Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

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. Continue Reading

President Obama’s revelation surprised me. I wondered: Why did it take him so long to state his opinion? Wasn’t it obvious?

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. Continue Reading

One of the 20^th century’s greatest Jewish mystics, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, develops this theme in one of his most famous passages:

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] Continue Reading

Ever since I was a kid, I love baseball. When I was about 7 or 8, I could rattle off the top ten pitchers, batters, along with their minor league and career averages.

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. Continue Reading

Historically, rabbinic tradition took a dim view of capital punishment. Mishnahic law required that those accused be warned by witnesses immediately before they commit the offense, and that they acknowledge such warning—a clear indication of the rabbinic distaste for capital punishment, explicitly found elsewhere.[1] Life imprisonment did exist for cases that could not technically be legally prosecuted, even though the evidence left no room for doubt[2]; such a person had to subsist on sparse diet of barley bread and water, and the Talmud indicates the criminal usually died from starvation. There may be a Scriptural allusion to this practice: the prisoner was condemned to eat “the bread of misfortune and the water of distress” (Isa. 30:20). Other rabbinic statements make it near impossible to convict the accused villain:

• 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.

Continue Reading

Rabbinic minds have thought about the significance of Genesis in a number of different ways. For exegetes like Rashi, Genesis stresses how God is the Owner and Proprietor of the universe and, therefore, God alone has every right to give the Land of Canaan to whomever He pleases; in this case, He bequeaths it to the nation of Israel. As God’s people, Israel has a bond with the land that is eternal and irrevocable.[1] Rashi’s opening salvo was quite a remarkable comment to make at a time when Christians and Muslims were fighting for control of the Holy Land. What began long ago as an ideological struggle during the age of the Crusades continues to haunt present-day reality in the Middle East.

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.

Continue Reading

As a child, I used to love reading the golem stories attributed to Rabbi Judah Lowe, a.k.a., the famous “MaHaral of Prague” (1525-1609).  Since my father came from Czechoslovakia, I grew up hearing many family tales about the golem. These stories were especially delightful since my father was a naturally talented storyteller.  The golem was something like a medieval super-hero who protected the Jewish community from pogroms in its time.  It is interesting to note that despite the numerous tracts MaHaral wrote on various philosophical, talmudic, and mystical themes, never once does he ever refer to the golem that is associated with his name.

What is a Golem?

The term gōlem is a “shapeless mass” (Ps. 139:16), but according to Jewish folklore, a golem is a creature that is made from clay and is animated by magical and mystical means. One of the more apocryphal stories of the Talmud relates how a 4th century scholar named Rava, magically created a man through the Sefer Yetzirah and sent him to Rabbi Zera. The latter tried speaking to him, but the poor golem could not speak. When there was no response, he declared: ‘You must be a  product of our colleague. Return to your dust!’ and so he died (BT Sanhedrin 65b).

(By the way, in Yiddish, a “golem” can refer to someone who has marginal intelligence, who is almost incapable of sensible communication.)

Ironically, it is with no precedent in the Bible, except for the creation of Adam. It is remarkable how modern literature contains countless stories of how man has attempted to make an artificial “Mini-me.” I guess, since God has created us in His image, human beings have been trying to pay God back by creating a life-form in man’s image. Man has long fantasied about becoming a mini-creator. How could such hubris not fail? The mythos of the golem story always leads to chaos and destruction. How can it not be? Man’s own chaos is reflected in his handiwork–the golem.

Indeed, in nearly all the golem legends, it appears that anytime mortals attempt to create human life, it is an activity that is fraught with danger. It seems that our ancestors felt suspicious about the full extent of man’s creative powers. In many of the stories, the golem goes out of control, destroying everything in sight.

Adaptations of the Golem in Western Literature and Cinema

The Frankenstein story is a European re-adaptation of the Golem legends. In J. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit, Hobbit Gollum devolves into a treacherous shape-shifter under the malign influence of the Ring, it seems obvious that the author had these legends in mind.

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, the character Data personifies  the golem legend. When attempting to integrate the emotional chip, he becomes capable of erratic behavior–even violence. Countless sci-fi films have developed this theme in numerous tales about humanoid-like robots turning against their masters, i.e., like the Terminator series. Even the X-Files had an interesting episode of a betrothed woman who turns her murdered husband into a golem, in order to avenge his death.

Some poor women I know, happen to be married to golems. It’s more common than you may realize.

According to some medieval tales, the golem is indestructible; if the golem had been created by writing the Hebrew word “אמת” (emet; “truth”) on its forehead, it could be destroyed by erasing the first letter to produce the word “מת” (met; “dead”). If one had created a golem by placing the name of God in its mouth, all that was needed was to remove the parchment.

Can a Golem Join a Minyan?

The golem has found a respectable place even in the Halachic literature. In one case study, Rabbi Zvi Ashkanazi (1660-1718) writes in a responsa how his grandfather, Rabbi Elijah of Chelm, once made a golem in his garage. In this remarkable responsa, he asks whether (1) can a golem count as one of the ten who make a minyan or quorum for prayer?  (2) If someone killed such an entity, would be considered a murderer? Each of these questions revolves around one basic question: could such a creature possess a human soul?

If the golem can be counted, does that mean that a golem may be considered as a Jew?  Or does he have a gentile status? On the other hand, it is logical to say that the golem should be no worst than an adopted child, who is considered “Jewish.”

The rabbi wondered:

“’Should it occur to you that a golem could have been counted for a minyan (or for that matter any occasion requiring a minyan),  why would R. Zeira deliberately destroy it? It could only mean that the Golem is not considered  a person, for otherwise Rava would have most certainly used him for a minyan! (I can hear him say, “Yo, Golem, we need ya for a minyan!”

According to this piece of “dazzling” wisdom (of course I am not being real serious) , it would appear that a golem is not really a ‘person’ in any real sense of the word, for the Torah clearly states, ‘If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made” (Gen. 9:6). In fact, were one to kill such a creature, it would not even be considered murder! [1]

In the case of Rava’s golem, since he was artificially made, therefore,  he could not actually be considered “human.” Rabbi Ashkenazi concludes, “Nevertheless, Rabbi Zeira should not have done away with it, unless it served no constructive purpose. If that is the case, its destruction can be of no consequence; therefore, it could not qualify for a minyan or, for that matter, any other sacred purpose . . . Moreover a golem is inferior even to the souls of women, and they are never counted for anything pertaining to a minyan.”

Defining “Personhood”

Right, Rabbi Ashkenazi, “inferior even to  the souls of women. . . ” I am curious: Since when is a soul, by itself, subject to gender? But that is another topic for future day.

It seems strange that the idea of a woman being a part of the minyan was not even a consideration, but the golem at least made the venerable rabbi pause for reflection. I suspect the Ortho-feminists of our time would most certainly have straightened Rabbi Ashkenazi out, if they could go back in time and argue with the rabbi.

Needless to say, a modern medical ethicist would definitely have serious problems with Rav Ashkenazi’s assertion that any person who  is artificially created– intrinsically–lacks the status of a “person.”

If Rav Askenazi’s logic is consistent, would a human being who  is in a deep comatose state also be considered like a “golem,” since he lacks the obvious visible signs of personhood?

Ultimately, it really boils down to the question: What is personhood? Using Descartes’ cogito ergo sum, if an entity is capable of thinking and self-reflection, then it is safe to presume it has the property of “personhood,” irregardless whether its origin is artificial or not. Equally important is the  matter of “reverence for life,” for once sentience and self-consciousness have been established, how can anyone not respect the “person” who possesses these two traits?

I often think of the Terry Schiavo story and how the State facilitated her death–by starvation. Within a year, Discover Magazine has produced a number of medical stories where consciousness did not die, and even people suffering from a chronic vegetative are still capable of regaining part of their mind back.[1]

Was Terri Schiavo a golem? No, I don’t think so.

Golems play an important role in the modern synagogue–a fact I can personally attest to seeing. As one of my colleagues once said, “If you wish to see ten golems, just come to an evening service  at my Shul.”

Ditto . . . but not in Chula Vista! Continue Reading

 Byline 5:00 PM April 27, 2012

Every custom has a remarkable history and story.

In dealing with someone who has an unusual seminal discharge, the Torah defines that person as being ritually and ceremonially “impure” and is called a “zab” (cf. Lev. 15:8). Historically, such persons often experienced being shunned by the general community—a point that Josephus personally witnessed.[1]

The medieval commentator, Abraham Ibn Ezra, takes a different tact. According to him, if the zäb wants to diminish the severity of his impurity, all he has to do is thoroughly wash his hands. Once he does so, if his hands touch another person’s food, the food does not become ritually impure.[2] The zäb’s hands still convey impurity, but at least the clothes of the person he touches would not require laundering and anyone touching him would only require ritual bathing in a spring of water.

In light of Ibn Ezra’s important insight, let us look at his interpretation through the prism of medical science history.

Many people today understand the importance of hand-washing and how it is especially important for people to wash their hands with a disinfectant whenever one visits or takes care of someone who is ill. Although such protocol is essential for medical hygiene, there was a time when our ancestors undervalued hand-washing—much to their peril.

Once there was a Hungarian obstetrician-gynecologist named Ignaz Phillips Semmelweiss (1818–1865), whose serendipitous medical discovery in a Vienna hospital changed the practice of medicine forever.

Hospitals in the 19^th century hospitals barely resembled the kind of hospitals we now have today and take for granted. Back in 1846, Dr. Semmelweiss joined one of the most prestigious medical staffs in the European world. When he arrived, he discovered a virulent infection that led to an astounding 45% mortality rate among those who underwent surgery. New mothers were faced with a 25% death rate. Bear in mind, this was before Louis Pasteur discovered the Streptococcus bacteria that was responsible for childbed fever back in 1878. Medical science did not discover penicillin until1928.

Within a month of his arrival at the famous Viennese hospital, Semmelweiss discovered that 36 out of 208 women died following the delivery of a baby, a mortality rate of 17 percent. One maternity ward in particular, suffered from 451 infectious-related deaths, while a second maternity ward lost only 90 women. He wondered about why was there such a discrepancy.

One day, he came across an expectant mother, who was crying because the Hospital administration assigned her to the medical students’ ward, instead of the midwives’ ward. Everyone knew that the students’ ward had a much higher mortality rate, and to be assigned there was tantamount to a death sentence. Soon, the woman died.

In 1847, a friend of Semmelweiss had a accidentally cut himself with a scalpel while performing an autopsy upon a woman who had died from “childbed fever.” Semmelweiss’s friend soon died shortly afterwards. After personally attending his friend’s autopsy, to Semmelweiss’s surprise, he observed the lesions on his friend’s body were exactly the same as the lesions seen on the women dying from childbed fever.

The pieces of the puzzle finally came together. Semmelweiss realized that the same substance was apparently being introduced into women after childbirth by the hospital physicians and students who examined them with unwashed hands immediately after performing autopsies on the victims of childbed fever. Before then, many causes of the malady were sought, including mother’s milk, foreign doctors, fear, and medical student incompetence.

The notion clicked that maybe the reason the death rate was so high on the students’ ward was that they were participating in autopsies, and not because they were incompetent. The midwives were not studying medicine, so they did not attend the autopsies. Semmelweiss excitedly ordered all the students and doctors to wash their hands thoroughly with a calcium chloride solution and clean sand after each autopsy. The death rate fell from one out of six to one out of 100 within a year.

Shortly thereafter, an outbreak of sepsis occurred on the ward, killing 11 out of 12 women. This outbreak began after a pregnant woman with infected cervical cancer was assigned to the first bed in the row. Realizing that the infective material must have spread from this woman, Semmelweiss insisted that all the physicians and students not only wash their hands after autopsies, but between patients on the ward. Later he also isolated the badly infected cases. By 1848 the mortality rate was so low on these wards that during one month no death from childbed fever was reported.

Throughout all these events, Semmelweiss made a number of enemies. People found his personality to be difficult; he was also moody, unstable, and arrogant. Furthermore he was ordering physicians to perform novel, burdensome sanitary techniques, and there was great opposition. He bluntly called his opponents to these hand-washing techniques “murderers.” Conflicts with his supervisors and peers led to his dismissal in 1850.

Hand washing ceased at the Vienna hospital, and the death rate once again soared. The hospital pressure proved to be too difficult for him to handle. In 1865, at 47 years of age, he entered a mental institution. When he arrived, he noticed he had accidentally cut himself from his most recent obstetrical operation. A few days later he died, ironically, of childbed fever.

The moral of this anecdote is to highlight, that one of the most brilliant intuitions of the Torah, is the laws governing bodily hygiene. With new appreciation, we can say and perhaps understand literally, the oft-cited passage found in the Book of Proverbs: “She is a tree of life to those who grasp her, and he is happy who holds her fast”   (Proverbs 3:18).

Horace Mann School of Cherry Hill, NJ,  is still living in the dark ages. It is ironic that the original Horace Mann opposed corporal punishment in the classroom. He was an early advocate for teaching moral values in the classroom, and that the character formation was as important as reading, writing, and arithmetic. Just as he opposed corporal punishment, he also opposed ridiculing children in the classroom.

Horace Mann would be turning over in his grave if he could see the things being perpetuated by the institutions that bear his name.

Our school system has a serious with respect to bullying. With respect to bullying, there is a good deal of bullying without violence, e.g., bullying by words, gestures, treating the bullied person as a pariah. Many children have committed suicide because the taunting they experience in the class room by their peers. When a teacher resorts to bullying, the problem is exponentially worse since children view adults as role models. That is exactly what happened in Cherry Hill, this past month.

When I read about Stuart Chaifetz’s ordeal with the Horse Mann School, I felt sorry for his poor son, Akian. I felt sorry for all the autistic children who might have had similar experiences. Their lives are hard enough without adults making their lives more miserable.

For those of you unfamiliar with the boy’s odyssey, the story began when the parent heard some complaints about his son acting violently in the class. The father related that this was out of character for his autistic ten year-old son, who always had a pleasant disposition. The father decided to wire his son, so he could hear exactly what was going on in the classroom.

The father was shocked by the degree of abuse his child had received from his teachers. The tenured teachers of Horace Mann began talking about their drinking binges, sexual exploits, gossiping about students and their parents. As if that wasn’t enough, they began taunting, shouting, and swearing at his son.

The teacher and her aides did their best to “make a living hell for my son,” Chaifetz said. After being insulted by the teacher and her assistants, Akian began to cry. The teacher began mocking him and yelling: “Shut your mouth . . . ‘Go ahead and scream because guess what? You are going to get nothing until your mouth is shut.’” After a few minutes, the teacher screamed, “Oh Akian, you are a bastard.”

The father’s decision to Youtube the conversation was a brilliant stroke.

Embarrassed by the incident, the school immediately fired one of the teachers; the other teacher is still remaining in the school.

But Chaifetz does not agree. ‘What you did was so disgusting that you should be walking around with your head in shame… And you’re still teaching children today,’ he said. He added, “I want an apology not for me,  so one day, I can play this video back for my son and say, ‘Akian, you did not deserve anything that happened to you. These people are at fault… This is to reclaim my son’s dignity.’”

The absence of human compassion is shocking. The Horace Mann School is probably not the only school that operates this way. Perhaps the time has come for the local school districts to start video-taping the classes that are believed to have serious problems like the case we mentioned above.

It seems to me that it might not be a bad idea for members of the clergy and other civic leaders to consider moral education into the curriculum, much like Horace Mann envisioned in the 19^th century. True, Horace Mann believed that the Bible was the best source for ethical values, but in the 21^st century, we may want to take ethical values from many traditions, e.g., basic teaching from Epictetus, Epicurus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aesop’s Fables, Buddha, Hillel, Jesus, Proverbs, Ben Sira, Ramakrishna,  and the Native American tradition.

A course in the Golden Rule should be a part of any ethics, philosophy, or psychology class in high school.

Our public schools need to teach values about respect, altruism, consideration, empathy, compassion, patience, and prudence. True, one might argue that it is the parent’s responsibility to teach these values, but historically—our country’s schools realized that teaching ethical values (not necessarily religious values) serves to help create a better citizen for society as whole.

If we wish these values to take root, they must be instilled from the pre-school and up, one year at a time. If we wait for children to start learning these values by the time they get to middle school, I am afraid we may be too late. By the time the children become older, bad habits become engrained in their character.

As for Stuart Chaifetz, a lawsuit against the Horace Mann School may be one of the best ways to teach the school a lesson in accountability. It is unfortunate that we have to use lawyers, but this is no frivolous lawsuit. Society needs to learn the hard way that there are serious financial consequences in abusing children—especially those children who have no voice to advocate for them. Continue Reading