Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

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

* This is an older article I wrote back in 2009. So, if there is any overlap of ideas, please forgive me.

Abortion, as such, is not discussed in the Tanakh. Explanations  as to why it is not legislated or commented are at best speculative. The biblical world was much more concerned with the survival of its members, rather than with the willful termination of its unborn. Archaeological evidence suggests that in ancient Israel the infant mortality rate was about 50%.

Discussions concerning abortion are ancient indeed. The Torah imposes a fine on the assailant for causing abortion of a woman’s fetus in the course of a quarrel, and the penalty of death if the woman’s dies as a result of the assailant’s attack. “When two people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exod. 21:22-23).

Ancient Discussions

If the Code of Hammurabi is of any indication, the Torah had in mind only financial damages but did not advocate the death penalty for the death of the fetus—regardless how premature or maturely it was. In Section 209: Hammurabi writes, “If a man strike a free woman and cause her fruit to depart, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fruit.”

Perceptions regarding the status of the embryo changed centuries later during the days of Greek culture. A new interpretation was introduced that radically transformed our understanding of the biblical text. According to the ancient Greek translation of the Scriptures, the Septuagint, the Torah decreed that under certain circumstances, the death of the fetus could be imposed for causing an abortion:

ἐὰν δὲ ἐξεικονισμένον ἦν δώσει ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς

[And if two men strive and smite a woman with child; and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation.] But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life . . . (Exod. 21:22)

Philo of Alexandria comments on this passage of the Septuagint, “But if anyone has a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor’s workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world.[1]

Philo juxtaposes abortion with the ancient practice of exposure. He writes: “On account of this commandment he also adds another proposition of greater importance, in which the exposure of infants is forbidden, which has become a very ordinary piece of wickedness among other nations by reason of their natural inhumanity . . .”

Josephus also regards abortion as morally akin to murder.[2] Nevertheless, in practice, he followed rabbinical tradition, “He that kicks a woman with a child, so that the woman miscarry, let him pay a fine in money, as the judges shall  determine, as having diminishing the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb.”[3]

Josephus and Philo may have been of the opinion that the assailant had to pay two fines, one to the husband, and the second fine to charity for depriving the human race of one less person. It is also possible the Hellenistic understanding did run contrary to what later became Talmudic Halacha. Nevertheless, it does reflect the disdain Jews have had throughout history concerning abortion—at least as a method of birth-control. Given the high degree of infant-mortality, this reaction was quite understandable.

Unlike the Septuagint, Talmudic scholars maintained that the word אָסוֹן (´äsôn) “harm” refers to the woman and not to the fetus, since the scriptural injunction, “He who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death” (Exo. 21:12), did not apply to the killing of a fetus.[4] Ancient rabbis did not consider abortion a sin unless the fetus was viable בן קיימא  (ben keyama)—still and all, if the infant was so much as only  one day old , his killer is guilty of murder (Niddah. 5:3).[5]

According to the view of R. Ishmael, only a Gentile, to whom some of the basic transgressions applied with greater stringency, incurred the death penalty for causing the loss of the fetus (Sanhedrin 57b). Though abortion was frowned upon in the ancient world, it did not constitute murder.[6] In one well known Responsa of R. Yosef Trani (14th century), the author argued against a Jew assisting in an abortion, because it “places a stumbling block before the blind (Lev. 19:14).” This Halachic attitude did not apply to therapeutic abortion.

All this doesn’t necessarily mean that the rabbis had a permissive attitude concerning abortion. Clearly, it wasn’t. Thus we find in one medieval Midrashic work that Israel is praised because in spite of Pharaoh’s genocidal decree, in Egypt, “Every boy that is born you shall throw into the Nile,  (Exod. 1:22), “Not one Israelite woman so much as harmed her foetus, much less after its birth. By virtue of their reverence for life, Israel merited the exodus” (Zohar II 3b).

Abortion is permitted if the fetus endangers the mother’s life. The Mishnah reads: “When a woman travails to give birth [and it is feared she may die], one may sever the fetus from her womb and extract it, member by member, for her life takes precedence over his”[7 This is the case only as long as the foetus has not emerged into the world, when it is not a life at all and “it may be killed and the mother saved.”[8] Once the birthing process has begun,  if the greater part of the fetus has emerged into the world-either its head only, or its breach—it may not be touched, even if it endangers the mother’s life  אין דוחין נפש מפני נפש (ein dohin nefesh mi-penei nefesh) “one may not discard one life to save another.”

In another passage of the Talmud, a newborn child is not considered to be viable, until it has lived for 30 days![9] How do we reconcile this passage with the above?

Back to the Future: Contemporary Perspectives

Rav Ben Tsion Uziel, the late Chief Sephardic Rabbi, observes in his Responsa, “When a child dies within 30 days, it is considered as if it was a stillborn and is not mourned for like a person who has died. It becomes evident only in retrospect, that it was stillborn [nofale] and that the period of its life was only a continuation of the mother’s vitality. Since there was no way to ascertain whether the foetus was indeed stillborn or not, it is not a crime one can be executed for because of doubt. Nevertheless, it is certainly prohibited to kill it because of doubt.”[10] This passage of Ben Uziel does have ramifications to another area of Halacha pertaining to discontinuing life-support mechanisms for a  seriously impaired newborn baby. A more contemporary  scholar, Rav Abraham Steinberg, notes “when in doubt, it is better to error in favor of life.”

Just to digress, it is interesting to note  that in a similar way, Christian theologian Augustine raised a key question in his own time, as it is now, was “at what time the infant begins to live in the womb; whether life exists in a latent form before it manifests itself in the motions of the living being.” Augustine admits that he cannot assuredly say at exactly what point human life begins. He seriously questions whether any human has the power to decisively say. Nevertheless, he asserts that anyone who looked at the cut-up remains of an aborted baby would have to recognize that this had been a human life. Although Augustine apparently had a firm belief that a developing foetus participates in human life, he argues equally strongly here that a conclusive proof is outside our human ability. There is some leniency if for example, the abortion will save the mother from an  illness deriving from an inflammation not connected with the pregnancy, or a poisonous fever . . . in these cases the fetus is not [per se] the cause of her illness.”[11]

Among modern Halachic authorities, psychological reasons are also a factor to allow abortions. The great 18th century Halachic giant,  Rabbi Yaakov  Emden, permitted abortion “as long as the foetus has not emerged from the womb, even if not in order to save the mother’s life, but only to save her from the harassment and great pain which the foetus causes her.[12]

One early 20th century scholar, Rav Ben Tsion Uziel, rules in favor of allowing an abortion in order to save the mother’s hearing, even though her life was not endangered. Disgrace and the quality of life are a very important factor to take into consideration when deciding whether one is undergo an abortion.[13] In the case of pregnancy resulting from incest, or any adulterous union, the 18^th century savant, R. Yaakov Emden, permitted abortion so that the stigma of bastardy be attached to her offspring.[14]

With regard to the dreaded Tay-Sachs disease, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg permits the abortion, since as he writes in his Responsa: “One should permit abortion as soon as it becomes obvious from the results of the test that the child is indeed, a Tay-Sach’s baby will be born—even until the seventh month of pregnancy. If we are able to permit abortion according to the Halacha because of great need and because of pain and anguish, it seems reasonable that this is the classic case for extending such permission. And it is irrelevant in what way pain and suffering is expressed; whether it be physical or psychological—It is all the same. Indeed, psychological suffering in many ways in greater than the bodily suffering.”[15]

R. Eliezer Waldenberg also notes that whenever possible, all such abortions should be performed within the first forty days of the pregnancy or at least within the first three months.[16] Pope Gregory XIII [1572-85) expresses a similar view, and wrote that an embryo less than forty days was not yet considered human. Incidentally,  it was only in 1869, Pope Pius IX who along with this doctrine of infallibility, decreed that the destruction of an embryo—even to save the mother’s life — was a mortal sin that merited excommunication from the Church.[17]

Many Orthodox scholars differ and are of the view that Jewish law prohibits abortion when its sole justification is to prevent the birth of a physically deformed or retarded baby. Likewise, abortion—on demand—purely for the convenience of the mother or even society is considered morally repugnant.”[18]

Suffice it to say as in any Halachic matter, there is no carte blanche answer for every conceivable case in Halacha—especially with regard to abortion.  Every case must be determined by its own unique circumstances. A competent rabbi should be able to help guide any person who is wrestling with this important decision. There is no one answer for such a complex issue as abortion. Continue Reading

Recently, I have joined a new website (for me anyway!) Jewish Values Online. Here is a question somebody asked me earlier today: God warns us explicitly not to follow in the ways of the other nations. How does this apply to our custom to give gifts on Hanukkah which seems to have been taken from the very not Jewish tradition of giving gifts on Christmas?

Answer:

The verse, “Do not conform, therefore, to the customs of the nations whom I am driving out of your way, because all these things that they have done have filled me with disgust for them” (Lev 20:23) specifically pertains to not emulating pagan religious traditions. Most Halachic authorities do not consider Christianity as a “pagan religion.” At worse, Christianity is an amalgamation of Judaic and pagan elements; Jews should not regard Christianity as “idolatry.”

Still and all, the original question is valid for other reasons: Is it appropriate for Judaism to integrate practices that derive from non-Judaic sources? Historians believe the custom of gift-giving in early Christianity originated with the Roman celebration of Saturnalia, which also occurs late December.

Many traditional rabbis would certainly concur with the view that sees gift-giving on Hanukkah as a concession to popular Christian culture—plain and simple. To some degree, these rabbis make a valid point. In Southern California, there was a well-known rabbi of a prominent Reform synagogue who used dress up as “Chanu Claus” every year in a blue and white outfit, while wearing a prosthetic white beard. This type of religious capitulation to Christmas is painfully obvious—Oy, oy, oy! This is obviously the wrong message we wish to instill this time of the year about Hanukkah.

From a historical perspective, the question becomes a bit more nuanced and complex. Prof. Eliezer Segal thinks Hanukkah Gelt began at a time when Jewish teachers were an impoverished class. Hanukkah was the time when parents would give their children monies to give to their teachers. It was only natural for the children to receive a little financial incentive for carrying out the good deed. This practice eventually led to other older children asking that their parents give some money to them too.

This writer believes Segal’s explanation falls just a little bit short of the mark.

Life for the Jew in medieval and modern times was often filled with despair and uncertainty. As a persecuted minority, something had to be done to buoy the spirits of children, who frankly, felt jealous of the local Christian children celebrating Christmas with the usual pomp and festivities. This is the principle reason (in my opinion) why the giving of Hanukkah Gelt began, which later morphed into gift-giving.

While it is true, one could say this custom mimics Christian tradition, there is another way of looking at this relatively new Jewish custom. For one thing, no religion lives in a spiritual biosphere. Where different religions peacefully co-exist, a cultural commingling of values is inevitable.[1]

The commingling of Jewish and Christian values is not without complete precedent. One interesting example comes to mind:  the 16^th century Halachic scholar, R. Yoel Sirkes (better known as the “Bach”) had no problem using Christian melodies in the synagogue provided these melodies had widespread and universal appeal.[2]

In all candor Judaism has since rabbinic times borrowed numerous religious beliefs and practices from its Semitic neighbors, e.g., the belief in demonology (e.g., Lilith) is clearly Babylonian in nature. Many superstitions we have regarding the Evil Eye also derive from pagan sources.[3] In addition, many of the rabbis participated in what we would now identify as occult practices.[4]

Oftentimes we reason backwards in our attempt to find an explanation for a contemporary practice. It’s a little bit like trying to hit a bull’s eye by first painting the target around the arrow after it has already hit its target. Halachic drash (interpretation) often employs this particular method in its exposition of traditions.

One explanation I remember reading in a number of Hassidic texts dealing with Hanukkah explains that there exists a linguistic connection between the words חֲנֻכָּה (ḥănūkkâ) dedication and  חֲנֹךְ  (ḥānı̂k) which means, “to train,” or “educate,” as in  חֲנֹךְ לַנַּעַר עַל־פִּי דַרְכּוֹ  “train the child according to his way” (Prov. 22:6). The nexus between these two meanings is obvious: providing a Jewish education for a child is like dedicating him/her to God.

With respect to education, it was customary in Jewish communities to give the child a gift upon entering school for the first time. Maimonides was not at all averse to “bribing a child” in order to get the child accustomed to study. [5] So, it is argued (based upon linguistic sources) that giving a child a gift during Hanukkah is not without some antecedent.

This writer would further argue that gift-giving is specifically mentioned in Numbers 7, which delineates all the sundry sacrifices and financial gifts each tribe gave in honor of the Temple’s dedication.  Incidentally, this same theme of gift-giving reappears in the First Book of Maccabees where Judas and his brothers, along with the people, rededicate the Temple by giving gifts to refurbish the Temple.[6]

So, is gift giving such a bad practice during Hanukkah? Traditionalist will definitely prefer giving Hanukkah Gelt; but personally, I see no problem with it so long as we do not include the other Christian traditions of Santa Claus with the celebration. Continue Reading

Thanks to the Kabbalah Center, the study of Kabbalah has become very well-known throughout much of the Americana landscape. Kabbalah represents the esoteric part of Judaism that tries to understand and articulate the great chain of being (to quote Arthur Lovejoy).

Please don’t get me wrong. I think the Kabbalah Center’s marketing is brilliant; I also think Rabbi Berg and his sons have done a fine job distilling Kabbalah to a general audience—up to a point. On the other hand, the Kabbalah center is run like a business, and its leaders know how to schnorer money—large sums in fact—from its glassy eyed followers.

To the Kabbalah Center’s credit, they have done a masterful job in drawing some of the largest crowds in all of Los Angeles to their weekly services—certainly no small feat. Surprisingly, they stream their services for a live broadcast for people all over the world who are interested in participating in the weekly services. A good friend of mine, is one of many who participate at this electronic minyan.

That being said, one of disturbing things about the popularization of the Kabbalah in general (without casting stones at any one organization), is the tendency for many pseudo-scholars of Kabbalah to merchandize the Kabbalah for personal profit and fame. One Israeli Kabbalist, Rabbi Yosef Pinto charged the basketball star Lebron James a six-figure sum for his Kabbalistic advice. Give me a break. James may be a fantastic basketball player, but he is getting ripped off by one of many Kabbalistic shysters who have perpetuated this myth that they are privy to a secret esoteric wisdom that all the other poor demented fools of the world are not privy to.

As a congregational rabbi, I have seen these types of phonies come and go; they love to pontificate about the wonders of Kabbalah—or should I say, “McMysticism.” For those of you unfamiliar with my term, here is a short definition:  You would never confuse the fast-food world of McDonalds with a real restaurant or bistro known for its fine dining.

The same can and ought to be said about the Kabbalah.

Most of the Kabbalah handbooks and guides written about the Kabbalah by people who do not even know how to read an original Kabbalistic text, much less know how to translate it properly into lucid English prose.  Or take for example, Rabbi David Batzri: Here’s a tech-savvy exorcist who recently attempted the world’s first exorcism via Skype.  [See my earlier piece on this telephonic Kabbalist) His father, R. Yitzchak Batzri and his host of other rabbis, decided to fly over Israel and say some prayers designed to prevent the spread of swine Flu from spreading in Israel.

On the other hand, there are some Kabbalists like Abraham Isaac Kook, whose words are so beautiful and lyrical; one can easily see that Jewish mysticism can be uplifting and personally transforming.  The same may be said of the 20^th century Jewish moralist, R. Eliyahu Dessler, who often makes use of Kabbalistic motifs that have practical significance.  Martin Buber’s genius can be seen in how he simplifies the Hassidic message in a way that is both  transpersonal and inspiring.

How can you tell a real Kabbalist from a pretender?

• For one thing, a true Kabbalist will not perpetuate the myth that he is a Jewish guru and that you are nothing more than one of his mindless drones.

• A real Kabbalist will help you get in touch with your own inner truth through the imagery of Jewish mysticism.

• A real Kabbalist does not live for the photo-op, nor does he perpetuate infomercials about his methodology in the name of God and capitalism.
• A real Kabbalist could care less about the celebrities he hangs out with.

In sum, Kabbalistic wisdom  is a lot like Mother Goose’s nursery rhyme about “The Girl with the Curl.”

There was a little girl who had a little curl

Right in the middle of her forehead;

When she was good, she was very, very good,

And when she was bad she was horrid.

The same can be said about the Kabbalah: Continue Reading

While rabbis across the world may wonder, “Who Is a Jew?”—on this night of Halloween, I am going to pose the question: “Who Is a Zombie?” Are zombies “human,” or are they something “Other” than human? The question has profound implications not just in the sphere of science-fiction, philosophy, religion—but also in the area of medical ethics.

The 17^th century philosopher Rene Descartes viewed animals as machine-like creatures, bereft of a soul. Every aspect of the animal could be explained in terms of its physical “mechanical” movements. Descartes even entertained the idea of a mechanical person what we could call today, a robotic being. How would one differentiate such a creature from the “real deal”? For one thing, the machine would never be able to spontaneously formulate sentences; its non-verbal behavior would also be limited. (Bear in mind that the rabbis arrived at a similar conclusion regarding the artificial being known as the “golem,” for it too was incapable of human speech.)

“So what is it that defines our humanity?” asks Descartes—it is the presence of the immaterial mind, the soul, which interacts between the brain and the other organs of the body.

But this raises an important question regarding the nature of “personhood,” (to use the more modern terminology). At what point does a human being, cease being “human”? If we apply Cartesian philosophy to our question, it might very well be when our brain ceases to function adequately.

Could this apply to zombies as well? (Not that they care very much about our deep philosophical deliberations!)

Of course this begs the question: Do zombies really exist? Or, are they merely mythical creatures created out from Hollywood?

In general, many mythic stories of primitive peoples have some sort of basis in fact. This principle would apply to zombies as well.

Ever since I watched that great movie, “The Serpent and the Rainbow,” I have been fascinated with this question. Harvard botanist, E. Wade Davis and Dr. Lamarque Douyon, Canadian-trained head of the Psychiatric Center in Port-au-Prince, have been trying to establish the basis for zombies, and according to them—they do exist![2] By the way, the book is much better than the film!

Haiti is a remarkable country; much of the contemporary folklore concerning zombies originates in Haiti—but there are legends about zombies that really go back to ancient history. Davis narrates the following story:

On a brilliant day in the spring of 1980, a stranger arrived at L’Estère marketplace in Haiti’s fertile Artibonite Valley. The man’s gait was heavy, his eyes vacant. The peasants watched fearfully as he approached a local woman named Angelina Narcisse. She listened as he introduced himself, then screamed in horror—and recognition. The man had given the boyhood nickname of her deceased brother Clairvius Narcisse, a name that was known only to family members and had not been used since his funeral in 1962. This incident was witnessed by more than 200 people!!

Well, it looks like the zombie can speak—and respond to human questions!!

You might wonder, “What could possibly turn a person into a zombie?” I have other questions as well, like—where did this man eat for the past 18 years, McDonald’s take out?

Well, in both the movie and in real life, there is a coma-inducing toxin that comes from the voodoo priest (known as “bocors”), which slows the human metabolism. The sources for this toxin “textrodotoxin,” come from: New World Toad (Bufo marinus), and the Japanese “Puffer Fish,” which is considered to be a delicacy in Japan—after the toxin has been removed.  The chemicals of  these ingredients can affect both the heart and the nervous system. In Japan, thousands of miles from Haiti, those people who have accidentally consumed the puffer fish toxin behave—well, a lot like zombies—Japanese zombies, I might add.

Godzilla, move over!!

Experiments on rats have proven that the drug can induce a trancelike state as well. So, what does this all mean?

For one thing, zombies do not have an appetite for eating human brains. But there is some scientific evidence that certain drugs can induce the famous zombie-like state. So, would a person be guilty if he killed a zombie, according to Jewish law? Based upon the evidence these two scientists have shown, a “zombie” still remains within the category of a human being.

BEYOND THE QUESTION ABOUT ZOMBIES . . .

However, there is one lingering question regarding the nature of a “person” that is still a difficult to ascertain. Would a person  still  be considered “human,” even if s/he is in a chronic vegetative state? The case of Terry Schiavo is an excellent example of someone whom the State declared as “clinically dead,” while the family who loved her claimed that she was still “alive,” and even allegedly, “responsive.”

About six months after her life-support was turned off, and while she was also starved by order of the court, Discover Magazine produced a  fascinating article that made special mention about people like Terry Schiavo, who suffer from the chronic vegetative condition.

Here is one part of the Discover Magazine article that I thought was especially interesting.

• In the 1970s, when intensive care dramatically improved the survival of brain-injured patients, doctors found that if the body can be kept alive, the brain usually shakes off a coma—a totally unresponsive, eyes-closed state—within two to four weeks. At that point some people simply wake up, although they may be delirious and impaired. Others graduate to an in-between zone that New York Hospital–Cornell Medical Center neurologist Fred Plum labeled the “persistent vegetative state” in 1972. At the time, among these patients, it seemed as if only “vegetative” brain functions like breathing, waking, and blinking were working. The higher functions commonly associated with consciousness seemed to be lost.

• The first vegetative patient Schiff saw, the victim of a stroke, had no sign of consciousness. But when he ran into her three years later at a rehab center, he was shocked to find her awake and capable of talking to him.

• The patients, doctors found, usually had widespread brain damage, but two injured areas were especially noteworthy: the thin outer rind, called the cortex, and the thalamus, a pair of walnut-size lumps in the brain’s central core, along with the neural fibers that connect these regions. The two areas are normally in constant cross talk, filtering and analyzing sensory data and making continual adjustments to attention and alertness. Lacking this chatter, someone in a vegetative state seems to be awake but not aware. They might moan and shift around, but they do not look toward a loud hand clap or pull away from a pinch. Given a feeding tube and basic medical care, someone might stay in this condition from days to decades, potentially until death. [3]

Well, as science progresses, it is only a matter of time before it can finally resolve this ethical question regarding the chronic vegetative state that we have heard so much about. Questions regarding the quality of life–even if such person should be revived from the chronic vegetative state–needs to be ethically weighed and considered by the family.  If the patient has no quality of life, it is possible that reviving such a person may only cause indefinite suffering. Would this be something desirable? There is a season for everything under the heavens . . . sometimes we need to let go of the people we love. The dignity of the patient is something we must also take into consideration.

Obviously, the border separating consciousness from death are questions worthy of a Solomon to answer. In one of the symposiums I organized and participated in, I argued that ultimately—we may know a lot about the human body, but we still know very little about the nature of consciousness–where it begins and where it truly ends. Continue Reading

The recent arrest of Rabbi Moishe Turner has sent shock-waves across the insular world of Monsey, N.Y. This 58 year man has been arrested for sodomizing a number of underage boys. Surprisingly, the Haredi (Ultra Orthodox and Hassidic) rabbis of his synagogue were well aware of this man’s behavior and even banned him from attending their synagogue. However, they never called the police, nor did they allow the victims’ families to contact the police. Subsequently, Turner went on to allegedly rape more boys.

As you can see, the Catholic Church is not alone with its scandalous record concerning pedophilia.

While I was reading up on this story, I began to wonder: Why are the Ultra-Orthodox groups so reticent to contact the police when a crime has taken place—especially when it involves the welfare of minors?

The answer to this question has much to do with the cloistered world of the Haredi community; in many ways they share affinities with the Catholic Church. Both communities trivialize crimes against children; both communities prefer hiding behind a cloak of secrecy—lest the outside world find out and expose their complicity and cowardice. Both communities have no moral problem sacrificing an innocent child, if it ensures the general welfare of the collective they share.

Much like in the ancient Greco-Roman tradition, the innocent child has become the scapegoat for their religious communities. His/her sacrifice serves to protect the religious community from scandal and disgrace–but such a delusional attitude does not really work, for the truth will sooner or later come out. The rabbis/Church officials who have both aided and enabled pedophiles to function openly are responsible for this travesty; neither they or their institutions can hide.

There may be other considerations that have been based upon antiquated rabbinical policies that no longer pertain to the United States. In Europe, governments had no qualms about blaming the Jew for any sort of crime—both real and imagined. Given the constant threats these anti-Semitic governments posed, it is almost understandable why the rabbis would have forbidden any Jew to the authorities, for it was never clear whether the accused could reasonably expect a fair trial.

Alternatively, anti-Semites would relish the opportunity to make the entire Jewish community suffer for the crimes of the few. In other words, the Christian community held the Jewish community corporately responsible for the behavior of its citizens. Other arguments assert that the prisons today are so dangerous—even in the United States—that sending an offender there may be tantamount to giving him a death sentence.[1]

Fortunately, the United States personifies the ideal of the “just government.”[2] Corruption and collective guilt really does not exist in this country (except with regard to Affirmative Action). Many of the Haredi Jews living in this country really do not understand the ideals and laws that define the unique identity of the United States. Jews are no longer corporately responsible for the crimes of one of its members. Yet, in their minds, they still see themselves—even three generations later!—as if they are living in Europe during the early part of the 20^th century. Readers may be surprised to know that a large number of these folks can barely read or write English.

I have Haredi family members who still speak Hungarian, or with such a heavy Yiddish accent, one would think they had just arrived off the boat at Ellis Island. Someone should tell them, “You’re not in Russia anymore!” The Haredim need to start respecting the law of the land (dina d’malchut dina).

For both of these Ultra-Orthodox communities, they would be wise to be more concerned with the physical welfare of the victim than the punishment that the offender might receive in prison. By banning parents from reporting these crimes to the police, they are endangering the physical welfare of numerous other potential victims. Are the lives of children somehow halachically considered less important than the life of a predator?

Some rabbis, like R. Jack Simcha Cohen, argue the main reason for turning deviants like Turner in to the authorities is because of hillul Hashem—a desecration of God’s Name.[3] There is something positive to be said about Cohen’s view, even though the prime consideration ought to be the welfare of the child—which is far more compelling than just “looking bad to the gentiles.” By choosing to be silent in the face of this crime, the Orthodox world is broadcasting a message across the world: we are not concerned about Jewish criminals in our midst. Continue Reading

Thank God, Gilad Shalit is finally home with his family. Emerging out of the bowels of a Gaza prison is nothing short of a miracle. Yet, despite the euphoria many Israelis are feeling this hour, much of the country feels understandably nervous. Many Israelis are upset because their families were destroyed by so many of the terrorists who were just released. Who could honestly blame the victims’ families feeling this way?

More to the point: What will happen if another soldier is kidnapped again?

Admittedly, I am one of those people who feel somewhat uneasy. How can anyone not feel this way as well?

Some well-known rabbis, such as the IDF Chief Rabbi Avishai Rontzki, are of the opinion that the Israeli army should have killed the terrorists and not have allowed them to live. Other West-Bank rabbis, such as Rabbi Dov Lior and Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu condemned the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap as reckless.

Rabbi Lior wrote in a letter addressed to “Our brothers, the people of Israel…  there is no doubt that surrender to terrorist extortion can endanger our brothers who reside here in the future, as previously happened when many of the terrorists who were released went back to their old habits and that is a real threat to the people of Zion. This is why we cannot save one and almost definitely endanger the entire population . . .”

I must admit, I personally do not like Lior or Eliyahu; their racist positions regarding the Palestinians are beyond the pale of civil discourse. However, Hamas and Hezbollah have only confirmed the rabbis’ fears that other soldiers will be targeted.

Why doesn’t the Israeli army not adopt a “take no prisoners” approach and simply shoot the terrorists—especially since their presence poses a clear and dangerous threat to its citizens? That might well be a plausible approach that Israel needs to consider.

On the other hand, the capture of terrorists can provide real-time intelligence that can prevent other future attacks; there is certainly merit to this position as well. In addition, the Geneva Convention has very specific rules demanding the humane treatment of enemy soldiers. (One might wonder whether terrorists are deserving of the epithet, ”soldier,” and perhaps the time has arrived for civilized nations to revise the Geneva Conventions). Bear in mind also that Israel does not practice capital punishment like we do here in the United States.

One must be King Solomon to solve this ethical dilemma.

I believe that the Israeli military may want to consider injecting some sort of miniaturized GPS device in their soldiers, which would give the Israeli military real-time information on the whereabouts of  a captured Israeli soldier. I have little doubt that the Techinon in Israel is already working on such possible solutions. Yet, even technology may not be able to prevent all kidnappings.

More to the main question at hand: How does a society weigh the ethical demands of saving human life, especially when the lives of many might possibly be jeopardized? Certainly, the Mishnah in Sanhedrin stresses the infinite worth of the individual and it does not differentiate the utilitarian value of the individual to society. Each individual is a world by himself. [2] Such statements have rarely been heard even in the most famous philosophical tracts of the Enlightenment, or, in John Stuart Mill’s famous essay, “On Liberty.” Yes, the human worth of an Israeli soldier is invaluable, but so is the human worth of the lone Israeli citizen.

These are sobering questions that really transcend the boundaries of individual rabbinic opinions—regardless of how nutty many of these dubious religious leaders actually are.

As I mentioned in a previous posting, the Mishnah in Gittin plainly states that one should not pay an excessive price for the victim since it might encourage further kidnappings. [3] And while historically, there are documented cases where the Jewish community has raised exorbitant monies to rescue certain valued individuals, there still remains another serious question people need to consider: What about the value of other innocent lives that will be taken next time there is a conflict? How does one determine the value of any human being—soldier, or non-soldier? Does the government have the right to say, “Who says your blood is redder [i.e., more valuable] than your neighbor?” [4]

The last question is no less complicated: If the Israeli Government ignores the welfare of one of its captured soldiers, will this undermine the soldiers’ loyalty to the army, thereby weakening their response to terrorism and/or war? On the other hand, a large number of those prisoners released were sent to other places than their country of origin, e.g., West Bank terrorists were sent to Gaza, Kuwait, and other places.

In Jewish tradition, questions are considered more important than answers. There is something to be said about a tradition that grapples with ethical ambiguity. It is God-wrestling at its best! Continue Reading

The recent news about the prisoner exchange between Hamas and Israel has created some very interesting debates about whether or not, releasing over fourteen mass-murderers might be too high of a price to pay, for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who has been languishing in a Hamas prison for the last five years.  Such questions are hardly modern; as early as the 4^th century, the Mishnah dealt specifically with this ethical question about negotiating with kidnappers (which would certainly include today’s terrorists). The Mishnah[1] rules, “Captives must not be ransomed for more than their value for the good of the public welfare.”[2]

Historically, one of the most famous medieval cases involving pidyon shevuyim (“the redemption of captives”) was the famous ransoming  of the great 13^th German scholar, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (also known as the MaHaRam). Looking to raise some money for his kingdom, German Emperor King Rudolf I demanded 23,000 pounds of silver for the rabbi’s freedom. Remarkably, Rabbi Meir instructed the Jewish communities not to acquiesce to the rogue leader’s ransom demands, despite the fact that leading rabbinical leaders like R. Asher ben Yechiel (1250 or 1259 – 1327), managed to raise the funds. He was imprisoned for seven years and died at age 78. A wealthy man named Alexander ben Salomon Wimpfen paid the ransom; his only request: he wanted to be subsequently buried next to the saintly rabbi.

In light of today’s reality of terrorism, the objections against releasing the Hamas terrorists are certainly on the surface, quite compelling and differ considerably from the types of ransoms we have seen in earlier Jewish history.

• Releasing 1000 terrorists will certainly inspire the rogue terrorist state of Hamas to kidnap more Israeli soldiers or other Israeli citizens and they will demand even higher ransoms.

• Every terrorist released is a potential mass murderer and after gaining a heroic status in their society, they will look to continue perpetuating more random acts of violence against Israel.

• Evidence has shown time and time again how formerly captured terrorists continue to rain death upon Israelis whenever possible.

• Negotiating with Hamas serves to enhance their image to the international community, and paradoxically undermines the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank; worst case scenario: Hamas strengthens its ability to eventually seize control of the West Bank, thus endangering millions of Israelis living near the West Bank.

• Some of the terrorists do not have blood on their hands from murder, despite having enabled others to do their dirty work.

The arguments for negotiating with Hamas are also significant.

• Bringing Shalit home raises the moral of Israeli soldiers who know that the government will go to extreme measures to bring them back home.
• Shalit’s return represents an important morale booster for the entire nation. Continue Reading

Some Rosh Hashanah Meditations and Rambling Thoughts on the holiday

Attitude is everything.

But in hard times, it’s a lot easier to sit and complain rather than do something about bettering our life circumstances and attitudes.

I am reminded of an old story I came across almost 10 years ago, which I filed away for a rainy day.

Marty visits Dr. Saul, the veterinarian, and says, “My dog has a problem.” Dr. Saul says, “So, tell me about the dog and the problem.”

Marty said, “You see, Doc, it’s a Jewish dog, and his name is Hershel; in fact, he can even talk!”

Dr. Saul exclaims, “A talking dog? Impossible.”  ‘Watch this!’ Marty points to the dog and commands: ‘ Hershel, ‘Fetch!’

Hershel, the dog, begins to walk toward the door, then turns around and says, “Nu. Why are you talking to me like that? You always order me around like I’m nothing.  And you only call me when you want something.  And then you make me sleep on the floor, with my arthritis.  You give me this lousy food with all the salt and fat, and you tell me it’s a special diet. It tastes like dreck!  YOU should eat it yourself!  And do you ever take me for a decent walk?  NO, it’s out of the house, a short whiz, and right back home.  Maybe if I could stretch out a little, the sciatica wouldn’t kill me so much!  But what do you care?!’

Dr. Saul is amazed and says, “This is remarkable!  I never saw a dog like this in my life!  So, what’s the problem?” Morty says, “He has a hearing problem!  I said ‘Fetch,’ not ‘Kvetch.’”

Rosh Hashana teaches us that we need to leave our kvetching behind. Tonight begins a year of  infinite possibilities.

But what is the antidote to the pessimism and complaining that have often become the touchstone of modern life?  What does Jewish tradition teach us that can help us get past this chronic feeling of negativity and despair?

One of the customs of Rosh Hashanah involves dipping our hallah bread in honey and as well as apples.

Apples, in Western tradition, often symbolize enlightenment and knowledge.  What does bread symbolize? For one thing, it represents sustenance and food; in American slang, it also represents money and livelihood.  The ancient Hebrews conceived of bread in similar terms.

Bread is לֶחֶם (leḥem) the staple of our life; but bread is often the source of considerable conflict. Moses in his wisdom recognized how the Hebrew words for bread and war  מִלְחָמָה (milḥāmâ) are profoundly intertwined. Throughout recorded history, nations have gone to war over coveted resources and still do.

In our own day, the quest for bread has become an onerous challenge for over 15 million Americans who are currently out of work.

When people are suffering it is so hard for people to believe that there might be a light at the end of the tunnel—but I am here to remind you that Rosh HaShanah offers each of us a new opportunity to celebrate life as individuals and as a community. We feel as if we are in a war fighting for our lives. Survival has become a major struggle in every way.

The one constant in the universe is change; nothing stays stationary in the universe–how we deal with change is the real challenge. For many of us experiencing the loss of a spouse, or the loss of a home, or job,—Rosh HaShanah can help each of us to reinvent ourselves and our lives. We may have no choice for the events that happen in our lives, but we always have a choice how we respond. We can look at life’s cup as half-full, or see it as half-empty; it all depends how we frame these events. The Chinese say that the same pictogram for crisis can also mean opportunity. This is the challenge God has places before us. Although change often comes as an intruder, it also acts as the catalyst for moral growth. Change affords us the opportunity to reinvent ourselves,  but to do so requires a great deal of imagination, focus, determination, work, and hope.

Change requires insight; insight comes from knowledge–the kind of wisdom that we find in our tradition.

One of the meanings of Lashana Tovah can mean, “A good year for study!” Our devotion and love toward one another and to Torah offers a proud and defiant message to the world around you —namely, we will eat our bread, share our bread in gladness and show there is nothing in the world that can destroy the goodness and spirit that we have.

Rav Nachman of Bratzlav was a famous Hassidic rabbi, the grandson of the Baal Shem Tov; he was a man who, by modern psychoanalytical terms, happened to be a manic-depressive. Yet, one of the most important lessons he stresses in his writings, is the importance of seeing the good that is always present in our lives.  Here are some practical suggestions he makes, “The world is like a narrow bridge; but the main thing for you to always be clear: Never give in to the voice of fear.” Nachman is not denying the existence of fear in our lives, but we do not have to let fear dominate and micromanage daily our existence.

Optimism, hope and renewal hold the key to a wonderful New Year. In other words, you cannot serve God with a heavy heart; God did not create us to be mere creatures dedicated to consumption; our purpose in this world is to learn and love. With a positive attitude like that, we will emerge with our spirits intact.

But to do that, we need to occupy ourselves with activities that will raise our troubled spirits to God—such as communal prayer, Shabbat celebration, and study. When we break through the walls that isolate ourselves from each other and from our inner strength, we will discover a New Year of infinite possibilities. Continue Reading