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.

Secret Connections Revealed

Tzvi Fishman, rabbi and professional anti-masturbation Kabbalist activist, has a post giving people advice on how to deal with their kids using the Internet for porn.

Lay it on, Tzvi:

If you are interested in my humble opinion, I advise throwing all of your home computers out of the house. If this seems too radical, then at least cancel your Internet server, even if it means doing without Arutz Sheva and my informative and entertaining blog.
...Whatever you do, or don't do, it is time to admit the truth. If you have Internet in your home, then you have a problem in your house. If you are the parents of growing children, then what are you going to do about it?

A Luddite AND modest!

It gets a lot better than Tzi, though. The comments on this one are just pure gold.

Here's one from "Rescue Team," offering suggestions for someone trying to beat Internet sex addiction:

1. Get rid of your computer.
2. cold mikvah or shower 3X a day
3. learn Torah themes with your wife to deepen your inner connection
4. keep the lights off
5. Rabbi Nachman says that a segula for braking the power of lust is to say out loud "Shema Yisrael" 70 times against the impure forces of the 70 nations which embody the sexual urge.
6. Guard your eyes when you go out to the street.
7. a bad spirit has floated into your head. It will pass.

Oh, I just love it when we get into numerology medicine. I wonder what the gematria for "colon cancer" is?

Then we get into a fun back-and-forth. Rafael from Efrat says,

So what if the kids look at pretty women once in a while. That is the age where they become curious about exploring their own sexuality. I looked at Playboy when I was a kid, and still grew up to have a happy marriage and raise a good (Torah observant) family. This is the least of our problems.

Not surprisingly, some people take issue with this less-than-machmir approach:

Perhaps because you read Playboy, your sons like to watch "pretty women." The point is that the Jewishs People are to be a holy people with holy genes, and how can we achieve this with pornography available in our homes for our children to see?- Josh from Beit Shemesh.

Wait, holy genes? When did this become about eugenics? And sorry, Josh, but I don't think porn affects your genes. Just a hunch.

Yosi from Ramot agrees:

No big deal? Look what the Nefesh HaChaim says in Chapter One: "A man of Israel must understand, know, and establish in his mind and heart that every detail of his deeds, speech, and thoughts, at every second and time, all rise up according to their root source to influence the most exalted worlds. Therefore, when a man entertains an impure, licentious thought in his heart, G-d forbid, he in effect brings a prostitute into the most exalted, celestial Holy of Holies, giving strength to the forces of impurity and evil in this transcendently holy place, to a much greater extent than the impurity caused by Nebuchadnezzar and Titus when they brought a prostitute into the Holy of Holies in the Temple sanctuary on earth."

Guarding our eyes and thoughts is the foundation of everything.

For anyone that still might not be convinced, there's this bit of late-breaking news from Ari in Jerusalem:

J from Nazareth liked looking at women too. That's why he was kicked out of yeshiva. While traveling with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Prachia, J of Nazareth complained that the innkeeper's eyes weren't pretty. It is written that Rabbi Yehoshua pushed him away with both hands for his evil preoccupation with looking at women. (Sotah 47a) Raphael - out of this came Christianity - do you still say, "So what?"

Got that, folks? The Internet leads to porn, which leads to masturbation, which cuts off your Kabbalah soul from the Divine Gloriousness that is the L**d, oh, and it will also make your kids Christians.

Wow, no wonder Tzvi wants his readers to toss their computers!

One last one from a guy named Yoshi:

Apparently Mr. Fishman's own addictions to sex cause him to see the internet as nothing but a vehicle for pornography. Perhaps he also sees the car as "a machine that gets us to prostitutes" and a house as a "place where illicit sexual relations can be carried out in secret."

I do love me some newspeak, especially when Kabbalah's involved.

Too Stupid...

First thing you see on the home page of SaveIsrael.com:

The men of the Jewish Legion, Betar, Brit HaBirionim, Brit Hashmonaim, Irgun, and LEHI were brave and selfless souls who forced the British from the Land of Israel and defended Jewish neighborhoods and communities from Arab terrorist attacks.

Uh, really? News to me.

British efforts to defeat the Ottoman Turks in the Near East during World War I were welcomed by many Jews in Palestine and the Diaspora. Zionists saw in the conflict an opportunity to further the movement for a recreated Jewish homeland. The British Govemment was pressed to permit the formation of a Jewish unit that would participate in the liberation of Palestine. Before the war ended five battalions of Jewish volunteers of several nationalities were raised for the British Army, the 38th through 42nd (Service) Battalions of the Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment). Together they were known as the "Jewish Legion." The 39th Battalion was made up almost entirely of Jews who were resident in the United States and Canada.

The idea was first raised, on December 1914, by Vladimir Jabotinsky and was supported by Yosef Trumpeldor, a Zionist who had been the first Jewish military officer in the Russian Army, an honor earned by outstanding bravery. By the end of March 1915, 500 Jewish volunteers from among the Jews in Egypt (deported by the Turks) had started training; Jabotinsky served as an officer. The British military command opposed the participation of Jewish volunteers on the Palestinian front and suggested the volunteers serve as a detachment for mule transport on some other sector of the Turkish front. Trumpeldor succeeded in forming the 650-strong Zion Mule Corps, of whom 562 were sent to the Galipoli front where Trumpeldor led his troops with great distinction. Meanwhile, Jabotinsky pursued his project of a Jewish Legion for the Palestinian front. Finally, on August 1917, the formation of a Jewish regiment was officially announced. The unit was designated as the 38th Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers and included British volunteers, members of the former Zion Mule Corps and a large number of Russian Jews. On April 1918, it was joined by the 39th Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers, more than 50 percent of whom were American volunteers.

Fought with, forced from... same thing, right?

Morons.

Oy Bay

Yours truly has joined the blogging crew over at Oy Bay. My newest fisking of Shmuley is up over there. Check it out, I think you'll like it, you loyal, interested reader, you.

Congratulations!

Good news from Avi Shafran: Baal Teshuvahs don't totally suck.

He begins with a heartwarming story about a BT named Dovid, and his new frum from birth wife, Chana. Rav Shafran makes a big show of telling us how enlightened her family is by even considering him as a match:

her parents – somewhat atypically for their circle – would not hesitate to consider an otherwise qualified baal teshuva as a potential marriage-partner for one of their children.

Truly, the next Mandela. Get Stockholm on the phone.

Not all is well and good in Hypothetical Frumville, though. Chana's parents have to search through Dovid's genealogy. And guess whose fault that is?

Sadly, the proliferation of intermarriage and substandard conversions over recent decades have served to call into question the halachic Jewish status of non-Orthodox families. Once upon a time, observant Jews could take for granted that a family, by simple virtue of its affiliation with a Jewish congregation, was halachically Jewish. But those days, tragically, are gone.

Uh huh.

Dovid’s yichus, thankfully, was ascertained to contain no mixed marriages or conversions.

Hosannah!

His European forebears had in fact been religious Jews; and his parents, although they were not raised Orthodox, had grown deeply proud of Dovid’s and his siblings’ adoption of Torah and mitzvos.

And what if his forebears had NOT been religious? Exactly how pure does the yichus have to be? At what point does this cease to be a halachic background check and more about maintaining Chana's family's social standing?

They hoped, moreover, that their example might perhaps, in a small way, inspire other “frum-from-birth” Jews to entertain the possibility of such matches from outside their own community.

Seriously, guys. They aren't lepers. Not as long as they take their meds.

The importance of mishpacha is an understandable concern for many, to be sure; and there are other halacha-related issues that also come into play in such cases. To some, such concerns may even be paramount, and that stance is their prerogative.

Yeah, like what to do if your future mother-in-law dresses like a skank around the house. Collarbones? Not in my family!

To be fair, Rav Shafran does conclude on an up-note:

it cannot be denied that there is something real and valuable that is gained, too, when frum Jew from a frum family marries an equally frum Jew from a different background – gained by the latter, by the former and by Klal Yisroel as a whole.

That's right, BTs are always welcome at Rabbi Shafran's house. Remember guys, to him, you're only marginally damaged goods, as best exemplified by the title of his post:

Rabbi Avi Shafran: Returns Welcome

Even without a receipt? What menschlikeit!

Dueling Justifications

The Yated is mad that some people are justifying de Hartog's slap. Their response? Justify Cohen's slur.

MK Rabbi Gafni, who presented the no-confidence motion, said that a large portion of the public in Israel, some one million people whose children study at chareidi schools, woke up last Wednesday morning, the day after the slap, "and they were sure the entire secular media would be irate and deliver a severe criticism on this issue. They woke up in the morning only to find the whole media was justifying the slap. A Galei Tzahal reporter said, it's a shame he didn't give him a harder smack and knock out all his teeth, too, while Ha'aretz wrote that it was a very desirable slap.

"Such sights of beating members of parliament we thought were only in places like Taiwan, but last week it came to the Knesset, too."

Rabbi Gafni complained that the press, including top journalists who have won prestigious prizes, wrote in favor of de Hartoch's deeds in the Justice Ministry without looking into the matter at all and without any knowledge of de Hartoch's decrees and the claims against him. "The media lowered itself to a level it should never have reached."

He also lodged criticism against de Hartoch's claims that he lost control because he was the son of a Holocaust survivor. "Who among us here in the Jewish people is not a child of a Holocaust survivor? Who? MK Cohen isn't? Three hundred people from his family perished in the Holocaust. To use a defense like that? It's a disgrace that people are still talking about that. There is one dispute. He acted violently, he gave a slap, a slap which was not a tap but rather he flung all his rage for [me] at Yaakov Cohen. The first thing the Justice Minister should have done was to issue a condemnation of the deed."

Good grief. If Cohen has lost people in the Shoah, all the more reason not to call de Hartog a German.

But wait, the Yated claims that de Hartog was actually the one that started throwing around German comparisons!

Irate over de Hartoch's remarks, Rabbi Cohen said, "Why do you lie to us? Why do you scheme against us? You're destroying the Torah world."

"You're an animal," de Hartoch replied. "You're like the Germans."

Rabbi Cohen responded to the harsh words by saying, "What you're doing is like the Germans who wanted to destroy the body and soul."

"Stop talking like that," said de Hartoch. "You don't know me. I'll give you a smack."

"Let's see you," said Rabbi Cohen.

At that point de Hartoch failed to control his rage and slapped the MK very hard across the face.

Most of the media do not report that de Hartoch was the first to accuse Rabbi Cohen of being like the Germans. de Hartoch's lame excuse that he is the son of Holocaust survivors does not account for the fact that the was the first to introduce the theme into the insults.

Christ. Fine, kick both of them out of the Knesset and be done with this stupidity.

And, surprise surprise, all the rebbes and leaders among Israeli Haredim are defending Cohen- even better, they're praising him!

After Rabbi Cohen recounted the incident, HaRav Eliashiv shlita replied, "In Tehillim it says, `Ki hikiso es kol oyvai lechi' (3:8). And why did Dovid Hamelech want all of his enemies to be struck in the cheek? Because a blow to the cheek causes not only pain to the person slapped, but also embarrasses the person who is struck more than another type of blow.

"However, in this case there is no reason to be ashamed. The gemora says, `Hakol lefi hamevayesh vehamisbayesh.' In cases of shame one must assess who is the person doing the shaming and who is being shamed. In this case the person causing the shame is insignificant, thus there is no shame to the person shamed. In fact, you should wear it with pride..." Maran later blessed Rabbi Cohen for success together with the other UTJ representatives in their efforts to pass the Education Law...

Yeah, wear it with pride, maybe make it into a T-shirt: "I'm an asshat, but you can't tell when I wear a shtreimel."

HaRav Shteinman shlita also asked for an account of the incident. After hearing the details he expressed astonishment, saying, "We believe that everything comes from Above, but sometimes we have an opportunity to clearly see how things are handled up Above. The Torah world has long awaited the moment this man would be removed from his post and how it would transpire. Through humiliation and having his disgrace publicly known, Hashem's Hand can be clearly seen. Happy is your lot that the Name of Heaven was sanctified through you."

Jesus. Gag me with a gartel.

A delegation of prominent Vishnitz activists arrived at Rabbi Cohen's home at the behest of the Admor of Vishnitz to convey his blessing: "When one acts for the sake of the [Torah] institutions, one sees siyata deShmaya. [Divine Assistance]"

MK Rabbi Cohen visited the Admor of Gur in Arad and received his blessing: "In the merit of the Torah and hevel pihem shel tinokos shel beis rabbon may you have the merit to continue successfully sanctifying the Name of Heaven."

Rabbi Cohen also received a special brochoh from the Belzer Rebbe, who inquired into his well-being following the grave attack. "May Hashem Yisborach help him regain his strength and may he have the merit to increase kovod Shomayim [the honor of God] with robust health."

The Admor of Tzanz said, "Happy is your lot that you were caught for involvement in Torah ["shenitfasto al divrei Torah"]. You are a representative of the Torah world and as such we are all obligated to protest the harm done to you. All of us must unite to encourage and support him and to protest against he who harmed a public emissary loyal to those he represents." The Admor concluded by blessing Rabbi Cohen "to continue sanctifying the Name of Heaven and may you have protection and success in all your endeavors."

No, rebbe. You sanctify Heaven by working WITHIN the law to get your people the best funding and assistance you can, and, if necessary, by modifying your schools to get more money for the children. Not by hounding the guy holding the purse strings. Do you really think that this incident is going to make the next non-haredi guy in the position more disposed towards UTJ and their constituents? And how was Cohen "caught?"

Agh. The world burns my brain.

Posthumous Victory?

Rav Lazer, who I usually never agree with, had a thought-provoking post a few days ago. Lazer visited his family's home in the Ukraine and shared some of his thoughts about the Holocaust, his family, and his task as a Jew that was saved. As a family genealogist who has documented dozens of relatives that died in the Holocaust, I could relate to the emotion, but not the conclusions.

Lazer shows us a number of touching pictures, including a memorial plaque paid for by him and his family. But it's the commentary on the last picture, showing him standing in the countryside, that I couldn't agree with.

Lazer writes,

We won! My Chabad friends say, "Didan Notzach." In other words, evil did not succeed in finishing us off. On the contrary, North American assimilation murdered many of my relatives' souls even after they escaped from the Cossacks and from Hitler. Yet, despite it all, here we are back in Yanov, wiping away the break of two generations that slid away from Yiddishkeit, looking, dressing, and acting just like my great grandfather Chatzkel, a Breslover chossid and descendant of Rebbe Itzikel Drovitcher zatza'l. We are certainly the winners, and we shall continue to overcome, by clinging to our unwavering emuna, amen.

Now, I'm sorry, but I just can't get behind this. In my mind, every Jew that survived, every child and grandchild and great-grandchild, regardless of frumkeit, is a victory against that evil, a slap in Hitler's face. Lazer claims assimilation murdered his family's souls, suggesting that this was just as bad, or possibly worse, than the physical tortures of his European cousins? Really? That's honestly the way you think about them? What about the relatives living in Europe before the war? Were they all really frum, to a man? Does it matter? Is the death of the frum ones any more a tragedy than their frier cousins?

I'm happy Lazer feels that in choosing the life he chose, he is making a tikkun for his family. I'm happy that he has the confidence and faith to live the way he wants, and that it helps him make a special connection to his ancestors. Despite my skeptical status, I understand, and agree, that roots and traditions are indeed very important. But unlike Lazer, I don't see the copying of everything my old country ancestors did as the ideal. For that matter, I don't see the "break" of generations between old country Orthodox and the many varieties of thought and life exhibited in my family today as necessarily a bad thing, or something that needs to be reversed or atoned for.

True, I wouldn't choose to not have any Jewish interaction, like my father, nor would I choose to baptize my children, as one of my aunts did. But my family's Yiddishkeit, and Jewish identity, has been in flux for many, many generations before me, and it would be, in my mind, not only impossible, but also foolish, to pretend that the uber-Orthodox generations back in Poland were my family's ideal-- and therefore, should be mine. On what basis, other than a preference for beards and a nostalgic affection for Fiddler on the Roof, should I determine that alter-alter-zeide was right, and not his son, who came to America, or his grandson, who went to college and made something of himself?

My family always had its differences and varieties. We had very Orthodox relatives who kept their traditions and beards in America. Others achieved various forms of compromise- shaving beards, sneaking treif. We had Capitalists, Communists, Socialists, and Zionists. Some were poor, some were rich, some knew the value of family, and others didn't. Some broke the law when they thought they could get away with it, others were impeccably honest.

But they were all Jews in their own way. Heck, my g.g.grandmother was Orthodox and SHE was the one that started our tradition of having stockings on Christmas morning!

I have BT cousins, sure. I wish them the best. I find their lives fascinating, and despite my desire to be more observant, I know there will always be a number of fundamental obstacles to my becoming frum. Which is just as well, because I don't want to be frum, and don't think I have to be. On the same note, I wish Lazer the best in his life as a Hasid. But I can't look at my family's history of the past 100-plus years and see it as a mistake. They were people. They were human. They weren't perfect. But I can't erase it. I can't "wipe it away." And what's more, I don't think they would want me to. That's part of my history and identity, too.

I don't know who the "old Orthodox" members of my family were back in the Old Country. We have names and dates but no details. We don't know how religious they were. If I've inherited anything from them, I'd be willing to bet a few of them might have just been going along with the crowd to avoid problems. But even if they mourned the loss of their children when they shaved their beards and went off to university or America, I'd like to think, if they could talk to me, that they wouldn't say they wanted me to be "just like them." Even my BT grandfather wouldn't want me to be "just like him." They--he--would want me to be myself. To be the best Jew, and the best person, that I can be, according to my own intellect and conscience.

That I am here is already a victory against evil. The goodness I accomplish in my life will testify to that. And it won't be determined by how long my beard is or if I wear the right hat. I will be a Jew in my own way. Not as religious as some ancestors, more religious than others. But it will be what is right for me.

I will be a good Jew. I will do my family proud. But it won't be by pretending to be something I'm not.

The Limists of Inclusivism

Ah, the ways of the universe. This afternoon I wrote a mild rebuke to the spirit among our Orthodox brothers who believe, like the Klausenberger rebbe, that "compromise" between Jews is tantamount to heresy, and that true compromise should be done in a spirit of respect, not coercion or triumphalism.

Soon after I finished davening in a Reform shul this evening (check it out soon on Too Cool for Shul) I happened to come across the summer issue of Reform Judaism Magazine (not the catchiest title, I agree, but at least you know what it's about- hint, hint, Jewish Action). And guess what they had on their letters to the editor page?

I am deeply disappointed by yoiur series of articles promoting kosher wine as defined by Orthodox institutions. The rules of kashrut pertaining to wine are antithetical to our principles as Reform Jews. Do we want to be drinking wine that cannot be touched by non-Jews because of the ancient assumption that non-Jews are idolators?

Other than personal taste or nostalgia, I can see no reason for Reform Jews to purchase kosher wine, and several reasons not to.

Rabbi Justin Jaron Lewis,
Ontario

Wow. Touche, universe.

Ok. Let's try this slowly. First, I agree with the rabbi that the "goyim can't touch the wine lest they sneak a quick sacrifice in to Zeus" rule is stupid. That said, I would claim that most of kashrut is pretty stupid, if you don't believe in it. That's sort of how hoks work. Yet, last I checked, the Reform movement wasn't trying to lead anti-kashrut campaigns or bash shechita.
There is no more reason to get up in arms over "endorsing" kosher wine (by offering kosher wine reviews) than there is in endorsing kosher slaughter by reviewing, say, Katz's Deli. If anything, Reform Judaism magazine should be praised for not assuming that no one in its readership gives a fig about kashrut, which allows them to claim maximum inclusiveness both within their movement as well as any other potential allies from other denominations.

If Rabbi Lewis has a problem with kosher wines (and the occasionally nutty details of said), he should be invited to write a rant urging people to rethink the system, maybe even institute a counter- (or superogetory) kashrut system, not unlike what's presently being advanced by some MO and Conservative groups in America and Israel (even the Jewish Press seems to like it. Well, kind of.) But the problem is not kashrut as a concept. Or, at least, it doesn't have to be. Like everything else, kashrut can be adapted and repurposed or reinvented, with the same kind of original thinking Reform Judaism is supposed to not only cherish, but exemplify. But Rabbi Lewis' kosher wine chip shouldn't determine movement policy, lest Reform actually become the stilted caricature its opponents like to present it as. If Reform really wants to reach out beyond its own ideological fiefdom, and I think it should, addressing a hypothetically mizvot-observant reader is an excellent start- even if that pisses off liberal zealots within the movement.