The themes of life and death are especially poignant illustrations of the Jewish New Year, as we reflect upon our mortality and the moral choices we have made in the course of the past year. Every thought, every word, and every deed has binary consequences. Each act can, as Maimonides explains, redeem the world, or bring about its ruination.

One might wonder: Why would anyone want to choose death over life? Why would anyone prefer cursedness over blessedness? Blessedness and cursedness are not abstractions; they are the products of a lifestyle that people consciously or unconsciously choose.

According to Fromm, two fundamentally orientations compete for the soul of the individual and the world: biophilia and necrophilia. Biophilia denotes the love of life, while necrophilia denotes the love of death.  The love of life is what we experience when observing the beauties of nature; in terms of human behavior, biophilia stresses the importance of treating life with sanctity and dignity.  According to this perspective, life is of infinite value. Love leads to a greater valuation of the people we meet in our lives; whether it is a spouse, a family member who is ailing, or even the stranger who cries out for our generosity and kindness. Fromm felt that human beings must learn to transcend their animalistic evolution by engendering life and resist the impulse to destroy it.

Contrary to popular perceptions, the necrophiliac is not someone who delights in ravishing corpses. Fromm regards necrophilia as a hostility and death force that finds its delight in the devaluation of life; to the necrophiliac, people are objects—a utilitarian means toward a utilitarian end. In a modern society, the worship of technology (especially with respect to the military), the absence of love, and the emergence of the bureaucratic State contribute toward necrophilia as a life-orientation.

Fromm argues that the necrophile’s passion aims to transform that which is alive into something dead, to tear down for the pleasure of seeing an object’s destruction, in obliterating sentient and living structures. Such a person believes that the only way to solve a problem or conflict is through force and violence. Constructive approaches stressing sympathy and co-operative effort.

How does one develop an attitude of biophilia? This all depends upon our upbringing. Living in a life-furthering environment (family and society), develops the biophilous passions of love, tenderness, justice, and the desire to grow things and to further life. Should this impulse be frustrated, resulting in the frustration of our fundamental existential needs, we are likely to develop the character-rooted passions of hate, greed, jealousy, envy, cruelty, narcissism, and destructiveness.

Actions mold character.

When observing the struggles between Palestinians and Israelis, it is not hard to see that the forces of biophilia vs necrophilia exist within each society itself. Radical elements within both communities view violence as a means of achieving their goals—finding delight in the victimization of the Other.

Gaza, for example, poses a very serious problem. Given their propensity toward the worst kinds of violence, Israel is forced to block ships carrying military weapons intended for her destruction. The community of Sedroth endured thousands of missiles shot at their homes and city before Israel finally responded. And despite the criticism the Israeli military received from the Western media, Israel acted with remarkable restraint given the fact that Hamas hid behind human shields.

Like the Nazis of old, today’s radical Islam delights in creating corpses—even if the corpses come from the rank and file of its own society!  Most Americans would be shocked if somebody dedicated a museum to honor the memory of men like Jeffrey Dahmer. Yet,  Gaza maintains museums displaying the body parts of Israelis killed by suicide bombers. Eric Fromm, one of the greatest psychologists and perhaps unsung Jewish thinkers of the 20st century presented one of his most penetrating insights when he described the genocidal mentality that has produced so much suffering in our world.

Haredi Jews, for example, demonstrate a contempt toward others whenever throwing stones at those people who “desecrate” the Sabbath. The violence in Israeli society we have seen with respect to the exhumation of cemeteries reflects the necrophilia of Fromm’s analysis.  Progressive forces within the Palestinian community risk life and limb standing up to the decadent powers that control and micromanage Palestinian society.

I would further add that in recent days, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira (of Chabad) was arrested for inciting violence against the Palestinian Arabs. Shapira is also a rabbi at the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva. Shapira’s controversial book, “The King’s Torah,” regards the killing of non-Jews who threaten Israel as halachically legal. “It is permissible to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation,” the book says, adding: “If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments – because we care about the commandments – there is nothing wrong with the murder. . . It is permissible to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation.”

The Imams of Gaza certainly endorse the concept, but merely apply it to Jews instead. Once a community turns on the outsider, it is only a matter of time before they turn on their fellow members who differ from the reigning status quo.

As anyone can plainly see, standing up to these retrograde and atavistic forces of fundamentalist leaders requires diligence and persistence; but it is a battle, indeed even a “holy war” that can be won with sobriety, patience, and–most importantly–with determination.

More recently Anshel Pfeffer, a columnist of the Ha’aretz newspaper, argues that the fast of the 10th month would eventually come to an end, and with the other fast days[1], will become transformed into days of feasting and happiness (Zech 8:19).

Pfeffer writes:

“Changed attitudes by God and Israel prompted a question: What is the need for all these fasts? There was none. Instead of having fasts to remember all the bad moments in their history, God instructed them to have joyful feasts. In other words, the fasts were to be turned to feasts and occasions of joy. “The fast … shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore, love the truth and peace” (8:19). The horrors of the fall of Jerusalem, the burning of the Temple, and other calamities would drift into obscurity as joy flooded their hearts through the manifold mercies of the Lord . . . ”

One must ask: Have we in our own day realized this ancient biblical prophecy? Well, in a word: yes and no. The Jewish return to her ancestral homeland is indeed one of the most remarkable chapters of Jewish history–both ancient and modern–and logically one could make the case that Tisha’ B’Av has finally fulfilled its purpose. However, the fact remains that the Third Temple has not yet been built, and given the draconian attitude of the Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox and Hassidic leadership), one can safely conclude that the Third Temple will not be built any time in the near or distant future.

Exile is more than just a brute physical fact, it is a way of thinking; unfortunately, our spiritual healthiness today reflects a religious community that is at odds within itself. The recent attempt to delegitimize the Diaspora Jewish community only proves that there are many obstacles that prevent us from truly fulfilling the biblical passages cited above.  When Jews attack and destroy synagogues in Israel as the Haredi did earlier this year with the Intel building just because this gentile business remained open on Shabbat, we have a serious problem that all Jews must earnestly address.

Hurling stones on Shabbat in the holy city of Jerusalem reflects a spiritual disease of intolerance that is far deadlier to the Jewish people than all the missiles shot by the Palestinians in Gaza or from Lebanon. The Talmud (BT Gittin 55b-57a) describes how the zealots purposely burned the food silos rather than make a truce with the Romans, killing anyone who got in their way. When we watch how the Haredim are behaving in Israel today, joining forces with the Palestinians who wish to uproot the Jewish presence altogether, we must wonder whether we have sunk to a new historical low.  

How can we as a “chosen people” bear witness to our unique vocation when in reality, we are doing everything to rip our nation apart? The religious fanaticism that propelled our ancestors to fight against Rome ended in the destruction of our homeland. The real enemies of the Jewish people proved to be–not the Romans–but Jews who acted violently toward their own fellow Jewish citizens.

Rabbinic wisdom in the Talmud and subsequent texts explains how “sin’at hinnum” (gratuitous hatred) resulted in the exile of our people; the real question we must ask is: Have we learned any wisdom from the mistakes of our forbearers?

============

Notes:

[1] Of course, one might ask: What other fast days was the prophet Zechariah referring to? Simply put, the fast of the fifth month marked the tragic destruction of the temple on the seventeenth day (2 Kgs 25:8). The other subsidiary events were included under the greater (cf. 8:19): the ninth day of the fourth month is recorded as the date when the city wall was breached (Jer. 39:2); the fast of the seventh month commemorated the murder of Gedaliah (2 Kgs 25:25; Jer. 41:1f.), and the tenth day of the tenth month marked the beginning of Nebuchadrezzar’s siege of the city (2 Kgs 25:1, 2; Jer. 39:1) These special days had become hallowed by observance for over sixty years

During the Three Weeks, we reflect upon the events that led to the loss of Jewish independence. We remember how the death of two million Jews marked the largest number of Jews killed (according to Josephus) prior to the Holocaust. As Jews, memory is never something that is passive; it must be active, dynamic, and—hopefully—transforming.

Unlike most Jewish holidays, Tisha B’Av recalls the time when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem in the year 586 B.C.E. Jewish tradition also teaches that the Second Temple was also destroyed on this day, but this time it was by the Romans in the year 70 C.E.

THE QUESTION

Thus far, I did not tell you anything you probably did not already know. However, anyone familiar with the biblical chronology of the Temple’s destruction will see an obvious problem with this rabbinic tradition. Historically, the Tanakh teaches us that the Temple was really destroyed on the 10^th of Av (cf. Jer. 52:12-14).

You are probably asking yourselves, “Wait a minute! Something’s wrong with this picture. Jews do not fast on the 10^th of Av, but on the 9^th of Av!”

 Ok, we can now ask the most important Jewish question of the day: Why did the Sages designate the 9^th of Av as the fast day commemorating the Temple’s destruction? One reason suggested is that the Babylonians originally torched the Temple on the 9^th; and from this perspective, the beginning of a tragedy is believed to be greater than its ending. However, this explanation seems to fall short of the mark for according to 2 Kings 25:8-10 plainly states the destruction began on the 7^th of Av and ended on the 10^th!

 To understand the Bible, you must learn to read in between the lines; this same principle applies no less to reading rabbinic texts as well. 

 I suspect the symbolism has more what to do with the Jewish attitude of hope, for the number nine corresponds to the period of pregnancy; our Sages thus teach that the Messiah was born on the 9^th of Av! This would indicate that the seeds of renewal and hope lay in the ashes of the past; despair must not have the final word. The theme of redemption in Jewish history reminds us that each of us plays a pivotal role in the healing of the world that must begin first with healing our own wounded spirit.

 A SHORT TALMUDIC LESSON

 A famous Talmudic story illustrates my point quite nicely.

 About 25 years after the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, four rabbis had a most remarkable discussion when they visited Rome. As Rabban Gamaliel, R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah, R. Joshua and R. Akiba were walking on the road, they heard the noisy crowds that had just arrived from the Italian port city of Puteoli . . . The Sages began to weep, but R. Akiba was buoyant.

 Shocked by their colleague’s demeanor, they asked him, “Akiba, why are you so happy?” Akiba answered the rabbinic question the same way all rabbis answer a question—with another question! Akiba retorted, “Why are you weeping?” They replied, “Look at these good for nothing pagans, who worship graven images and burn incense to their deities. Why should they be entitled to live in safety and ease? Our Temple, the ‘Footstool’ of our God, has been destroyed by fire—how can we not weep?!”

 Akiba’s answer reflected an optimistic attitude the Sages did not consider. He replied, “That is precisely why I am merry! Look, if this is the fare of those who offend God, how much better will the fare be of those who truly worship their Maker!” Had the Rabbis seen the Vandals’ sack of Rome in 455, they probably would have felt vindicated.

 Scene Two:

As the Sages eventually made their way back to Jerusalem, they arrived at Mount Scopus they saw a fox emerging from the place that used to be the Holy of Holies. Once again, the Sages began to weep, while Rabbi Akiba looked happy.

 They asked him, “Why are you so happy?” He replied, “Why are you so sad?” The Sages replied that the sacred place that proscribed death to anyone else who was the High Priest had now become a haunt for foxes, “How can we not weep at the sight of this tragedy?” But Akiba replied that there were two prophetic predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem.

 Simply put, as far as Akiba was concerned, the prophecy of gloom and doom pertained to the destruction of the first Temple and the Second Temple, but Akiba believed that there would come a future time when the streets of Jerusalem would once again be inhabited by the sound of music and young people. Listen to the prophecy of Zechariah:

 Thus says the LORD of hosts: Old men and old women, each with staff in hand because of old age, shall again sit in the streets of Jerusalem. The city shall be filled with boys and girls playing in her streets.  Thus says the LORD of hosts: Even if this should seem impossible in the eyes of the remnant of this people, shall it in those days be impossible in my eyes also, says the LORD of hosts?  Thus says the LORD of hosts: Lo, I will rescue my people from the land of the rising sun, and from the land of the setting sun. I will bring them back to dwell within Jerusalem. They shall be my people, and I will be their God, with faithfulness and justice. Thus says the LORD of hosts: Let your hands be strong, you who in these days hear these words spoken by the prophets on the day when the foundation of the house of the LORD of hosts was laid for the building of the temple (Zech. 4-9).

In other words, rather than focusing on the destruction of the past, it is far better to believe that God will someday rebuild the fallen city of Jerusalem and restore it to her former glory. When the Sages heard Akiba’s comforting words, they replied, “Akiba, you have truly comforted us! Akiba, you have truly comforted us!”

 BACK TO THE FUTURE

 Whenever I read this Talmudic passage, I think about how we—in our generation—have been so privileged to see Jerusalem restored to her former glory in our time. Yet, I find it also so appalling—even disturbing—that the Jewish communities of the Diaspora have yet to recognize this great miracle that God has allowed us to see and witness before a cynical and anti-Semitic world.

When Obama, Biden, and Hillary dared to call East Jerusalem, an “occupied territory,” the Obama administration made an error that no previous presidential leader had ever made before.

Dear friends, if the area of East Jerusalem is not considered “Jewish,” then none of Israel is “Jewish” either. Rabbinic tradition teaches us that the Temple was destroyed because Jews failed to stand together as a community against Rome. The United States should not be standing side by side with Hamas, it should be standing side by side with Israel.

Obama once had 80% of the Jewish voters; statistics now say he has only 50% backing him. Frankly, he deserves 5% of the Jewish voters for showing a vitriolic hatred toward Israel—even now as Iran plans to wipe Israel off the map. Let me remind you that six million Jews now live in Israel. Does this number sound vaguely familiar?

 Let us use this time to show our support for the Jewish State—especially now in a time of great adversity.

 Hillel once said, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?” This period of Jewish history must be remembered as a time when the Jewish people learned from the mistakes of the past.

 We can become a united people—despite our religious or political differences. It begins with a choice and a positive attitude. Let us do our part, and pray that God will give us the strength to survive against our multitude of enemies.

The connection between Obama and his administration with Hamas is very disturbing. Frankly–it is downright amazing in light of the 9/11 attack on our country, yet Obama continues to court the very terrorists organizations that carried out this devastating attack upon our country.

Enabling evil is a serious and moral crime. Churchill said it best, “Appeasement is throwing someone else to the crocodiles in the hopes of being eaten last.” Our spineless presidential adminstration embodies this sick pathological attitude Churchill warned the future generations about.

Recently, we discovered that about 50% of the American Jewish community supports Obama–a far cry from the 80% who supported him during the last election. Now, let’s see if we can cut his support to 5% of  the Jewish community. Unfortunately, many Jews love the Democratic Party more than they do the State of Israel. While it is true, Israel’s flirtation with Haredi Jewish leaders certainly does not engender warm and fuzzy feelings toward Israel, nevertheless, I believe this moment of history is a very special one. Our ancestors prayed for our eventual return to our homeland, are we going to trade our spiritual home for a pot of political-flavored lentils? 

Remember: Supporting Hamas is like supporting the KKK.

==========================

How Hamas rises in the West

By Caroline B. Glick

It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. Here’s why

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Since the navy’s May 31 takeover of the Turkish-Hamas flotilla, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his advisers have deliberated around the clock about how to contend with the US-led international stampede against Israel. But their ultimate decision to form an investigatory committee led by a retired Supreme Court justice and overseen by foreign observers indicates that they failed to recognize the nature of the international campaign facing us today.Led by US President Barack Obama, the West has cast its lot with Hamas. It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. His close associates are leading members of the pro-Hamas Free Gaza outfit. Obama’s friends, former Weather Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres participated in a Free Gaza trip to Egypt in January. Their aim was to force the Egyptians to allow them into Gaza with 1,300 fellow Hamas supporters. Their mission was led by Code Pink leader and Obama fund-raiser Jodie Evans. Another leading member of Free Gaza is James Abourezk, a former US senator from South Dakota.

All of these people have open lines of communication not only to the Obama White House, but to Obama himself.

Obama has made his sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood clear several times since entering office. The Muslim Brotherhood’s progeny include Hamas, al-Qaida and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Last June, Obama infuriated the Egyptian government when he insisted on inviting leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his speech at Al Azhar University in Cairo. His administration’s decision to deport Hamas deserter and Israeli counterterror operative Mosab Hassan Yousef to the Palestinian Authority where he will be killed is the latest sign of its support for radical Islam.

Given Obama’s attitude toward jihadists and the radical leftists who support them, his decision to support Hamas against Israel makes sense. What is alarming however is how leaders of the free world are now all siding with Hamas. That support has become ever more apparent since the Mossad’s alleged killing of Hamas terror master Mahmoud al-Mabhouh at his hotel in Dubai in January.In the aftermath of Mabhouh’s death, both Britain and Australia joined the Dubai-initiated bandwagon in striking out against Israel. Israel considers both countries allies, or at least friendly and has close intelligence ties with both. Yet despite their close ties, Australia and Britain expelled Israeli diplomats who supposedly had either a hand in the alleged operation or who work for the Mossad.It should be noted that neither country takes steps against outspoken terror supporters who call for Israel to be destroyed and call for the murder of individual Israelis.For instance, in an interview last month with The Australian, Ali Kazak, the former PLO ambassador to Australia, effectively solicited the murder of The Jerusalem Post’s Palestinian affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh. Kazak told the newspaper, “Khaled Abu Toameh is a traitor.”Allowing that many Palestinians have been murdered for such accusations, Kazak excused those extrajudicial murders saying, “Traitors were also murdered by the French Resistance, in Europe; this happens everywhere.”Not only did Australia not expel Kazak or open a criminal investigation against him, as a consequence of his smear campaign against Abu Toameh, several Australian government officials cancelled their scheduled meetings with him.

AND OF course, this week we have the actions of Germany and Poland. They are considered Israel’s best friends in Europe, and yet acting on a German arrest warrant, Poland has arrested a suspected Mossad officer named Uri Brodsky for his alleged involvement in the alleged Mossad operation against Mabhouh. Israel is now caught in a diplomatic disaster zone where its two closest allies — who again are only too happy to receive regular intelligence updates from the Mossad — are siding with Hamas against it.And then of course we have the EU’s call for Israel to cancel its lawful blockade of the Gaza coast. That is, the official position of the EU is that an Iranian proxy terrorist organization should be allowed to gain control over a Mediterranean port and through it, provide Iran with yet another venue from which it can launch attacks against Europe.For their part, the Sunni Arabs are forced to go along with this. The Egyptian regime considers the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood took over Gaza a threat to its very survival and has been assiduously sealing its border with Gaza for some time. And yet, unable to be more anti-Hamas than the US, Australia and Europe, Mubarak is opening the border. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa’s unprecedented visit to Gaza this week should be seen as a last ditch attempt by Egypt to convince Hamas to unify its ranks with Fatah. Predictably, the ascendant Hamas refused his entreaties.As for Fatah, it is hard not to feel sorry for its leader Mahmoud Abbas these days. In what was supposed to be a triumphant visit to the White House, Abbas was forced to smile last week as Obama announced the US will provide $450 million in aid to his sworn enemies who three years ago ran him and his Fatah henchmen out of Gaza.So too, Abbas is forced to cheer as Obama pressures Israel to give Hamas an outlet to the sea. This will render it impossible for Fatah to ever unseat Hamas either by force or at the ballot box. Hamas’s international clout demonstrates to the Palestinians that jihad pays.

THERE ARE three plausible explanations for the West’s decision to back Hamas. All of them say something deeply disturbing about the state of the world. The first plausible explanation is that the Americans and the rest of the West are simply naive. They believe that by backing Hamas, they are advancing the cause of Middle East peace.If this is in fact what the likes of Obama and his European and Australian counterparts think, apparently no one in the West is thinking very hard. The fact is that by backing Hamas against Israel, they are backing Hamas against Fatah and they are backing Iran, Syria, Turkey, Hamas and Hizbullah against Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. They are backing the most radical actors in the region — and arguably in the world — against states and regimes they have a shared strategic interest in strengthening.There is absolutely no way this behavior advances the cause of peace.The second plausible explanation is that the West’s support for Hamas is motivated by hatred of Israel. As Helen Thomas’s recent remarks demonstrated, there is certainly a lot of that going around.The final plausible explanation for the West’s support for Hamas is that it has been led to believe that by acting as it is, it will buy itself immunity from attack by Hamas and its fellow members of the Iranian axis. As former Italian president Francesco Cossiga first exposed in a letter to Corriere della Serra in August 2008, in the early 1970s Italian prime minister Aldo Moro signed a deal with Yasser Arafat that gave the PLO and its affiliated organizations the freedom to operate terror bases in Italy. In exchange the Palestinians agreed to limit their attacks to Jewish and Israeli targets. Italy maintained its allegiance to the deal — and to the PLO against Israel — even when Italian targets were hit.Cossiga told the newspaper that the August 2, 1980 bombing at the Bologna train station — which Italy blamed on Italian fascists — was actually the work of George Habash’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Eighty-five people were murdered in the attack, and still Italy maintained its agreement with the PLO to the point where it prosecuted and imprisoned the wrong people for the worst terrorist attack in its history.Cossiga alleged that the deal is still in place today and that Italian forces in UNIFIL have expanded the deal to include Hamas’s fellow Iranian proxy Hizbullah. It isn’t much of a stretch to consider the possibility that Italy and the rest of the Western powers have made a similar deal with Hamas. And it is no stretch at all to believe that they will benefit from it as greatly as the Italian railroad passengers in Bologna did.True, no one has come out and admitted to supporting Hamas. So too, no one has expressed anything by love for Israel and the Jewish people. But the actions of the governments of the West tell a different tale. Without one or more of the explanations above, it is hard to understand their current policies.Since the flotilla incident, Netanyahu and his ministers have held marathon deliberations on how to respond to US pressure to accept an international inquisition into the IDF’s lawful enforcement of the legal blockade of the Gaza coast. Their deliberations went on at the same time as Netanyahu and his envoys attempted to convince Obama to stop his mad rush to give Hamas an outlet to the sea and deny Israel even the most passive right of self-defense.It remains to be seen if their decision to form an investigative panel with international “observers” was a wise move or yet another ill-advised concession to an unappeasable administration. What is certain, however, is that it will not end the West’s budding romance with Hamas.The West’s decision to side with Hamas is devastating. But whatever the reasons for it, it is a fact of life. It is Netanyahu’s duty to swallow this bitter pill and devise a strategy to protect the country from their madness. 

Obama is no Messiah. However, I would say that he is more like a Pied Piper, or better yet–a flimflam man.

Obama would sooner vilify Israel than deal with the “axis of evil” or confront their super-power enablers. Today’s Jerusalem Post’s edition of Caroline Glick’s brilliant article says it quite well. I dare say, “I told you so!”

Obama knows that if he wins the next election, he will continue his insane rhetoric of blaming his failed policies on Israel. I pray that my fellow rabbinic leaders will show some testicular strength in condemning Obama and his court Jews who have sold Israel and the Jewish people down the river.

The Jew is nothing more than a political means to a presidential end.

Note that Rahm Emanual recently celebrated his son’s Bar Mitzvah at the Western Wall! What a phony! Isn’t the Jewish part of Jerusalem, “occupied territory,” according to Obama, Biden, and Hillary? Let’s not give Obama a Kosher hechser–he is as kosher as Rubashkin.

Can we do better? YES WE CAN!

Let’s make Obama pay in November! A separation of powers  in our government will protect not only Israel, but also the entire free world.

————————————————————-

Photo by: AP

Column One: Netanyahu, Obama’s newest prop

By CAROLINE GLICK
05/28/2010 15:25

Netanyahu must not permit Obama’s public relations campaign to divert him from this mission.

Talkbacks (65)

The Democratic Party is feeling the heat for US President Barack Obama’s hostility towards Israel. In an interview with Channel 10 earlier this month, Democratic Party mega-donor Haim Saban characterized the Obama administration as ideologically aligned with the radical Left and harshly criticized its treatment of Israel.

Both Ma’ariv and Yediot Aharonot reported this week that Democratic congressmen and senators are deeply concerned that the administration’s harsh treatment of Israel has convinced many American Jews not to contribute to their campaigns or to the Democratic Party ahead of November 2’s mid-term elections. They also fear that American Jews will vote for Republican challengers in large numbers.

It is these concerns, rather than a decision to alter his positions on Israel specifically and the Middle East generally, that now drive Obama’s relentless courtship of the American Jewish community. His latest move in this sphere was his sudden invitation to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to visit him at the White House for a “warm reception” in front of television cameras next Tuesday.

It is clear that electoral worries rather than policy concerns are behind what the White House has described as a “charm offensive,” because since launching this offensive a few weeks ago, Obama not changed any of his policies towards Israel and the wider Middle East. In fact, he has ratcheted up these policies to Israel’s detriment.

TAKE HIS goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. On Friday, the UN’s monthlong Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is scheduled to adopt a consensual resolution before adjourning. According to multiple media reports, Israel is set to be the focus of the draft resolution that will likely be adopted.

The draft resolutions being circulated by both Egypt and the US adopt Egypt’s demand for a nuclear-free Middle East. They call for a conference involving all countries in the region to discuss denuclearization. The only difference between the Egyptian draft and the US draft on the issue is that the Egyptians call for the conference to be held in 2011 while the US calls for the convening of the conference in 2012-2013. The draft resolution also calls for all states that are not members of the NPT – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – to join the NPT as non-nuclear powers.

So while Iran is not mentioned in the draft resolution – which must be adopted by consensus – in two separate places, Israel’s purported nuclear arsenal is the target of an international diplomatic stampede.

In 2005, Egypt circulated a draft resolution that was substantively identical to its current draft. But in stark contrast to today’s conclave, the NPT review conference in 2005 ended without agreement, because the Bush administration refused to go along with Egypt’s assault on Israel.

Particularly in light of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and the Iranian regime’s expressed goal of destroying Israel, the Bush administration preferred to scuttle the conference rather than give any credence to the view that Israel’s purported nuclear arsenal is a greater threat to global security than Iran’s nuclear program – which, as in today’s draft, wasn’t mentioned in Egypt’s resolution five years ago. The Obama administration has no problem going along with Cairo.

Obama’s willingness to place Israel’s nuclear program on the international agenda next to Iran’s is par for the course of his utterly failed policy for contending with Iran’s nuclear program. After his diplomatic open hand policy towards Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was met with a clenched fist, Obama’s attempt to convince the UN Security Council to pass “smart sanctions” against Iran has been checkmated by Iran’s nuclear deal with its newest strategic allies, Turkey and Brazil.

That deal, which facilitates rather than impedes Teheran’s nuclear weapons program, has ended any prospect that the Security Council will pass an additional sanctions resolution against Iran in the near future. But then, in order to secure the now weakened Russian support for his sanctions resolution, Obama exempted Russia from the sanctions and turned a blind eye to continued Russian and Chinese nuclear proliferation activities in Syria, Turkey and Pakistan. Furthermore, Obama agreed to make most of the remaining provisions non-binding.

In the meantime, and in spite of the fact that his sanctions bid is in shambles, Obama has asked congressional Democrats to stall their sanctions bills for another month. So, too, Obama prevailed on his Democratic colleagues in Congress to exempt Russia and China from their sanctions bills.

AS PART of the administration’s attempt to woo American Jews back into the Democratic Party fold despite its anti-Israel policies, last week a group of pre-selected pro-Obama rabbis was invited to the White House for talks with Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and with Dan Shapiro and Dennis Ross, who hold the Palestinian and Iran dossiers on Obama’s National Security Council, respectively. According to a report of the meeting by Rabbi Jack Moline that has not been refuted by the White House, the three men told the Democratic rabbis that the administration has three priorities in the Middle East. First Obama seeks to isolate Iran. Second, he seeks to significantly reduce the US military presence in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq. And third, he seeks to resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

These priorities are disturbing for a number of reasons. First, isolating Iran is not the same as preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. By characterizing its goal as “isolating” Iran, the administration makes clear that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is not its goal. Moreover, as Iran’s deal with Brazil and Turkey makes abundantly clear, Iran is not isolated. Indeed, its foreign relations have prospered since Obama took office.

In his write-up of the meeting, Moline indicated that Ross and Emanuel view Obama’s rejection of Israel’s right to build homes for Jews in Jerusalem as motivated by his goal of isolating Iran. So in the view of Obama’s Jewish advisers, his preferred method of isolating Iran is to attack Israel.

Add that to his third priority of establishing a Palestinian state by the end of next year and you have a US president for whom bashing Israel is his first and third priorities in the Middle East.

When one factors in his willingness to put Israel’s purported nuclear arsenal on the international chopping block, it is clear that there is no precedent for Obama’s hostility towards Israel in the history of US-Israel relations.

THIS BRINGS us to Obama’s meeting next Tuesday with Netanyahu. Obama’s continued commitment to his anti-Israel policies indicates that there are two possible scenarios for next week’s meeting. In the best case, the meeting will have no substance whatsoever. It will be nothing more than a public display of presidential affection for the Israeli premier.

The more likely scenario is that Obama will use the meeting as an opportunity to pressure Netanyahu not to attack Iran’s nuclear installations; not to attack Hizbullah’s and Syria’s missile depots, launchers and silos; and to extend the prohibition on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria beyond its September deadline and expand the prohibition to Jewish home construction in Jerusalem.

Regarding the latter scenario, it can only be hoped that Netanyahu has learned from his previous experiences with Obama. In December, in the hopes of alleviating US pressure, Netanyahu announced an unprecedented 10-month ban on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria. For his efforts, Netanyahu was rewarded with an escalation of American pressure against Israel.

After he pocketed Netanyahu’s concession on Judea and Samaria, Obama immediately launched his poisonous assault on Israeli rights to Jerusalem.

Likewise, Netanyahu’s willingness to outwardly support both Obama’s effort to appease Iran and his efforts to pass anti-Iran sanctions in the Security Council gained Obama a year and a half of quiet from Jerusalem. During that time, Iran has moved within months of the bomb and the US has abandoned its goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This experience has one clear lesson: If Obama seeks policy concessions from Israel during their meeting, Netanyahu must reject his entreaties. In fact, it may even be counterproductive for Netanyahu to abstain from responding in the hopes of buying time.

If on the other hand, Obama avoids discussion of substantive issues and devotes his meeting with Netanyahu to a discussion of Michelle Obama’s war on obesity, Netanyahu should consider what Obama did to the family of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl while the president signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act last week.

Pearl was decapitated in 2002 by jihadists in Pakistan. Among other things, his killers claimed he had no right to live because he was Jewish. At the ceremony, Obama barred Pearl’s father, Judea Pearl, from speaking. In so doing Obama reduced Daniel Pearl’s family to the status of mere props as Obama vapidly and reprehensibly proclaimed, “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

This appropriation of Pearl’s murder and denial of what it represented served Obama’s purpose of pretending that there is no jihad and that radical Islam is not a threat to the US. And by silencing Pearl’s father, the president turned him into an unwilling accomplice.

Netanyahu should take two lessons from Obama’s behavior at the ceremony. First, Netanyahu must do everything he can to avoid being used as a prop. This means that he should insist on having a joint press briefing with Obama. He must also insist on having a say regarding which journalists will be included in the press pool and who will be permitted to ask the two leaders questions.

Second, Netanyahu must not become Obama’s spokesman. As part of his unsuccessful bid to convince Obama to change his policies towards Israel, Netanyahu and his advisers have gone on record praising Obama for his support for Israel. These statements have stymied attempts by Israel’s US supporters to pressure Obama to change those policies.

The Israeli official who has been most outspoken in his praise for Obama and his denial that Obama’s policies are hostile towards Israel has been Ambassador Michael Oren. Oren has repeatedly praised Obama for his supposedly firm support for Israel and commitment to Israel’s security – most recently in an appearance on Fox News on Wednesday. Moreover, according to eyewitness reports, in a recent closed-door meeting with American Jews, Oren criticized the Republican Party for attacking Obama for his animosity towards Israel.

This quite simply has to end. As foreign officials, Israeli diplomats should not be involved in US partisan politics. Not only should Israeli officials not give Obama undeserved praise, they should not give Republicans undeserved criticism.

At the end of the day, American Jews have the luxury of choosing between their loyalty to the Democratic Party and their support for Israel. And in the coming months, they will choose.

The government of Israel has no such luxury. The government’s only duty is to secure Israel and advance Israel’s national interests in every way possible. Netanyahu must not permit Obama’s public relations campaign to divert him from this mission.

Here is a wonderful article I would encourage all of you to read and make your comments known to your representatives and congressmen. This year, it behooves every synagogue to make a grand celebration of Jerusalem. I would only add that after Israel liberated the holy city, King Hussein of Jordan sent the keys to Hadassah Hospital to its rightful owners–the Jews. In addition, Hadassah Hospital has always had a long tradition of serving both Israelis and Palestinians since the time of its inception.

What I find most disturbing is the fact that the Jewish members of the Obama cabinet have so little to say about our celebration of Jerusalem Day.

In case many of you have not noticed, the Obama Administration is making a clandestine effort to win the Jews over again since Obama has revealed his animus toward Israel. Prominent Jews like Elie Wiesel have been invited for dinner–but NOT Netanyahu! Now, another Jew is on the Supreme Court–Elana Kagan. In my opinion, this is yet another feeble attempt to win over more Jews to the next Obama run at the presidency. I pray we are not so foolish as to let ourselves get bribed by these calculated gestures of political expediency. Frankly, if I were an Asian American, I would be outraged that no Asian American has been chosen to serve on the Supreme Court.

CONTENTIONS

Barack Obama vs. Jerusalem Day
Jonathan Tobin – 05.12.2010

This was no ordinary Jerusalem Day celebrated in Israel today. This date on the Jewish calendar notes the anniversary of the unification of the city in 1967, when Israeli troops routed the Jordanian occupiers of the eastern, northern, and southern parts of the town, and of the Old City. In June 1967, the barriers that had divided Jerusalem since the 1949 armistice were torn down, and the Jewish people were reunited with their holiest places, from which they had been barred during that period. But while today’s ceremonies, displays, and parties were the usual mix of historic remembrance and recognition of contemporary achievements, there can be no denying the fact that a shadow hung over the festivities there as well as over the observances of the date elsewhere.

The problem is the knowledge that this is the first Jerusalem Day since President Barack Obama made it clear that a repartition of the city has become one of America’s priorities in the Middle East. Though no American government ever recognized Israel’s unification of Jerusalem or, indeed, even the fact that the city has been the country’s capital since 1949, Obama’s is the first administration to state explicitly that the Jewish presence in the parts of the city that the Jordanian occupiers vacated in 1967 is illegal and to actively oppose the building of Jewish housing even in existing Jewish neighborhoods in the city.

Though more than 200,000 Jews live in the eastern, northern, and southern sections of the city, which the media routinely incorrectly labels “East Jerusalem,” those Jewish neighborhoods there are, according to this administration, a violation of international law and an “insult” to America. U.S. diplomats have made it clear to the Israelis that any building that goes on in these neighborhoods of the capital is a “provocation” that is not only anathema to the United States but also a legitimate excuse for the Palestinian Authority to boycott the so-called proximity talks now going on (so named because Palestinian representatives will only allow themselves to communicate indirectly with Israeli negotiators rather than sit and speak directly with them). And though the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has  asserted that Israel will not be deterred from continuing to build the Jewish presence in the city, it is not exactly a secret that all such projects have been put on hold, in order to avoid escalating the tensions that are already apparent in the relationship with the White House.

It is worth repeating on this, of all days, that despite the unique connection between the Jews and Jerusalem (it was never the capital of any entity other than a Jewish kingdom), only in the 43 years of full Israeli sovereignty over the united city has there been freedom of worship for all faiths. (The Jordanians prevented Jews from worshipping at the Western Wall or at other Jewish shrines under their control from 1949 to 1967, just as any Jewish sites currently under the control of the Palestinian Authority have become no-go zones for Israelis.)

Moreover, Netanyahu couldn’t be more right when he notes, as he did again today in his Jerusalem Day speech, that Jews “are not foreign invaders” in their own capital. Yet that is exactly the implication of Obama’s stand. By turning the building of Jewish housing in the city’s Jewish neighborhoods into an international incident, Obama has made it impossible for the Palestinians to demand anything less than the eviction of the Jews from the city; just as they demand of the Jews who live in settlements in the West Bank. Though it must be admitted that there was never any chance that the Palestinians would accept any peace deal under any circumstances, Obama’s ultimatum about freezing housing projects in Jerusalem has certainly ensured that peace is further away than ever.

The juxtaposition of a Jerusalem Day celebrated under tacit American protest ought to remind American friends of Israel who remain supporters of Obama that the man they elected president has done more to undermine the unity of the Jewish state’s capital than 43 years of Arab propaganda. Those who never wish to see the city divided again or to have Jews barred from parts of it must understand that this is exactly the direction in which the Obama administration is headed.

The issue of artistic freedom runs into a wall of religious opposition over the issue of blasphemy. In fact, the word “blasphemy” has a remarkable history. The English word derives originally from the Greek βλάσφημος, “abusive,” “reproachful speech” blasphemous, slanderous, insulting. Indeed, in the Torah itself, blasphemy carries a death penalty for anyone who blasphemes God’s Holy Name  (cf. Lev. 24:10-16).

Rabbinic tradition specifies this only pertains to someone who pronounces God’s sacred Name itself [1], which may explain why God’s Name has not been pronounced by rabbinite communities since the 2nd century or so. Karaite Jews, on the other hand, still pronounce the Name YHWH just like their ancestors did in ancient biblical times. Numerous biblical references also attest to individuals who have reviled God’s Name [2].

While Jews have traditionally been champions and advocates of free speech, the issue of blasphemy reveals the difficulties and asymmetrical accommodation that exists between the secular and religious cultures. In Israel today, many conflicts between the Haredim and the secular occur because of the former’s “disrespect,” and “contempt” toward traditional religious values.

Christians are also aware of this problem. Back in 1987 a photographer named Andres Serrano took a picture of a plastic crucifix that was submerged in the artist’s urine, which he referred to as “Piss Christ.”

Truth can be pretty strange at times.  Apparently, Serranos is a professed and practicing Catholic! From his point of view, his artistic work characterizes an Augustinian point of Catholic resistance against Protestant Gnosticism. Still and all, I remember the firestorm of debate heard around the country.

Perhaps adding more fuel to the fire, Serranos won a special award by the  Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s “Awards in the Visual Arts” competition. This event was underwritten by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency. Should government be involved in acts that arguably treat religious icons or figures with contempt? Many congressman made a campaign to punish the NEA, calling it as an abuse of taxpayer dollars.

As a Jew, I wonder what would the Jewish reaction have been if the artist decided to use a Torah Scroll instead of crucifix? What would the government have said had the artist depicted a “Piss Mohammed” image instead?

Now, get a load of this: In the United States, many states still have blasphemy laws on the books, but the Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it likely that any blasphemy prosecution would now be regarded as an impermissible establishment of religion.

While such acts of revulsion offend a faith community’s spiritual values, there may be a far greater danger to religion if government decides to squelch all questionable anti-religious expressions, or decides to arbitrate  what kinds of “blasphemous” expressions against the great religions of the world are tolerable and which ones are not. As you can see, this is a slippery slope that free governments ought to avoid. Government has no right to micromanage politically or religiously incorrect expressions in my opinion.

In 2005, shortly after the incident of the Koran getting flushed down the toilet, Michigan Senator John Conyers (D) proposed a law that:

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;

(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and:

(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.” [3]

The question here that needs to be asked is simple: Should government tolerate the abuse of one religion over another? As much as we may not agree with the artistic expressions of our neighbor, this is one issue that the Government would be wise to stay away from and simply allow for the issue not to be resolved. Over time, the offended will have to learn that the 1st Amendment benefits everyone–including men and women of faith. This is the greater good we need to keep in mind. Halacha or Sharia or Canonic Law must respect its place in a country that champions free speech.

Shortly before her death, the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci (one of my favorite writers) was ordered to stand trial in the northern Italian city of Bergamo,  on charges that she defamed Islam in a recent book.

Free speech is necessary–even when we find it ideologically offensive.

One last note deserves mentioning. One of my teachers once said that the sin of blasphemy is still relevant in a free society. The essence of blasphemy aims to make what is beautiful and pristine into something ugly and detestable. While acts of disrespect deserve to be publicly criticized, using violence against secular-minded people may constitute an infinitely worst crime in the eyes of God, who prefers that we treat people with compassion and respect–even those individuals whose philosophy we may find quite wrong.

======

Notes:

[1] Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5.

[2] Cf. 1 Sam 17:26; 2 Sam. 12:14; Pss. 44:16; 74:10, 18; 2 Kings 19:3, 6, 22; Ezek. 35:12–13.

[3] http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000103.htm

==========

Iran, Hezbollah, and the Bomb

BY William Harris

May 7, 2010 12:00 AM

When Iran gets the bomb, the nuclear club will have a crucial new feature. Without an Iranian bomb and barring regime change in Pakistan, we know that no nuclear power will transfer a device to a private army of the religious elect like Hezbollah in Lebanon. With an Iranian bomb, such assurance instantly ends. This is a looming, tangible state of affairs–in contrast to the hype about loose nuclear materials at the April 2010 Washington nuclear security summit.

Proponents of containing a nuclear Iran in and around the Obama administration conceive of deterring Iran in standard realist style. The Islamic Republic of Iran, however, has become a hybrid of the government of God and ruthless militarized mafias. It is well practiced in long-range subversion, intimidation, and weapons smuggling. It may be confidently expected to shred so-called containment, especially when equipped with a nuclear aura and facing the quivering potentates of Arabia.

In any case, Iran has a strategic extension across the Middle East to the Mediterranean that puts it beyond containment. On February 25, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah met in Damascus to celebrate their alignment and its achievements. The Syrian-Iranian partnership has enabled the Syrian ruling clique to go from strength to strength in dealing with the West and the Arabs. Syria only looks forward to more gains from the partnership as Iran moves toward the bomb. At the tripartite summit, Assad mocked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s call for Syria to steer away from Iran.

What of Hezbollah? Thanks to Western promoted demoralization of the West’s own friends in Lebanon, Hezbollah has advanced from commanding a large part of Lebanon to effectively commanding the Lebanese state. This is the fruit of the West’s courting of Bashar al-Assad, and pressing “consensus” with absolutists on the Lebanese. As a result, Lebanon is more than ever the business end of Iran’s Middle Eastern operations.

Hezbollah is integral to the ruling clerical and military establishment in Iran. It has pledged itself to supreme guide Ali Khamenei, and from the perspective of Iran’s leaders it is a wing of their apparatus. The party’s formidable armory, fortified territory, and intelligence capability give it credibility as a base for Iranian strategic weaponry bordering Israel, in the heart of the Arab world, and half way to Europe.

It would be entirely within character for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to establish a clandestine strategic unit in Lebanon, with nuclear devices. There are considerable temptations: targeting Israel without needing to use ballistic missiles; deniability (at least in the mind of Tehran); and a secret reserve outside Iran. If a speedboat brought a ten-kiloton surprise early one morning to the Tel Aviv shore, with all evidence vaporized who could say for sure who was responsible? The mere prospect that Iran might implement a nuclear transfer to its base in Lebanon after crossing the weapons threshold would drastically change calculations on the Israel/Hezbollah front.

When Ahmadinejad speaks of Nasrallah’s uprooting Israel in the “grand victory,” it is difficult to think of a mechanism other than nuclear. Perhaps Ahmadinejad actually means what he says. He tells us that he has seen the light of the Twelfth Imam while speaking at the U.N. General Assembly.  While he may not command Iran, his mode of thinking is widespread in ruling circles.

Hezbollah having any link to nuclear devices is terrifying, not least for Lebanese Shiites. The party combines technical sophistication, global reach, and delusional demagogy. For Nasrallah, Israel is nothing more than “a spider’s web,” to be swept away at a blow. Hezbollah restrains itself for the present, but its impetus and soaring ambition after Iran acquires the bomb will be another matter.

The future is bleak; the Lebanese mountain communities sport a history of disastrous miscalculations. The Druze lord Fakhr al-Din Ma’n invited and received an Ottoman avalanche after he expanded east to Palmyra and north toward Aleppo in the early 1630s. Within the mountain, the Maronites came to grief in 1845 and 1860 in overestimating themselves against the Druze. Hezbollah’s journey to wherever its insouciance and hubris take it, with the Shiite community and all Lebanon along for the ride, is an escalated version of an old story, now with stratospheric stakes.

In the meantime, U.S. engagement of Syria’s ruling clique only encourages Bashar al-Assad’s provision of missiles and munitions of diverse descriptions to Hezbollah. One of the Syrian regime’s sub-plots is to blackmail acceptance of its return to Beirut. The arsonist is selling himself to the credulous as a fire fighter, but he remains an incorrigible arsonist—not to mention a murder suspect, fingered in the 2005 reports of the U.N. investigation into the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

What to do? Suspending the policy of engaging Syria and Iran, of repeatedly proven futility, would be a start. Indeed, the principal utility of engagement may be the impact of publicly acknowledging it as unproductive and stepping back from it. Given the near certain provenance of the 2005 political murder in Lebanon, insistence on pursuing international justice to the end of the trail would also not go amiss. Despite the sclerotic condition of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, international justice might still pull down Iran’s friends in the Levant. To the east, Iraq should not be considered hostage to engagement; the determination of the Syrian and Iranian regimes to wreck a pluralist Iraq has never wavered. As for Iran’s rulers, the trick is to integrate whatever can be squeezed out of the U.N. Security Council with a new level of Euro-American sanctions. Only rigor with the regime might affect Iran’s domestic environment in the couple of years that are probably all that are left. President Obama has spoken of proceeding “boldly and quickly.” So far this is just hot air.

Answer:

You are correct in assuming that most Christians believe in Original Sin, to a greater or lesser degree. As to whether Jesus himself really believed in Original Sin or not, I have serious doubts. In one of the Gospels, we read about how Jesus’ disciples once asked Jesus, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’” (John 1:1). However, Jesus gives one of the most profound rabbinical answers imaginable, “Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him” (John 9:2-3).

As a Jew reading the Gospel narrative, it seems to me that Jesus explicitly disapproved of any idea that man suffers from an inherited sin. By extension, every human fault we are born with, serves a spiritual purpose so that we may glorify the Creator despite our natural shortcomings. Yet, nowhere does Jesus ever speak of anything resembling the idea of a prenatal sin.

Now the idea of pre-natal sin is discussed in a number of places in rabbinical literature. In one case, Esau is described as possessing a sinful nature even though he was not yet born. “When Rebecca passed by the pagan shrines, Esau would run and struggle to come out (Rashi cites this midrash in his commentary on Genesis 25:2).

The Talmud in Sanhedrin 91b also discusses the question. “Antoninus also enquired of Rabbi, ‘From what time does the Evil Tempter hold sway over man; from the formation [of the embryo], or from [its] issuing forth [into the light of the world]?! — ‘From the formation,’ he replied. ‘If so,’ he objected, ‘it would rebel in its mother’s womb and go forth. But it is from when it issues.’ Rabbi said: This thing Antoninus taught me, and Scripture supports him, for it is said, At the door [i.e., where the babe emerges] sin lieth in wait” (Gen 4:7).

In Midrash Koheleth and Midras Ruth, there is a story told of Elisha Ben Abujah, who departed from the faith, and became a horrible apostate; and, amongst other reasons of his apostasy, this is rendered for one: “ There are which say, that his mother, when she was big with child of him, passing through a temple of the Gentiles, smelt something very strong, and they gave to her of what she smelt, and she did eat; והרה מפעפע בכריסה כבכריסה של חכינה and the child in the womb grew hot, and swelled blisters, as in the womb of a serpent’ ? Elisha’s apostasy is evidently due to a sin of her mother.

Still and all, Jesus takes an altogether novel approach from the view expressed by the Sages.

As a sidebar, it is worth adding that many Christian scholars have considerable doubt as to what Jesus actually said,  or didn’t said;  the work of the Jesus Seminar is most instructive in this manner. Clearly, the notion that man is born in sin has more to do with the theological teachings of Augustine, who perhaps—with the exception of Paul—developed the Christian doctrine of man and sin probably because of his own inner conflict.

=============

‘So long as the rabbinic court keeps a black list of mamzerim and it’s the only institution officially allowed to marry Jews in the State of Israel – we all partners in the crime of hurting persons who have committed no crime.’ Rivkah Lubitch calls to get rid of the rabbinic court’s black list

Published:  04.13.10, 15:19 / Israel Jewish Scene

In a book by Daphne du Maurier there’s a description of a horrible ceremony that took place nearly six hundred years ago in England. It involved a woman who “violated” the dignity of her husband when she had sexual relations with another man after she had already been widowed (Yes yes. You read right. She had sex with a man after the death of her husband!).

From the story it becomes clear that the woman was compelled to undergo the ceremony lest she lose all rights to her husband’s property. In other words: Either she took part in the ceremony and was allowed to continue living in her home, or she was thrown into the street. At the humiliating ceremony, the woman confessed her sins in detail to the priest and blood thirsty crowd. This is the way it worked: The woman was stripped to her waist and her hair was cut. She was then poised on a black sheep that she rode for a not insignificant distance to the laughter of the mob that gathered to witness and be forewarned. The woman rode on the sheep for about a hundred yards from the place of the ceremony. Then she was forced to dismount the sheep and crawl on her knees till she reached the priest. She then confessed her sins to the priest, who, in an act of grace, offered her absolution.

Seem familiar? We have something similar – the wayward woman (sotah), suspected by her husband of having sex with another man, is brought before the High Priest in the Temple Gate. Her hair is unraveled and her clothes let loose as she faces the curious crowd who comes each day to watch the spectacle. But it’s an old story and doesn’t happen today. We’re not like that.

But even today there are ways to maintain the honor of men. We know well how to punish a woman who violates the honor of her husband by having sex — we ostracize her child forever.

We punish her children in such a way that the woman will remember and never forget who sets the rules of the game, and what those rules are. Already in the womb, we turn the fetus conceived of the forbidden union into a type of monster. A creature who would have been better off never coming into this world. We label the child a “mamzer” and ostracize him or her forever. No mercy. No forgiveness. No repentance. No cure. S/He gets the ultimate punishment – social ostracism forever.

The personal is political. What a woman does in private is the business of the entire Jewish world, the laws of the State of Israel and its citizens for generations. So long as the rabbinic court keeps a black list of mamzerim and it’s the only institution officially allowed to marry Jews in the State of Israel – we all partners in the crime of hurting persons who have committed no crime. Don’t say that you didn’t know. Stop sticking your head in the ground. The State of Israel and the halacha have collaborated to harm innocent people. We need to work together to solve the problem and get rid of the black list for good.

Rivkah Lubitch works at the Center for Women’s Justice , Tel: 02-5664390