Fire and Ice

When I was around ten, I somehow got it into my head that one didn't really count as a grown-up until both your parents had died. Under this "logic," I proudly informed my parents that Mama Yid was an adult and Abbot Yid wasn't, which of course was a bit surprising to my father. This may have been shortly after I referred to my mother as an "orphan" and got a very stern talking-to.

Yesterday Bubbe Yid died. Now both my parents are orphans.

One thing I'm noticing is a very strong disconnect between how I imagine might be the "correct" way to feel in this situation, and how I actually feel. In a way I feel nothing. But it might be more accurate to say that a lot of my emotions are fairly distant, subtle. I think a lot of this has to do with timing. With Zayde, terminal illness came on relatively sudden, and so even though he spent several months in the hospital, my memory is of the whole process being rather chaotic, at least emotionally. When he died I think much of what I felt was shock as much as it was grief. But some of that grief, too, was I think grief that the person I had idolized and built up so high, the person I had hoped to get to know better, was gone, and that all I was left with were a few meetings and letters. I've spent over a decade trying to get to know who my real Zayde was, and am pretty sure that had I known him more, I certainly would have idolized him less. Not that he was a bad person per se, though he did do bad things and make some terrible mistakes, but that by having real contact with someone, they become demystified.

In so many ways, Bubbe Yid was the opposite of Zayde. The metaphor of fire and ice seems appropriate. He was loud, she was quiet. He would demand to get his way, whereas she would plan. He was raised culturally Jewish by socialists and became attracted to the certainty of Hasidic life and the nostalgic aesthetic of klezmer and Fiddler on the Roof. She was raised modern Orthodox by American-born parents and didn't see religion as something that one had to make a huge stink over. Even their cultural geography seems to bear this out: Zayde's mother was from the park of Ukraine where Hasidic ecstasy had flourished, and he experienced all of life's pleasures and pain at an extremely deep emotional level. Bubbe's grandparents were Litvaks, and she kept her emotions extremely close.

I never really got to know my grandfather. But the sad thing is that if I'm honest with myself now, I don't think I ever really knew my grandmother either. There was so much of her personality and her life that she didn't want to share that as I got older, there was less and less of her available for me to interact with. If anything, her protracted illness only magnified this emotional distance. There's almost zero shock that she's died, because I've had almost an entire year to process that she was going to die. I'm actually more relieved than anything because she was so unhappy and impaired and the stress was creating so much bad feelings between her children. The real tragedy for me in all of this is that this woman who was so fiercely independent wound up losing everything that was important to her in her life and was trapped in an existence she no longer wanted. By nearly every metric, it is far better for her to not be here anymore, and whereas before I would have felt guilty saying that, I know that she herself had been saying the same thing back when she could still talk.

The other tragedy in this situation is that rather than her illness becoming a moment of unity or closeness for her children, it just underscored all the divisions between them. There has been so much hurt and resentment over the past ten months, and without anywhere productive to go it has been bouncing around in the family echo chamber. At this point most of the siblings are guessing that after the funeral most of them won't talk to each other again. Now obviously, my father and his siblings are grown adults, and they're responsible for their choices. But I also can't help put place a little responsibility for this mess at the feet of my grandparents-- my grandfather for his mental illness and bad decisions, and my grandmother for enabling him and not protecting her kids more. The end result is that none of the siblings seem to really be able to tolerate each other, and I have to assume that at least part of this is because the only things they have in common any more are their childhoods, which are extremely painful for them to think about. They don't know how to interact with each other, which makes sense when they've spent decades avoiding each other.

I feel like this trickled down to her grandchildren, too. Deacon Yid and I aren't close to our cousins-- they're basically strangers or acquaintances we happen to be related to. (As a genealogist, this is rather depressing!) And the whole time Bubbe was in the nursing home, I kept thinking I should go, I should go... but by the time I had decided to go, she was past the point where she could recognize anyone or communicate. I missed that chance, and I wonder if our relationship had been different, had I felt more, if that might have happened the same way.

Mama Yid asked me if I'm sad. The short answer is no. The long answer is that I'm sad about her life, and the way that she died, but not that she is dead.

I wish she had had a more chayim shlema, especially in her last days. I am glad she got the sof shlema she needed. And, as skeptical as I am, my greatest hope is that in letting her go, her children may finally get the refuah shlema they've needed for so long.

Really?

This is one of those cases where you honestly can't believe that someone could say something this dumb and believe it:

The former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee notably declined to rule out a presidential run in 2016, first telling CNN that "anything in this life, in this world is possible." 

"Anything is possible for an American," she said. "And I don't discount any idea or plan that at this point isn't in my control."

If you're going to deflect a question, lady, that's fine, but for the great love of crap, please don't get on your high horse about how "anything is possible for an American." In a time when plenty of Americans are finding that basic things like paying their bills or staying in their homes are in fact not possible, that sounds both out of touch as well as downright patronizing. It's one thing if you're a random sports star who's expected to throw out trite nonsense, but when you're talking about mulling a Presidential run, let's try to get beyond, "We live in America, Billy! You can be anything you want to be."

Palin, be coy if you want, but try to tone down the cheese. Some of us are allergic.

Allow me to translate

There's so much casual stupidity in the news these days, it can be easy to get lost. Luckily, I'm a giver. You're welcome.

- Shorter Homophobia:

A Marine official’s description of a photograph of two males hugging and kissing at a base in Hawaii as “typical” is making the United States military look ridiculous, charges the head of the Center for Military Readiness, which argues for making the military more of a fighting force and less a social experiment. 

The image has gotten widespread attention on the Internet. Posted on a “gay Marine” social networking page, it shows Dalan Wells and Brand Morgan. Their reunion after Morgan returned from assignment is what it is, according to Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. 

...Donnelly said the new culture, marked by the recent elimination of the 200-plus year old ban on open homosexuality in the military, will rebound on the United States at some point.

Translation: Gay guys kissing? Gross! Besides, everyone knows you can't be gay and shoot someone-- limp wrists make it hard to fire a gun. Funnily enough, the 40-plus other countries-- including those uber-fey nations known as China, Russia, and Israel-- that have gays openly serving haven't seemed to notice this issue. (Incidentally, the Sergeant in the picture had just finished a 6 month tour of service in Afghanistan-- his third-- so it seems to me he's entitled to smooch whoever he damn well pleases.)

- Shorter Ethnocentrism:

The Positive Side of Drunkenness is Revealed on PurimAlthough in general drunkenness is disgraceful, nevertheless, its' positive sides cannot be ignored. As a consequence of intoxication, basic happiness is revealed, expressing physical, unrestrained joy, filled with power and vitality. Normally, however, the lust and depravity of drunkenness obscures its positive side, and as a result, it causes wildness and numerous obstacles. But on Purim, when we drink and take joy in the salvation of Hashem, remembering the miracle that was done by means of the feast, the positive sides of drinking are revealed. 

Revealing the Uniqueness of IsraelThere is another profound meaning: On Purim, the eternal holiness of Israel is revealed, making clear that even what appears to be bad – is reversed for the good. The harsh decrees lead to repentance. By means of drinking wine for the sake of the mitzvah, the 'sod' (secret) is revealed, that even the material side of Israel – internally – is holy. And although the body and its physical sensations seem to interfere with serving Hashem, on the high level of Purim -- "nahafach hu" (on the contrary), they greatly assist serving Hashem, in joy and vitality.

Translation: Jews are so awesome that when we get hammered, it's actually a mystical and holy experience, as opposed to whenever anyone else does it and it's a frat party gone bad. Also, in keeping with longstanding counter-intuitive mystical misheggos, let me reveal another magic secret: that up is down and right is diagonal.

- Shorter Old Crank:

In 2007, America thought it was electing a president. We never dreamed we were electing an emperor. 

Are you among the many who’ve noticed, for a long time now, how many times Mr. Obama uses the word “I” in every speech, every press conference, every White House release? In ever imperious ways, he states what “I have notified Senate leaders,” whom “I have appointed” both to traditional posts and to his own newly created “czarships” over previously less regulated pursuits? How many times in his State of the Union addresses has he told Congress and the Supreme Court what “I will do in the coming months,” what “I‘m directing” various departments to do and even “what I will not allow while I‘m president”? 

Even in Great Britain, where there is a legitimate monarchy – a reigning Queen – the little lady never uses the personal pronoun in her statements. She always uses the less personal “we.” It’s “we desire,” “we believe,” “it is our wish,” recognizing that, in a very real but unstated way, she rules by the consent of her people. She certainly doesn’t wish to provoke their resentment by a pompous supremacy. Not so our current White House occupant. 

In America, what happened to “We the People”?

Translation: I hate Obama so much that I've moved beyond the ability to express it in words. Screw policy, I can tell by his pronouns he thinks he's Charlemagne! This totally counts as legitimate political commentary, right? Now hand over my check.

- Shorter Misogyny:

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level. 

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

Translation: How dare all you sluts pull your advertising from my show?

Casual Stupidity

When it comes to op-eds, I think I'm bothered more by casual nastiness, bigotry or stupidity than I am when people are super-explicit about it. Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke, for example, while atrocious, were so over-the-top that people sat up and noticed, and were then able to put pressure on him to own up to the fact that calling someone a slut for advocating a policy shift during a Congressional deposition is over the line.

It's harder-- and in some ways, more pernicious-- when the venom is embedded in someone's article, or speech. Here are some examples from this week's WND:

- Barry Farber championing algae as a gasoline replacement:

I have a dream. About 20 years from now a fifth-grade teacher somewhere in America will ask her students, “Who can name our two most important inventors, and why they are the most important?” And little Cathy stands up and replies, “Thomas Edison and Adrian Vance. Edison lit up the world and Vance put the oil-producing nations of the Middle East in their place – selling pistachios alongside the bagel carts in mid-town Manhattan.”

Dude, really? So Middle Eastern folks' proper "place" is as snack vendors? I love how Barry not only paints an idyllic picture of casually racist 5th graders, but that he also rips of Martin Luther King to do it. Nice.

- Joseph Farah explaining why Christians and Muslims have zero theological common ground:

If you compare the personality of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – the Christian and Hebrew God – with Allah, Islam’s god, the contrast could not be more stark. The Hebrew-Christian God is characterized by love. The Islamic god is characterized by war and vengeance. The Hebrew-Christian God provides a clear path to redemption and personal salvation in a fallen world – through repentance. The Islamic god provides only one certain path to personal salvation – martyrdom.

Put aside Farah's strawman about Islam thinking the only way to be a good Muslim is to martyr yourself. What's with pretending the Jewish (not Hebrew, Joe, Jewish) God says anything about "personal salvation" or even that we live in a specifically "fallen" (as opposed to imperfect) world? Stark contrasts between depictions of God? You can find differences between depictions of God from book to book in the Torah, to say nothing of Prophets or Writings. That's one of the starting points of Biblical criticism, Lurianic Kabbalah, and most lay-led Dvar Torahs. The God of the Bible goes through a myriad of personality shifts, sometimes from sidra to sidra, and that's part of what makes Him an intriguing character. Not only does this Unified God argument go against tons of Jewish textual tradition, it also runs counter to hundreds of years of Christian criticism of Judaism! How often have we heard about the "loving Christian God" being compared to the "vengeful" or "legalistic" Jewish God? Now you want to say there's no daylight between them? I'd be suspicious of this anyway, but all the more so given that now you want to play buddy-buddy so that you can beat up on Islam.

It's ironic that Farah is talking about how Christians need to recognize the important theological gaps between them and Muslims while simultaneously demonstrating he knows next-to-nothing about Judaism or traditional Jewish texts. Recall that this was the guy who fought against an Old Testament scholar questioning whether the Jewish God was really a "creator" of Heaven and Earth by using quotes from the Greek New Testament. Please, Joe, leave us out of your craziness.

- Last, Dennis Prager demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that the goal of university is to get young people to become nihilists, steal their parents' property, and then eat them:

If this [comically hyperbolic] list is accurate – and that may be ascertained by visiting a college bookstore and seeing what books are assigned by any given instructor – most American parents and/or their child or children are going into debt to support an institution that for four years, during the most impressionable years of a person’s life, instills values that are the opposite of those of the parents. 

And that is intentional. 

As Woodrow Wilson, progressive president of Princeton University before becoming president of the United States, said in a speech in 1914, “I have often said that the use of a university is to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible.” 

In 1996, in his commencement address to the graduating seniors of Dartmouth College, then-president of the college, James O. Freedman, cited the Wilson quote favorably. And in 2002, in another commencement address, Freedman said that “the purpose of a college education is to question your father’s values.” 

For Wilson, Freedman and countless other university presidents, the purpose of a college education is to question (actually, reject) one’s father’s values, not to seek truth. Fathers represented traditional American values. The university is there to undermine them.

First of all, I like how Prager's supposed evidence of indoctrination of students doesn't consist of any actual citation of texts, or even quotes from professors, but rather a list of liberal college strawmen which he claims are backed up by hypothetical reading lists. Second, isn't it fantastic that two quotes from two college presidents (a mere 82 years apart!) about students challenging their preconceptions are used to suggest the existence of an evil college cabal poised on turning young people against their parents? Dennis has a point about universities having political bias, but he loses his credibility once he starts crying about how the evil liberal universities turn innocent college students against their hard-working conservative parents. You may not have noticed, Dennis, but liberals are about half the country, and they send their kids to college, too. My great-grandparents were Jewish socialists. My father is a would-be hippy whose only political rule is "never vote Republican" and is mad at Obama for being too aggressive against medical marijuana. For me to have attended a school that rejected my father's values, I would have had to be going to Brigham Young (with maybe Bob Jones as a safety school).

For the record, I attended a very liberal high school and college, and if anything, it made me slightly conservative (relative to the people I was around) because I was exposed to arguments and people that I disagreed with (particularly on Israel) and it required me to think about why that was so. If I had taken Dennis' advice and stayed home (and done what?), I might have been the very model of the unthinking reflexive young liberal he so decries. And no, I still wouldn't have believed in "traditional American values."

Dying with dignity versus living without it

My father-in-law works in end-of-life care, so over the years we've had lots of conversations about the topic. While I personally have not experienced close friends or family going into hospice, I have come to have a greater appreciation for the palliative method over a "preserve life at all costs" approach. Still, I understand that this creates a bit of a mind for medical ethics and for those in the medical profession: one long-standing definition of a doctor, connected with the Hippocratic Oath, is the concept of doing no harm. It is one that I think many Jews can connect with as well-- Judaism is supposed to celebrate and venerate life, and I've read that the implication that comes with that philosophical orientation is that there is a very strong bias against ending life if it can be preserved.

However I think that at the end of the day, both Judaism and medicine have enough depth to them that, if one is interested in making the case, there is certainly enough intellectual ammunition to support a more palliative approach. The big question, I believe, revolves around the notion of what harm is and where "quality of life" intersects with the broader category of "life." Just as there are certain mitzvot that traditional Judaism commands Jews not to violate even if it leads to their death, it would seem logical that there are similar scenarios in which it is appropriate to re-evaluate priorities and, potentially, decide to discontinue treatment (particularly aggressive or debilitating treatment) in favor of a more dignified and comfortable end to the patient's life.

I've been thinking about these issues a lot lately as I've been following the news about R. Elyashiv in Israel. He has been a long-running Internet antagonist for the several years I've been blogging, a perfect example of how the Haredi community, particularly in Israel, seems to value authority over discussion, and isolation over engagement. In recent years, R. Elyashiv has banned books without reading them, technology he doesn't use or understand, and condemned whole swathes of people he has never met. In my eyes, he was the best example of the living anachronism that traditional Judaism must struggle to avoid becoming.

But a few weeks ago I read an article in Haaretz that changed my thinking a little.

On the top floor of a Jerusalem hospital lays a very old man. He is slowly dying, but he won't be left in peace. A small circle of courtiers around him continue to issue in his name edicts and rulings, ensure that his signature still appears on letters and when his medical situation improves temporarily, they will remove him from hospital and seat him in his chair at the synagogue, where everyone can see him. The hospital staff grumbles that all this just prolongs the old man's agony, but there is nothing they can do as the retinue controls all the old man's moves. 

Only a tiny handful of relatives and trustees are allowed to talk with him, and they jealously guard his real mental situation while everyone is told that he is fully lucid and talking with his family and doctors, praying and studying as normal. 

This is how the great rabbis die nowadays. These were the circumstances of the last years of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, as the Chabadniks fought over him, manhandling him to the window of his study so he could wave to the crowds on Eastern Parkway, steadily deifying him as he descended into his last coma. His body died in 1994, at the age of 92, but many of his followers still believe he is with us. 

Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach suffered similar indignities when visitors to his home in Bnei Brak were shown the volume of Talmud he was studying from, but were not told he had been on the same page for 10 years. Just before he turned 100, he was finally allowed to retreat from the public stage and given a few years of rest before he died at the age of 102. 

The retainers of Kabbalist miracle-maker Yitzhak Kadouri bodily carried him to events well into his 11th decade, making sure he muttered the required incantations, shouting in his near-deaf ear the names of those to be blessed, and continued a brisk trade in his handwritten amulets until death finally liberated him from their clutches at 106. 

By some accounts, 101-year-old Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the great sage of the "Lithuanian" ultra-Orthodox community, is undergoing the same treatment as these words are being written. For months now he is being shuttled back and forth from hospital to his tiny apartment in Mea She'arim; but despite growing reports on his frailty, he still seems capable of publishing momentous rulings on the pages of Yated Ne'eman, such as the one that appeared two weeks ago forbidding Haredi men and women from participating in military or academic vocational courses under non-Haredi auspices. While there are those who treat these verdicts as the word from up on high, speculation is growing that for months now, if not years, Rabbi Elyashiv's name has been appended to endorsements and prohibitions he has never heard of. 

Modern medicine has created an intractable theological dilemma for Haredi Jewry. While it prolongs the lives of rabbis well in to their 90s and beyond, it does not guarantee soundness of mind. But how can a community brought up on the doctrine of "Da'at Torah," rabbinical infallibility, accept that their leaders' memory and reasoning can deteriorate. They liken their rabbis in old age to Moses, whom the Torah tells us that at the age of 120, "his eye was not darkened, nor his moisture ceased." And above all, their mind, this god-given gift to an entire nation, surely cannot fail, only gain strength and wisdom. But that is simply not the way of the human body.

Assuming even half of Anshel Pfeffer's article is true, it raises a fascinating point that, to my embarrassment, I had only half-recognized myself up until now. Yes, it is incredible, bizarre, and rather unbelievable that these gedolim are still giving pronouncements on issues of the day past the age of 100. And the reason it is all of those things is because they aren't actually doing it. These elders are not reading these books, not condemning these technologies. They've never seen them. Most of them spend most of their time going back and forth from home to shul to the doctor. It is their handlers, their advisers, their heirs, who are pulling the strings. In the height of chutzpah, these younger people manipulate, deceive or even impersonate their supposedly venerated leaders, men that their communities see as truly holy, to exert their own desires for power. And while doing so, not only do they undermine their credibility, their independence, and their reputation-- but they also turn them into political symbols to fight their pet battles, regardless of whether the sages know or care about the issue or not.

Even now, this is going on with R. Elyashiv.

Rav Elyashiv is listed in critical/stable condition. The gadol hador is in a medically induced coma and connected to a mechanical respirator, fighting the fluid buildup in his lungs, the result of diminished cardiac output as seen in congestive heart failure. 

Family members are in the hospital, where hundreds continue to gather, compelling hospital security and police to deploy additional manpower to keep people outside. Officials report that while the avreichim and rabbonim mean well, they are not assisting the rav’s situation and they are hampering hospital personnel, interfering with them. Additional security has been placed at the second floor entrance to the emergency room, the hospital’s night entrance.

Think about that: R. Elyashiv has not been conscious for days. He is in a coma. He is on a respirator. And yet there are so many people crowding into his room that the staff can't even do their job. I have no doubt the vast majority of the people visiting this man are sincerely there because they care about him. But the lack of understanding about what they need versus what he needs is pretty shocking.

There's yet another dimension to this: the idea that if R. Elysahiv goes, the entire community will suffer a major tragedy. There has been little thought as to who will succeed him, what training or support they might need, ways the community might be able to help the family grieve, etc. A month after another serious hospital visit, several days since he has been in a coma, and R. Elyashiv's community shows no sign of letting go. They will not consider what happens next because they will not admit that he is going to die. To that point: he cannot be allowed to die.

“If Rav Elyashiv in danger,” said Rav Edelstein, “we are all in danger.” 

In his morning shiur, Rav Edelstein linked Rav Elyashiv’s condition to the security situation in Eretz Yisroel, stating that Rav Elyashiv protects us. 

“We are in danger and need protection and are in grave danger… We are a lonely sheep among seventy hungry wolves. In such a situation, we need protection. ” 

The rosh yeshiva then described Rav Elyashiv as protecting the generation. 

...Later, the rosh yeshiva described how the power of the righteous can prevent wars and catastrophes, adding that it is known that before World War II, many gedolim, including Rav Boruch Ber Leibowitz, Rav Shimon Shkop and others,  perished, thus removing these “righteous defenders” from the world. 

“Now in our generation, we have an individual who defends us through his toil in Torah,” said Rav Edelstein. “Now he’s sick and we are compromised. We must all daven and learn Torah.”

This kind of personality worship cannot be healthy. This extreme identification of one mortal person's health with the entire community's well-being verges on the nutty. Sooner or later, R. Elyashiv is going to die. What happens once he does? The way people are talking about him is making it sound like they think he can't die. Are they going to deify him like Chabad did with Schneerson? One can only hope that people like R. Edelstein don't actually believe what they're saying-- in which case, the whole thing becomes one big PR stunt. Which is worse?

Death is part of life. All people die. Judaism, which is rooted in the real world, knows this. Yet some of this pragmatism seems to be getting lost. The elders of our communities should be honored and allowed to pass in peace, not have their accomplishments be sabotaged in their final years by the very people who should be protecting them and preserving their dignity. There is something seriously wrong when leaders don't pass the torch until they reach 100... only to give it to people in their 90s. When did we start acting like the Catholic Church?

I cannot in good conscience wish R. Elyashiv a refuah shleima, a complete healing. I believe he is beyond that. I wish him the same wish I have been wishing for my own grandmother, a woman thirteen years his junior but just as mentally and physically compromised as him. I wish that they both be allowed to go in peace, comfortable, content, and with dignity. Not a refuah shleima, but a sof shleima (complete end). Or, perhaps more poetic, a chayim shleima (complete life).

If R. Elyashiv's people truly respect him, if they truly believe that he is the best of their generation... and if they truly believe their prayers have the power to keep him alive until 120...

They should stop.

And let him go.

Someone flunked Math

Interesting journalism question: when you interview a source and he says something strange, is it the editor's job to clarify the statement?

Joseph Farah doesn't seem to think so. He ran an election update a day ago quoting Fritz Wenzel, the head of a polling group about why a sizable minority of Republicans are leaning towards voting for Obama in the upcoming election, even after sitting through four years of Farah screaming about how illegitimate, Communisty and Muslimy he is.

The only problem is... Wenzel can't count.

“The improvement in Obama’s prospects compared to the four remaining Republican challengers stems largely from two factors,” suggests pollster Fritz Wenzel. “First, Obama has largely avoided the political limelight while the GOP candidates savage each other with increasing intensity. Second, a smattering of evidence indicates that the economy is getting a little better, which helps the White House in the eyes of the voters. Secondly, the bloody fight for the Republican presidential nomination – by most estimations the nastiest GOP fight in memory – has really hurt the images of the challengers in the eyes of both Republicans and, especially, independent voters. For Republicans, each candidate carries with them now some taint that cannot be ignored.”

If nothing else, it seems like Wenzel needs a crash-course in Numbers 101. Or, you know, a better editor.

A new contender for King Jackass

I though Glenn Beck had locked up the offensive Jewish appropriation stuff a while ago, but apparently while he's been sitting on his laurels in his virtual ivory tower, a new dope in town has been hard at work in America's churches trying to one-up him.

Sorry Glenn, but if you want to stay on top, you have to be willing to put in the face-time with other ignorant and easily manipulated goofballs. Ralph Messer has repeatedly shown that when it comes to exploiting Jewish culture, showing off his incredible ignorance of Jewish religion and history, and just plain old having zero shame, he's the new man to beat. Yarmulkes off to you, Ralph. You truly are a gigantic embarrassment to Jews and Christians everywhere.

Now seriously, go jump off a cliff or something.

How do you spend Shabbat?

It's been a few months into my Shabbat experiment, and I won't lie, it's been hard to stick to it. At the beginning it was quite nice; I would wake up, daven shachrtit, and then spend most of the day reading various Judaica. But the combination of Mrs. Yid rarely getting Saturdays off and me being a little too shy to go to services on my own has resulted in a bit of a stall. The last few weeks I've gone back to using the TV and Internet on Shabbat, simply out of boredom. Not ideal.

So, my question to my readers: How do you spend Shabbat? Specifically, what do you do besides going to synagogue? What other things do you make it special or meaningful?

Better theologians, please

Chuck Colson may be a former Marine, a top Nixon aide, a prison ministry founder, a published author, a popular radio host, and have 15 honorary doctorates, but that still doesn't mean that his arguments are convincing. Take this gem, in which Chuck tries to argue for why Biblical sexual ideas were powerful enough to change the world, but apparently not resilient enough to withstand gays and lesbians agreeing with them:

So often we hear that allowing two men or two women to marry will not hurt anyone, and certainly not "straight" people. Well, the truth is, we already know what happens when a society promotes sexual license and devalues marriage. We just have to look at history.

Way to bypass the argument by ignoring it. "Lots of people make this point that I don't feel like responding to. Next!"

Way back before anyone was talking about so-called "gay marriage," radio talk show host and Jewish theologian Dennis Prager wrote a fascinating article called -- get ready for this -- "Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality."

Wait, so now Prager claims to be a theologian? This was a new one for me, perhaps because when I hear the term "Jewish theologian," I tend to assume that it describes someone actually qualified to hold the title. While Prager did attend Jewish day school, he attended a secular college and his degrees are in History and Middle Eastern studies. I find it interesting that in his first book in 1986, he merely described himself as a talk show host and author. Apparently by the time his second book came out in 1996, Dennis had gone to underground theology school, because on the dust jacket it proclaims, "Dennis Prager, theologian and philosopher turned talk-show host"  Interesting, so now the theology/philosophy cred predated his radio career? It's true that Dennis was a professional lecturer (big irony there)  before he got into radio, but I'm still not sure that makes him a theologian. Prager calling himself a theologian is about as accurate as him claiming to be a "passionate moderate"-- which he repeatedly does in that same book, so at least he's consistent.

Long story short: when Chuck talks about Dennis the "Jewish theologian," what he really means is, "right-wing Jewish guy who agrees with me."

Before the Jews were placed in the Ancient Near East, the pagan world was already a sexual free-for-all that debased women, boys, and religion itself in the service of male lust. Every aspect of life was sexualized. The pagan gods engaged in no-holds-barred sex, and so did the people. Homosexuality had almost unquestioned acceptance in the ancient world.

Back up, bucko. First of all, I'd love to see some sources, including some quotes from Lord Rabbi Prager's hallowed essay (link here for the curious or masochistic) documenting any of this. I'm already suspicious given that my understanding is that a lot of our knowledge about Ancient Near East pagan society (particularly people's sex lives) is sketchy due to limited information. Exactly how many 3,000 year old Letters to Babylonian Penthouse have you uncovered? Also, "every aspect of life," really? What about daily chores or occupations? I'm having trouble envisioning how you sexualize making a sandal or domesticating a goat. Last, of course, there is the huge problem of conflating a patriarchal, misogynistic "sexual free for all" with modern homosexuality, which is now overwhelmingly conceptualized through the framework of monogamy and consent-- a far cry from, say, pederasty.

Colson eventually does starting quoting Prager quoting academics- but that still doesn't help his argument.

But the key issue wasn't gender, it was power. Prager quotes Brown University philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who wrote, "The central distinction in [ancient] sexual morality was … between active and passive roles." Because boys and women were on the receiving end of sexual activity, they were "very often treated interchangeably as [simple] objects of [male] desire." 

Not surprisingly, then, women were relegated to the sidelines, important for giving birth and running the home, but not important as real and equal partners to men, who had other sexual options -- with boys and other men.

Hmm, sounds like the problem with pre-Biblical paganism is that it was extremely self-centered. People in power could bed whoever they wanted, and no one else mattered. No respect, no love, and no stability. Yeah, that's just like the various gay people I know in committed relationships (some for decades) who have loving homes, and some of whom are raising children. In the same way that being a straight man in a relationship is equivalent to being Hugh Heffner. Exceptions aside, the fact that a sexual act or identity can be taken to an extreme conclusion doesn't inherently invalidate the act/identity itself.

That's why Judaism's claim that God created sex only for a man and a woman in marriage was so revolutionary -- and despised by pagans ancient and modern pagans I might add as well. 

Inasmuch as we're going to give Judaism exclusive credit here, the real revolutionary values have less to do with outlawing who you can't have sex with, and much more to do with establishing the parameters for a model relationship-- which may have been straight historically, but was really important because it emphasized relationships (not even monogamy, look at the patriarchs), love and respect, values which are not-- and should not be-- exclusive to straight relationships. By focusing so much on gender, you're actually greatly reducing the scope of these tremendous ideas.

Prager writes, "This revolution forced the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women." No wonder, Prager notes, that the "improvement of the condition of women has only occurred in Western civilization," which historically has been the "least tolerant of homosexuality."

Classic Prager; a million sweeping statements with zero documentation. While Colson may be happy to accept those arguments on faith, color me unconvinced. Among other things, I like how this argument presumes that homosexuality is incompatible with women's rights. Does this mean lesbians are anti-feminists? Someone should let Pat Robertson know. Maybe Dennis should do it, since he's a fellow theologian.

Colson wouldn't be a good evangelical if he let the Jews have all the credit for... bottling the sex genie (??), so he reminds us that Christianity has been pretty good at caging the sexual urges, too.

Of course, I should note, that it was the Apostle Paul who further carried this Jewish sexual revolution throughout the ancient world. As Sarah Ruden wrote about in her recent book Paul Among the Peoples, predatory homosexuality was common in Rome and Greece; women and children were just property. 

Through Paul, however, Christianity ensured that Western Civilization promoted sex within the confines of marriage between one man and one woman, and placed off limits the sexual abuse of boys and slaves.

Again, huzzah for creating social and emotional standards for relationships. Those are all good things. Notice, however, that one does not have to be engaging in straight sex to be able to believe in or perpetuate those values.

The point is simply this: God instituted marriage for the good of man (restraining and channeling his sexuality), for the protection and dignity of woman, and the flourishing of human society. 

Western civilization, the greatest ever, took this to heart, but forgets it now at its own peril.

You know, given that conservative Christians often like to accuse Judaism of being over-legalistic, the amount of willful myopia here is kind of amazing. Colson is willing to give Judaism and Christianity tons of credit for reining in people's sexual urges and kickstarting a social evolution when it came to romantic and sexual relationships, but if gays and lesbians buy into those same values and try to apply them to their own lives and relationships, the values somehow break down. Colson seems to view love and dignity like a phone charger; they only work when you use them with the right plug.

Hey Chuck: if Biblical relationship values are so strong and powerful that they took over half the world and have become the cornerstone of Western civilization, they should be able to withstand gays using them. Just saying.

Who needs to moderate what?

Jay Michaelson had an essay in the Forward this week pleading for more civility and honesty in Jewish civil discourse. As with political discourse, I'm always for that. However he started with some assumptions that seemed a little off for me.

I have my approach to Jewish values that allows me to say that Eric Cantor, Sheldon Adelson and William Kristol are wrong — pluralism is not the same as relativism, after all — but what I won’t say is that they are somehow un-Jewish.

Granted, I don't spend tons of time in liberal Jewish circles, but I'm a little suspicious of how often this charge actually gets made. Michaelson notes that the converse occurs regularly among the Jewish right-- religious and otherwise, but doesn't seem to have any particular examples for the left.

Relatively few progressives come out and say [that Jewish conservatives are outright wrong] directly, because to do so violates a cardinal progressive principle, that of pluralism and toleration. (Of course, conservatives don’t hesitate to make these claims, painting critics of Israel as self-hating Jews, or social progressives as rebels against the Torah.)

This seems like a case where Michaelson may be trying to be too even-handed for his own good. While the rest of his essay has some good advice, particularly about being honest about how wide and divergent the various opinions in the Torah are, the fact that he seems to start the piece off with a fallacy-- that Jewish liberals have no good response to Jewish conservatives because they either ignore them or dismiss them-- kind of spoils it for me. Michaelson isn't wrong with his end thesis-- that the best option is to admit that Judaism and Jewish thought contains a multiplicity of views (though one can still find patterns suggesting which values the Torah seems to prefer, such as mercy over vengeance)-- but I don't think the reason more liberal Jews don't do this is that they're too busy saying conservatives aren't real Jews. Rather, I would guess that the issue either isn't on their radar (liberal bubble syndrome) or that they simply haven't given the issue much thought (a third possibility is that they may hear about these critiques and simply not have much in the way of a response).

It seems to me that in an attempt to not cast blame or appear biased, Michaelson does his readers (and argument) a disservice by diagnosing two patients with the same illness. One group needs to work on reducing de-legitimization. The other one needs to recognize that it's happening and start pushing itself to generate some positive and constructive responses.

Privileges of the Majority

Peter Beinart had an interesting post about American Jews' religiosity, in which, among other things, he noted that American Jews tend to vote liberal because statistically, "U.S. Jews practice their religion far less than their American Christian counterparts."


I think this also ties in with why American Jews have traditionally been wary of people being or becoming "too" religious. Part of this is that there can often be a correlation between personal religiosity and carrying that over into the public sphere. Particularly in America, people tend to be very bad about keeping their personal faith off of others.


This often seems to be something that's very hard for non-Jews, particularly Christians (even "cultural" ones), to understand. I once had a very animated discussion with a college friend about the issue of prayer in public schools-- and even though she identified as a religious minority (Unitarian Universalist), I found it very hard to communicate the discomfort and frustration that that issue, and ones like it, raised in me. Since she still very much associated with the majority culture, it was hard for her to understand how threatening or offensive the idea that we are a Christian nation, or an inherently religious nation is, when you're in the minority.


For a religious minority with a long history of persecution, I feel that Jews are particularly sensitive to issues of majoritarianism, and it's part of the reason so many Jews on the more liberal/secular end of things are so cagey about bringing religion into public discourse. As soon as we start having a more religious public society, we inevitably get into the dicey questions of how and what to include and what to exclude. Frankly, it's something that is hard to do well.


Things also aren't helped by the fact that as the evangelical population in America has become more vocal  in their religiosity and desire for a more publicly religious society, it becomes increasingly clear that they haven't worked out all the sticky parts that would come with this new dynamic-- and particularly, what acceptable roles for non-Christians would be in a "Christian" country. One place this has popped up is with Mitt Romney's candidacy.


While I have little in common with Romney politically, it's been rather disconcerting to see the evangelical Republican population publicly debate whether his faith should prevent him from being "allowed" to be the GOP candidate. There's an incredible amount of hubris and privilege present here that for me, really exemplifies why I and so many other liberals, particularly liberal Jews, much prefer to have an American political sphere that is as secular as possible.


First example comes from the Christian Post, where columnist Jim Denison felt the need to defend the argument that candidate's faith should be a consideration by voters.

are there religious commitments that affect these "pivotal points" to the degree that they should be considered by voters? I believe there are. My position does not relate specifically to Romney and Mormonism; it applies to any candidate from any political party.  

Let's consider some examples. Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley nearly 30 years ago. If he had been a faithful Jehovah's Witness, he would have died – his church's teachings would have forbidden the massive blood transfusions that saved his life. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush was diagnosed with hyperthyroidism, which caused a rapid irregular heartbeat and atrial fibrillation. Drugs were effective in returning his heart rhythm to normal. If he had been a practicing Christian Scientist, would he have refused medical treatment? Do we want presidents whose lives could be endangered by their religious beliefs? 

How would a Sunni president have prosecuted the war in Iraq? Would a Shiite view Iran more sympathetically? Would a chief executive who was a Tibetan Buddhist be more sympathetic to the Dalai Lama in his ongoing conflicts with the People's Republic of China? 

Admittedly, none of the current presidential candidates espouse religious commitments so contrary to mainstream America. But would their policies be influenced by their religious beliefs? I would hope so.

And this is an area where we have a foundational disagreement. I want elected officials who either share my political philosophy, or at least have a view of government, country and society that won't be actively harmful to them. Their religious beliefs are far less important to me than their political beliefs, and it doesn't particularly matter to me what they are as long as they don't impair their ability to do their jobs well. And I don't really buy Denison's claim that he really wants all presidential candidates to make decisions based on their religion regardless of whether he agrees with those beliefs.

Would Mormonism's distinctive beliefs influence a Romney or Huntsman administration? Would evangelical commitments affect Rick Perry's presidency? Would Catholic moral positions gain consideration in a Gingrich or Santorum White House? Would Baptist convictions influence Ron Paul's policies? Do the United Church of Christ's theological positions alter Barack Obama's worldview and leadership? 

You and I may disagree on the answers to these questions, but we should agree to ask them.

First, this is really funny given how irritated conservatives got when liberals bashed Bush for saying God talked to him and gave him foreign policy advice. Second, sorry, no. Asking random questions to yourself is not a particularly useful activity, and given Jim's stated beliefs and biases, it comes off as poisoning the well. This is like all those people who kept questioning Obama's patriotism or eligibility but claimed they were "just asking questions." If you're curious about the effect Romney's faith might have on his administration, do some journalism. Don't just sit around going, "Hey, Mormons don't drink, do you think he'll repeal the 21st Amendment?"


Second example is from old friend Dennis Prager, playing, of all the things, the role of sage voice of reason. He can do this, he informs us, because,"as a Jew, I have no religious pony in this race," though he does want us to know how awesome Christianity and Mormonism are.

I believe that American Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the modern world and that evangelicals are at the core of America’s backbone. And I have enormous respect for Mormons. 

As he so often does in his columns, Dennis doesn't believe in showing examples or anything, he just states the facts and moves on before anyone can argue with him. A sort of drive-by op-ed, if you will.


Dennis has three take-aways he wants evangelicals to know. First of all, Mormonism isn't a cult, because Dennis says so.

Over the course of time, as a religion establishes itself and its members act more or less like members of the older religions, the charge is usually dropped... After nearly 200 years, Mormons are an integral part of American society, with impressive reputations for family life, integrity and other values. The “cult” label just doesn’t seem appropriate.

Got it, Christians? It used to be a cult. Now it's cool. Get with it.


Second, evangelicals need to get over labels.

in the view of most evangelicals, if people wish to believe in the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the prophecy of Joseph Smith, that is their business, but to call these and other distinctive Mormon beliefs “Christian” bothers many evangelicals. Of course, Mormons respond that a religion that calls itself The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, can hardly be dismissed as non-Christian. But it is not my interest here to adjudicate this debate. I only wish to offer one reason that evangelicals might be disturbed by Mormonism calling itself Christian.

Well, that wasn't very decisive. Not taking a position on something? Live and let live? It looks like Dennis is getting all wishy-washy and liberally in his old age.


Last, Mormons can still be conservative without being evangelical.

Traditional Jews and evangelical Christians have quite different theologies, but they often have virtually identical values. (That is why this Jew is so supportive of evangelicals and why evangelical Christians syndicate my radio show.) Conservative Catholics and evangelicals differ on theology but share virtually every important value. The founders differed on theology but rarely on values.

Sigh.
A- Duh?
B- Nice weaseling by Dennis here. I know he went to Yeshiva day school, but he just had a column on how he isn't Orthodox, and he's publicly spoken about not keeping kosher. Exactly who is he kidding with this line about being a "traditional" Jew? Dennis is a liberally observant Jew with conservative politics. "Traditional Jew" implies something very specific, particularly to a non-Jewish audience, and it seems misleading.
C- Have you read anything the Founders wrote? They totally had different values, that's why they had different political parties!
D- I like how Dennis, judgmental crank par excellence, is telling the Christian right that they need to get over themselves and ratchet their righteous indignation down.



Last example comes from WND writer Jane Chastain, chastising her Christian brethren for their anti-Romney fears.

For too long, people of faith, and Christians in particular, have been lulled to sleep politically by anyone who claimed to be a member of the “right” church. He or she, in effect, had their religious ticket stamped. We elected them, hit the snooze button and they robbed us blind. How is that working out for you? 

...It wasn’t that long ago that many Protestants were afraid to vote for a Catholic for president for fear that the pope would be the de facto ruler of the country. Now, we are hearing the same kind of thing about Mitt Romney and the LDS president or prophet of the church. 

Another concern is that a Mormon president may mean more Mormon converts. Was there a surge of Catholic converts after the election of JFK? 

...There is no perfect candidate in the Republican field. However, short of a brokered convention, one of the four men still standing will be the GOP nominee. Let’s not rule one of them out simply because he is not a member of our faith.

Like Dennis, Chastain makes decent points here, but for me what's amazing is that these arguments have to be made in the first place. No kidding, you should elect someone who shares your values, even if you don't overlap with them 100%! That's how voting works. That evangelical voters are struggling with this just illustrates how much majoritarian privilege they are used to holding. It bothers me as a Jew that these folks are so culturally sheltered that the concept of voting for a non-Christian has never even crossed their minds before.


I guess it's nice that evangelicals are having these discussions, but for me it also shows just how large the gap is between my cultural and political experiences and theirs-- and the fact that this makes them so uncomfortable underscores why, for me, a specifically "Christian" America is one I do not want to live in.

A Tzimmes in a Teapot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.S.

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