The West Essex JRant

David Brooks: Obama’s Christian Realism - NYTimes.com

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:50:00 +0000

In the NYT times today, David Brooks writes in Obama’s Christian Realism that Obama's liberal realism is based on Christian dualism, an acknowledgment that each of us carries the instinct for both good and evil: "[A]s you act to combat evil, you wouldn’t want to get carried away by your own righteousness or be seduced by the belief that you are innocent. Even fighting evil can be corrupting." No person or group of people, no matter how righteous and God-fearing they may be, should trust that their intentions will lead inexorably to good outcomes. They must be vigilant not only of their enemies, but of themselves.

What strikes me is that this understanding pre-dates Christianity. It is part of the Jewish belief in the Yetzer HaTov [instinct for good] and Yetzer HaRa [instinct for evil]. Each of us in endowed with both instincts. Judaism takes this notion further, finding this fact to be a positive statement about our humanity. The Yetzer HaTov is clearly the instinct that we would choose to be primary in our lives. But, according to Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 9:7), “were it not for the Yetzer HaRa, a person would not build a house and would not marry and would not procreate and would not deal in business.” Thus, Judaism recognizes that even the evil inclination has a purpose that can lead to a good outcome. Capitalism is based on the notion that the pursuit of selfish interests can lead to economic value for all.

But, we need to be constantly aware that this inclination is at least as likely to lead to outcomes that can be destructive. Thus, we limit and restrain ourselves. David Brooks quotes Harry Truman, “We all have to recognize, no matter how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please.”

Cake Fight in Israel

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:24:00 +0000

The Media Line carries an article today that reports that the Israeli High Court has gotten involved in the issuance of Kashrut certificates. Specifically, whether a Kashrut certificate can be denied to a Messianic Jew. Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar wants the Knesset to draft a law that would ban the Israeli courts from getting involved in Kashrut

The chief rabbi's request follows a ruling by the high court that the Rabbinate had illegally revoked the kosher certification of a pastry shop owned by a woman who believes in Messianic Judaism, a movement that combines elements of both Judaism and Christianity.

This would seem to be a simple case of discrimination. Certainly a non-Jew can operate a Kosher establishment. But, buried in the article, is an important point that has me agreeing with those who argue that the High Court ruled incorrectly and should not have gotten involved:

The rabbinate had demanded that a kosher supervisor be given the keys to the pastry shop so as to ensure that kosher standards were adhered to.

Normally, I am as ready as any secular Israeli to assume the worst of the Rabbinate, but in this case, I think that they have a point.If they refuse to grant a Kashrut certificate under any circumstances, that is grounds to argue discrimination. However, implied by the article, they would grant the certificate if they were able to adequately inspect the facility operated by a non-Jew. So long as this approach is consistent with what they would do for any facility owned and operated by a non-Jew and does not preclude the owner from running his or her business, it seems to be a legitimate step to ensure that the store that they have certified as Kosher actually is.

Who Needs ID? – Part One | Cross-Currents

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:17:00 +0000

Who Needs ID? – Part One | Cross-Currents - a Reaction

Yitzchok Adlerstein writes an interesting piece about Evolution and Intelligent Design in Cross Currents. What makes it interesting is that Adlerstein is a generally a hard-line, fundamentalist Haredi who has little patience for those who would evince any doubt about the divine origins of Torah and the ultimate and exclusive correctness of his brand of Judaism. Having just finished Karen Armstrong's book "A Case for God", I understand a little better why a fundamentalist feels the need to reconcile his religious view with science. To Adlerstein's credit, he is not just rejecting science, but trying to come to terms with it:

Maybe I’m not properly Orthodox, but evolution is just not an issue for me. [...] I recognize that I am in the minority in this regard (although not so sure if this is true for frum folks with scientific background), but I made peace with evolution years ago. I’m neither convinced of its truth (although it explains volumes of collected phenomena that no one in the frum community even begins to deal with) nor convinced of its untruth. Of course I reject one small assumption made by some evolutionists, including the most strident and vocal ones. They believe that not only did G-d have no part in it, but that having adequately explained the Great Mystery of Life, there is no need to believe in G-d, c”v. My belief is that if the Ribbono Shel Olam set up the original conditions, including the physical constants of nature in such a way as to produce the world as we know it, using natural selection and about 15 billion years (a span of time so large I simply can’t wrap my mind around it to decide whether the scenario is plausible or ludicrous), I for one would have no objection. As R Samson Raphael Hirsch wrote in the infancy of the theory – well before he could, in all fairness, properly analyze it, but also before over a century of corroborating evidence – if the theory turns out to be true, we will stand in even greater awe of the wisdom of HKBH. There is wondrous elegance in reducing all of existence to what was contained in the singularity that preceded the laws of nature as we know them. Reducing all there is to a mysterious oneness has great appeal to me.

Adlerstein has been willing to loosen his grip on a literalist meaning of the Torah, at least the first chapters that describe in decidely non-scientific terms the creation of the world. This can be no easy feat for someone so squarely in the Haredi camp. He goes on to acknowledge the advantages of a non-literalist view to the scientist: "Evolution provides a framework for understanding much of the natural world... The language of biology is the language of evolution, and it has been that way for decades."

But Adlerstein knows that there are many in the Haredi camp may be better off simply keeping science at an arms length:

If you have no occasion to ever step over the threshold of modern science, there would seem to be little reason to abandon the plain meaning of the opening of Bereishis. This seems to be the message of quite a few Gedolei Torah who live in communities in which science simply doesn’t figure. Their advice should be vigorously heeded.

It is unfortunate that Adlerstein thinks that anyone should heed advice to remain ignorant. Ignorance is the antithesis of what Judaism stands for; Judaism has always been a search for truth. The greatest Jewish theologians and thinkers have been those who have understood that truth is elusive and conditional, subject to change and refinement through the introduction of new data.

But all of this discussion could be simply avoided by acknowledging that the purpose of science is neither to prove the existence of G-d nor to describe G-d's ways in the world. Neither is subject to scientific proof nor can they be disproved by any scientific method. Science, not religion, can explain the physical processes by which the piece of rock on which we exist came into being. Science, not religion, can explain the biological mechanisms by which single-cell protozoa may have mutated and evolved into human beings as well as other species. But science can provide no moral reason for that mutation, nor should it try. Having become human, science can not tell us how to live our lives with meaning, cope with adversity, die with dignity, and find our way to the bright light that is G-d's love - that is the realm of religion. So, I agree with Adlerstein (a rarity) when he says: "I feel comfortable getting up in the morning and shouting, 'Mah rabu ma’asecheh Hashem…!'"

Who Is a Jew? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question - NYTimes.com

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:53:00 +0000

Who Is a Jew? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question - NYTimes.com The New York Times reports on a case in Great Britain in which a family is suing a Jewish Day School because the school rejected their son's application to the school.

A few of the relevant facts of the case:

The boy's father is acknowledged to be a Jew.

The boy's mother is a convert in the Progressive movement (the European equivalent of Reform)

Religious schools receive funding from the state

The family sued and lost in the lower court, but the appeals court overturned that decision stating: “The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act,” the court said. It added that while it was fair that Jewish schools should give preference to Jewish children, the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but “on faith, however defined.”

The case is now before the English Supreme Court.

I have no insight into English jurisprudence, but it seems to me that the argument of the decision of the appellate court is right but for the wrong reason. The appellate court should not get involved in the question of whether a Jew is anyone who calls themselves a Jew. If a religion sets certain tests on one's membership, that is the business of the religious community and the state should not get involved. Where the court should get involved is to decide how the state determines where the authority for determining religious membership lies. Does the state recognize different types of Judaism (Orthodox, Progressive, Liberal, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Humanist, etc) or does the state recognize only a religion called Judaism? If the former, then the state has determined that there are actually many different religions, each calling itself Jewish, but each in fact distinct and therefore entitled to define membership according to its own rules. However, if the state determines that there is only one religion called Judaism within which there are several legitimate but variant streams, then the state may elect to recognize that any person who is acceptable to one of those streams is a Jew for the purpose of the state's functions. The state may also choose to disenfranchise all of the streams but one or to create tests that allow a determination of what is considered a legitimate stream for the purpose of state recognition within the body called Jews.

The mistake that the appellate court makes is in trying to make a state determination of who is a Jew. The court would be better off determining who can legitimately make that determination within the competing Jewish claims.

But most important for Americans, this is a cautionary example of the slippery slope that could affect Jews in this country should state financing of private, religious schools be enacted. Once a school opts to accept state financing, whether offered directly in the form of grants or indirectly in the form of vouchers, the school loses substantial control to determine who may and may not attend the school. In a school whose population is itself a statement about the school's philosophy, this could be a serious challenge to their identity.

One could use this case to warn those in the religious community who support school vouchers to be careful what they wish for.

Send Bush | Capital J | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:48:00 +0000

Send Bush as Middle East Envoy: Ami Eden notes that "Writing in Newsweek, Gregory Levey argues that President Obama should tap President George W. Bush to be his Middle East envoy..."

Levey writes: "During the Bush years, Israelis were consistently among the few foreign populations that gave the American president high approval marks -- often in far greater proportion than Americans themselves... Neither Obama nor his proxies enjoy anywhere near the same level of faith. ..."

How does this make any sense. Send someone who is a proxy for the Israelis and whose every proposal will be seen as an Israeli proposal and not as a third-party U.S. proposal? This makes no sense at all.

Obama is in a much stronger position to move the Palestinians towards the measures that they have to take to make negotiation acceptable - unfortunately, there is no Israeli partner anymore either. So, for the time being, Obama would best serve the interests of the Middle East by keeping an engaged mediator who will help to defuse tensions and keep low-level talks going until both parties are ready and able to move to more serious final stage talks.

The Kosher Pig

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Fri, 08 May 2009 09:15:00 +0000

From Maariv

האם קיים איסור על אכילת בשר חזיר?
לא. במשרד הבריאות מבהירים כי אין כל חשש מאכילת מזונות וכי “המחלה איננה מועברת במזון”. בארגון הבריאות העולמי מדגישים כי אין חשש מאכילת בשר חזיר שבושל כהלכה

Is there a prohibition to eat pork? No! The Ministry of Health clarifies that there is no danger in food consumption. The disease is not transmitted through food. The WHO emphasizes that there is nothing to be concerned about in eating pork that is cooked according to Halacha

From "Heretics and Humility"

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:11:00 +0000

In reaction to the 200 anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth: Avi Shafran writes in Cross-Currents:

Part of evolution’s upshot, of course, is that living things forever remain mere works in progress, which lends the hoopla over Darwin a tasty irony, since precisely the same is true about science. Even as seemingly perfect a system as Newtonian mechanics was subsumed, subtly but conclusively, by Einstein. Yet those who elevate Darwin’s theory to an article of faith seem unwilling to even consider that the current understanding of how species came about might one day be explained by a different and grander, if currently unimagined, conclusion than the one reached by the famed biologist. The idea that earth’s astounding array of life may owe itself to something other than the random mutation of species into others – a metamorphosis never reproduced in any laboratory – is a forbidden thought. Imagining “a biological Einstein,” to borrow Verlyn Klinkenborg’s phrase, has become heresy.

Shafran, to his credit, doesn't try to debunk evolution so much as to rail against those who accept it uncritically. However, we know that this is a thin veil for the type of pseudo-scientific rantings of the religious right who try to take scripture and turn it into a science textbook.

Shafran writes:

Thus, efforts to permit open discussion of Darwinism are derided as a “war on science.” And a leading scientific group is boycotting Louisiana because a law there permits teachers to use supplemental texts to “help students critique and review scientific theories.” And the Texas Board of Education is being petitioned to amend the state curriculum so that students are no longer encouraged to explore “the strengths and weaknesses” of all scientific theories – words, the petitioners say, that dangerously suggest that Darwinism could be wrong.

What he fails to say is that the Louisiana and Texas issues are the maddening attempt by the religious right to inject religious belief into the science lab. To suggest that religious belief can substitute for or be used to critique science to fail to understand both science and religion. Science is the attempt to explain physical behavior through verifiable and testable models. Religion is an attempt to explain the metaphysical and inherently unknowable reasons behind the physical world. The two have no place side by side because they explore entirely different propositions.

Shafran calls for humility among those who accept the theory of evolution:

A little humility would help us recognize that, no matter our scientific progress, we humans resemble nothing so much as the proverbial blind men first contemplating an elephant, each touching a different part of the pachyderm and concluding that the beast is shaped, variously, like a tree, or a snake, or a sail or a wall. No, not an elephant; we are blind men confronting a rainbow.

Perhaps some humility among the religous right, acknowledging their limited ability to comprehend the will and working of G-d, would be similarly welcome

A Huge Mistake: OU says Lookstein broke their rules

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:02:00 +0000

The JTA reports: "A Rabbinical Council of America official told JTA that Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, the religious leader of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in New York City, broke the organization's rules by participating in the service Wednesday at the National Cathedral on the morning after Barack Obama's inauguration."

This is a huge mistake by the OU to have even released the press release. I understand that they, mistakenly, believe that it is inappropriate for a Jew to enter a space used by another religion (church, mosque, temple, etc), but it is a big political mistake to make a big deal of it on the day of Barack Obama's inauguration. The OU should have simply looked the other way and let it go.

Google Reader (9)

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:46:00 +0000

Yaakov Menken demonstrates the effects of cognitive dissonance. He still can't believe that Jews voted for Obama and that his guy lost. To make his point, he contrasts the Bush Administration's response to yesterday's Israeli action with that of the Obama transition team. Bush, correctly, responded by supporting Israel. Obama, correctly, responded by supporting Bush. Menken writes that:

"“She [Brooke Anderson, Obama’s national security spokeswoman] said Saturday that Obama ‘is closely monitoring global events, including the situation in Gaza, but there is one president at a time.’” In other words, if you think Obama and Bush see eye to eye… well, iy”H this war will be over long before January 20."

How does Obama's correct assertion indicate anything but support for Bush? It would be highly inappropriate for Obama to have said anything else. To have inserted his own position, even if it corresponds exactly with the current administration, would be to indicate that there is more than one legitimate source for U.S. policy.

Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas - Jeffrey Goldberg

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:06:00 +0000

Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas - Jeffrey Goldberg writes:

"Via Instapundit comes the news that Amazon has now banned the term 'Christmas' from one of its advertising campaigns. It is now, on Amazon, '12 Days of Holiday,' rather than '12 Days of Christmas.'"

Apparently, Amazon has realized the error of its ways and re-inserted Christmas into its web page. I can't figure out who objects to using the word Christmas to describe the holiday that occurs on December 25 every year. Avi Shafran wrote that he had no objection to the fact that the White House had mistakenly sent its Hanukkah invitation to him using the Christmas artwork. It may be a sign of the continuing Bush White House incompetence, but it hardly rises to the level of offensive.

What surprises me is that in this age of personalization, Amazon doesn't give customers a way to modify their account to indicate holidays of interest. It would be pretty easy for Amazon to give me the option to be greeted with "15 days to Hanukkah/Kwanza" or some other drivel if I object to Christmas.

Secular, but Jewish | The Telegraph | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:29:00 +0000

I have argued for some time that there is a fundamental difference between how a Jew sees him or herself in the Diaspora from self-identity in Israel.

Anshel Pfeffer in Ha'aretz writes:

"Israel, the Zionist project, was founded... to serve as a secular Jewish alternative to life in the Diaspora. And while it's far from perfect, for most Israelis, it is still a credible option. They are not blind to its shortcomings, but they are still content with living their Jewish lives here."

Pfeffer is right, but mostly he is wrong. That many early Zionists were secular and envisioned a secularization of Judaism is undeniable. However, many early Zionists were also deeply religious. To say that Zionism is an exclusively secular pursuit is simply wrong. To say that secular Israelis are living "Jewish lives" is equally wrong.

Jews in the Diaspora have no real way to define themselves as Jews except in relation to a religious context. Whether they are themselves religious and define their Judaism through their religious sensitivities or in opposition to religion, the Diaspora Jewish identity is essentially one of religion or its rejection.

Jews in Israel have a national identity that they can substitute for or which can sublimate religious identity. Israeli religious involvement suffers from the same forces that have driven religion largely out of the public space in Europe: an exclusivist and rigid view of religion leads most people to opt out of religious engagement altogether. Israelis may be very much interested in the questions that religion can address, but the right-wing's hold on all religious expression provides them with no outlet. Therefore, they are driven towards a nationalist view of Jewish identity that denies space to a religious outlook.

That Judaism means nothing more than Israeli citizenship for a majority of Israeli Jews is not a circumstance for celebration but one that should raise profound concern for all who cherish what it means to be Jewish.

Bigotry? I don't think so.

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:54:00 +0000

Yaakov Menken writes in Cross-Currents:

"[...] racism is but one variety of bigotry. One Orthodox Rabbi silenced a supposedly “liberal” student by asking her: “ok, so you know your parents would be happy, tolerant and loving if you chose a black man to be your spouse. What if he were black-hatted?"

This is not bigotry - as if there is no difference between a black-hat Jew and a liberal, even modern Orthodox, Jew. The problem is not some uninformed mistrust of the "Other" whose only real difference is skin color. It is the very real knowledge that the very black-hatted Jew rejects and decries the very religious truths that we hold dear. Instead of "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner," we would have "Guess Who Won't Eat With Us"

I'm sorry but the schism that exists between black-hats and the rest of the Jewish world is very real and very defensible.

Poor Michael Lerner: Rahm Emanuel No Reason for Celebration

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:37:00 +0000

Poor Michael Lerner. He is saddened that Barack Obama, once the darling of the left wing, has inexplicably moved towards the center. He writes: "So no wonder [after the Obama's win] many of us were shocked and deeply disappointed when we learned on Thursday that Congressman Rahm Emanuel was to be the Chief of Staff in the Obama White House."

No matter that perhaps Obama wants to be President for the entire country, not just the progressive wing of the Democratic party (of which I am a proud member). No matter than Emmanuel is known not as an ideologue but as someone who knows how to get things done. No matter that Emmanuel's selection calms the worst fears of the vast majority of Jews who support Israel.

I too think that the Bush administration was too soft on Israel and too disengaged. I agree that territorial compromise is necessary and that many of the settlements need to be either removed or handed over to a Palestinan state. But I don't harbor the illusions that Lerner apparently still clings to that the Palestinians are ready to assume the mantle of responsible leadership. There is no indication that any positive moves by Israel would be met with appropriate positive responses by the Palestinians.

It is possible, like Nixon and China, that the selection of an Israeli hawk like Emmanuel (if he really is one), provides the cover for Obama to take serious, considered and positive action to broker a deal that will lead to a two-state solution. Many have suggested that Emmanuel will provide the "bad-cop" cover for Obama in various political situations, why not with Israel and the Palestinians?

My goodness, Michael - you can't even call him President yet and the honeymoon is already over?

California Proposition 8: Gay Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:25:00 +0000

I was reading a blog post praising the passage of proposition 8 (which, had I been able to vote in California, I would have opposed), which reminded me that I wanted to make a short comment about gay marriage - or more accurately about the state's position in marriage.

(UPDATED: You might want to take to look at this "bloggingheads.tv" discussion on the issue)

The issue of whether the state should allow two adults of the same sex to marry has been a social hot topic for several years. Various state courts have taken up the question as to whether their individual constitutions require such a provision. New Jersey's Supreme Court decision opted for a middle ground requiring that all of the benefits and obligations inherent in civil marriage must be extended to gay couples, but that the state need not call this "marriage." Instead, the state could call it a "civil union." When I asked then Attorney General Stuart Rabner what the legal difference was between "marriage" and "civil union" as a result of the court ruling, he replied "None." It is only a difference in name. Significantly, when Rabner issued his ruling that public officials who performed weddings could not refuse to perform gay weddings (all or nothing was the essential ruling), he exempted religious officials from that edict, thereby signaling the difference between state-sponsored marriages and those performed by a religious institution.

That short conversation and subsequent thinking led me to the conclusion that the state should remove itself entirely from the business of regulating "marriage." The state's business should be in creating the ability to enter into legal domestic arrangements that would, for the purpose of the state, be called "civil unions." Marriage would become the sole prerogative of each church, which could bestow the sanctification of marriage as the church saw fit. Churches (used inclusively to refer to all religious institutions) would be able to determine without any state interference whether to sanctify a particular union or not. The state would determine entirely independently of any church whether a domestic arrangement rose to the level of a civil union. The two would likely be similar in most cases, but they would not longer be tied together.

What would be the result of such a change? It would change the nature of the debate. Once the religious issue is separated from the civil issue, we can focus on other questions. Is promoting civil union in the interest of the state? I believe that it is. Our community benefits by stable family units that have predictable and defined rights and responsibilities to each other and the community. If that is the case, then promoting stable gay families is no less beneficial than promoting stable straight families. There are those who would argue that a gay couple is less capable of raising children than straight couples. While the welfare of children is certainly a central concern of the state, all evidence suggests that gay families are just as stable as heterosexual families. Other evidence suggests that having gay friends leads the rest of us to be more tolerant and open of all people, clearly a goal that the state should promote.

Most importantly, however, is the very idea of fairness. As state after state has done away with discriminatory practices against individuals who are gay, so should it do away with discrimination in this important area. Recognizing that the religious sphere, which can, sometimes of necessity, be discriminatory, should be protected from the interests of the state (the very basis of the separation of church and state), the state should relinquish its claim to "marry" people and instead focus on civil unions that promote the interests of the state.

Rahm Emmanuel - How will the Chareidim react?

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:29:00 +0000

We all know by now that Rahm Emmanuel is an observant Modern Orthodox Jew. What I did not know is that he is married to a convert. Shmarya Rosenberg in FailedMessiah.com writes "Emmanuel's wife is a convert, converted by Rabbi Lopatin. As things now stand, the new Chief of Staff is married to a woman Israel's Chief Rabbinate won't recognize as Jewish, even though her conversion was done by an Orthodox rabbi."

According to the Wikipedia on Rahm Emmanuel, his wife, Amy Rule, converted shortly before their marriage, presumably in order to marry him. So, wereRahm Emmanuel's children to choose to marry in Israel (they are young now and presumably this is not going to be a problem during the Obama years), how would the Rabbinate find its way to avoid the embarrassment that would certainly arise?

The Israeli Rabbinate is painting itself into a corner. Eventually, whether it is the Emmanuel family or some other prominent family, the Rabbinate is going to find that it has to come to grips with the fact that the Jewish family is not to neatly defined as they might wish.

The Chareidi Political Myth

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:40:00 +0000

Jonathan Rosenblum in Cross Currents rants about how the Mainstream Media (MSM) was so deeply in Obama's pocket that they tried to steal the election. The fact that there is a whole conservative media infrastructure (e..g., Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc) that provided its own perspective on the election seems to have escapted Rosenblum. As an aside, Rosenblum states:

Note to American Jews, who polls showed fleeing from the Republican ticket because of Palin’s presence: Continually giving expression to your loathing of devout Christians and expressing your worries that they are busy plotting the next pogram or the imposition of a Christian theocracy, on no evidence, is a pretty fair recipe for alienating Israel’s strongest supporters in the United States and creating anti-Semites where none were previously found.

As if the only reason that American Jews might have rejected Palin was her religion. Vice Presidential selections rarely have a substantial effect on a Presidential race, but in this case, polling data suggests that if Palin had any effect, it was a positive one. Reports the National Review

on balance, people who thought Palin's presence on the ticket was important were more likely to vote McCain by a significant margin.

The fact is that most American Jews, if they cared at all at Sarah Palin, were simply further swayed by McCain's appalling lack of sense in picking perhaps the least prepared women in the Republican party to be his running mate.

Rosenblum, who is one of the least myopic of the Chareidi commentators, is so incensed that his candidate lost, dismisses the possibility that Jews, like the majority of the American people, made a considered choice for broad, complex reasons. Ynetnews reports that 78% of American Jews voted for Obama, up 3% (within the margin of error) from those who voted for John Kerry. So, American Jews increased their support for Obama, in spite of the hateful smear campaign, to which Rosenblum contributed. Instead, American Jews were the one white group to overwhelmingly support Barack Obama, our next President.

Like so many American Jews, on election day and for the days since, I am proud to be both an American and a Jew.

Respect for other religions?

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:50:00 +0000

Emanuel Feldman, in Cross-Currents, published an article entitled Missionaries on the Jewish Doorstep in which he discusses the Jewish attitude towards those who practice other religions. He states:

We are not a missionary religion, and the benevolent behavior of the modern State of Israel toward non-Jewish religious minorities demonstrates Jewish magnanimity to those who do not follow Jewish ways. We have only respect for those who wish to worship their own deity in their own way, and to live ethically and lovingly with all people. We condemn those who would demean or use violence against believers of another religion.(emphasis added)

Is it odd Feldman would reject violence against those who practice other religions, but seems to be silent about violence against Jews whose practice is different from the Chareidi view of Judaism?

Israeli-Disapora Relations

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:28:00 +0000

In an article in the Forward titled Israeli Prime Minister Turns Tables, Asks Diaspora: What Can We Do for You? Anthony Weiss reports that Ehud Olmert has asked, in a change of direction, what Israel can do to support the Diaspora:

Olmert suggested a number of practical possibilities — among them an international network of Israeli cultural houses, programs that would send Israeli teachers to Jewish schools around the world and venues to connect Israeli expatriates to local Jewish communities — all to be jointly funded by Diaspora Jews and the Israeli government.

What is even more important to Jews around the Diaspora is the sense that living as a Jew in the Diaspora is not wholly different and incompatible with living as a Jew in Israel. Perhaps nothing divides Diaspora and Israeli Jewry more completely than the sense that what it means to be a Jew is so different for both communities. Diaspora Jewry has a broad and largely inclusive definition of what it means to be a Jew. Certainly, there are many individual Diaspora communities that shun other groups of Jews and label them as inauthentic. But they have no power to influence or affect the vast majority of Diaspora Jews in any meaningful way.

However, in Israel, a minority of Jews make it virtually impossible for the majority Jewish community to actively live meaningful Jewish lives. Through their political power, the Chareidim demand adherence to their own narrow and largely anachronistic view of what it means to be Jewish. The Chareidim have so successfully promoted their view of what Judaism means that most Israelis have little interest in being Jewish. They would prefer to leave that to the odd-looking people in their long silk coats and funny hats who don't seem to live in the same real world that most of us populate.

For most of Diaspora Jewry, the gap between their idea of a Jewish life lived well is very different from what they see going on in Israel. It makes it almost impossible for Diaspora Jews to identify with and seek relationship with their Israeli counterparts. If Olmert wants to increase the connection between these two communities, he needs to look at what it means to be a Jew and not just what it means to be an Israeli.

The "Cult" of Oprah Inflames Religious Right?

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:40:00 +0000

I happened to read Gary Laderman's article The "Cult" of Oprah Inflames Religious Right that starts out:

[There are some in] conservative Christian circles who point to comments of
hers that have been floating around the web for some time: "... One of the
mistakes that human beings make is believing that there is only one way to
live... there couldn't possibly be just one way [to God]..."

Asked by an audience member: "what about Jesus?" Oprah responds: "What
about Jesus?"

I thought that he was then going to talk about the lack of respect for pluralism on the religious right. What a surprise to find that he instead launched into a lengthy discussion of how Oprah is a cult-like figure that is threatening the very foundation of Christianity. I spent most of the column wondering if the whole thing was intended to be ironic - but he is serious!

Evangelizing Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:20:00 +0000

Not surprisingly, Abe Foxman and the ADL has denounced the recent New York Times ad "by the World Evangelical Alliance, a 162-year-old global network that claims to represent 420 million evangelicals." (See the JTA article). I don't understand Abe's problem: these are our friends and, frankly, I'm not insulted in the least that they want me to have the Good News, as they see it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I disagree with my friends all of the time; that doesn't make them less my friends.

I'm not ignoring the danger inherent in evangelization - that some Jews might actually come to accept the message. But this doesn't bother me either, for two reasons. First, I don't think that Judaism is the only path to G-d and, for some who are born Jews, a Christian path might even be the right one for them. I certainly don't discourage Christians from exploring a Jewish path that might speak to them more fully than their current one.

Even more important - shame on us if we don't educate our children sufficiently to see the beauty, joy, hope, and fulfillment of a life lived Jewishly. Our own failure to articulate our own Good News is at the heart of any success that evangelicals may have. Competition is good.

I'm glad that the evangelicals love me enough to want me with them. I'm even happier that they finally realize that they don't have to kill me to show their love.

On Knee Jerk reactions

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:18:00 +0000

Avi Shafran writes in

What Remains (Cross-Currents): "Because all that many, if not most, of the Jewish Week’s readers will likely ever remember about the entire business will be a
mendacious headline. Despite all the setting straight of facts, what will remain
in minds – not to mention in the eternal echo-chamber of cyberspace – will be
only those deceptive, in fact slanderous, words."

Shafran is writing about the distortions in a report that evaluated sexual abuse in the Orthodox community. Shafran took issue with the methodology and has received some level of support from the authors of the report.

This post is a response to the responses to Shafran original article. As he points out, many respondents took umbrage at what they saw as a willingness to cover-up abuse in the Orthodox community.

What I note is the last paragraph, which reminds me that it is far too easy to assume that we know who the enemy is and what he will say. We speak far too often and listen far too little. I don't agree with R' Shafran on many, many issues, but I find him routinely insightful and his input is invaluable.

Freedom of Expression - especially when it hurts

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:42:00 +0000

I just saw an article from the JTA in which a book that is reputedly rabidly anti-religion would be banned with the blessing of the Jewish Council:

Stephan Kramer, secretary general of the Central Council of Jews in
Germany, said he thought the book was equally mean to all three faiths. "It is
simply anti-religious… and militantly atheistic," he said in a statement. "What
is perfidious and dangerous is that it uses very attractive graphics to appeal
to young children, who are not able to respond to such anti-religious
baiting."

This is an issue to be handled in Germany, by Germans, but it illustrates once again that Freedom of Expression is easy when nothing particularly hurtful is said. It really counts when you find the content and/or form of the message repugnant. Banning books, no matter how mean-spirited, is worse than the reputed harm that the book may cause.

A Conservative Jew's Bookshelf

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:11:00 +0000

I am posing a challenge for those who are have created a library or are interested in creating a library. If you had $500 available and were starting from scratch, what you would purchase to create a Jewish bookshelf appropriate for and relevant to the Conservative Jew.

A caveat - This list is for books that you will want to have at your fingertips, to which you will refer time and again. This is not a list of books you need to have read but books that you need to have. Many of the books on my list are of the reference variety. Some, I have read from cover to cover. Others, I pick up and skim when the mood or need arises.

Here is my current list, which adds up to $491.08. I have created a link for each book so you can look up more information if you are so inclined.

Chumash (Etz Chayim - $72.50)

This is really hard. I happen to really like the Stone Chumash because it has the Rashi and its translation is very literal. A literal translation is valuable for someone who is interested in the etymology of the word. In some senses, it is like having a dictionary available to help me translate words that I don't know. I also like the Stone Chumash because its derash is very traditional. As a Conservative Jew, I would rather start with the traditional interpretation and then find ways to work with it in a modern context than starting with my modern bias and ignoring the traditional because it is too, well, traditional.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Plaut Chumash is also very good. Gunther Plaut wrote this chumash for the Reform movement and in the truest and best spirit of Reform Judaism. Instead of throwing out all of the traditional and problematic interpretations, he brings in a host of traditional and modern interpretations and lets the reader decide which to accept and reject. He makes no attempt to hide Reform Judaism's rejection of the Torah as divine writ, but in including traditional interpretations and comments on the Torah, he implicitly acknowledges that Reform Judaism is neither the first nor the last word on the subject.

However, as a Conservative Jew, I am going to "have my cake and it it too." I have selected the Etz Chayim because presents the Conservative movement's approach to Torah. In no other selection below have I made a selection based on it being the Conservative entry to the area under consideration. But here, where we are talking about the fundamental text on which everything else is based, I have to bow to that consideration. That said, the Etz Chayim is a very strong entry in its own right. The translation is the New JPS and the commentary blends peshat (face-value interpretation) with derash (homiletic). The essays at the back are worth the price of the book itself.

Tanakh (ArtScroll Stone - $53.99; Jewish Study Bible - $29.70)

Tankakh again is a tough one and here I think I am going to spend the money on two. One is the the ArtScroll Stone edition of the Tanakh. This way I get the Hebrew text and the literalist translation that I want. The Stone Tanakh does not contain the extensive commentary found in the Stone Chumash, but it gives me a reasonably compact volume that contains both Hebrew and English text. It is a good choice for a quick reference to the text.

In addition, I am adding the Jewish Study Bible, to which I was introduced by Gary Rendsberg during my Me'ah class. I really like this Bible for its modern, critical approach to the text. There is lots of good material here. The big downside is that it doesn't have the Hebrew, which I think is essential.

Put the two together and you have a good set that covers both a right-wing "traditional" position and a modern, critical position.

Siddur (ArtScroll - $31.99)

This one is easy. The ArtScroll Siddur is far and away the best siddur that I have used for general purposes. It is complete and the instructional information is easy to follow and invaluable. When you need to find the blessing for a rainbow or the sheva brachot for a bris or Kiddush Levanah - it is all there. If you aren't sure who has precendence on Torah Aliyot or what to do when you are missing a Kohen - it is spelled out. The instructions on when to include or omit certain prayers is generally easy to follow. Other siddurim may have more theologically pleasing translations or textual emendations, but this one has all the critical stuff. People who have theological differences with the traditional text can add other versions to their collection, but for a basic bookshelf, this is the one to have. All the others are secondary.

Lawrence Hoffman's amazing compendium to the Siddur: My People's Prayer Book would be a must have, but at over $200 for the set, it has to wait for the next $500 installment. This is a must-have for anyone who wants to really understand Jewish prayer. Hoffman and his collection of contributors cover everything from the history of the prayer to the challenges in translation to the choices that different editors have made when compiling their own Siddur. If you have an extra $200 and you are interested in gaining a real understanding of Jewish prayer, this collection is wonderful.

Hebrew-English Dictionary (Alcalay Complete English-Hebrew Dictionary, New Enlarged Edition - $111)

Jews are people of the Book, but if you don't know what the words in the book mean, then you are left out on the sidelines. A good Hebrew-English dictionary should be on everyone's bookshelf. The Alcalay is class for a reason. It is probably the largest and most comprehensive dictionary available. It has not only modern Hebrew, but also Biblical and Aramaic references. It doesn't take the place of Jastrow for the serious learner, but it is comprehensive and vital.

Guide to Observance (A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice - $27.50)

This guide by Rabbi Isaac Klein is indispensable to the Conservative household. I don't know what its equivalent is in an Orthodox house. This guide covers all of the key issues relating to Jewish observance. It discusses daily prayer, Shabbat and Holidays. It covers ritual ranging from Bris to Mourning and everything in between. While no book can cover everything and I have occasionally had questions that were not answered, by and large, when I need to know the answer to a practical question of observance, Klein has answered it.

Mourning (The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning - $12.89)

The may be nothing more difficult for a person to confront than death. Whether a death in one's own family or the need to comfort a friend, death is a hard topic to approach and many of us feel at a loss as to what to do or say when put into this position. Lamm's book is a classic, covering much of the ground that a Jew needs to know to navigate through this very difficult time. While there are many other books that may provide more spiritual comfort to the mourner, this book is essential on your bookshelf to consult when you just need to know what to do or what not to do.

I would love to add some other books here. Goldberg's Mourning in Halacha is also very good, but I found that he cites some very right-wing halachic positions that are not suitable for more modern Jews. What is really helpful about this book is that he cites the sources for each of his statements, so if you want to research the issue, you have direction. Also, the book is laid out in a way that makes it easy to find his position on very specific issues. It is a book of law rather than an excursus on Jewish mourning. Lamm's book is more readable.

I also really like Wieseltier's Kaddish. It is a fascinating mixture of the personal and the academic. It is not an easy read, but I marveled at the depth of Wieseltier's research and the breadth of his observation. Ultimately, it doesn't make my list because it is a great book to read, but it isn't one that you will want to have at your fingertips.

Modern Theology (Choices in Modern Jewish Thought: A Partisan Guide - $22.50)

I love to read theology. Some of it is too arcane for me (Levinas comes to mind and forget about reading Rosenzweig) but every thoughtful Jew should be familiar with and be able to refer back to the critical trends in modern Jewish thought. Borowitz may be the greatest teacher of Jewish theology of our time and his book is a classic for reviewing and providing snippets of the critical strains of thought that have influenced modern Judaism. This is a book to refer to time and again when trying to place different thinkers into a broader context.

Jewish Literacy (Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People and Its History - $23.10)

Telushkin's book is already a classic for a bookshelf reference overview of Jewish writing. He covers the gamut of Jewish history from Biblical through modern periods providing short descriptions and definitions of key terms, biographies of important people, and a broad overivew of Jewish history. He can't cover everything and what he covers is superficial, but for a one-volume overview, his is the best I have seen.

Legends and Stories (Book of Legends/Sefer Ha-Aggadah: Legends from the Talmud and Midrash - $55.97; Tales of the Hasidim - $15.00)

Judaism has an incredibly rich history and literature. No people is complete without their stories. Bialik's Book of Legends is a wonderful volume to have on the shelf. It collects hundreds of short stories from the classic texts and organizes them according to theme. This is the kind of book that you will pull off the shelf when you are looking for a short, pithy story or anecdote to underline an idea.

What Bialik misses is the wonderful treasure of Hasidic stories that has become a key part of the literature of the Jews. While not that old, dating back only to the 17th and 18th centuries CE, these stories have entered the Jewish bloodstream and are told as if they are ancient midrash. Buber's collection is the classic. I have a two-volume edition that I like better than the current one-volume edition available from Amazon, but I think it is out of print.

Holidays (Jewish Holidays - $16.47)

A library needs to have a book on the Jewish Holidays. Unfortunately, I can't say that I am that familiar with the range of options. I have found Strassfield's Jewish Holidays to be very usable and probably fits the bill. The price is certainly right to fit in our budget. I am open to other suggestions on this one.

Jewish History (Open)

I have read many Jewish History books, but none stand out in my mind as definitive and essential. I would love to have suggestions in this area.

Jewish Atlas (Barnavi, A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People: From the Time of the Patriarchs to the Present - $18.47)

Is it possible to understand Jewish History without an atlas to show the changing geography of the Jewish people? Barnavi's Atlas, which I do not own, appears to be an outstanding choice. It combines the expected maps and charts with essays on each period in Jewish History. There are other atlas choices out there, but this one seems to be the one to pick.

Ok - that is my list (for now). Now it is your turn - what would you change? Remember, the rule is that the total list has to be $500 or less.

Bone Transplant - Kosher for Kohen?

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:12:00 +0000

I was reading this article about Robin Ventura and his ankle-bone transplant. Ventura mangled his ankle in 1997 and the problem grew progessively worse through his playing career. Eventually, he got to the point where he could barely walk. He underwent a procedure in which part of his ankle was replaced by a bone from a cadaver. According to the article, the procedure was a success and Ventura can now walk pain-free.

My question is: can a Kohen undergo such a procedure? Assuming that the procedure is to improve the quality of life, but not to save his life, can he accept part of a dead body?

Pirke Avot 1:3

noreply@blogger.com (Derek Fields) — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:24:00 +0000

Antignos of Socho received [the tradition] from Shimon the Righteous. He
used to say: Do not be as servants who serve the Master to receive reward.
Rather, be as servants who serve the Master not to receive reward. And let the
fear of heaven be upon you.

The famous Israel philosopher and theologian Yeshayahu Leibowitz argued in support of Antignus of Socho that the only valid reason for performing the mitzvot is because it is G-d's command. Any other reason, as our mishna suggests, would fall to the status of expecting a reward. No motivation except the fear of heaven, by which we mean acceptance of the commandments, is sufficient reason to compell us to act according to Halacha.

For most of us, it would seem that both Leibowitz and Antignos of Socho are asking of us that we perform the impossible. Even when our motives are pure, our actions are always with an eye of the effect. It is certainly simple enough to eschew the more crass and materialistic rewards that we might think accrue to those who follow G-d's ways. Most of us understand that there is no quid pro quo that attends to those who follow the mitzvot. By the time we have reached adulthood, we no longer think that simply because we are good people that only good things must result.

But putting aside material rewards such as riches or even more spiritual requests such as good health, each of acts with the idea that some good will accrue to us because of our actions. We give tzedakah not because it puts a point on our scoreboard when we stand before G-d, but because doing so gives us the sense of satisfaction that we have done the right thing. We eat according to Jewish law for many reasons: it allows us to participate in the Jewish community; it adds a sense of kedusha (holiness) to the mundane act of eating; it may be healthier. All of these reasons cary with it some sense of reward or compensation for having chosen to follow the laws of Kashrut. In keeping Shabbat we are compensated by the sense of peace and tranquility that setting aside this day brings to us. Indeed, for many with hectic lives, the thought of setting aside a day increases stress, not the opposite and thus they do not observe Shabbat.

Yet, it is possible to understand how we can follow this Mishna if we separate the notion of serving one's master in general from specific deeds that our Master may require of us. The general notion is summed up in the beginning of the Sh'ma when we are told, "You shall love the Lord your G-d with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might." The basic thought that should guide us in doing G-d's commands is that we are commanded to love G-d. But the very notion that we can be commanded to love G-d is a paradox. (See Chapter 11 of Louis Jacobs A Jewish Theology for a detailed discussion of this issue). How can we be commanded to love anyone; love is an emotion over which we have no control. Thus, when we truly love, whether it is our parents, our spouse or our children, our family or our friends, we do so without thought of reward. We love and from that love we are motivated to do things that demonstrate our love.

In the same way, if we truly love G-d, then we are motivated to follow G-d's commandments not in the hopes of receiving a reward but because this is how we demonstrate our love for G-d. We run to perform to mitzvot out of our deep feeling of love for G-d. This is how we can be like the servant who serves the Master without thought of reward.