multiple existing peoples within a society, that society dooms itself. This is funny, given that the rabbi's last book, "Dignity of Difference," got him in deep shit with the Orthodox by giving an essentially pluralist view of religion. Unfortunately in what is becoming a pattern, Sacks responded to RW criticism by shutting up and playing ball. Is that what he's doing here? Is saying he wants his book to be seen as "politically incorrect in the highest order" perhaps indicative that this is more about attention-whoring than anything else? Or is the problem more that Sacks' speech style is like an onion? "Much of talking to Dr Sacks is like this: tantalisingly provocative ideas wrapped in layers of obfuscation, then swaddled in an erudite sweep of references."

In any event, the implication that apartness necessarily leads to victimhood would seem to be belied by Sacks being so pro-Jewish day school. Is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do?"

Not only is Sacks getting poked by supporters of big M, he's also getting kudos from some allies he'd probably rather not be associated with:

On the website of the Stormfront White Nationalist Community – where common topics for discussion include Holocaust denial and claims that Judaism allows Jews to kill non-Jews – the message board was buzzing with excitement. One post read: “Holy s**t! Am I seeing things? A Jew going against multiculturalism! You have to give the guy credit, everything he said is spot on. Now will the rest of this dumb country see sense?”

Another said: “Although this guy is a Jew, he is helping us out big time by releasing articles such as this one.”

On his blog, meanwhile, BNP leader Nick Griffin referred to the extract he read of the book as “a very important and welcome piece at various levels”.

Whoops. When neo-Nazis start thanking you for helping them out, it might be time to reassess. Or at least try to clarify things.

Again, I think the biggest problem is that Sacks is so unclear about what his alternative to multiculturalism is. If what he really wants is to unite disparate cultures into identifying as more British, a much smarter strategy would have been to co-opt multiculturalism and say he wants to modify it. But then, that wouldn't have gotten him and his book this much attention, and maybe that was part of the point. For better or worse, by blasting multiculturalism as a whole, Sacks makes himself look like he's more interested in getting noticed than being heard.

Yes, identity is always a tricky line to cross. But yelling about multiculturalism ruining Britain seems not only alarmist but also ridiculous. The excerpt from Sack's book in the Times actually spends most of its time warning about moral relativism, which I think is a far trickier issue, and not one I think necessarily has much to do with multiculturalism per se as much as it does post-modernism and alienation/skepticism from absolute moral truths, particularly among young people. We can bemoan moral relativism (and ethnic politics, for that matter), but I don't see how a return to "mono-culturalism," even if such a thing were possible, would be a solution. Britain, having stepped outside the box of being a Christian country (Sack's words), cannot go back in.

Edit: Multiculturalism defenders respond to the esteemed rabbi.

Dr Richard Stone, head of the Stone Ashdown Trust, which backs race-relations organisations, including the Jewish-Muslim Alif Aleph group, said he was “staggered” by the comments.

“My initial response is that he has been reading the words of journalists, who are known enemies of multiculturalism and who are trying to undermine the concept. In my view, multiculturalism is the only hope for the future of this country and we must promote it.”

However, there was a more cautious response from Dr Edie Friedman, director of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality, who, while warning of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”, called for a “mature discussion”.

“We have to think hard about what kind of society we want.

If you get rid of multiculturalism you have to think about what will replace it. It is certainly a debate that the Jewish community should be involved in.”

Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, said that while he agreed with the Chief Rabbi’s rejection of multiculturalism, the whole of British society had to change for communities to feel they were going forward.

Antony Lerman, director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, said the extracts he had read showed he had “misunderstood what multiculturalism is all about”.

IMO, this pretty much hits the nail on the head. The rabbi seems to be going after the big M strawman of Bill O'Reilly and his UK counterparts, not the actual one promoted on the ground. (Though accusing "all journalists" of hating multiculturalism is a supremely boneheaded sound bite.)

WND idiot round-up

At this point it's just so predictable:

- Pat Buchanan defends a scientist who says Africa's problems are related to the fact that blacks' IQs aren't as high. Responding to the professor's "recantation", Buchanan opines:

In the England of Henry VIII, heretics were beheaded and their heads put on spikes. Many men, like Thomas More, did not recant.

From the time of Tiberias to the 17th century, men gave up their lives rather than renounce a belief in God. Others gave up their lives rather than renounce a disbelief in the Church. Why could Watson not stand up for his disbelief in the ideological myth of the inherent equality of all men, cultures, creeds and civilizations?

Maybe because he isn't a numskull like Pat Buchanan? Yeah, prof, how dare you, like, realize that you said something bone-headed and apologize for it!

- David Limbaugh, Rush's slightly less-obnoxious (and, by comparison, considerably more attractive) brother, decides he doesn't like Christopher Hitchens. Some of Limbaugh's points are decent- it is, in fact, incorrect to say all religions are basically the same (when was the last time the Quakers launched a jihad?), and it is particularly moronic to attribute evils committed in the Soviet Union as another indication of religion's perniciousness by arguing that its secular totalitarianism was sort of like a religion by venerating heads-of-state.

On the other hand, Limbaugh is an idiot:

Hitchens sets up a straw man when he says it's "contemptible" for people to maintain that their religion is good in providing comfort to people – for example, in times of personal loss – even if their religion isn't true. I know of no Christians who make this argument. To the contrary, Christianity provides comfort precisely because it is true and allows a personal relationship with an eternal, omni-benevolent God.

Yeah, good luck proving that one.

Limbaugh's abilities to talk without bothering to think are really at their best when he gets into Christ dying for mankind's sins:

Hitchens rejects that he is responsible for Christ's flogging and crucifixion, in which he had no say and no part. He rejects that Christ's agony was necessary to compensate for the sin of Adam, of which he also had no part.

The Original Sin Doctrine has always bothered me a bit, too. But it's hard to deny in light of the human condition, which only the biblical worldview accurately describes. This condition also renders the secular humanist's utopian belief in the perfectibility of man to be the kind of wishful thinking at which Hitchens' derisively scoffs. Whether or not you believe man is condemned for Adam's sins, doesn't the universality of our own personal sins make the matter moot?

Not if you don't believe human fallibility is the same thing as immortal sin, numnutz. Oh, and there's no original sin in Judaism, Dave. Nice try, though.

I respectfully suggest that Hitchens is looking at this backward. We are not condemned for Christ's death but for our own sinfulness. Christ's death and resurrection are not our condemnation. They are our avenue to deliverance.

Hey there friend, I've got some good news for you! You don't know it, but it turns out that brown is an evil color and every time you wear it, you anger the Supreme Banana-Split in the sky. Luckily, you can get out of this through a special avenue to deliverance, wearing a uranium crown shaped like Elvis Prestley's butt, conveniently available at my online store. What? I can't believe you don't find this convincing! You jerk.

Hitchens apparently believes skepticism is a badge of intelligence and reserved for nonbelievers, yet many believers have their fair share of it, too. They don't fear it; they embrace it, as working through it invigorates rather than undermines their faith.

While Hitchens mocks the faith of Christians in "myths," Christians believe their faith is strongly supported by evidence. Hitchens wholly ignores that evidence as well as the great leaps of faith antitheists must take to assume away the limitations of science and naturalism in explaining man's origins.

Let's review: Skepticism, good; claiming evidence that can't be proven and then getting mad when people pointing it out, bad.

Also, antitheists? Ow, ow, ow.

(There's more, from another WND numnutz. I'm too bored to poke this one. Enjoy.)
- WND decides to endorse populism, sort of, kind of. First it champions a Michigan town that is voting on whether or not to have a Nativity display:

Former Mayor Fraser, in a letter prepared to city residents, said such traditions should be preserved.

"Of course, it's fair to ask … why in the world does Berkley have to go to all the trouble of having a ballot measure and running a campaign just so we can keep our Nativity scene at city hall where it's been for generations?" she wrote. "Especially when neighboring communities such as Birmingham, Clawson, Madison Heights, Troy, Southfield, and Warren display Nativity scenes at their city halls each Christmas as they always have. Some of these communities include religious symbols to celebrate Hanukah during this season as well."

Simply because of the ACLU, she said.

"Putting the issue on the ballot lets the people who live here in Berkley decide – not ACLU lawyers – but rather, We The People, you and I, and our families... Nearly a thousand of us who actually live in Berkley signed the petition that put keeping our Nativity scene on the ballot, and now over a hundred Berkley residents have felt strongly enough about voting 'yes' to contribute financially," Halloran said. "It's clear that citizens of Berkley feel strongly about voting 'yes' to keep our Nativity where it's traditionally been and saying that those of us who actually live here get to decide, not ACLU Grinches from Detroit."

Yeah, in your face, Detroit!

Something tells me that Devil's Asshole, Michigan, population 15,000, is probably going to have a pretty sizeable tilt towards the Nativity display. Of course, the problem with this is that the whole idea of legal watchdog groups is to stand up for the minority, especially in an area where they're feeling persecuted. I'm not saying that this is the case here, but the idea that the best response to a legal challenge is to put the issue to a popular vote seems to miss the point. When things go the way WND wants, we're supposed to shrug and call it Federalism. Funny thing, though, is that while WND is championing the power of the popular vote, they're also freaking out at "The Rise of Atheist America"- and somehow I doubt that they're going to "respect" liberal and/or atheist communities who decide they don't want religious, or specifically Christian, symbols, around them.

- Joe Farah has a "scary Halloween Quiz" where he tries to demonstrate that Hillary Clinton is a bigger Commie than Marx. (Seasoned readers will remember that is old hat for WND.) Farah gets extra weirdo points by also including prominent Nazis as options. Maybe my ignorance is showing, but I don't recall Mussolini or Idi Amin representing themselves as champions of Democracy. Money quote: "As you're watching Freddy Krueger movies tonight or answering the doorbell for the little ghouls and goblins, consider how close America is to turning over the reins of power to a real monster." Got that? Bush is pushing through an Attorney General nominee who can't decide if water boarding is torture, but Hillary's a monster because she thinks there might be some merit to taxing the rich. Be afraaaid!

- Guess who doesn't like porn? WND says pornography causes brain damage. But wait, there's more, conveniently placed in list form:

Jill Manning, a former visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, charted the cost in a paper she presented to a special U.S. Senate subcommittee. Her review of the peer-reviewed research reveals that children who consume pornography tend to:

• Develop tolerance toward sexually explicit material, thereby requiring more novel or bizarre material to achieve the same level of arousal or interest.
• Overestimate the prevalence of less common sexual practices (e.g., group sex, bestiality and sadomasochistic activity).
• Abandon the goal of sexual exclusivity with a partner.
• Perceive promiscuity as a normal state of interaction.
• Develop cynical attitudes about love.
• Believe that raising children and having a family is an unattractive prospect.
• Develop a negative body image, especially for women.

Are you kidding? Cynical attitudes about love? Have you MET teenagers? Not want to have kids, heaven forbid! And a negative body image, wow, it's not like they encounter any of those by say, turning on the television or picking up a magazine.

Ah, WND. Without you, I don't know what I'd do. Probably get more done, though.