Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

For Jewish Values Online:

Are Haredim changing the face of Traditional Judaism? Is the divide between the ultra-Orthodox and other denominations (Modern Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) too great to promote a better understanding and respect between each other?

You’ve heard of mind reading, but how about mind listening?

Most rabbinical students attribute omnipresence and omniscience as qualities befitting a Creator. Only God is called, “The Knower of Thoughts,” and “The Searcher of the human heart.” Rabbinical wisdom has long taught, “Always keep in mind these three things, and you will never come to the brink of sin: know what is above you—a watchful Eye, an attentive Ear, and all your deeds are recorded in a book.”[1]

But what if God wasn’t the only one monitoring human thoughts and inspecting hearts? What if the State possessed this kind of God-like power? What if the “watchful eye” observing our behavior happens to be a mind-reading machine, or a drone flying above our cities, silently watching our every move? What if the “attentive ear” listening to us happens to be some government agency monitoring our telephone conversations? What if somebody—other than God—is recording our deeds in a special book? Worse still, what if the State had the power to monitor your thoughts?

Are we slowly becoming an Orwellian society?

The jury is out . . .

It is amazing how in some places where the traffic is relatively sparse, you—the driver—can see the presence of a camera monitoring you as you drive along the road. When these cameras first came out, a Russian friend of mine commented, “Not even in the old Soviet Union did we possess such advanced technology for spying.” Obviously, had the technology been available, they certainly would have used it.

Today’s world is very different from the one I remember growing up in.

About a year ago, I decided to rejoin the ACLU.  It wasn’t because I agree with their political issues; many of their cases seem like a waste of time and effort. However, the ACLU is very strong about privacy rights, which I believe is one of the most important issues of our time.

The erosion of democratic values is a slow process. Autocratic forces within the government realize that micromanaging and watching over the affairs of Americans is not something most citizens will approve. Undeterred, our autocrats have found new ways to achieve their objective in creating a modern day Orwellian society. Since the 9/11 attack upon our nation, most Americans feel more “insecure” than past generations about their safety and security. The specter of terrorism has exposed our Achilles heel as a society. Yes, many of us feel we would rather give up some of our freedoms for the sake of feeling secure.

Several new scientific advances now available pose some interesting legal challenges to our concept of privacy. Technological breakthroughs in neuroscience have now demonstrated that it is scientifically possible to read people’s minds. “In fact, some researchers have found that it is monitoring voters’ brains, pupils and pulses, and may be more effective than listening to what they have to say.”[2] The technology is not necessarily evil per se, for many researchers at Berkeley have found that this technology has the potential to restore speech (via prosthesis) to people who have lost their ability to speak, as a result of a traumatic brain injury or stroke. But what about its military applications?

Whether it is electricity or nuclear energy, its moral value is determined by how it is used. Electricity gives light to our homes, but it can also be used to electrocute prisoners. However, given the inevitable military or political use of this technology, it is important that the courts protect our rights and freedoms.

Every person has the right to privacy—which includes the freedom from unlawful intrusion into one’s home, from unreasonable searches of person or property, from eavesdropping on people’s confidential conversations, and from unauthorized reading of personal documents.

Jewish tradition is very sensitive to the issues of privacy rights and there are many Scriptural passages that support everyone’s inalienable right for privacy. For example, “A  scandalmonger reveals secrets, but a trustworthy man keeps a confidence” (Prov 11:13). The ancient Jewish philosopher Ben Sira said, “The foot of a fool rushes into a house, while a well-bred person remains outside.” Over 2100 years later, Alexander Pope expressed a similar thought, “Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.” Ben Sira continues,   “A fool peeps into the house from the door, but a cultured person keeps his glance cast down. It is inappropriate for a person to overhear a private conversation through the door; a considerate person would be upset by the disgrace of it” (Ben Sira 21:22-24).

The Sages prohibited revealing confidences,[3] which gave rise to the ruling, “Let no man search out the secrets of his fellow”[4] In the 10^th century, Rabbi Gershom threatened to put any person under the ban anyone who illicitly read another person’s mail.[5] Nevertheless, there are exceptions depending upon the severity of a crime.[6]

One of the more fascinating concepts of privacy rights in the Talmud deals with properties facing one another in a joint courtyard.” “One may not open in a jointly owned courtyard an entrance facing an entrance or a window facing a window. If it was small, he may not make it large. One, he may not make it two. But he may open to a public thoroughfare a door opposite an entrance and a window opposite a window.”[7] Maimonides thus rules,

• If one of the partners in a courtyard desires to open up a new window from his house overlooking the courtyard, his colleague may prevent him from doing so, for this allows him the possibility of looking at him at all times. If he opens such a window, he must close it. By the same token, partners in a courtyard should not open the entrance of a house opposite the entrance of a neighbor’s house, or a window opposite a neighbor’s window. In the public domain, by contrast, a person may open an entrance opposite a colleague’s entrance and a window opposite a neighbor’s window. For if the neighbor demurred, he could tell him: “Why is my seeing you considered worse than any other passerby, who can also see you?”[8]

In short, the privacy laws pose a slippery slope and in this case, to be forewarned is to be forearmed. It is important that organizations like the ACLU continue their vigilance in safeguarding our civil liberties. Letting your local politician know about your concerns is another way of doing something to ensure the freedoms we all enjoy.

Question: We are told in the Torah that certain actions will cause “karet,” i.e., that the person will be cut off from the nation. What about those Haredi fanatics who are harassing people and vandalizing property? Shouldn’t that earn them “karet” as well? Why should they continue to be part of our nation?

Answer: The question is an interesting one, but before answering, I think it is important to define our terms before we venture forward. Once we define the terms, we will then examine whether or not karet is really applicable with respect to the Haredi behavior.The term karet literally means, “extirpation,” “cut off,” or “cut down,” and is related to the Assyrian word, karâtu, which conveys the same idea of “cutting.” The notion of karet implies being “cut off” from the community of Israel.

As to the nature of being “cut off,” this is  a matter of discussion.

Rabbinical tradition lists 36 types of transgressions that effectively “cut off” the soul from its spiritual root—God. Some early rabbinical texts view the act of excision meant that the sinner would not live to see his 60th birthday, but others think the offender may live up to 70[1]. Should a sinner not die in the assumed time periods mentioned above, the fear of an imminent death probably exerted a frightening effect on the offender’s psyche.

The rabbinical perspective on karet resembles the type of punishments described in Greek mythology. Notions of eternal damnation as championed by Nachmanides, who believes the soul is cut off from God even in the world of Eternity, strikes a modern person as excessive. [2]  Maimonides believes that God denies the wicked sinner’s soul in the hereafter. [3] However, the Talmud does say the power of repentance and the Day of Atonement can suspend the heavenly punishment, and erase all vestige of sin. [4] Support for this perspective may be found in the Tanakh itself, “Cast away from you all the crimes you have committed, and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, O house of Israel?For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies, says the Lord GOD. Return and live!” (Eze.18:31-32).

There is another way of viewing karet that the Talmud and the medievalists did not consider. Karet has nothing to do with being “cut off” in the eternal sense from God.  Rather, it is a form of ostracizing. In a culture where individual identity was defined in terms primarily of the household group to which the individual be longed, karet may have originally meant social ostracizing from all aspects of community life. In pre-modern societies, being a member of the community strengthened both the individual and society as a whole.

Ostracizing meant the offender would have no social relations with his family, friends, business relations, and social network.  Such a penalty must have seemed like death itself. Apart from the community meant being cut off from the deeper reality of life that connects the soul to God. Being cut off had practical consequences, e.g., the loss of status and social privileges. The Christian and Jewish practice of excommunication may well have been inspired by the karet concept. The underlying theme in karet seems to focus on the maintenance of certain religious boundaries that have an important impact on the corporate character of the nation. The social implications of someone who did not practice ritual circumcision meant the family would not have anything to do with the son who separated himself from the religious and spiritual traditions of his family. It is no accident that karet is sometimes used as a metaphor for divorce (See Deut. 24:3).

With these thoughts in mind, let us return to the your original question regarding the Haredi community. Notions of karet as defined by the early rabbinic standards do not apply to the Haredim. Today’s Haredi separatism derives from  personal choice; they do not wish to have any contact with the non-Haredi Jewish community. They alone have cut the ties that bind them to the Jewish people.

This attitude can be seen in many ways, for example: Their leaders encourage them to destroy all their home-computers, as well as all phones that have wireless connections to the Internet.  Others believe that the pursuit of a secular education is sinful, since it comes at the expense of  giving up Torah study. They also believe that the Rebbe or Rav’s authority is infallible.

Although Haredim receive billions of dollars for their institutions, their separatist theology keeps their followers impoverished. On the one hand, they hate the State of Israel, but on the other hand they demand that the State continue supporting their lifestyle! To use another analogy, Haredim often behave like a spoiled adolescent girl who says, “I hate you Mom! Now, will you please drive me to the Mall?” The Israeli government needs to practice some “tough love” with the Haredim. The American Jewish community must make its financial support for Israel contingent upon Israel protecting the rights of all of its citizens. Continue Reading

Over a year has passed since the terrible Arizona shooting, when a gunman opened fire, killing six people and wounding 13 others.  Gabrielle Giffords, a conservative Democrat representing Arizona’s Eighth District, was among those wounded. She remained in critical condition after she survived a single gunshot to the head fired at point-blank range. Within three days after the shooting, one of her doctors described her chances of survival as “101 percent.” Her neurosurgeon, Dr. Dong Kim, called her progress “almost miraculous.”

We are all blessed with her recovery, but  greater challenges lie ahead for Gabrielle and ourselves as a nation, which sometimes teeters on the edge of insanity.

We wonder: Have we learned anything new from this devastating experience?

One bill that appeared before Congress proposed that the House of Representatives “reduce” the time allowed for criminal background checks. The Senate asked for a three-business day waiting period. The amended Bill in the House proposed a 24 hour waiting period. The reason: gun shows are very popular during the weekends. They argue that there would be no time to conduct a background check on people wishing to purchase arms.

Oh really?!

I think our politicians are living in Chelm, a place in Jewish history reserved for fools who think they are wise. If somebody wishes to purchase firearms at a convention, why don’t the new purchasers take the test one week before the gun show? What is wrong with this picture?

Over the last decade and a half, more and more states are starting to require psychological testing as a condition of hiring any full time police officer. Given the immense stress of the job, this decision makes perfect sense. In fact, schools across the country now require psychological testing for its faculty members. Even Wal-Mart requires psychological testing for its workers—perhaps because they sell firearms at their stores.

Now, it seems to me that the recent Arizona shooting might have been avoided had the state required psychological testing for anyone wishing to own a gun. In fact, if every state required psychological testing, we might be able to cut down the number of accidental shootings, or even willful shootings that seem to occur every year in our great nation.

One cannot expect a family to recognize or, for that matter, even be willing to admit that their son may have deep-rooted psychological problems requiring professional help. In addition, I think the question of machine guns, semi-automatic weapons, assault-rifles, and similar type weapons should be banned except for the military or police. Private individuals do not need to act like Rambo when a vagrant is breaking into their home. [1]

In Judaism, safety is a religious concern. The Bible requires that a roof be properly gated, in order to prevent people from falling off of it (Deut. 22:8). One precept in particular is especially important, “You shall not curse the deaf; you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind, but you will fear your God; I am YHWH ” (Lev. 19:14).

This verse includes two types of prohibitions: (1) placing a stumbling block in front of the blind for sport or entertainment, (2) taking advantage of someone’s ignorance–especially for pecuniary gain. The verse stresses that a God fearing person will not take advantage of anyone for any reason.

By the expression, “God fearing,” this is the biblical way of describing a moral person who acts with a reverence toward life. God-fearing also indicates that Creator and Judge of the world will hold all such offenders accountable for disrespecting human life. Authentic piety is best reflected by acts of compassion and consideration–especially toward individuals who suffer from a serious disability–whether physical, emotional, intellectual, and psychological. [2]

It is also instructive that Maimonides asserts that enabling someone to commit a crime, (e.g., the individual who offers a bribe, or offers to pay interest on a loan) violates the above biblical dictum.[3]

In light of the Arizona shooting—or for that matter, any other well-known shootings that we have seen in recent history, the Columbine or Virginia Tech incidents—the onus of responsibility cannot be placed on someone who is mentally-impaired or schizophrenic, or someone suffering from psychotic-break with reality.

It is not realistic to expect psychotics like Jared Lee Loughner to behave like normal citizens. I expect the judge will send him to a special hospital for the criminally insane. Local courts and governments have a duty to make it as difficult as possible in determining who can and ought to own a gun. Certain individuals should never own a gun of any kind. The duty to protect citizens is the government’s responsibility.

I would argue that we apply the same standards that exist for other professionals in our country also be applied to anyone wishing to own a gun. The time has come for the gun-lobby to start leading the campaign to protect the country from individuals who endanger public welfare. Ultimately, such a responsible move will not diminish the constitutional rights of owning a gun–but such sensible legislation will enable all of us to breathe easier.

=========== Continue Reading

The 1930s are one of the most famous periods of early 20th century American history. Most of us of the baby boomer era grew up watching the Untouchables.

Chicago, 1930, is best remembered for Al Capone, America’s most successful gangster, who made organized crime into a profitable business.

Capone’s nemesis didn’t have a cape or a utility belt; nor did he fly in the air, or leap over buildings in a single bound. No, Capone’s nemesis was a brave and honest lawman. This man could not be corrupted or intimidated.

His name was Eliot Ness, and he was a real American hero.

Ness took on the Capone mob. The mob could not intimidate him, despite having made murder threats to his family. Ness succeeded in doing the impossible: he arrested Capone and broke up his gang. His crime-fighting antics were very famous. Ness’s exploits inspired one of the most successful television shows of the 1950’s—the “Untouchables.” Kevin Costner directed a movie in 1987, based on the same storyline.

After Ness arrests Capone for tax evasion, he continued fighting organized crime, catching criminals with his bare hands; Ness broadened his crusade to include labor racketeers, crooked cops and the country’s most vicious serial killer, the Mad Butcher of Kingsbury Run. Pretty amazing for a man who didn’t even have a cape!

Israel may have its own version of Eliot Ness, and his name is Maj. Gen. Niso Shaham, who is Jerusalem’s District Police Chief. Every hero has his villain, and Shaham’s enemy happens to be the evil Neturei Karta and their henchmen, known as the Sikrikim (the “dagger men,” named after the infamous thugs who led a war against Rome, resulting in the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 C.E.)

The Ultra-Orthodox Eda Haredit hate Shaham with a passion. They showed their contempt for Shahem by showing Hitler and Shaham standing side by side. Within a relatively short period of time, the Haredi responsible for the posters got arrested.

Since last May, Shaham has brought over 100 Haredim to justice—and he’s only beginning! Some of the people he arrested ran charity scams, and like Eliot Ness, Shaham is busting “their chops!”

Almost three years ago, the Sikrikim attacked a busload of Ultra-Orthodox special needs children, which was driving down Me’ah She’arim. As I have mentioned on other occasions, not all the Haredim are bad; many of them struggle like the rest of us, who are struggling to make a living. Although the Sikrikim did not physically harm the children, they did traumatize these children.

Haredi parents complained and begged the Jerusalem Police Department to do something to protect them. Seldom do the residents ever call the Israeli police (Most of them are anti-Zionist!), but this time was different. Enough was enough!

Shaham discovered that the head of the Edah Haredit court proved to be one of the kingpins of the Sikrikim group that has been terrorizing Haredi and Modern Orthodox Jews in Me’ah She’arim and Beth Shemesh.

Shaham arrested Rabbi Yitzhak Tuvia Weiss’s personal assistant: Amram Shapira, along with the heads of the National Committee. The message could hardly have been clearer: If the Sikrikim continue their intimidation and violence, Shaham is going to arrest the head Rabbi!

The other Haredi groups, most notably—the leaders of Gur Hassidic community—like, Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman and others, enjoy seeing their picture with Shaham on the neighborhood posters. For the record, the Sikrikim threatened Litzman on numerous occasions. Litzman regards Shaham as a powerful ally. Continue Reading

California — Whenever I read the Lubavitcher website, it seems as if we are reliving history.  The Lubavitcher lynching of Shmuley Boteach reminds me of how the 17th century Dutch Jewish community treated one of its heretical spirits and his name was Uriel da Costa (1585-1640).

Not all Pharisees of the Talmud are worthy of our admiration. No, this statement is not one I personally originated; this idea actually comes from the Talmud itself.

Two thousand years ago, the Jewish community had an entire class of people who delighted in such feats of piety. The Talmud heaps scorn on the religious pretentiousness of these “foolish Pharisees.”

The Jerusalem Talmud writes, “Who is a man of piety that is a fool? “He, for example, who, if a woman is drowning, says, ‘It is unseemly for me to look at her, and therefore, I cannot rescue her. . . . Who is the pious fool? He who sees a child struggling in the water, and says, ‘When I have taken off my phylacteries, I will go and save him.’ By the time he arrives to rescue him, the child has already expired. Who is the crafty scoundrel? R. Huna says, ‘He is the man who behaves leniently toward himself, while teaching others only the strictest rules.’”[1]

“Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees: the ostentatious Pharisee[2], the Pharisee who knocks his feet together and walks with exaggerated humility[3], the Pharisee is one who knocks his face against the wall rather than gaze at a woman[4] The Pharisee who feigns religious piety while constantly exclaiming, ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’”[5]

You have just returned from Memory Lane.

Imagine a Haredi convention where the great rabbis come up with their latest technological and religious innovations designed to keep men and women apart. Wait until you see the latest fashions the Haredi rabbis decreed upon their enthusiastic followers. Mind you, I am not saying that all Haredi are lunatics–however, the Belzer, Satmar, Gerer Hassidim have hundreds of thousands of lunatics following some very shady religious leaders. I did not include the Lubavitch or the Bratzlav, for both of these movements operate on a principle of ahavat Yisrael–for the most part (but not always). This is obviously a topic nobody in the Haredi world want to talk about. Like most dysfunctional families, family “secrets” are necessary to allow the dysfunction to continue.

Now, back to our subject . . .

Last year’s innovations included:

• A  ban on mannequins.
• The Personal Mechitza, which is a small partition Haredi Jews wear around their heads when travelling on El Al Airlines. The PM prevents Haredim from gazing at the lovely El Al Stewardesses. It comes in only one color: black.
• Women must sit at the back of the bus!
• How to attack Modern Orthodox girls walking to elementary school.
• How to attack wheelchair bound children on Shabbat!
• Rock concerts for Haredim during the Shabbat, where non-Haredim get stoned!
• Separate sidewalks!

This year’s innovations include:

• Use only “BLACK” rabbinically certified baby carriages!
• Using gangs to intimidate other Haredi Jews.
• Living like the Coneheads—special headgear for women designed to out-Taliban the Taliban burka!
• Separate elevators for women as of 1/18/2012![6]

The Taliban are probably experiencing envy as you read this article. “Why can’t we become more religious, more fanatical like the Haredim?” asks a child to her mother.

Most of you have probably heard of OCD—Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. I personally prefer identifying this acronym as, “Orthodox Compulsive Disorder.” Hey, if the shoe fits, wear it!

OCD is a very common kind of anxiety disorder. Haredi behavior makes sense when you realize that all these new “halachic” acts of piety involves ways of coping with underlying anxiety, tension, anger, and guilt.

Most modern psychologists and therapists probably are not deeply in love with Freudian psychology, but I have a pretty healthy respect for Freud’s view of religion as an obsessional type of neurosis. Unlike Jung, Frankl, Rodgers, Fromm, and others who saw religions as serving a potentially positive function in society and in the life of the individual, Freud only concerned himself with the pathological aspects of religion that constricts rather than liberates the human spirit from its shackles.

When Freud wrote “Religion as Obsessional Neurosis” in 1907, he observed how religious people suffered from an overwhelming feeling of guilt:

• We may say that the sufferer from compulsions and prohibitions behaves as if he were dominated by a sense of guilt, of which, however, he knows nothing so that we must call it an unconscious consciousness of guilt, in spite of the apparent contradiction in terms. This sense of guilt has its source in certain early mental events, but it is constantly being revived by renewed temptations which arise whenever there is a contemporary provocation. Moreover, it occasions a lurking sense of expectant anxiety, an expectation of misfortune, which is linked, through the idea of punishment, with the internal perception of the temptation. . . [7]

Freud was right. Religion for many people is a mental disorder. Continue Reading

Scholars generally define the law of self-preservation as the instinct for individual preservation. The men who wrote the Geneva rules of war never anticipated a time when streets and malls would become battlefields. For thousands of year, warring nations generally realized that citizens are not soldiers. Soldiers must fight other soldiers. The reality of asymmetrical war has altered the way peoples across the world now fight. Fanatical religious regimes are making people rethink about the effectiveness of traditional deterrents (e.g., MAD). Today’s forces of Radical Islam revel in the apocalyptic destruction of a sworn enemy–regardless of the casualties and deaths they cause. Radical Islam poses exponentially greater problems today than the forces of Nazism presented to the pre-WII world.

Unlike Nazis, the forces of Radical Islam have no moral problem transforming their own children into human bombs. Try to remember that simple fact.

Had the European community taken a proactive position against Hitler’s Germany, the world might have been spared WWII; the death of over 25 million people might have been profoundly avoided.

Today’s efforts to prevent war include racial profiling, detention of those suspected of having terrorist connections, expansive surveillance through wire-tapping, computer hacking, cyber-warfare, assassinating known terrorists and their masters, pre-emptive attacks on known terrorist training camps, not to mention—outright pre-emptive war.

Without a re-visioning of these principles, Western civilization may not be able to withstand the force of an amoral enemy, who has no regard or respect for Western values—but holds these values we consider sacred as, “worthless.”

Does Israel have the moral right to unleash a pre-emptive attack on the Iranian nuclear reactors? The risks are obvious: Iranian population centers will suffer the brunt of nuclear fallout, but should Israel rather put the safety of its own people at risk and allow Iran or its affiliates to, “wipe Israel off the map”?

Israel has often used pre-emptive attacks in the past. When the Egyptian army crossed the Suez and blocked international waterways, Israel justly viewed these bold actions as a provocation for war. But again, Israel did bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, and the one Al Kabir nuclear reactor that Syria was trying to build in 2007.

Will the world condemn Israel once again? Of course, but what else would you expect? Will Obama chastise Israel? You can count on it! In 1981, the United States ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, described the attack as “shocking” and likening it to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Given the fact that Iran has supported Al Qaeda attacks on the United States military facilities and civilian targets, through their Hezbollah proxies, Israel would be wise to take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word.

The spiritual leader of the Palestinian Authority, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein, went on record declaring, “The killing of Jews by Muslims is a religious, Islamic goal. The hour of Resurrection will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call out, ‘Oh Muslim, faithful servant of Allah–there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’” Continue Reading

“[My] book is telling the Jews to reclaim Jesus, the authentic Jesus, the historical Jesus, the Jewish Jesus” and to be inspired by his “beautiful” teachings, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach said this week in Jerusalem.

Shmuley Boteach reminds me a lot of Paul the Apostle. In fact, I think a comparison of these two individuals is interesting and intriguing. Paul would have definitely been a good Lubavitcher, if he were living today. Each of them shares a penchant for getting their names out there in the community. Each of them will do just about anything to get “noticed.” There are many other comparisons, but I will save that for another blog article in the future.

For now, I will share with my readers a brief review on Shmuley Boteach’s newest book, “Kosher Jesus” (Jerusalem: Gefen, 2012) I have read a number of reviews so far; some were surprisingly positive, while others are not-so-surprisingly critical.

As a writer, I think it is important to be kind to other writers; braving your soul and ideas to the public is not for the faint of heart.

With this thought in mind, I would like to begin with the positive aspects of his book. We must be living interesting times. When a member of the Lubavitch Hassidic sect writes a book about Jesus that is actually positive, we must marvel how much the world has changed since the time of the medieval period.

Shmuley has guts—I know, because I am an ex-Chabadnik. The Lubavitcher Rebbe hated Christianity and Jesus so much; he could never even mention Jesus’ name, without referring to him as “THAT man  . . .” I understand the Rebbe’s animus; his family and community experienced the daily horrors of Russian anti-Semitism.

In the Haredi and Hassidic world, pious people save their worse curses for individuals who have historically brought great trouble to the Jewish people. Despite the thousands of talks the Rebbe gave in his life, Rabbi Schnersohn felt that Jesus was a non-person, someone whose name is best left unmentioned. “Even mentioning his name,” according to Rabbi Schnersohn, feeds the powers of impurity.”

Fortunately, we are living in more tolerant times.

Honestly, I admire Shmuley’s courage—as well as his marketing skills. I think Paul the Apostle would have been impressed. Unfortunately, nearly the entire Chabad community has chastised and eviscerated Shmuley’s reputation. I am astounded by the vast majority of Lubavitchers who have opinions on a book they have never read.

Given the large number of Jews for Jesus–100,000–Shmuley’s approach also strikes at the heart of Messianic Judaism’s Christology. Messianic Jews may rethink their relationship to Jesus after reading Shmuley’s book. Demythologizing Jesus is an important first step–otherwise, we risk losing a large number of Jews to Christianity. Shmuley mentions that according to the Talmud, there are at least two major Jesus figures.  The Jesus of the Talmud was a student of Yehoshua ben Perachia (BT Sotah, 47a), who lived about 130 years before the destruction of the Temple. The temporal distortion alone reveals that Jesus of the NT could not have been his disciple. Other early rabbinic sources such as Seder Hadorot likewise explains there were two major Jesus figures–thus what we have here is what scholars refer to as an anachronism.

Personally, I think the title, “Kosher Jesus,” is a not an appropriate title for such a book. True, it may sell more books, but Shmuley has managed to alienate a large number of people in the process–especially those who can’t get past the book’s title. Showing a picture of Jesus’s stigmata is not what any Jew–secular or Orthodox–might expect. A more modest cover and title could easily have eliminated this problem. I am more surprised at the publisher–who happens to market Orthodox Jewish books!!

Shmuley embraces the evangelical Christian community—not in the spirit of polemics, but in the spirit of genuine friendship (on a personal note, we share that value in common). Many Jews across the religious spectrum dislike and distrust Christian evangelicals. Many fear the Christian evangelical’s support of Israel is solely based on their eschatological beliefs about the “Second Coming of Jesus.” While most of us are well aware of this reality, I am more concerned how the Evangelicals bravely stood with Israelis in Israel, when the Hezbollah missiles came flying into their towns.

Incidentally, some Chabadniks actually promote interfaith activities with the evangelical churches–and that’s something to think about.[1]

Most of the ideas found in the “Kosher Jesus” reflect the ideas of the British Jewish scholar Hayam Maccoby’s works. Like other NT scholars, before and after him, Maccoby argues Jesus was an observant Jew who followed Jewish law. Jesus erred in thinking that God would supernaturally bring about the end of the Roman Empire; he hoped God would let him inaugurate the Messianic Age that was foretold by the prophets. Jesus failed in achieving these goals, ergo—he could not be the Messiah.

There exists an elitism and Chabad-centricism that saturates today’s Chabad’s anti-intellectual culture. The Rebbes of Chabad are perceived as, “infallible,” much like the Popes of Catholicism. Chabadniks have no idea how much their sect resembles Pauline Christianity of Late Antiquity. It is a shame Chabad has retained Haredi Judaism’s disdain for secular education and history. When I was a rabbinical student in Kfar Chabad, all my books on biblical archaeology were confiscated and destroyed!

Chabad rabbis rarely (if ever) refer to the writings of Rabbi Ya’akob Emden (1697–1776). Rabbi Emden is widely considered one of the most important rabbinic scholars of the 18th century, greatly respected by the Vilna Gaon. In one of his small tracts, Rabbi Emden praises Jesus in his (Seder Olam Rabbah Vezuta):

• It is therefore a habitual saying of mine (not as a hypocritical flatterer, God forbid, for I am of the faithful believers of Israel, and I know well that the remnant of Israel will not speak falsehood, nor will their mouths contain a deceitful tongue) that the Nazarene brought about a double kindness in the world. On the one hand, he strengthened the Torah of Moses majestically, as mentioned earlier, and not one of our Sages spoke out more emphatically concerning the immutability of the Torah. And on the other hand, he did much good for the Gentiles (provided they do not turn about his intent as they please, as some foolish ones have done because they did not fully understand the intent of the authors of the Gospels. I have recently seen someone publish a book, and he had no idea about what he was writing. For if he had understood the subject, he would have kept his silence and not wasted the paper and ink. There are also found among us foolish scholars who know not their right from their left in the Written and Oral Torahs and cause the people to err with their pompous pronouncements. But there are true scholars among the Christians, just as there are the chosen few among Torah scholars; and there are few of the truly great.) by doing away with idolatry and removing the images from their midst. He obligated them with the Seven Commandments so that they should not be as the beasts of the field. He also bestowed upon them ethical ways, and in this respect he was much more stringent with them than the Torah of Moses, as is well-known. This in itself was most proper, as it is the correct way to acquire ethical practices, as the philosopher (Maimonides) mentioned. We have written similarly in our Siddur. However, it is not necessary to impose upon Jews such extreme ethical practices, since they have been obligated to the yoke of Torah, which weakens the strength of the (evil) inclination without it. They have taken the oath at Sinai and are already trained in proper practice and nature. These are clear words that will not be rejected by a clear-thinking person.

More recently, Rabbi Shlomo Rivkin also praised Jesus in a video that created some firestorms within the Haredi community. Shortly after he made his video, Rabbi Rivkin sheepishly rescinded some of his remarks because he feared the Haredim of his community.

The video begins:

• Shalom to all. My name is Shlomo Riskin. I am the Chief rabbi of the City of Efrat…..I am an Orthodox Rabbi…and an Orthodox Rabbi who is very profoundly interested in religion in general, in Christianity, and especially in the persona of Jesus in particular…. I was truly fascinated by the personality of Jesus, whom to myself I have always referred to as “Rabbi Jesus”….because I think he is indeed a “model Rabbi” in many counts…and he lived the life of a Jewish Rabbi in Israel in a very critical time in our history…..I have constantly come back to the study of his personality and his teachings which are very strongly rooted in Talmudic teachings…..”

Chabad cannot admit it: they do not have a monopoly on Jewish thought. In the words of the 20th century Russian writer Mikhail Bahktin, their thinking is totally “monological.” It is their way—or the highway. Rather than providing coherent reasons why Shmuley’s book is wrong, they would rather, “crucify” him instead, through nasty ad hominem attacks—which can be read at http://collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=18125&alias=shmuley-boteach-blasts-collive.

It is even more appalling to observe how the Crown Heights Chabad community is attempting to tar and feather Rabbi Chaim Miller, author of the Gutnick Chumash, for being Shmuley’s good friend.

The behavior of Hasidim in Crown Heights is a really shanda. They behave as if we are living in the Dark Ages. The Jewish world needs heretical spirits to wake it up from its stodginess and intellectual lethargy.

Kudos go to you Shmuley–for challenging antiquated attitudes that belong in the dustbin of history.

And so the Lubavitcher Witch hunt begins . . . I wonder how many bodies will they pile up?

Shmuley, take some good advice: Next time you write a book about Jesus, will you try to remember writing something about the Prodigal Son? (Sorry, Shmuley, I could not resist the humor in this statement.) Actually, the theme of this lovely parable has been often utilized by many Hassidic Rebbes, despite their ignorance of the original source.

Shmuley is a fine ambassador to the general community, but do not expect him to be something he is not—a New Testament biblical scholar. His book has value if you like something that is not too intellectually challenging. His criticisms of Pauline Christianity are very important and Chabadnicks would be wise to familiarize themselves with his arguments. If nothing else, it is nice to see one well (maybe I should really say, “ex”)-respected Lubavitcher break with the anti-Christian attitudes of the movement that spawned him.

However, if you want to read something much more historically intriguing and exciting, buy yourself a copy of the “The Jewish Annotated New Testament,” which is now available.  This slim volume is a study edition of the NSRV translation of the New Testament with commentary and essays by Jewish Biblical scholars (including Jewish New Testament scholars) such as Marc Zvi Brettler, Amy-Jill Levine, Daniel Boyarin, and Mark Nanos. The scholars attempt to understand the NT from a respectful Jewish perspective. Such a work would hardly have been possible a few centuries ago. Fortunately, countless numbers of Christian scholars are now studying Talmud and other Judaic texts to better understand the life of Jesus as a Jew.

Another great book is Geza Vermes’ outstanding book, “Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels” (Oxford, 1973).  Vermes is a Holocaust survivor who converted to Catholicism, and later returned to Judaism. His perspective is scholarly, and very important for modern Jews who wish to really understand the unique message of Jesus  during the days of the  Second Temple. For a Christian perspective that examines Jesus in non-supernatural context, check out Marcus Borg’s outstanding, “Jesus: A New Vision” (NY: Harper Collins, 1991).

* Continue Reading