Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

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

Yesterday, the State of Georgia executed Troy Davis in one of the most controversial cases dealing with the ethics of the death penalty and its practical implementation. After reading this story, I wondered how the Sanhedrin would have ruled in such a case 2000 years ago. I am reminded of a remarkable rabbinical argument that could have taken place even now in the 21^st century:

According to biblical law, a man cannot be executed on the basis of a single witness, for the Torah explicitly says: “On the evidence of two or three witnesses the death sentence shall be executed; a person must not be put to death on the evidence of only one witness (Deut. 17:6-7). In rabbinical law, we find: One Sage said, “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.” Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, “So these Sages would multiply the number of murderers in Israel” (Mishnah Makkot 1:10).

Rabbinical law would have had serious difficulties convicting Troy Davis for a variety of reasons. Troy Davis’s execution highlights the problems often seen in cases involving capital crimes like homicide. With respect to Davis, the court never produced convincing evidence that he had murdered the cop that he was alleged to have killed. Seven out of nine of the witnesses who claimed to have seen him shoot the victim, later rescinded their testimonies except for one. Others point to a different man—the eighth witness, who first implicated Davis—as the real killer. One ballistic test was discredited later during the trial hearings. Some of the jurors, who voted for execution, later said they would have voted differently had they been aware of the lack of actual ballistic evidence. “If I knew then what I know now,” juror Brenda Forrest said in 2009, “Troy Davis would not be on death row.”

Significantly, some of the witnesses claim their testimonies were coerced by the police. Sometimes, in their desire to capture the criminal, police will try to put a lid on the case by nabbing anyone who might appear to be the culprit. Coerced confessions are a staple in many communities around the country; it is a problem that most citizens are unaware of existing.

Having seen a similar case in Upstate New York, involving three young men who were accused of killing an Indian immigrant at a gas station shortly after 9/11, I know firsthand how the police sometimes will beat a person into making a confession, for one of the young men accused happened to be a son of one of my congregants. The day after he was arrested, I visited him and saw the welts that were all over his back. Several years later, two of the accused died in prison; one from illness, another from a brawl. However, the Jewish young man had a well-to-do father who fought for his innocence. Ultimately, the young man was released because the police coerced the confession; in addition, the evidence indicated that he did actually kill the immigrant; however, a man is always judged by the company he keeps (I told him that countless times in private visitations I had with him over the years). The Jewish young man was lucky he had a father who could pay for a second trial; Troy Davis wasn’t so fortunate because he was a poor Afro-American who did not have the financial means to hire the best attorneys.

Well, with respect to the Troy Davis story, this man was convicted solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony, which as we noted above, proved to be dubious indeed! There are so many conflicting problems in this case; one must wonder whether the court ever proved that he was guilty, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” as the State demands. When more than three-quarters of the witnesses change their story, and another actually confesses, how can any jury say that they have justly arrived at a verdict? Was there proper due process?

Rabbinic law is pretty straightforward about such cases. Maimonides write, “The following rules apply when two groups of witnesses offer conflicting testimonies. If one witness from one group came together with one witness from the other group and they both delivered testimony concerning another matter, the testimony is of no consequence for it is obvious that one of them lied, but we cannot ascertain which one” (MT Hilchot 22:1). 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” (MT Sanhedrin 10:9).

Furthermore,according to the JT Sanh. II, 6 (20c) כל דיאתיקי שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה . The law is stated that if one of a hundred witnesses is declared invalid, the entire testimony is rejected. [1] This was certainly the case here, and in a Jewish court, Troy Davis would never have been executed on this basis alone, and would have probably even been set free. Beyond this point, if the judge suspects the witnesses are indeed lying, he must refuse to render a decision upon the basis of their evidence (cf. Isa. 11:3-4). [2] It is difficult to see how this would not have been the case here in the Troy Davis trial; furthermore, known criminals cannot testify in court either because they have zero credibility in rabbinical law and a valid witness is not even allowed to be associated with a dishonest witness (cf. Choshen Mishpat 34ff.). [3]

It is also worth nothing that since 1970, more than 130 wrongfully-convicted Americans have been released from death row, because of new DNA findings. This fact should give every proponent of capital punishment a moment of pause and profound humility. If killing a person is like destroying a world (as our Sages teach), how many worlds have we in our zeal for justice, executed unjustly? Keeping him in prison, if nothing else, would at least prevent injustice form occurring. Besides, even the Talmud tells us that incarceration in doubtful capital crimes was a safe precaution in keeping a doubtful murderer off the streets. Continue Reading

Ever wonder what is really bothering millions of men living in the Middle East today? In the past I have argued that Oriental societies have been painfully patriarchal since the beginning of human history. With the advent of woman’s liberation movements, coupled with the Westernization of values, the Muslim, Catholic, and Haredi (Ultra-Jewish Orthodoxy) feels threatened since they view these values as undermining patriarchal authority.

Although there is considerable literature and testimonies about how husbands control their wives in Iran, and how their very lives depend upon acquiescing to their husbands’ whims, the Ultra-Orthodox world of Haredi Judaism is not too far behind. In some ways, the rabbis are even worse.

Here is a case in point. Let me begin with a brief digression before going into the specific issue I wish to address.

Normally billboards don’t attract too much attention, unless they are the kind of billboards you would see in Las Vegas, or some of the southern cities like Charlotte, N.C. promoting “gentlemen’s clubs.” In fact, often these billboards are advertised next to other billboards promoting churches. I suppose after going to the gentlemen’s clubs, the men probably feel they need to go to church and confess their sins!

Now in Israel, the billboards are no less controversial, but because they portray racy looking pictures of lovely women—but because they show ordinary looking men and women together!  One such billboard was promoting a special program, “Oz Latmura” designed to improve the economic status of high school teachers, while also raising the level and quality of children’s education.

Haredi rabbis and their followers were so upset at these pictures, they decided to deface the photos of women,  despite the fact that the women depicted were modestly dressed! One resident told Ynet News, “Our anger is directed at the company that posted the ads, which violate the agreement with the Municipality. Municipal law bans ads which include pictures of women…. [Posting pictures of women] hurts the Haredi public’s feelings, and therefore we had the woman’s photo [on the billboard] covered [with those stickers]. The signs that include pictures of male teachers only can be posted in the city without any problem.”

Some months ago, the Haredi defaced Hillary Clinton’s picture in the Yiddish newspapers, much to the rabbis’ embarrassment and shame.

After I read these comments, the thought occurred to me that the Haredim wished to blot out to women’s faces.  But why the face? Now that’s an interesting question. I would argue that psychologically, the human face is what really identifies each of us as human beings. The human face is capable of such a myriad of expressions; humanity comes through the human face. Whenever we see a human face anguished or crying, we instinctively feel the pull to help that person. The face, as the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas used to say, “ . . . commands, without commanding in words.” Sometimes when an indigent man comes to us for help, we shy away from looking at the homeless man, for we know if we look at the poor man, we know we must help him. Continue Reading

Many years ago, I remember the time when I was sixteen years old and I asked the obvious question on a Mishnaic passage to my Talmud teacher: “What if the husband refuses to grant his wife a divorce?” He answered, “In New York, whenever the husband refused to give his wife a religious divorce, a number of men in the community would take him to the cemetery and start digging a grave for him. They would then issue the following ultimatum: ‘The Mishnah says that a woman can become free either through a get, or through the death of her husband.’[1] One way or the other, your wife will be free. Now, how do you wish to free her?  You decide.”

There can be little doubt this solution probably worked quite well in the medieval period, but what about now?

Actually, just a few days ago something like the above scenario occurred in the timeless world of Trenton, New Jersey. A Lakewood rabbinic scholar named David Wax, along with his wife, decided to take the halacha into their own hands—quite literally–and they physically threatened to bury an Israeli Orthodox man alive if he refused to grant his wife a get.

According to Reuters News, “Wax and at least two unidentified men administered a beating, showed him a body bag and promised to bury him alive in the Pocono Mountains if he did not agree to the divorce, the complaint alleges. Wax also allegedly forced the man to call his father in Israel, who recorded the call, authorities said.”

Rabbi Wax and his wife may have to spend the rest of their lives in jail for kidnapping. This is serious business.

After reading the article, I remarked to a friend, “Well, I have heard about a shotgun wedding before, but who ever heard of a shotgun divorce?” Perhaps the Chinese are right: we are “living in interesting times.”

Very interesting indeed, but for a rabbi, David Wax acted like a fool. For one thing, there is an important rule that Rabbi Wax completely discounted—with, what I might add, “grave” consequences! The 4th century sage Samuel said, “The law of the State is law.”[2] Secondly, the Bible forbids kidnapping human beings as well as buying or selling stolen or kidnapped persons (cf. Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). Rabbi Wax should have realized the seriousness of these biblical proscriptions.

Vigilantism is forbidden by law; no man may take the law into his or her own hands; there must be due-process. No rabbinical authority has the right to assert that he is above the law when it comes to matters of physical retaliation.

Rabbi Wax of all people, should have known better especially since he wrote a learned exposition on the 613 Mitzvot.

While a part of me feels no pity for the Israeli sleazebag for getting the scare of his life, the real problem that nobody wants to address is the fact that most of the cases involving the laws of “chained wife” ought to be sent to the Halachic phantom zone where other obsolete laws belong, e.g., the law of executing one’s child for insulting a parent (Exod.21:15, 17); or, when it came to executing a rebellious adolescent  (Deut. 21:1-21).

Historically, the halacha has always allowed for annulment in cases where men abused the Halachic system in order to torture an unhappy spouse. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Haredi Judaism’s greatest hero and champion, always found a halachic way to dissolve marriages of this type. Where there is a halachic will, there is always a halachic way of solving a problem of this magnitude.

If I were Rabbi Wax’s attorney, I would make this case vividly clear. The real solution is simple and the troglodyte “Gedolim” of our time, simply lack the vision and ethics to do something realistic and practical about it.

One of  the great Orthodox scholars of our time, Rabbi Emmanuel Rackman , the former dean of Bar Ilan University wasn’t afraid to retroactively negate the marriage. It is a pity the rest of the Halachic world lacks the moral resolve and courage to do the right thing and free those pathetic women who often remain “chained” for life.

Poor Leiby Kletzky, angels weep for his soul.

This young Hassidic boy was recently murdered a few days ago. Yesterday his casket was carried into a synagogue for his funeral service that was held in Brooklyn, which was attended by thousands of mourners.

It’s every parent’s worst nightmare come true. Leiby’s family feels a pain that penetrates the heart of God Himself in Heaven. But how does a community make sense of something that is so senseless and numbing? It is one thing to hear about an adult who is kidnapped and murdered, but when a young boy is the victim, we cannot express in words the sense of loss everyone feels. It doesn’t matter who you are, or what ethnic group you belong to, or what religious beliefs you may subscribe to.

Leiby’s death also strikes home because we know that it might have happened to any of us. This death might have under different circumstances been your child, your niece, your grandchild, your neighbor’s child. But what can anyone say? How does one explain this tragedy to one’s children?

Does Jewish tradition offer any kind of therapeutic response or wisdom? Are there any stories in the Bible that might offer some degree of solace and direction to a family that suffers?

THE PRISON OF SILENCE

Semites grieve much more openly than Europeans. If you have ever attended a Arab or Sephardic funeral, the shrilling sound of crying is unforgettable. Semites do not behave stoically like their European counterparts.

The death of children occurs in several biblical narratives, e.g., the death of Judah’s two sons, Er and Onan (Gen 38:1-10); the “supposed” death of Joseph (Gen 37:34); the death of David and BatSheva’s son (2 Sam. 12:18-24); the death of Absalom (2 Sam. 19:1), and the death of Job’s children (Job 1:19-22).

In the interest of brevity, we will focus on (1) the death of Aaron’s sons, Nadav and Abihu—both who die from an unexpected explosion as they were serving God (2) the death of Absalom, (3) the loss of  Job’s children.

With regard to the former, the biblical narrator says in but a couple of words the reaction of Aaron:  וַיִּדֹּם אַהֲרֹן (wayyidöm ´ahárön) “And Aaron was silent” (Lev. 10:3). Nowhere does the biblical narrator provide us with a sense of what Aaron must have been feeling. Did he blame himself? Was this God’s pay-back for when he made the Golden Calf?

While the law forbids a High Priest to mourn, on the surface, Aaron’s reaction is consistent with the office he has dedicated his life to. On the other hand, it is also feasible that Aaron simply cannot react—even though he wants to. The senseless death of two young men leaves him with no simplistic answers. To decipher Aaron’s response, we must read in between the lines and look for clues.

Among the Hebrew words for silence “dumah” stands out as a term associated with Aaron’s grief and loss. Dumah denotes: astonishment, numbness with grief, lifelessness, being stone-like, a feeling of being cut off, the sensation of terror, and lastly—the  silent yearning for hope.

DAVID’S RESPONSE

David’s reaction appears in one of the most famous passages of the Tanakh. After David emerges victorious in his battle with Absalom, his son, David asks one of his loyal servants whether Absalom was safe from harm, “But the king asked the Cushite, “Is young Absalom safe?” The Cushite replied, “May the enemies of my lord the king and all who rebel against you with evil intent be as that young man!”The king was shaken, and went up to the room over the city gate to weep. He said as he wept, “My son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you, Absalom, my son, my son!” (2 Sam 18:32-19:1).

Nothing else is said about David’s poignant reaction. He too, like Aaron, probably feels guilt-ridden that he could have prevented his son’s death, if only . . .  Like Aaron and David, most parents would gladly sacrifice their lives so that their children might live.

CONTRASTING  JOB AND AARON

Whereas Aaron’s silence is pierced with a divine visitation by God, Job is not as fortunate as Aaron. Job’s own silence and the silence of God, threatens to destroy him. Compounding his problem is the fact that his three friends condemn Job’s sinfulness as the root cause for his children’s untimely death. Job is fed up and angry, for although he offers the platitudes of faith (Job 1:21-22), he is mad as hell at God, at his community for not giving him proper support, and at himself for not preventing his children’s death.

Job’s own personal and psychological resurrection will not begin until he verbalizes his pain to both his God and his friends and only then will Job will find release from his suffering. Although Job praises Job’s opening complaint is unforgettable:

God damn the day I was born!

and the night that forced me from the womb

On that day–let there be darkness;

let it never have been created;

let it sink back into the void.

Let chaos overpower it;

let black clouds overwhelm it;

let the sun be plucked from the sky . . . .

Job 3:3-5 (Stephen Mitchell’s translation)[1]

Job can no longer act as if everything’s OK, because it’s not. Once he finally speaks about his pain, only then does he eventually find some meaning to his suffering.

Job teaches us about the importance of verbalizing pain. Suffering must find a voice that will allow a sufferer to speak openly about the pain. Silence in the face of monstrous evil is akin to death itself. There can be no healing unless people and communities verbalize and identify their pain.

BREAKING FREE FROM THE SILENT WORLD OF PAIN

For the Hassidic and Ultra-Orthodox world of Borough Park, Brooklyn, the community must come together and verbalize their pain and loss.

Questions like, “Are there any lessons at all that can be learned?” or  “How does any community prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening?” are only the opening salvo for a discussion that must be publicly discussed for all to see, hear, and understand. Talking about the problem can help prevent it. The conspiracy of silence affecting traditional religious communities must come to an end.

Here are some other practical suggestions that a community might consider implementing or at least discussing:

• Do not assume that just because people live in an austere religious community that they are immune to the problems of pedophilia.  It affects all social classes, ethnic groupings, and religious communities.

• Religious communities must take a much stronger stand against the pedophiles living amongst them. There is a tendency for community leaders to believe that such individuals can be helped and possibly cured of their psychological illness.

• Rabbinical leaders should reemphasize the prohibition of yichud, no adult male should be alone with any child without (1) the door being open, (2) or preferably, another adult ought to be present during a lesson. A number of years ago, a well-known cantor in Upstate NY lost his job for fondling a bat mitzvah girl; I know of several other similar stories. Clergy would be wise to always have a parent present whenever teaching a child. As clergy, we must subscribe to the highest degree of professionalism.

• Sex education in the religious schools and the yeshivot  would help young people recognize the dangers of pedophilia.  Such a change in the religious communities is necessary.

• Parents must caution their children: DO NOT TALK TO STRANGERS and NEVER TAKE A RIDE FROM A STRANGER

• Expose the pedophiles living among you. Give them no rest. Like the lepers of old, this group really needs to live far away from any kind society that has children living nearby.

• Cars picking up children in schools ought to have special stickers indicating they have a right to pick up a child.

Over a year ago, I taught a course at St. Ambrose University in Davenport, IA on the Seven Deadly Sins. In one of the sessions, we looked and discussed new variants for the Seven Deadly Sins that were proposed by the Vatican, which included: (1) genetic modification, (2) human experimentation (3) polluting the environment (4) social injustice (5) causing poverty (6) financial gluttony (7) taking drugs.

It is striking the Vatican did not include abortion among the seven. But even more surprising is the fact the Vatican did not mention crimes against children—not just those who are unborn, but especially for those who are already born. Such a statement would have made a serious contribution and show a modicum of repentance for the pedophilia scandal that has decimated the Catholic Church and its communities. Orthodox religious communities have been doing cover-ups for decades–and I suspect this travesty has been going on for countless centuries. Thank God we are living in the age of the Internet, where pedophiles can no longer hide their deeds from the community. Continue Reading

The spiritual fate of Osama bin Laden continues to intrigue me. None of us will ever know the conversation God/or the Heavenly Court would have with this twisted and demented human being.  Maybe it would go something like, “Osama, you got it all wrong!” If I believed in the doctrine of reincarnation ( I have never arrived at a conclusion, yea or nay), I would imagine that God would incarnate this soul in a life where he experienced the hardship of discrimination and abuse . . . However, the Christian response to this ethereal meeting offers much fodder for discussion–especially since it is so diametrically different from the Jewish perspective.

One fellow blogger, Jonathan Marx raises a couple of  interesting questions that I would like to focus on for the next few minutes:

Is Gandhi in heaven right now because he was good enough?

Is Osama bin Laden in hell right now because he was too evil?

The above author contends that just because a person is a “good” human being like Gandhi, does not necessarily mean or even suggest that he is automatically a given that he is going to Heaven.

He explains, “Christianity teaches that there is no one so far gone that cannot be forgiven—even Bin Laden. Here’s why. Christianity teaches that even when we are dead in our sins that God can make us alive with Christ. How does he do this? God “forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2:13-14). Think of it. Jesus’ death on the cross was sufficient to pay the penalty for every sin ever committed (cf. 1 John 2:2).”

This has often been called, “the scandal of the cross,” or “the theology-of-the-cross” (Theologia Crucis) is a term that was originally coined by the theologian Martin Luther, who felt that the cross is the only source of knowledge concerning who God is and how God saves. It is contrasted with the theology of glory (theologia gloriae), which places greater emphasis on human abilities and human reason (Wikepedia).

As I mentioned to Professor Marvin Wilson, author of the book “Our Father Abraham: The Jewish Roots of Christianity”, if one follows the logic of this type of statement, all anyone has to do is simply declare “Jesus saves” and poof! One is instantly saved. Yet, despite all the theological rhetoric that stresses Jesus’s unconditional forgiveness of anyone, but the fact remains that Hell is a place of torment—not just for a momentary period of time, but for all eternity. Why can’t the miserable souls of Hell simply say, “I believe in Jesus!” and be immediately “saved”? Why have Hell altogether? For the serious Christian, you cannot have a God who forgives unconditionally, while toasting those who do not believe in an eternal barbecue. It simply doesn’t work. Moreover, if the God of justice is to have any meaning at all, then shouldn’t there be ultimate consequences for wicked behavior? Why have a world based on justice at all when forgiveness can be granted so easily?

Rabbinic tradition has long taught that anyone who acts compassionately toward the cruel will in the end act cruelly toward the compassionate. For all the carte-blanche forgiveness granted to the mass murderers and genocidal maniacs, the Christian track record toward the non-believers of their communities has been dreadful.

For nearly two millennium, the traditional Christian world has maintained that all non-believers are condemned, Gandhi and the Jews, or for that matter—all decent non-Christian people are not so fortunate. Pelagius argued with Augustine and rejected the  belief that Jesus was necessary for personal salvation. Pelagius felt that according to Augustine, the countless number of people who never heard of Jesus are condemned to eternal damnation for having dared to reject the divinity of the Savior since “^ Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth ^and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

So based upon Augustinian theology, Buddha, Gandhi and Moses, sorry all you Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and whoever—you are out of luck–but all you miserable mass murderers are welcome to Hotel Salvation. All you have to say is “I accept Jesus  . . .” What is wrong with this picture?! As my son observed, “What incentive is there for anyone one to act like a decent or moral human being, if all one has to say is ‘Jesus save me!’?” Sorry, this type of thinking is wrongheaded.

It seems to me that much of the New Testament reflects more the spiritual ideology of Paul more than the actual spiritual teachings of Jesus, or for that matter, James his brother. The Book of James stresses the primacy of deeds in a manner that is very reminiscent of the early tradition found in the rabbinic traditions of the 1^st century.

Listen to what James says:

“Anyone who listens to the Word, but takes no action is like someone who looks at his own features in a mirror—once he has seen what he looks like, he promptly forgets what he looked like. But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does” (NT James 1:23-25).

“For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).

The best passage comes from James 2:17-26.

So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.  You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? ^ Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? ^ You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead; so too, is faith without works also dead.[1]

I have little doubt that James would say that any evil person like Hitler or bin Laden were irredeemable sinners–unworthy of God’s forgiveness. Continue Reading

As someone who is proud to be an Independent, I must say that the freedom of being an Independent affords me the ability to be critical of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. While I have been critical of the Democratic Middle East policies, which I believe are incredibly myopic, today I will take aim at the Republican Party.

This past week, the Republicans voted to defund Planned Parenthood—an organization that has done more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than any other organization in the country—is a move that will only cause more problems.

Who are the victims?

As usual, it is women–and poor women at that.

Parental notification laws are fine and good when there is a healthy relationship between girls and their parents. However, if the parent and child relationship is dysfunctional, e.g., the parent of a teenager may throw the child out of the house, because the child did not meet the parent’s moral standards. Or, a pregnancy may have occurred from within the home (often from incest)—confidentiality is very important in such cases.  Terminating an unwanted pregnancy under such circumstances could be the most responsible thing a young woman can do given these circumstances. Ultimately, this is a privacy issue and the Republican leaders of Congress would be wise to keep their political noses out of decisions that impact a young woman’s life.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) recently introduced an amendment to eliminate to all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that the Hyde Amendment barred the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions has been in effect since 1976. As it stands, defunding the program will affect cancer screenings, birth control, Pap smears, counseling, STD treatments—are vital services that impact the lives of the poor and middle class.

This should not be viewed as a partisan issue; defunding Planned Parenthood is a very bad idea that will only cause more heartache—not to mention—a greater burden on our already struggling hospital system, which will inevitably have to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, we will all pay for the mushrooming medical costs with higher premiums.

Yes, as Benjamin Franklin correctly observed, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” While the advocates for defunding Planned Parenthood claim they are concerned with cutting our national and state debt, the tonality of the conservative politicians I have listened to on the news are clearly concerned with preventing abortions any way they can–regardless of the many non-abortion services Planned Parenthood provides.

Men since the beginning of historical and mythical memory (as seen in Genesis 3) have been blaming women for the problems of the world. Sexism is arguably the Original Sin of Western civilization, and the modern permutations continue to haunt our country even today. Jewish tradition wisely teaches that women are not obligated to become pregnant since pregnancy poses many health risks that men do not have to face–but women do.  In addition, there are other important ethical concerns such as not placing a “stumbling block before the blind” (Lev. 19:14). Young women who are forced because of economic reasons, will find that their lives could be dramatically effected if they are forced to bear unwanted children. Preventing pregnancy in the first place–without having to resort to abortions–via providing birth control is sensible and wise.

Many years ago, I recall when there was a debate in San Francisco about providing needles and syringes to drug users. Cities that have aggressively provided its drug users with these instruments have helped stop the spread of HIV and AIDS related infections. As of 2010, about one-fifth of the more than 36,000 AIDS cases in New York have involved intravenous drugs. An accurate estimate is probably double that, since many addicts’ deaths from tuberculosis, pneumonia and other illnesses are now being recognized as AIDS-related.

Many lives have been saved despite the fact that the city enabled some very bad behavior. Yet, when considering the greater social problems posed by a society that ignores how this disease is spread, distributing needles works.

Providing young women with the means to prevent getting pregnant is analogous in some ways to the example mentioned above because young people since the time of the sexual revolution–if not earlier–are going to continue exploring their sexuality whether parents or clergy approve or not. Teaching them how to take responsibility benefits all of society, and it could prevent much greater problems down the road.

Continue Reading

Today’s topic is one of the great questions philosophers have asked for millennia: Is religion essential for morality? One could certainly argue like the rationalistic philosophers that humankind does not require supernatural reasons in order to make people act kindly toward one’s neighbor. Certainly, the current existing realities of social and political evils arise because people tend to be given over to feelings of hatred, envy, and fear.

Apologists for religion often contend that a belief in God is necessary in order for people to act morally, but an examination of rabbinic texts suggest that the early rabbinic teachers acknowledged that had the Torah never been given to Israel–or by extension, to human kind–primitive man would have had to learn morality from the animal world.

The Sages appear to have understood this truth as well, for they candidly said, “If the Torah had not been given we could have learnt modesty from the cat, honesty from the ant, chastity from the dove, and good manners from the cock who first coaxes and then mates”(BT Eruvin 100b).

While the Talmud delineates the positive traits humankind could have learned from nature, it goes without saying that our ancestors could just as easily have learned many negative character traits from nature, e.g., from the ant we would have derived the principles of totalitarianism; from the cat we would have developed certain predatory traits showing no mercy toward the weak and defenseless such as a male lion’s tendency to destroy his offspring; from the chicken, our ancestors might have learned how to be scavengers who prefer to live in filthy habitats, and so on.

Biologist Lyall Watson sees a mutual affinity between human and animal behavior. Watson once observed a group of young penguins standing on the edge of an ice floe, learning how to swim. Fearful that there might be a leopard seal lurking in the murky waters, the penguins stood their ground and refused to go into the water. As thousands of penguins crowded on the floe, some pushing occurred from the back of the ranks until one of the penguins slipped into the water. After the lone penguin entered the water, a leopard-seal suddenly appeared and ate the small creature.

Reticent, the other penguins backed off until eventually, the group pushed another one of its members into the water. Sure enough, the leopard-seal reappeared and swallowed the second penguin as well. The same process occurred again, and by the fourth time, apparently, the leopard-seal had eaten enough and the fourth penguin was left safe and sound. Afterwards, the entire penguin group jumped in and enjoyed the swimming as if they hadn’t a care in the world. From this incident, Watson deduced that selfishness and cowardice are not just human traits; there are many other species of animals that share these qualities as well.

Yes, nature seems to have a sense of morality that is not much different from our own, but unlike the other denizens of nature, human beings have the ability to reprogram their mental and spiritual orientation toward the existence of other beings. Religion can facilitate this process of ethical transformation, but it is not necessarily a given. Living the religious lifestyle does not guarantee moral development. Continue Reading

It is significant that this week’s Torah portions, Achrei-Mot and Kedoshim, both touch on the insidious problem of child abuse and pedophilia. Arguably, the sin against children must be universally decried as the worst sin of our age. The fact that the Torah delineates this section is indicative it has always been a problem in human society.

I came across an interesting article at the failedmessiah website today that was written by one of the most creative Orthodox rabbinic scholars today, Professor Marc B. Shapiro. I thought it would be intriguing to focus a little bit on this question, primarily because the problem continues to grow within the Haredi community.

He writes:

“…There is another theory as to why the sectarian hasidic world in particular has had so many cases of covering up and defending child sex abusers. It is that they simply do not regard these people as so terrible. The evidence for this appears obvious, in that in case of after case we see that they continue to allow sex abusers to teach and refuse to turn them over to the authorities and warn the parent body. Had they caught the rebbe eating at McDonald’s, you can be sure he would have been fired, but not so when it comes to fooling around with kids. The question is why do they have this outlook, and how come they don’t regard child sex abusers as so terrible? Here is a possible answer (which a wise person suggested). Look at where these societies get their information about human nature, the information that they regard as authentic and true. It does not come from modern psychology, but from Torah sources and folk beliefs. If you look only at traditional rabbinic literature, you won’t conclude that child sex abuse is as terrible as modern society views it. Yes, it is a sin and the person who commits it must repent as he must do with all sins, but there is nothing in the traditional literature that speaks to the great trauma suffered by the victim. How do we know about this trauma? Only from modern psychology and the testimony of the victims. Yet this type of evidence does not have much significance in the insular hasidic world (unless it is your own child who has been abused). Certainly modern psychology, which is often attacked by figures in that community, is not given much credence, especially not when they are confronted with an issur (prohibition) of mesirah (informing upon Jews to the secular authorities). This theory makes a lot of sense to me and I am curious to hear what others have to say.”

Is the professor correct?

It is written in the Mishnah: “A girl of three years and one day is betrothed (as a woman is acquired) by intercourse…if one of those forbidden to have relations with her according to the Torah does have relations with her, he is killed because of her, and she is exempt. If she is younger than that, (less than three years and a day), it is as one who sticks a finger in the eye” [1]

Maimonides similarly rules:

“When an adult male enters into relations with any of the women forbidden in connection with the above transgressions who is three years and one day old or more, he is liable for execution, koreth (“excision,” i.e.,  premature death or spiritual death in the hereafter) or lashes and she is not liable unless she is past majority. If she is younger than this, both participants are not liable, for the act is not considered as sexual relations.” Continue Reading