For over the last 2300 years, the subject of circumcision has always been controversial. When one considers the latest attempts to ban circumcision, one can see the subject will continue to awaken strong emotions in people—Jews and non-Jews alike.

Freudian analysis would probably suggest that the fear of circumcision stems from what Freud dubbed as “the castration complex.” The fear of castration is primal for many men in all cultures; for this reason, the men in primitive societies wear loincloths because this part of the male anatomy leaves the male exposed and vulnerable. Since the beginning of human history, men have focused upon the symbol of their virility—the phallus. Even today, the pharmaceutical industry has invested billions of dollars in creating new drugs designed to enhance male virility. When seen from this perspective, the anti-circumcision crowd’s neurotic behavior is quite understandable.

Anthropologists and historians of religion refer to this obsession with the penis as “phallic worship” and it seems to me that the worship of this male organ of potency is still very much alive in liberal cities around the globe.

After Alexander conquered the Western world, one of the new innovations he introduced to his conquered peoples was the gymnasium, which derives from the Greek word γυμνάζω gumnázō, “to train naked.” Greek athletes extolled the beauty of the male body, and when young Jewish men became interested in the gymnasium, they suddenly felt very uneasy and embarrassed about being circumcised.

Josephus records how two assimilated Jews, Menelaus and the sons of Tobias, went to King Antiochus and informed him of their desire to embrace Hellenism and wanted to build a gymnasium in Jerusalem, “And when he had given them leave they also hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greeks.

Accordingly, they left off all the customs that belonged to their own country, and imitated the practices of the other nations” (Antiquities, 12:239-241). Another ancient text adds that Antiochus criminalized the act of circumcision and remained determined to prohibit its practice for good (1 Macc. 1:48, 60, 2:46). Note also that the worst enemies of the Jews have almost invariably been Jews who have utilized gentiles to combat Jewish tradition and continuity.

Evidently, the ancient Jews did not completely remove their foreskin, for it was possible to cut and pull forward the loose skin of the penis (a,k.a., “epispasm”), which in turned gave an artificial appearance of being a partial foreskin. Eventually, rabbinic tradition insisted that more of the foreskin be completely removed so that the Jewish young men would never be able to surgically create the appearance of having a foreskin.

When I pointed this out to some of my congregants and students, they were surprised to hear that the circumcision ritual had changed.

A Rational for Circumcision

Among the explanations given for circumcision, the first century Jewish philosopher explains that there are health benefits to being circumcised; it prevents a bacterial disease known as “carbuncle” and that this disease was much more common among uncircumcised males than those who have gone through the rite of circumcision.

In philosophical terms, Philo then argues that circumcision befits a body that befits a priestly people. Among the Egyptian priests, they too practiced circumcision. The circumcised phallus resembles the human heart—the seat of passions “for the breath contained within the heart is generative of thought processes, and the generative organ itself is productive of living beings.” By the same token, Philo asserts that the foreskin serves as a metaphor for arrogance—the kind of which causes a person to forget about God.[1]

Most importantly, the act of circumcising represents a spiritual act in that it is a visible reminder that a man must learn to keep is libido in check—especially since when human sexuality when left unbridled, it is capable of causing terrible harm in the world. Maimonides too, concurs that circumcision is meant to help curtail the human appetite for sex, since the foreskin is said to add some degree of extra pleasure in the act of coitus. Whether Maimonides’ view is correct is debatable—at least from a medical perspective. Some studies show that the data can support an opposite view, but ultimately sexual satisfaction has a profound psychological dimension and besides, most of my Jewish friends can honestly say the impact is nil.

Numerous medical studies have demonstrated that male circumcision has played a dramatic role in decreasing the risk for HIV transmission. Without going into too much detail, I will mention some of the salient details found in this valuable medical report:

Research proves: Circumcision reduces risk of AIDS

One study conducted in Africa and published more than a year ago has shown that the chances of men who have been circumcised to be infected with HIV during sexual intercourse with a woman carrying the virus are 70 percent lower than that of men who have not been circumcised. A different study held in Uganda revealed that circumcision also protects women from being infected with AIDS. According to the research findings, the chances of partners of men who have been circumcised and infected with the HIV virus to be infected are 30 percent lower than the chances of partners of men who have not been circumcised.

It hardly gets the news it deserves, but the world owes Israel a debt of gratitude. In the hills of Swaziland’s capital, you will find Israeli physicians teaching African doctors how to perform adult circumcision. Israel is doing amazing work in combating AIDS.

The United Nations announced last year that the procedure could reduce the rate of HIV transmission by up to 60 percent. It was in Israel, with its experience performing adult male circumcision on a wide scale, that the international medical community found an unlikely partner in the global fight against AIDS.

Israelis have started similar training program in Uganda, Lesotho, Namibia, Kenya and South Africa. Their work is sponsored by the Jerusalem AIDS project and the Hadassah Medical Center, and they hope to recruit surgeons from abroad. The articles reads:

• · Meanwhile in San Francisco, Don Abramson, a former chairman of American Jewish World Service who has been advocating for the project, said he hopes it will help galvanize Diaspora Jewry to fight one of the world’s biggest problems. One of his ideas is to encourage Jews around the world to donate money to Operation Abraham whenever they attend a bris. “My message to Jewish families is that a bris affirms the Divine covenant relationship with the child, but also demonstrates that their friends and family who care about the child celebrate that the child is healthy enough to have a bris,”[2]

Mohels need to be Held Accountable

One last thought:

In today’s news, New York City’s health department had planned a public-awareness campaign to make parents of newborn boys aware of the potential for infection with the direct-suction version of the ritual, as opposed the safer version conducted by most Orthodox Jews, in which a sterile tube is placed between the mohel’s mouth and the circumcision wound. In response to that planned campaign hasidic rabbis and leaders threatened to keep parents from taking their sick infants to city hospitals.

So what happened?

“The Hasidic rabbis responded with a threat to make the streets run with rivers of their babies’ blood if the city wouldn’t stop trying to warn parents of the threat of infection their ritual posed. The health department backed off.”[3]

One of the worse sins of the Bible is Molech-worship. The book of Deuteronomy refers to, “passing a son or a daughter pass through the fire” (Deut. 12:31). Scholars since the time of Abraham Geiger (1810–1874), argue that some ancient Israelites clans believed YHWH worship involved some form of human sacrifice (cf. Isa. 30:33). The prophets condemned the practice (cf. Gen. 22:1–14; Exod. 13:2, 12–13, 15; Mic. 6:6–7) precisely because of the syncretism between paganism and the worship of YHWH.

Piety and fanaticism lead to barbarism. By this standard, today’s Hasidim behave as though they are the Jewish Molech worshipers of our time.

Rabbis need to start condemning this wicked attitude from their pulpits—these NY Hasidic rabbis threatening to kill their children deserve Hell; if such a place truly exists—they would be deserving of  such Divine retribution.

It is my opinion that rabbis and mohels who disregard the safety of the infant by doing the ritual of metsita b’peh (the oral sucking of the circumcised penis) ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law–in the event an infant gets seriously ill from infection, the mohels should be tried for manslaughter. Their lack of willingness to acknowledge hygienic procedures in the brith milah procedure are discrediting the religious tradition and rite of passage that they wish to promote.

They make all Jews look bad.

Again, I must reiterate: If you are going to have a brit milah in your home or synagogue, please make sure that the San Diego mohels do not perform the metsita b’peh with their mouths.

Notes:

[1] Philo, Spec. Laws I 6.

[2] http://nocamels.com/2011/02/israeli-doctors-teach-african-doctors-adult-circumcision-to-reduce-hiv/ See also, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm#ref8., Ed Schoen, MD on Circumcision (Berkeley, CA: Starbooks Distribution; 2002), 66.

[3] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/17/from-circumcision-to-molestation-how-the-orthodox-place-children-at-risk.html

Picture: Rabbi  Yona Metzger

A question came up recently in my congregation regarding the use of music at a Jewish funeral. The Reform Movement has long permitted the use of music at a Jewish funeral—provided the music does not derive from the Christian liturgy, e.g., Amazing Grace. Most Conservative and all Orthodox synagogues frown upon the use of music at a funeral because they feel it distracts the mourners from mourning. R. Isaac Klein’s book on A Guide to Jewish Practices, says nothing about it, one way or other. However, an argument ex silencio suggests that Rabbi Klein frowned upon this particular practice.

The question is not by any means a new Halachic issue.

About a year ago the Israeli Knesset member Rabbi Hanan Porat died; he was one of the founding members of the Gush Emunim, a religious Zionist organization that is very visible in settling the West Bank. At the rabbi’s funeral, his children sang and played some songs with a guitar that upset Rabbi Yona Metzger, the Chief Rabbi of Israel.  Rabbi Metzger made his opinion known, and is quoted as saying:

• Rabbi Shlomo Amar and I stared at each other and neither one of us knew what was going on –a band, guitars, children singing … One might think that the people came to attend a wedding! But this was a funeral! I have never heard of this kind of ‘mourning’ before–not in Israel, not in Europe, and I am sure not in Yemen. We have never heard of and never saw such a thing like this.[1]

Actually, I applaud the family’s innovative spirit—and I am sure the spirit of their father did not mind either.

The tradition of music in funerals is well attested in biblical, post-biblical texts, Mishnahic and medieval sources.

In biblical sources, the Hebrew term qînâ (qînôt), is an oral poetic music used for times of national calamity and mourning. The best known example of this kind of singing can be seen in the acrostic style of writing found in Lamentations. Indeed, one of the more extraordinary images of God in the Bible is that of a musician and composer. The prophet Jeremiah depicts God as mourning for Moab, “Hence the wail of flutes for Moab is in my heart; for the men of Kir-heres the wail of flutes is in my heart: the wealth they acquired has perished” (Jer. 48:36 NAB).

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus arrives at the ruler’s home and saw the flute players and a crowd making a tumult, he said, “Depart; for the girl is not dead but sleeping ” (Mt 9:23, 24; Mk 5:38, 39). The NT passage suggests that the flute players went to work immediately at the time of death, as well as the time leading to the internment.

Josephus writes that when the news reached Jerusalem of the fall of Jotapata to the Roman armies in 67 C.E., “Most people engaged flute-players to lead their lamentations.” This style of mourning was common throughout the ancient world; Greece, Rome, Phoenicia, Assyria all utilized the flute in times of loss. Roman funeral processions were especially known for being very noisy. Musicians used to lead the way blowing their trumpets, horns and flutes announcing the presence of the corpse.[2]

The wailing of the flute players, the cries of the mourners, the sound of torn garments, was unmistakably common in the cities of ancient Israel. Note that the Jewish mourners had no afterthoughts whether they were emulating the pagan gentiles or not.

In the Mishnah, we also find: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי חֲלִילִים וּמְקוֹנֶנֶת R. Judah says, “Even the poorest man in Israel should not hire fewer than two flutes and one professional wailing woman [for a funeral]” (Ketubbot 4:4). Other Mishnaic sources speak about the use of pipes or flutes as a normal part of the Jewish funerals.[3] The rabbis lifted their prohibitions against women’s voices being heard in public were relaxed for funerary rituals.[4]

Maimonides similarly ruled  almost 1200 years later,”  When a man’s wife dies, he is obligated to bury her and to have eulogies and lamentations performed as is the local custom. Even a poor Jewish man should provide at least two flutes and one woman to lament.“[5]

Why is the music of the flute so special? Maimonides explains that the plaintive melody moves a person to tears at a funeral.[6] The Halachic Codes all acknowledge this custom.[7]

One 14^th century classical work on mourning, Kol Bo al Hilchot Aveilut  admits that during the Talmudic period music was part of the funeral, but rejects its reintroduction because it would be as a result of non-Jewish influence—undoubtedly referring to the Christians, who used music in their mourning rites. Some Halachic authorities had no problem with music being played at a funeral–so long as the musicians happened to be Jewish. It is interesting to note that this custom continued in Egypt during the early 19th century.

A very dear friend of the TBS synagogue died this past week. His name was Kurt Sax, and this Viennese Jew loved the Spanish guitar. In honor of his memory, two of his good friends played a couple selections  that Kurt really loved.  I can personally attest that the music was very  meaningful and moving for the family and their friends.

Was it traditional?

Maybe not by Rabbi Yona Metzger’s standards.

However, I will say Rabbi Metzger is right on one point. If a rabbi chooses to pursue such a path, it is important that he remind the people not to applaud, after all–it is a funeral and not a concert.

However, history has allowed this type of musical innovation. I think Jewish law and tradition needs to be less austere and  become innovative, as it once was before.  If Judaism is to be healthy, we must find a way to make our faith more appealing and less hung up on the external forms of Jewish piety.

In other words, it’s time to allow music to liberate the heart that inspires and experiences prayer—in good times and in bad times.

Notes:

[1] http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-295900-00.html

[2] Lucian, On Funerals 3.6, 3.58, 3.61 and 3.70; Pliny, Natural History10.121; Suetonius, Julius Caesar 84.

[3] Singing and instrument playing at funerals is discussed at Mishnah Shabbat 23:4, Mishnah Bava Metzia 6:1.

[4] BT Kiddushin 80b; Sukkoth 52a.

[5] Maimonides, Hilchot Ishut 14:23 contra Kol Bo.

[6] Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 23:4.

[7] אנציקלופדיה תלמודית הערות כרך ט, הספד, טור תרט הערה 81  –  81.

משנה כתובות מו ב וגמ’ שם מה א; רמב”ם אישות פי”ד הכ”ג; טוש”ע אהע”ז פט א. וע”ע בעל כרך ד עמ’ עז.

We live less than the time it takes to blink an eye, if we measure our lives against eternity…. Yet, I have learned a long time ago that a blink of an eye in itself is nothing. But the eye that blinks, that is something. A span of life is nothing. But the man who lives that span—he is something. He can fill that tiny span with meaning, so its quality is immeasurable though its quantity may be insignificant.

We gather together this day to pay special respect to a wonderful member of our community, Kurt Sax. Throughout his long and distinguished life he left a lasting impression on everyone who was fortunate enough to know him To paraphrase Psalm 23, “goodness and kindness” followed him all the days of his life.

A SHORT BIOGRAPHY

Let me tell you a little bit about his history;

Kurt was born August 24, 1922 in Vienna, Austria. He was the son of Herman and Sophie Sax.

Kurt faced some major challenges early on in his life. His father, Hermann, had died when he was only fourteen months old. His mother Sophie had the Herculean job of raising a son all by herself.

HOW RUTH AND KURT FIRST MET

Ruth and Kurt were actually distant cousins, and in European countries it was not at all unusual for cousins to marry one another. They met when they were very young; he was 12, she was about 9—and their childhood memories and fondness for one another brought back together years later—after the War.

You see, Ruth’s grandfather happened to be teaching Kurt his Bar Mitzvah lessons, and that is how they met one another! Ruth said that she always knew that she would someday marry Kurt.

THE WAR YEARS

Kurt was a young man in Vienna shortly before the infamous Kristallnacht, the “Night of Shattered Glass.” Kurt recalls how the Nazis made him clean the streets. Just imagine how frightening it must have been to be a young person walking the streets of Vienna or Berlin, when the Nazis looked for any excuse to harass or kill “troublesome” Jews. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, Kurt managed to flee to Northern Italy where he remained throughout the war, while Ruth was first sent to the Theresienstadt; then she was sent to Auschwitz, and then returned to Theresienstadt.

During the War, Kurt had written over 150 letters to possible relatives bearing the name Sax—hand written letters, asking them to sponsor him in the United States, so that he might someday become a U.S. citizen. Bear in mind that there was no Internet, or Facebook, or other social media outlets. When he had arrived in the United States, he had only one dollar in his pocket.

One man named Isaac Potts, sponsored four children—and Kurt was one of them!

For some time after the War, Kurt worked as a real estate broker and had eight agents working for him. Kurt later became a stockbroker where he worked for many decades. Kurt always took interest in his client’s welfare and future—and always acted ethically when dealing with other people’s money.

REUNITED AFTER THE WAR

The War had ended and a relative showed Kurt a picture of “Little Ruthie” who had managed to miraculously survive the death camps. They started corresponding and soon, young Kurt decided to fly back to Czechoslovakia, where they soon met, fell in love, and got married to Bernau, Moravia. Afterwards, he and other family members and friends helped worked to bring Ruth and other relatives to the United States.

Ruth and Kurt lived a wonderful life together. Ruth and Kurt were deeply in love for over sixty-six years. They traveled all over the world, visiting places like Hawaii, Israel, Czechoslovakia, and numerous other destinations. Kurt especially enjoyed visiting the bullfights, an ancient prehistoric sport that has survived the ravages of time.

KURT’S SPECIAL FAMILY

Soon after their marriage, Kurt and Ruth had two daughters—Eva and Sandy. Kurt also had a half-brother named Hansel, who had a son named Steven. Kurt loved his nephew Steven, who was much like the son he never had. Steven used to call up and Kurt and Ruth every day—even to the end. They were a very close knit family.

A FATHER’S GIFTS

When you think about it, our parents give us many special gifts in the course of our lives as children. Sometimes, it takes us many years to recognize the precise nature of these gifts. In the case of Eva and Ruth, each of them received from their father a love for music. Kurt was a very talented singer and musician. He knew how to play the piano, the accordion, clarinet, and saxophone—he played each of these instruments quite well. Eva happens to be a skilled flute player, and Sandy plays the clarinet and the piano as well. Sandy and Kurt used to play the piano together, with Eva playing the clarinet—much to the delight of their friends and family.

Kurt taught Eva her bat mitzvah portion and showed her how to prepare any Haftorah. The love of Judaism Kurt instilled in Eva, inspired her later in life to study for the rabbinate. She is currently in her third year. Eva’s love of Judaism is a living testament to the love Kurt felt for his faith.

KURT WAS A MENTSCH

Kurt always liked helping people in need. You could say that a friend in need was Kurt indeed! Larry, Eva’s husband shared with me something that was especially noteworthy: Kurt treated people with dignity and respect. It didn’t matter whether a person happened to be a CEO of a Bank, or the most common worker—Kurt did not keep a scorecard, nor did he play favorites—he believed in making his relationships with people count. He was a good person.

Mark and Larry also describe Kurt as a people person; Kurt was someone who loved schmoozing with people whenever the occasion presented itself. He could crack a good joke, loved making puns, and enjoyed good humor. When Kurt arrived in the United States, he had spent some time in the South and his pleasant demeanor and love for people became one of his best known qualities.

Kurt proved to be a loving husband, father, son-in-law, nephew, cousin and grandparent to his family. The grandchildren Sam and Max, Amalia, Anessa remember how their grandfather would do a Havdalah ceremony marking the end of the Shabbat, while they held the candle and had a little sip of Havdalah wine and the family Passover Seders. Kurt loved having a full house of family and friends for the Passover Seder.

KURT’S SYNAGOGUE INVOLVEMENT

Kurt was deeply devoted to his Jewish faith; he was very active as a President and lay leader in Temple Beth Shalom.

In the years that TBS struggled to find and keep a rabbi, Kurt basically ran all the services as a lay-leader. Kurt’s love of opera and music could be seen in the way he would chant the Adon Olam prayer, which he sometimes sung it to the tune of Carmen. In his own way, he tried hard to spice up the services.

When the Shul needed someone to train the young people for Bar Mitzvah, he was there. Kurt proved to be a good speech writer, and enjoyed giving a sermon on the weekly Torah portion. He would organize the yearly community Passover Seders and delighted in planning special fund-raising events to bring in income to the synagogue.

One of the most important lessons he inspired young people to view their Bar/Bat Mitzvah training as a spiritual journey, which is actually more important than the bar mitzvah performance and celebration.

I only wish more rabbis had that kind of attitude.

On one Yom Kippur, he shocked the congregation with one of his most memorable speeches: He announced that TBS was for sale. Then he listed the various buildings that the synagogue was going to sell, e.g., the Synagogue building, the Pre-School and Religious School classes, the social hall, and so on. When the members asked him, “Kurt, who’s going buy the buildings?” He replied with a wry grin, “All of you—of course, for without your financial help, we will not be able to keep the doors of TBS open.”

And surprisingly, the people gave … And we are still in business largely because of the contributions this man made; he reminded our community that the synagogue cannot function without the support of its members.

Even after Kurt had his first stroke when he was 83, the synagogue continued to play an important role in his life.

I will never forget how they cared for one another and whenever Kurt received an aliya to the Torah, Ruth stood up with beamed with great pride; Kurt likewise reciprocated by standing up whenever Ruth received an aliya to the Torah. As a new rabbi in Chula Vista, I was deeply impressed by their love and respect for one another.

KURT’S LAST WEEKS

The major concern of the family was that he would die at home; Kurt always considered TBS his spiritual home and he has come back one last time to be with us in his home.

In Jewish tradition, we have a custom of counting the Omer—a period of time between Passover and Shavuoth. Judaism is a religion that teaches us to count and sanctify time. While I was privileged to be at Kurt’s bedside in the weeks leading to his death, I saw something truly wondrous:

Kurt’s daughter, Sandy spent weeks away from her job with Cirque du Soleil and acted as an incredible caregiver to both her father and her mother.

Last week, I remember seeing Sandy davin (pray) with her father, who was already taking large doses of morphine, to lighten his pain. Sandy had him dressed with his Tallit; Kurt wore his Yarmulke, and she would say some of the prayers he loved reciting. She would take a swab of white zinfandel wine and put it on his lips, and make Hamotzi on a chocolate chip bagel. After reciting the Adon Olam, he whispered, “Amen.”

Within a half-hour after the Shabbat had begun, he expired—just as he had hoped he would—on the Shabbat.

Here is a poem I slightly paraphrase, so that you might appreciate the bullfight as a metaphor for the brave soul, who finds himself confronted by the challenges of life:

The Matador (by Steve Reeve + slightly paraphrased in honor of Kurt Sax)

In the rage of the noonday sun,
In a suit of glittering light’s He comes,
To face death,
Leaving the crowd, with bated breath.

He stands erect and proud,
His name the aficionados shout out loud,
“El Leon, El Leon—Kurt Sax!”they cry,
And wonder if today, will he die.

The gate is open, the bull is out,
Six hundred kilos without a doubt,
El Toro spies the man,
the bull will kill Him if it can.

With graceful movements He swings His cape,
Leaving the crowd with mouths agape,
Standing steady and skilled throughout the years,
This Matador has conquered his fears

El Toro moves in for a kill,
For the mob it is such a thrill,
It’s horns pass within an inch,
And El Leon Kurt Sax thought this would be a cinch.

The crowd does frown,
For the old El Leon Kurt Sax is down,
But wait He rises,
And everyone surprises.

And now the ultimate thrill,
El Leon Kurt Sax has decided, the kill,
El Toro face’s the final part,
As the Matadors sword pierces his heart.

He was brave, He was strong,
The crowd moves forward as one,
“El Leon, El Leon, Kurt Sax!” they cry,
We know you will never die.

True, the President indicated that he had reservations on whether he should personally endorse same sex marriage, or not. Although I think the President would be wise to speak more about the economy, the question about accepting gay relationships and marriage is an important issue—but not because of its political ramifications. In a democratic society, the homogenization of public opinion is not always possible or even desirable. People have a right to their opinions on this subject—even if I, as a citizen, may not necessarily agree.

There is a higher issue at work here: it’s really about personal autonomy, i.e., the freedom for consensual adults to live one’s personal life without government interference. Therefore, I support anyone’s right to choose having a same-sex marriage.

In all honesty, I did not always feel this way.

Let me share a story with you. In the late 1980s, I lived in San Francisco and I was the rabbi of a Modern Orthodox congregation in the Richmond District of San Francisco. My father was a Holocaust survivor who had witnessed many terrible things in Auschwitz and Majdanek, two of the worse concentration camps of the Holocaust era. Hitler, as you may know, went after the gay community and killed approximately 15,000 in the camps. My father remembered seeing how they were treated. Their suffering left an impression upon him that he never forgot.

After settling in Alameda, CA., my father helped establish Alameda’s first Reform synagogue—Temple Israel. Well, one Sunday, I went to visit my father and he was on his way to attend a wedding. I asked him, “Where are you going?” He replied, I am going to be a witness for a gay Jewish wedding.” Feeling surprised—even shocked—I observed, “Dad, you never cease to amaze me; you are the last person I would have ever expected to participate in a marriage ceremony, given your religious background . . .” Dad replied with a smile, “What’s the matter with you son? What’s so terrible about two human beings wanting to affirm their love and commitment to each other?”

My Father’s words left a lasting impression. He helped me to look beyond the religious barriers that tend to stigmatize or marginalize feeling people in the name of “Tradition.” Just as I mentioned earlier, same-sex unions between consenting adults is a privacy issue. Nobody—whether it is the State or the Church or synagogue—has the right to micromanage people’s personal lives.

Earlier this past week, I briefly participated on an Orthodox blog named Hirhurim, and while I was on, I was surprised to read some of the comments regarding Rabbi Elliot Dorf, who happens to be an outstanding Conservative rabbinical scholar. One person felt it was wrong to call Rabbi Dorf by his title, “Rabbi,” since he endorses gay marriages. Some of us demurred. I wrote, “Whether you recognize Rabbi Dorf as a rabbi is not the issue here; it’s really about respect. You cannot go wrong showing kindness to another person. One can politely agree to disagree without being disagreeable.”

As the conversation ensued, one participant quipped, “According to the Torah, homosexuality is punishable by death!” I asked him, “Can you show me a single instance in Judaism where anyone was ever executed for being a homosexual?” He had no answer. I pointed out that there are two kinds of cases where a homosexual may be executed according to the Mishnah. One case pertains to someone who is threatening to sodomize a man, i.e., homosexual rape. Alternatively, the Mishnah may be speaking of someone threatening to sodomize an underage male child (BT Sanhedrin 73a). However, both cases appear to be only theoretical for there is no court record of any homosexual ever having been executed. If anything, the law is heuristic and intended for some future application, should the practical need arise. In the medieval Jewish period, the death penalty was sometimes administered on an ad hoc basis.

In our discussion, I explained that the scriptural basis of this law most likely derives from the famous biblical story of Lot and the angels:

• But before they laid down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; ⁵ and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” (Gen 19:4-5).

Obviously, the townspeople were interested in not inviting the guests for coffee, cake or crumpets. However, one thing is motivating their behavior—a desire to show that they are in control.  Homosexual rape has nothing to with love or even, “free love (for you ex-Hippies). However, it has everything to do with dominance and control. This would also explain why the Torah considers the rape of a male—“an abomination” (Lev. 20:13). Although this term is not used for cases of ordinary rape, one must remember that in a patriarchal society, sodomizing someone against his will evokes disgust and primal fear. In fact, it still does—even in the 21^st century.

So, in the final analysis, what does this mean? For one thing, ancient Israel’s society differed considerably from our own. Just because Abraham and Sarah lived in tents, doesn’t mean that we should live in tents also in order to emulate their particular lifestyle. Monogamous male relationships probably did not exist, or, happened to be extremely uncommon in ancient Israel, as it later occurred in Greek and Roman societies. Therefore, the issue of a same-sex marriage is for all practical terms historically irrelevant.

In addition, I would add that there are numerous passages that we do not interpret the Torah literally. The Torah tells us to “circumcise the foreskin of our hearts” (Deut. 10:16). Yet, I do not know of any fundamentalist who would interpret this passage literally; if he did, he would be a fool. In fact, the rabbis frequently refused to interpret biblical legislation pertaining to the death penalty literally because of their concern for the social welfare of the community.[1] We do not stone people for adultery either. If we did, a sizable portion of our society would be dead by now.

Unlike the Fundamentalists of the evangelical community, which tends to focus on the literalism of biblical truth, Jewish tradition has long argued that exegetical interpretations are derived contextually as well. Evangelical scholars often derive the prohibition against same-sex marriage from the biblical passage, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen 24:25).

While it is true the Genesis passage speaks of a marriage between a man and a woman who create new life, one must remember that marriage is not only for the sake of siring children. The emotional bond of marriage, i.e., “becoming one flesh” can also mean a fully monogamous life that involves sharing and caring to one another. Marriage is the most profound connection that binds two human beings as they face good and sorrowful times together. Each partner is always present supporting the other. “One flesh” entails a lifelong, exclusive attachment of one person to another—both physically and spiritually; this sharing involves a willingness to eliminate all the barriers that keeps their hearts apart from one another.

In summary,  a contextual reading of the Torah dealing with homosexuality allows for a more elastic postmodern interpretation that could conceivably permit same-sex marriages.

One last question arises: Is it Halachic?

Halacha is not a static system. It allows for a radical re-visioning of Jewish law based upon the ever changing social circumstances. Hillel, for example, permitted people to circumvent the agricultural laws of the Sabbatical Year—despite the fact scripturally speaking—all debts are cancelled.[2] People who have committed suicide used to be buried in the outer parameters of a Jewish cemetery as a sign of disgrace. Today, psychoanalysis has completely altered our understanding of suicide, which often has physical or psychological causes that overpower a mentally ill person. The rabbis of the Talmud did not understand or legislate against pedophilia, but given what we now know about this terrible social and psychological disease, we would be foolish to rely on the views of Sages that lived almost 2000 years ago who thought molesting a child was harmless.[3] Women never voted in biblical times; today, despite the fact that many Halachic scholars think it is biblically forbidden for women to participate in an election or even run for a political office[4] (see the Woman’s Suffrage debate of the early 20^th century in the halachic literature[5]).

For generations, the Orthodox homosexual has been marginalized, ignored, and often shamed for being “different.”

This can no longer be tolerated.

Across the Orthodox divide, more and more Orthodox gays are “coming out” and demand that they be treated honorably and lovingly by their families and by their communities. The world has changed, and so must the Halacha. Nobody has the moral or halachic right to expect or demand that a Jewish homosexual ought to spend the rest of his/her life in seclusion, bereft of a life companion.

Notes:

[1] Here are just a few examples: The majority of sages commenting in the Mishnah on the  biblical law pertaining to lex talionis (Exod. 21:24-2) interpreted this law in terms of compensation—contrary to Rabbi Eliezer, who insisted on a more literal interpretation (Bava Kama 8:1; cf. BT Bava Kama 83b-85b). The Torah prescribed death to the wayward and rebellious son (Deut. 21:18-21), which the Sages effectively abolished, along with the biblical laws regarding the apostate city found in Deuteronomy 12:12-18 (BT Sanhedrin 71a).

[2] During the 1^st century, in an effort to ensure that loans would be made to those in need prior to the Sabbatical Year, Hillel instituted the legal provision known as Prozbul, which enabled the courts to collect the debts and circumvent the prohibition of Deuteronomy 15:2 requiring all debts to be cancelled during the seventh year (See Mishnah Shevi’it 10.3–6, BT Gittin 36a).

[3] The Sages ruled that someone who has sexual intercourse with an infant under the age of three is not considered to have had sexual intercourse. The Halachic implication is that if there is incest with a child under three (for example, a father who has sexual relations with his under three year old daughter) it is not considered incest and the father is exempt from punishment  (BT Tractate Niddah 45a). No penalty (financial or corporal)  is prescribed for a father who violates his daughter..

[4] Maimonides explains in the Laws of Kings 1:5 אין מעמידין אשה במלכות שנאמר עליך מלך ולא מלכה. Beyond this general statement, Maimonides clarifies what exactly this means: וכן כל משימות שבישראל אין ממנים בהם אלא איש. Ergo, all leadership positions are for men only.

[5] Arguing against the issue of women’s suffrage in 1919, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook writes:

• Regarding the law, I have nothing to add to the words of the rabbis who came before me. In the Torah, in the Prophets, and in the Writings, in the halakhah and in the aggadah, we hear a single voice: that the duty of fixed public service falls upon men, for “It is a man’s manner to dominate and not a woman’s manner to dominate” (Yevamot 65b), and that roles of office, of judgment, and of testimony are not for her, for “all her honor is within” (Ps. 45:14). Striving to prevent the mixing of sexes in gatherings is a theme that runs through the entire Torah. Thus, any innovation in public leadership that necessarily brings about mixing of the sexes in a multitude, in the same group and gathering, in the routine course of the people’s life, is certainly against the law. (Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, “On the Election of Women” September 1919 – Jerusalem) http://www.edah.org/backend/journalarticle/1_2_debate.pdf

In contrast, the Chief Sephardic Rabbi, Ben Tsion Uziel takes umbrage with Rav Kook, while asserting:

• But are women not creatures, created in the Divine Image and endowed with intelligence? And do they not have concerns that the representative assembly, or the committee it will choose, will be dealing with? And will they not be called upon to obey these bodies regarding their property as well as the education of their sons and daughters? In conclusion: having found not the slightest grounds for this prohibition, I find that no one has the slightest right to oppose or to deny the wishes of part of the public on this matter. Regarding a similar situation, it has been said: “Even if ninety-nine request imposed distribution, and only one demands outright competition, that one should be followed, for his demand is legally right”(Mishnah Pe’ah 4:1). Over and above this, it has been stated: “Women were allowed to lay hands [on their sacrifice] for the sake of giving them a feeling of gratification” (Hagigah 16b), even though such an act appeared to the public as prohibited; how much more so in our case, where there is no aspect of prohibition at all, and where preventing their participation will be for them insulting and deceitful. Most certainly, in this case we should grant them their right.

Cited from Mishpatei Uziel 44 (Translation — Zvi Zohar) “Women’s Rights in the House of Representatives and in Institutions of Public and Yishuv Leadership” http://www.edah.org/backend/journalarticle/1_2_debate.pdf

After the Flood, God lowered the standards of morality and justice He expected of humanity. We would no longer be culpable for slaughtering animals; we would only be held accountable for harming other human beings. Then our moral sensibilities, which had become cold and insensitive in the confusion of life, could once again warm the heart.  If the original prohibition against meat had remained in force, then, when the desire to eat meat became overpowering, there would be  little distinction between feasting on man, beast, or fowl. The knife, the axe, the guillotine, and the electric pulse would cut them all down, in order to satiate the gluttonous stomach of “cultured” man. This is the advantage of morality when it is connected to its Divine Source: it knows the proper  time for each objective, and on occasion will restrain itself in order to  conserve strength for the future.

In the future, this suppressed concern for the rights of animals will be restored. A time of moral perfection will come, when “No one will  teach his neighbor or his brother to know God – for all will know Me, small and great alike” (Jeremiah 31:33). In that era of heightened ethical awareness, concern for the welfare of animals will be renewed.

In the interim, the mitzvot of the Torah prepare us for this eventuality.  The Torah alludes to the moral concession involved in eating  meat, and places limits on the killing of animals. If “you desire to eat  meat,” only then may you slaughter and eat (Deut. 12:20). Why mention the “desire to eat meat”. The Torah is hinting: if you are unable to  naturally overcome your desire to eat meat, and the time for moral  interdiction has not yet arrived – i.e., you still grapple with not harming  those even closer to you (fellow human beings) – then you may slaughter and eat animals.  Nonetheless, the Torah limits which animals we are allowed to eat,  only permitting those most suitable to human nature.

According to Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed  3:48), the animals permitted for food are those most suitable for the human body, and “no doctor will doubt this.” Ramban  disagreed, explaining that the permitted animals are the ones shechitah (ritual slaughtering) restrict the manner of killing animals to the quickest and most humane. With these laws, the Torah impresses upon us that we are dealing with a living creature, not some automaton devoid of life. And after slaughtering, we are commanded to cover the blood, as if to say, “Cover up the blood! Hide your crime!” These restrictions will achieve their effect as they educate the generations over time. The silent protest against animal slaughter will become a deafening outcry, and its path will triumph . . .[1]

For Rav Kook, the reverence for life that we show animals serves to heighten our sensitivities to all life-forms, which exist to serve God. Interpersonal human behavior cannot help but be positively affected by the sensitivity one shows toward all of God’s creations.

Yes, baseball is terrific.

Yet, today,  I must confess: I do not like watching the Barry Bonds and the Roger Clemens baseball hearings take place. Though steroids have been banned in MLB since 1991, the league did not implement league-wide PED (Performance Enhancing Drugs) testing until 2003, two years after Bonds hit 73 home-runs.

On the basis of his impressive career alone from 1987 to 1999, a period where he was steroid free, Bonds would have been a lock for the Hall of Fame. Bonds would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer and he would have also been known as one of the greatest players ever.  Up until that point of Bonds career, he was a three-time National League MVP winner, he won eight Gold Gloves as a left fielder, and he had hit 455 home-runs.  At that time some baseball historians were saying that Bonds was one of the top 10 players ever to live.

If Bonds had never taken steroids, he would have played another six or seven seasons, each year fading a little bit.  He would have certainly surpassed the 500-homerun mark, and he could have made a run at 600.  But even if he ended his career with 445 home runs, he would have been a shoe in for the Hall of Fame because of the amount of home-runs he already had, plus his three MVPs and eight Gold Gloves.

Then Bonds’ record took off. In 2000, he hit a career high 49 home-runs, and then in 2001, he broke McGwire’s single season home-run record by hitting 73.  Bonds went on to surpass Hank Aaron’s career home-run record, and Bonds finished his career in 2007 with 762 home-runs.

It seems to me that some purists feel angry Bonds broke Aaron’s record.

Let’s be truthful with ourselves: the home-run race benefited baseball, and everyone looked the other way. Ok, the fact baseball czars did not test for PED means that one must give the benefit of the doubt to the players. If one wishes to be angry at anyone, be angry at the Baseball Commissioner and his associates for not testing the players. Bear in mind that after the infamous Baseball Strike of 1994-1995, fans like me, vowed never to watch another ballgame. When Big Mac and Sammy Sosa started their famous competition, thousands of fans came back to the game with a spirit of forgiveness. Bud Selig, the Baseball Commissioner delighted in the renewed interest of the game.

We all did.

The time has come for fans to give credit where credit was due.  If we want to go after anybody, we should inspect the politicians from the President to the common Congressman and see whether their records will stand the test of purity and honesty.

Somehow, I don’t think they would do so well.

Ask yourself a simple question: Who do the politicians think they are? Do they fancy themselves as the guardians of baseball purity?

What is wrong with this picture?

Think again.  Aren’t these the same politicians who have squandered Social Security monies and Medicare funding? Aren’t these the same charlatans who are personally enriching themselves at the expense of the public, e.g., inside trading?

“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

Just for the record, whatever Bonds or Clemens may have done is benign when compared to the kind of the antics baseball has tolerated for much of its history. In fact, fewer sports can claim as many cheaters as baseball. Baseball and cheating have a long history. The artful deception of the Baseball Other is the stuff that baseball lore and legends are made up of. Contrary to popular political belief, there are a lot of players in the Hall of Fame who would have never made it for we have empirical evidence that cheating took place. Some cheated long enough to change the outcome of a pennant race, while others cheated throughout their careers. Some cheated just for the fun of it.

In Jungian terminology, baseball has a shadow side that cannot be denied. Let’s be honest, baseball is not a shrine for Catholic saints or Hassidic Rebbes (many of whom, also cheated). It is a place where we honor the memory and life achievements of baseball’s immortal heroes, but make no mistake: many of them were not saints.

In the interest of brevity, I will mention just a few of the game’s best known baseball cheaters:

• 1. New York Giants (1951)  – Bobby Thomson

The year was 1951. Bobby Thomson got mobbed by his Giants’ teammates after hitting the “shot heard ’round the world.”

“That year, the Giants admitted they had an elaborate sign-stealing system in place at the Polo Grounds in 1951. Did it help them erase the 13½-game lead the Dodgers had in August? Did Bobby Thomson know what Ralph Branca was throwing when he hit his “Shot heard around the world?” Those questions are unanswerable, even by Thomson, who exhibited Clintonesque qualities when he was once questioned by the Wall Street Journal, years later. He said,  “I’d have to say more no than yes . . .” After equivocating, he finally said, “No, I didn’t  steal the sign for that pitch.”

• 2. John McGraw (3B, SS, OF, Orioles, Cardinals, Giants, 1891-1906)

This Hall-of-Famer should have played football. Two old chroniclers named  Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns  wrote in “Baseball: An Illustrated History,” On the field,  the 155-pound McGraw “held far bigger base runners back by the belt, blocked them, tripped them, spiked them — and rarely complained when they did the same to him.” He was known to grab onto runners belts as they were rounding third, and grab the belt loops of runners tagging up at third. “He uses every low and contemptible method that his erratic brain can conceive to win a play by a dirty trick,” wrote one reporter.

• 3. Gaylord Perry (pitcher, Giants, Indians, Rangers, Padres, Yankees, Braves, Mariners, Royals, 1962-1983)

“Gaylord Perry, a Hall-of-Famer, compiled his 314-265 record on the wings of a Vaseline ball. He’d stand on the mound, touching his cap or his sleeve, either loading up the ball or trying to convince batters he was doing so. In 1982, he became one of the very few pitchers to be suspended for doctoring the ball. Gene Tenace, who was Perry’s catcher with the Padres, said the ball was sometimes so loaded he couldn’t throw it back to the mound. Indians president Gabe Paul defended Perry: “Gaylord is a very honorable man,” he said. ‘He only calls for the spitter when he needs it.’”

• 4. Ty Cobb, one of Baseball’s greatest players, loved to sharpen his spikes and maim anyone who tried to tag him out when he would steal a base.

• 5. Whitey Ford has many outstanding records: Winning percentage, left-hander, career (minimum 100 wins), .690; Most World Series wins, career, 10; Most World Series starts. After his career ended, Ford admitted to occasionally cheating by doctoring the ball with his ring.  Ford, Sutton and Perry were often accused of throwing illegal pitches, scuffed ones or spitters.

We honor some men who found a way around the rules of the game while excluding others? Was Perry an isolated incident? Of course not, Whitey Ford is in the Hall as well. Whitey, the great, was fond of cutting up a baseball or two with a sharp ring he once wore. In short, the infamous list of less than honest citizens goes on. Despite the baseball antics, these players give much for the fans to cheer about. I personally resent the politicians and the purists who are trying to make the Hall of Fame into a religious shrine for the holiest players.

What about Pete Rose? Hasn’t he done enough penance yet? Let’s be honest: Pete Rose made a mistake. But he is hardly alone–we all do. To disregard one of the most successful baseball careers in the history of the game with a zero mistake policy does a disservice to Rose, the teams he played for, the fans who enjoyed watching him play, and the sport of baseball. Pete Rose’s suspension should be lifted for him, and for baseball. Heck, even the Pope forgives, just like Jesus–so should baseball.

Guess what? People who bring excitement to our favorite pastime deserve to have a break. If you want to test the players from now on (which we already do), then fine—but baseball didn’t mind letting their superstars play, and neither should we.

If we are going to start putting asterisks by player’s names, let’s not stop with Bonds or Clemens from entering Cooperstown, let’s go on a witch-hunt and exorcize all the nastiest cheaters from  the Hall of Fame and send them to the Hall of Shame.  Afterwards, in our righteous zeal for purity, let us send a special scapegoat to Azazel, one that will have the names of all the tainted players from baseball history and lore. When we finish this purification ritual, and then we can rest assured that we have expelled all of our baseball demons. After we finish sanitizing baseball, then we can go after the politicians and examine their records.

Book Review:

Society and Self: On the Writings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, by Gerald J.(Ya’akov) Blidstein. OU Press, 2012, 155 pages, ISBN-10: 1602802041, U.S. cover price: $25.00

Gerald J. Blidstein’s Society and Self: On the Writings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik is an excellent introduction to the thought-provoking ideas of Rav Soloveitchik.

The author presents a clear précis of Rav Soloveitchik’s views on a variety of topics such as:

• Could Rav. Soloveitchik be considered as a “Religious Zionist”? (Ch. 1)
• Issues pertaining to Jewish/Gentile and Orthodox/non-Orthodox relationships (Ch. 2)
• Rav Soloveitchik’s thoughts on faith after the Holocaust and the establishment of Israel (Ch. 3)
• The theological and existential tension between the individual and the community (Ch. 4)
• A theology of marriage and its broader implications (Ch. 5)
• A theology of Rav Soloveitchik’s view on human mortality and mourning (Ch.6)

In the interest of brevity, I will focus on some of the themes that impressed me as a reader.

The subject of relationships is especially relevant for our day. Here is a little bit of background to Rav Soloveitchik’s thought. In his famous theological essay, “The Lonely Man of Faith,” the author writes about the two creation stories found in Genesis 1-2. According to Soloveitchik’s typology, Adam in Genesis 1 is a majestic figure—a being capable of technologically mastering the world around him. However, for his knowledge and intellectual prowess, he is “ontologically incomplete” (p. 80). Although Adam and Eve appear in the first chapter, Adam in Genesis 1 is self-sufficient. In Genesis 2, Adam emerges as a being that discovers the reality of loneliness within his soul. Through the discovery of Eve, Adam “forms the first covenantal community, a community in which God is the third partner.” Moreover, “This community bears an ontological character that is the pattern for the covenantal faith community of Israel.”

As a model for the Divine-human covenantal relationship, marriage demands total commitment and constancy; it is more than a contractual arrangement (p. 112). Soloveitchik argues that the theme of covenant “creates a personal experience that enriches and enhances the lives of two individuals” (p. 113).

(It is a pity neither Blidstein, Kolitz, D. Hartman, Norman Lamm, or others have ever written about Rav Soloveitchik’s attitude about biblical criticism, but that is another topic for a future article.)

Particularly interesting is Rav Soloveitchik’s view of Zionism. Rav Soloveitchik rejected a secular Jewish existence, which he regarded as a betrayal to Jewish destiny (p. 67). Yet, Blidstein also notes that the Rav was highly critical of the Haredi—who, incidentally, never forgave the Rav’s criticism of their movement and theology (p. 21). It is a pity Blidstein did not elaborate more on the Rav’s critique of Haredism.

Unlike the Hassidic Rabbis (Gerer, Chabad, Satmar, Belz) who viewed the founding of Israel as a spiritual catastrophe (for the Jews rejected the Messianic redemption foretold by the prophets and the Sages and opted instead for a secular redemption), Rav Soloveitchik celebrated the rebirth of Israel as “an almost supernatural occurrence” (p. 20). When one considers what the Jews went through with the Holocaust, I am perplexed at how Rav Soloveitchik could say that the founding of Israel is “an almost supernatural occurrence”? (Emphasis added.) When King Cyrus of Persia decided to let the Jews go back and resettle their homeland and rebuild their ancestral Temple, Isaiah minced no words about the amazing turn of events. He exclaims:

Who says to the deep,

“Be dry—I will dry up your rivers”;

Who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd,

And he shall carry out all my purpose”;

And who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be rebuilt,”

And of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.”

Isaiah 44:24-28

If Cyrus could serve as God’s “Moshiach” (‘Messiah”), why couldn’t President Truman also serve in that providential capacity? It seems to me that Rav Soloveitchik  may have felt reticent to endorse Israel as a supernatural epiphany of God’s Presence  in modern history. The logistics of creating a secular State that is also loyal to Jewish tradition are daunting. The thought of such a feasible reality probably made the Rav choose his words wisely.

Yet, who could deny that Israel is a supernatural miracle of our modern age–especially so soon after the Jewish people’s greatest tragedy–the Holocaust?

Notwithstanding the Rav’s great love for the modern State of Israel, he never visited the country. PM Menachem Begin even offered him the position of Chief Rabbi many times, but he refused to take the position.

What a pity!

In conclusion, on the back cover of the book, Blidstein presents a vital message that sums up Soloveitchik’s view of American Orthodoxy:

• The Rav is very concerned that Orthodoxy has lost its dignity. He does not mean by this that it is insufficiently formal, nor is he referring to any lack of honor, of ceremonialism. On the contrary, he already discerned, in the early 1960s, that American Jewry had become disillusioned with the ceremonial sheen of organized religion, and that he saw the beginnings of the search for less-established religions. He was referring primarily to an absence of personal spiritual depth and to intellectual decline—tendencies that he saw in the public arena as well. One gets the sense that he regarded American Jewry, and Orthodox Jews in particular, as a spiritually and culturally enervated group, whether compared to the Jews of Western Europe or to those of Eastern Europe. His students were talented and well prepared, but he decried their lack of historical (and religious) rootedness, their personal roughness, and their limited spiritual development . . .”

Blidstein makes an excellent point. As I read this section several times, I found myself reminiscing Simon and Garfunkel’s famous lyric, “Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.”

The same thing could just as easily be said about the Rav, “Where have you gone Rav Soloveitchik? A confused frum (religious) world turns its lonely eyes to you.”

Unfortunately, today’s religious world of Haredim resembles Franz Kafka’s famous short story, “The Metamorphosis,” a tale about a man who woke up and discovered he had become a cockroach. Today’s Orthodoxy likewise has changed much since the death of Rav Soloveitchik. Haredism has pushed the Modern Orthodox Jewish community more to the right. In Israel, the Haredi have negated the conversions of Modern Orthodox rabbis, much like they have done with other streams of Judaism.

I doubt whether he would be happy and proud seeing how many of today’s religious Jewish leaders (i.e., the “Gedolim”) lampoon the venerable forms of Jewish piety, painting themselves as fools, fanatics and charlatans for all to see, or read about their hypocrisies on the Internet. One is reminded of the famous Talmudic passage: “King Jannai said to his wife’, ‘Fear not the Pharisees and the non-Pharisees. Beware of the hypocrites who ape the Pharisees; because their deeds are as immoral as Zimri’s; yet, they expect a reward like Phineas” (BT Shabbat 16b).

We can only hope that new leaders from within the ranks of Orthodoxy will someday chart a new course based upon the ethical and theological teachings of Rav Soloveitchik.

I sincerely recommend Gerald J. Blidstein’s Society and Self: On the Writings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. In addition, another excellent introduction to Rav Soloveitchik’s writings is Zvi Kolitz’s Confrontation: The Existential Thought of Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1993).

**

Reviewer: Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel, Rabbi of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista, Author of: Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Commentary Vol 1. Genesis 1-3 (Aeon, 2010)

Answer:  To begin with, I wish to offer you my sincerest condolences on the loss of your beloved son.

After discussing your letter with two psychologists, an ethicist, and an attorney, we arrived at the mutual opinion that you have every right to tell your mother what exactly happened. One does not live to be 90 years old without enduring some painful moments.

Mothering is a lifetime vocation, and I feel she will rise to the occasion and give you the maternal support you need. Oftentimes an older parent can display a courage and ability to rise to the occasion. She has a right to know. And you, as her daughter, have the right to tell her. Hiding the truth in this case is denying your mother’s personal autonomy.

If the situation was in reverse, and you were in your mother’s shoes, what would you want? Pose the same question to your sister (if you haven’t already), “Beloved sister, what would you do if the situation were in reverse?” It is possible she would not act any different, but that is ultimately her choice.

Naturally, it goes without saying that the manner in which you disclose this information is of the utmost importance. Be careful how you word with what you’re going to say. Given the sensitivity of the matter, you may want to have an old family friend or rabbi (if you are close with your rabbi) present with you to lend emotional support.

Incidentally, physicians are often confronted with this type of situation all the time. Physicians often have to tell an elderly or dangerously ill patient the truth about their condition and their chances for survival. Most of the literature I have studied on this subject indicates that the elderly patient has every right to know, but the matter must be tactfully approached.

Your letter did not indicate what kind of relationship you have with your sister. Nevertheless, she is entitled to her opinion, but you are not beholden to accept her opinion simply because she is your sister. As a loved one approaches death, there is considerable separation anxiety that children feel. That is normal, but your mother also realizes that on some psychological and moral level, she has responsibilities to you. Allow the floodgates of motherhood to bring healing to your relationship. And for this final act of kindness and love, you will forever feel grateful that she was there with you—to the very end.

“A mother’s love is patient and forgiving when all others are forsaking, it never fails or falters, even though the heart is breaking.”

I will keep you in my prayers,

Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel

• R. Yose says, “Under no circumstances is one put to death unless both witnesses against him have given warning to him,” as it is said, ‘At the testimony of two witnesses’ (Deut. 7:6).”[3] He whose trial ended and who fled and was brought back before the same court—they do not reverse the judgment concerning him and retry him. He whose trial ended and who fled and was brought back before the same court—they do not reverse the judgment concerning him and retry him . . . A Sanhedrin which imposes the death penalty once in seven years is called murderous.
  
• R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, “Once in seventy years.” R. Tarfon and R. Akiba say, “If we were on a Sanhedrin, no one would ever be put to death.”[4] Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, “So these Sages would multiply the number of murderers in Israel.”[5]

Moreover, the defendant may not be put to death unless two (or in some cases three) eyewitnesses testify against him or her. Each witness must be so certain of his testimony that he personally would be willing to carry out the execution. A passage from Deuteronomy 19:13-21 asserts that a plotting witness is subject to the same punishment as the defendant—including, in all probability, capital punishment. Although the Torah prescribes the death penalty in the case of adolescent rebellion (i.e., “the rebellious son” of Deut. 21:18-21), the Sages admit, “Such a case never occurred, and it never will happen.” They argue that the entire passage is heuristic, so, “That you may study [the Torah for its own sake] and receive reward.” [6]  The rabbinic angst and reticence to implement the death penalty, and its alternative system of imprisonment is of considerable relevance for modern biblical scholars and laity.

Subsequent rabbinical law is pretty straightforward about such cases. Maimonides writes, “The following rules apply when two groups of witnesses present conflicting testimonies. If a witness from one group came together with one witness from a different group and both deliver testimony concerning another matter, the testimony is of no consequence. It is obvious that one of them is lying, but we cannot ascertain which one.”[7]Likewise Maimonides also notes, “Should a court err with regard to a case involving capital punishment and convict an innocent person, ruling that he is guilty, and they discover a rationale that would require that the ruling be nullified and he be vindicated, they nullify the ruling and retry the case. If the Court erroneously ruled and acquitted a person liable to be executed, then the judgment is not nullified and the case is not retried.” [8]

According to the Jerusalem Talmud, one disqualified witness invalidates all other testimonies—regardless of the number of witnesses testifying. [9] If a judge suspects one of the witnesses is actually lying, he cannot render a decision (cf. Isa. 11:3-4). [10] Unlike American civil law that allows known criminals to testify in court against an alleged murderer, rabbinic law prohibits the testimony of criminals because (1) they have zero credibility in rabbinical law and (2) a credible witness cannot join forces with a dishonest witness. [11] Among modern Talmudic scholars, R. Louis Jacobs points out that despite the reticence of rabbis in the Talmud to apply the death penalty, the Sages acknowledged that are a number of important exceptions.

Against all this is the Talmudic statement (Sanhedrin 46a) that as an emergency measure, “when the generation requires it,” a court has the power to “act against the Torah” and to order an execution or other “illegal” physical penalties. In other words, although it is illegal to impose the death penalty, the court can, on rare occasions, act illegally if the aim is to protect the Torah. Naturally, it all depends on the circumstances that would warrant executions without the due process of the law. The statement was never interpreted as meaning that what the Law took away with one hand it gave back with the other.

The German and French communities in the Middle Ages ignored the statement altogether and never imposed the death penalty, not even when circumstances seemed to call for it. Not so in Muslim Spain, where the Gentile authorities gave the Jewish courts a good deal of autonomy. In Spain, albeit on rare occasions, the courts did rely on the Talmudic statement and imposed otherwise illegal penalties such as mutilation (found nowhere in the classical sources) of certain offenders; they also executed offenders such as informers who endangered the community. When Asher ben Yehiel (d. 1327) came from Germany to Toledo in Spain he expressed his horror at the Spanish practice, totally unknown in Germany, although later on, he himself conformed to the Spanish norm.

Notes:

[1] The Mishnah in BT Makkot 7a expresses a well-known view that any Sanhedrin that imposes the death penalty once in seven years is called “murderous.” R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, “Once in seventy years.”R. Tarfon and R. Akiba added, “If we were on a Sanhedrin, no one would ever be put to death.”On the other hand, Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel expressed a pro-capital punishment view and responded to critics of the death penalty, “So they would multiply the number of murderers in Israel” (BT Makkot 7a). There is some scholarly debate as to whether the Sages enforced capital punishment even after the Temple’s destruction. The Talmud deals with many theoretical cases pertaining to the death penalty some of which include: the question of intentionality (BT Ketubot 15a); ignorance of the law (BT Makkot 7b); forewarning a potential murderer before he commits the homicide (BT Makkot 6b, 9b); and defining when a court is permitted to handle a murder case in which the judges actually witnessed: (BT Makkot 12a);

[2]Cf. Mishnah. Sanh. 9:5.

[3] Mishnah Makkot 1:9.

[4] Their cross-examination of the witnesses would have been so exhaustive that some flaw would have appeared in their testimony (Kehati).

[5] Mishnah Makkot 1:10. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel felt that Rabbis Akiba and Tarfun would have diminished respect for the law and the fear of punishment, thus increasing the number of murderers.

[6] BT. Sanhedrin 71a.

[7] Maimonides, MT Hilchot Sanhedrin 22:1.

[8] Maimonides, MT Sanhedrin 10:9.

[9] JT Sanh. II, 6 (20c) כל דיאתיקי שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה .

[10] See BT Sanhedrin 6b.

[11] א {א} רשע פסול לעדות ואפילו עד כשר, שיודע בחבירו שהוא רשע, ואין הדיינים מכירים רשעו,  אסור לו להעיד עמו, ג אף על פי שהוא  עדות אמת (ל’ הרמב”ם פ”י מעדות).  ואצ”ל עד כשר שהוא יודע בעדות לחבירו, וידע שהעד השני שעמו עד שקר, שאסור לו להעיד. Cf. Choshen Mishpat 34ff.

In contrast, some exegetes argue that Rashi’s answer to be inadequate.[2] Genesis stresses a basic theological truth, namely—God is the Author of all existence. Ramban[3] (1194–1270), as well other Judaic commentators teaches the importance of creatio ex nihilo—nothing would exist were it not for the creative power of God. Every creature and entity could not exist were it not due to the conscious act of the Divine bringing each being into existence at every moment.

Like Ramban, Rashbam[4] (ca. 1085-1158) also  supports the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, while adding, “Do not imagine that this world you now see and experience had existed forever, for everything in the universe had an absolute beginning—that is why the Torah states from the onset: “At the beginning of the creation of the heaven and the earth . . .” (1:1). Furthermore, reasons Rashbam, the purpose of the creation narrative is to explain why the Sabbath is the cornerstone of all the Jewish holidays—a point that is emphatically stressed in the Decalogue: “Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day. . . . In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Exod. 20:8-10). By observing the Sabbath, Israel bears witness to the world that God is the sole Creator of the universe.

Among the patristic fathers, Theodoret of Cyprus (393-457) explains that after centuries of oppression and assimilation, the Israelites became religiously indistinguishable from their Egyptian masters who believed solely in a visible creation. Consequently, the Israelites had forgotten about the one and true God of their ancestors, who created the heavens and the earth. “The statement that heaven and earth and the other parts of the universe were created and the revelation that the God of the universe was their Creator provided a true doctrine of God sufficient for people of that time.”[5] Theodoret’s point is significant. From the very outset of their freedom, Moses begins re-educating his people by teaching them about the creation story. The purpose of the Sabbath thus serves to teach the people of Israel about the nature of true faith and belief in God. Maimonides later expresses a similar point. According to him, each biblical precept—in one manner or another—aims to raise humankind, as theologian David Hartman notes, “from an anthropocentric to a theocentric concept of religious life.”[6]

Karaite exegete and theologian Aharon ben Eliahu (1260-1320), sharing a somewhat similar opinion to that of Rashbam, points out that the principles of Providence and prophecy would be inconceivable were it not for the belief that God created the world. “Moses,” argues Aharon, “wished to impress upon his people that they look only to God as the Ultimate Cause of their existence.” Like Rashbam, Aharon explains that the purpose of the Creation narrative also serves to theologically reinforce the celebration of the Sabbath.

• Genesis and the Origin of Ethical Monotheism  

R. Samuel David Luzzato (1800-1865) offers an altogether different interpretation. According to him, the opening salvo of Genesis teaches:

Now God wanted to proclaim to humankind about the unity of the world and the unity of the human race, for in error in these two matters caused many evils in ancient times. Without knowledge of the world’s unity, it followed that people believed in private gods with limitations and imperfections, and that people would do evil deeds in order to win their favor. . . . Without knowledge of the unity of the human race it followed that one people would hate and despise another and that physical force—not justice and righteousness—would rule among them. These two cardinal principles—the unity of the world and the unity of the human race—are the overall purpose in the story of Creation.[7]

S. D. Luzzato’s position is reminiscent of the early rabbinic view of 2^nd century sage, R. Simon Ben Azzai, who thought that the greatest single principle one may derive from the Genesis story—or for that matter, the entire Pentateuch—is the statement in Genesis affirming that God created humankind in His Divine image (Gen. 1:26; 5:1). According to Ben Azzai, the most supreme ethical principle in the Torah is the teaching of divine equality and equity. Moreover, this principle exceeds even the famous Levitical passage, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18). For Ben Azzai, respecting the divine image beginning first with oneself, and then with others ensures that society will be just and moral. To insult or harm the divine image in any of its forms is to deny the essential brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind. This is why Ben Azzai affirms that the verse affirming the Divine image is by far the most comprehensive principle of the entire Torah—the bedrock of all biblical morality.[8]

The opening chapters of Genesis thus provide the theological basis for ethical monotheism. Since all races of humankind are made in the image and likeness of God, anyone denying this principle will result in a world that is riddled with violence, tragedy, and needless suffering. One may further argue that this particular theme links together the books of Genesis and Exodus. People cannot mistreat one another with impunity, for in God’s creative order there is accountability. Humankind’s very survival depends upon mastering the forces of chaos that threaten its very survival. The same God who creates the universal laws that govern the cosmos also creates the moral law by which humanity must abide. The Decalogue at Sinai is more than a mere ethical prescription—all ethics regarding how one treats one’s fellow beings derive from the creation narrative.

• The Dangers of Pseudo-Piety

Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin also stresses the importance of ethical monotheism that is the bedrock of the Genesis narratives. He writes:

• The matter that is explained in the Song of Ha’azinu in the verse, ‘The Rock—how faultless are his deeds, how right all his ways! A faithful God, without deceit, how just and upright he is!’  (Deut. 32:4). The term “right” comes to justify the fairness of God’s judgement regarding the destruction of the Second Temple, a generation that can best be described as “perverse and crooked.” Although there were devout and pious people who labored in the study of Torah, they neglected to act uprightly in an ethical manner (lit. “ways of the world”). Due to the gratuitous hatred they harbored in their hearts, they lashed out against anyone they felt who lacked the “fear of God” as being either a Sadducee or a heretic. Their self-righteous attitude led to internecine strife—resulting in the Temple’s destruction. God’s judgement was truly just, for He does not tolerate self-righteous people of this sort. With respect to all ethical matters, they must walk in the proper path, and not in perversity—even if they claim that they are acting in the Name of Heaven, for in the end they were responsible for the Temple’s destruction.[9]

Berlin’s observations still resonate with our 21^st century political and religious landscape. The absence of interpersonal piety is a problem that has manifested itself in a variety of fundamentalist religions of our times and no religion can claim immunity from this charge. In our own day, the insistence upon ideological purity and Pavlovian-like obedience to ecclesiastical authorities often produces the worse kind of citizen.

This is certainly the problem with the Haredi and Hassidic communities in Israel, which insist that even non-Haredi Orthodox Jews comply with their standards of modesty and personal piety. The vitriolic disdain for the Other respects no persons, not even mothers or their young children. In the name of zealotry, violence toward the Other is endorsed by many of Jerusalem’s Haredi and Hassidic leaders, as these groups attempt to expand their political and social influence. With the political ascent of Jihadist Islam (a.k.a. Radical Islam), the threat of holy war and promises of a paradisial world replete with all the sexual pleasure a young man can possibly imagine, threatens to destroy millions in Israel with sophisticated nuclear and biological weaponry. Theocracies are a lot like meat and milk; religion, like milk is fine and politics as an endeavor can also be fine–but when they are mixed, you have a toxic substance.

Here is the paradox: the love of God can function as a healing life-force, the most profound wellspring of compassion. On the flip side, the love of God  is capable of transforming itself into a diabolical death-force, capable of annihilating all life. Religious hatreds tend to be merciless, unyielding, undying, absolute, and are seemingly capable of spontaneous generation.[10]

Let us pray that ethical monotheism finds a way to triumph over its evil twin—radical monotheism, which subsists upon the hatred of the Other for its existence and power.

Notes:

[1] Rashi’s subtle insight captures one of the most important themes of Genesis: the concept of land. In the Abraham pericope, God promises the Holy Land as a gift to Abraham and his descendants. “Land” has a rich and sacred dimension that is inextricably connected to Israel’s possession of it. Israel’s capacity to believe in the divine promise that God made to Abraham is the key that enables future generations to take physical possession of it; this same faith is also what defines Israel’s stewardship of the Land. Although the patriarchs and their children (with the exception of Isaac) experienced life outside of God’s Promised Land, their invisible and sacred bond remained eternally intact.  The theme of land is what ties all the books of the Pentateuch together. The God who created the heavens and the earth is also the God who guided His people to their Promised Land through the prophet Moses and his successor, Joshua, thus fulfilling the biblical promise given to the patriarchs. From Rashi’s comment, God’s designation as “Creator” is historically and inextricably bound up with the success of Israel as His people. To achieve their ultimate purpose, Israel requires the Promised Land to fully realize their mission in the world. For this reason, the Creation narratives form an essential basis for the biblical legislation that follows in the other books of the Pentateuch as noted in Mizrahi’s supra-commentary on Rashi.

[2] Saadia Gaon, Rashbam, Maimonides, Seforno, and Shadal are only a few such examples.

[3] Ramban is an acronym for Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman.

[4] Rashbam is a Hebrew acronym for Rabbi Shmuel, son of Meir. His father was Meir ben Shmuel and his mother was Yocheved, a daughter of Rashi.

[5] Theodoret of Cyprus, The Questions on the Octateuch: On Genesis and Exodus, tr. John F. Petruccione and Robert C. Hill, (Washington: Catholic University of America, 2007), 7.

[6] David Hartman, Maimonides: Torah and Philosophic Quest (New York: JPS, 1976), 170.

[7] Daniel A. Klein (tr.), The Book of Genesis: A Commentary by Samuel David Luzzato (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc., 1998), 2.

[8]  Cf. Sifra to Kedoshim 4:12.

[9]  Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, Ha’amek Davar, Introduction to Bereishit.

[10] Among modern literary scholars, Regina Schwartz in her controversial book, “The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism” criticizes monotheism for endorsing violence by demanding total allegiance to one principle, i.e., one god. Violence directed toward the non-believer is considered acceptable behavior because of the latter’s pagan beliefs reduce him and his family to nonpersons. Thus, when it says in the Decalogue, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:3), this commandment later becomes the basis for Moses’ purge of the Calf-worshipers where he says, “Whoever is for the LORD, let him come to me!” All the Levites then rallied to him, and he told them, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Put your sword on your hip, every one of you! Now go up and down the camp, from gate to gate, and slay your own kinsmen, your friends and neighbors!” (Exod. 32:25-27).  While there is much to be said in favor of her premise, she seems to have difficulty recognizing the various voices within Scripture that reflect the different ideological and theological world views of its writers.