Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

For gay and lesbian Christians and Jews, the phraseology is a source of suffering, discomfort and embarrassment. For the clergy, the passages regarding the homosexual are among the most disturbing to our modern ethical sensibilities. Mark Twain once quipped, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand. …” Here is the verse: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (Lev. 18:22). Well, would this verse qualify?

Traditionally, most biblical translations render  tôʿēbâ as “abomination.”

According to Etymology Online, the noun “abomination”  is a term that means: “feeling of disgust, hatred, loathing,” from O.Fr. abomination,which in turn derives from the  Latin word abominationem (nom. abominatio) “abomination,” from abominatus, pp. of abominari “shun as an ill omen,” from ab- “off, away from” + omin-, stem of omen. Its meaning was intensified by the folk etymology derivation from L. ab homine “away from man,” hence rendering it as, “beastly.”

Thus, abomination is synonymous with  hatred, corruption, and depravity. The Latin root corresponds to the Hebrew term  tôʿēbâ derives from the Hebrew verb  tʿb “to hate” or “abhor,” but the original biblical text of Lev. 18:22  does not explain why homosexuality is so abhorrent.

Aside from its obvious association with homosexuality, tôʿēbâ also has a distinctly religious and idolatrous connotation as in Isa. 44:19, or even for a specific pagan deity, as in 2 Kgs. 23:13 where Milcom is called “the abomination of the Ammonites.” Until recently, it was supposed that homosexual behavior was associated with cultic prostitution. [1]

The distinguished British biblical scholar Gordon Wenham explains:

• Since male prostitutes were sometimes castrated and often took part in ceremonies flaunting their effeminacy, it may well be that aversion to homosexuality partially explains the ban on castrated men participating in the public assembly, or on wearing women’s clothes. The latter is described as ‘an abomination to the LORD’ (Deut. 23:1; 22:5). It could well be that the law is banning anything suggestive of homosexual practice  . . . [2]

However, most modern biblical scholars doubt whether there cultic male prostitutes existed in ancient Israel. Despite the reticence of the modern scholars, given the carnivalesque quality of the ancient fertility rites, homosexual prostitutes most likely played a role alongside with the female prostitutes of antiquity. It seems doubtful their male counterparts would have been excluded.

If the Mesopotamian legal codes are of any relevance to the passage in Lev. 18:22, we may be able to decipher the Torah’s real meaning that the ban against homosexuality may well be referring to (a) father and son incest (as mentioned in the Hittite codes) (b) homosexual rape (as spelled out in the Middle Assyrian Codes), (c) male pedophilia, (d) castrating a male for sexual exploitation.

Bear in mind that ancient Israel was the only civilization to have formulated such a proscription against homosexuality. Indeed, the Talmud in BT Sanhedrin 54b interprets the word “zachor” to also include male child. The word “zachor” in the Bible frequently means “male child.” [3]

If this is indeed the real meaning of the text (and let me remind you that we have no way of knowing for sure), then it is possible that the prohibition was not directed at monogamous male relations, which was not the concern of the biblical writer, but was aimed at male incest, pedophilia,  and homosexual rape, i.e., anyone who sexually preys upon males of any age. In times of war, it was not unusual to rape male captives. [4] The sexual humiliation of a male living in a testosterone-driven society probably filled the biblical writers with complete revulsion. The story of Sodom (Gen. 19:1-11) supports this exposition as well. The ancients may have feared that the moral fabric of society might unravel should males prey upon other males.

According to one rabbinic legend, Ham was guilty because he sodomized his own father while King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon was believed to have sodomized captive kings. Using other biblical texts as a type of intrabiblical commentary provides the rational behind the biblical prohibition of homosexuality and why it is called, “an abomination.”

Lastly, the one likely exposition we have not considered is the possibility that the Torah forbids homosexuality because it goes against the biblical imperative for human beings should ‘be fruitful and multiply’ and does not fit in the scheme of Creation as defined in Genesis 1 and 2. As Wenham notes, “God did not create a male partner for Adam, but only a female counterpart, with whom they could together become ‘one flesh.’ This would also explain why Paul in the Christian tradition regarded homosexuality as being, ‘contrary to nature’ (Rom 1:26), and this would explain why the Bible refers to it as an “abomination.”

While there is some merit to Wenham’s statement, I believe the biblical designation of tôʿēbâ as “abomination” is because the idea of  someone sexually exploiting males–of any age–horrified the ancient Israelite psyche, just as it still does even today. As mentioned above, in modern society, the idea of men being raped still strikes a primal fear in the hearts of men because it is so rare in society, except among prison populations.

It would seem that the biblical writers did not concern themselves with the reality of a loving and monogamous homosexual relationship.

It is worth noting that some of the best known Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) scholars are refraining from using such caustic biblical language to define homosexuals.[5] These devout communities are making a serious effort to be more welcoming and compassionate; their rabbis have criticized parents for shunning their gay children from participating in the family.

These positive changes have resulted in fewer evictions, and more young people are no longer finding themselves treated like family rejects.  The suicide rates have also gone down. However, despite these significant changes for the better, the rabbinic communities still regard the homosexual as someone who is psychologically “sick,” and urge them to undergo discredited “therapies” intended to bring them back to “normalcy.”

For the gay community, the process of change is certainly not moving fast enough; but again, religious communities tend to change more slowly. The rabbis are still tethered to an archaic world view that maintains people are not born “gay.” This writer is faintly optimistic that in time, a more benign attitude promoting complete acceptance will occur sooner or later. Continue Reading

•  The just man knows the soul of his beast, but the heart of the wicked is merciless.                                            

—Proverbs 12:10

The author of Proverbs stresses an important ethical lesson: a humane person considers the needs of his animals and acts kindly towards them.^[1] The world of Creation is full of sentient beings, which also experience many of the joys and blessings that people commonly enjoy: like humankind, these creatures also experience pain. Suffering is a common language that links humanity with other species of animal life. Therefore, Jewish ethics take sharp issue with French philosopher Rene Descartes (ca. 1596–1650), who compares animals to machines that service people, stating that their suffering “means nothing more than the creaking of a wheel.”[2] In physiological terms, according to Descartes, what human beings and animals share is that their bodies function by the laws of mechanics. One might respond: How then do human beings differ from animals? Descartes argues that the Creator endows human beings with a divine soul and a moral conscience—qualities that are lacking in animals. In addition, unlike animals, human beings possess the ability to conceptualize and verbalize ideas. Most importantly, only human beings are capable of conscious and rational thought since they are uniquely endowed with the ability to be self-reflective. Only a human being is capable of exclaiming, “Cogito ergo sum.”

Philo of Alexandria explains that the Mosaic proscription prohibiting the boiling of a kid in its mother’s milk aims to teach Israel that mercy and self-restraint should govern people’s relations with animals no less than with each other.[3] According to biblical law, a person may not satisfy his or her appetite disregarding the feelings of animals, especially where mothers and their young are concerned. A worshipper in ancient times, for example, is barred from sacrificing a newborn animal until it is at least eight days old (Exod. 22:28–29; Lev 22:27). “Nothing could be more brutal,” writes Philo, “than to add to the mother’s birth pangs the pain of being separated from her young immediately after giving birth, for it is at this time that her maternal instincts are strongest.” In other respects, too, the Law calls for self-restraint. Thus, it would be an act of unnatural excess, Philo argues, to cook a young animal in the very substance with which nature intended it to be sustained. In a similar vein, the Law prohibits one from sacrificing an animal together with its young (Lev 22:28), since this would again involve an unnatural combination of that which gives life and that which receives it.[4]

Pursuing a similar approach found in Philo, Maimonides comments on a number of biblical precepts dealing with preventing cruelty towards animals in his Guide:

• It is also prohibited to kill an animal with its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28), the reason being, is so that people should be restrained and prevented from killing the two together in such a manner that the young is slain in plain sight of the mother; the pain of the animals under such circumstances is very great. There can be no difference in this case between the pain of man and the pain of other sentient beings, since the love and tenderness of the mother for her young ones is not produced by reasoning, but is a matter determined by instinct and this faculty exists not only in man but in most living beings. This law applies only to ox and lamb, because of the domestic animals used as food these alone are permitted to us, and in these cases the mother recognizes her young. . . . If the Torah provides that such grief should not be caused to cattle or birds, how much more careful must we be that we should not cause grief to our fellow human beings![5]

According to Maimonides, an animal’s ability to feel emotional pain gives it moral standing; it is for this reason that the Torah prohibits these acts. Not all Jewish thinkers concur with Maimonides. Ramban claims that the prohibitions against cruelty to animals are not so much for the animal’s benefit, but for the sole moral development of humankind. Cruelty towards animals is desensitizing (commenting on Deuteronomy 22:6 and Leviticus 22:28), which will eventually produce brutality and insensitivity to the pain and suffering of others.

• The ruling on the mother bird is not predicated upon the Almighty’s “pity” for the animal. Otherwise, God would have forbidden their slaughter altogether! The reason, however, for the prohibition is to instill within us compassion and the avoidance of cruelty; butchers and slaughterers often become insensitive to the suffering on account of their occupation. Therefore, to avoid engendering these negative traits, the Torah proscribed precepts that a person should not slaughter the mother and its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28) and sending away the mother bird (Deut. 22:6). Such laws are not inspired by feelings of consideration for their suffering but are decrees to inculcate humanity in us. [6]

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

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

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.

Delta’s newest agreement with Saudi Arabia has been  one of the more explosive (pardon the pun!) stories to hit the airwaves in recent years.  Now, in partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines, Delta Airlines has made a deal—no Jews, Bibles, crosses are allowed to be on board whenever Delta destined flight is flying over the Saudi Arabian airspace—even if the Jewish passengers remain on-board in transit.

I can just imagine hearing, “Ladies and Gentlemen, as we are now approaching Saudi Arabia, our Captain has turned on the no Jews light . . .”

Delta executives claim that they are merely following the laws of the country and their right to determine which citizens it wishes to accept into their country. Thus, “If a passenger travels without proper documents, the passenger may be denied entry into that country and our airline may be fined. Delta assumes responsibility for ensuring that each passenger boarding our aircraft has the proper documents for travel to their ticketed destination.”

I also wonder what Delta would say if the host country said, “We don’t allow homosexuals, or Negroes in our country.” Would Delta say, “Sure, that’s fine with us!” What if the KKK wanted to exclude blacks on their flight to Crackerville, what would Delta say?

How would the gay and lesbian communities react? What would Afro-Americans say if such a policy was in force by Delta?

What if a foreign government said, “We welcome everyone except for Hispanics!” Would Delta say, “We will gladly comply with your rules . . .”?

What about if someone said, “All Asians are banned from our flight . . .,” what then?

At what point does a corporation say, “Enough is enough already. We prefer to keep you out of our partnership until you decide to become more tolerant toward other ethnic and religious groups”? Plain and simple, isn’t it? It seems that Delta has doing business in Saudi Arabia for decades, why not tell the Saudis, “We do not wish for you to be a part of our SkyTeam for now . . .”

The more I was thinking about this development, the thought occurred to m that this material is really suitable for Saturday Night Live. I wondered, “What is Delta going to do if someone in the middle of the flight announces, ‘My Saudi brothers and sisters, I AM JEW!” ?  Are they going to throw the Jew off the plane?’”  Perhaps we can look to the singer Ella Fitzgerald for some  inspiration:

I can just imagine the Saudi and Delta authorities during mid-flight singing in unison, Continue Reading

A Chabad friend of mine sent me the following email that I would like to comment on. It comes from the Lubavitch Headquarters regarding how the Lubavitcher (Chabad) Hasidim must conduct themselves on Christmas Eve. Many Jews and Christians may find this custom interesting but very strange–and for good reason!!

“December 25th is universally celebrated by non-Jews, as the birthday of the person upon whom a dominant non-Jewish religion was founded and who had the Halachic status as a Jew who lures other Jews to idol-worship. A spirit of impurity therefore prevails on that day. (Additionally, there was a period when members of that religion used to celebrate this eve by attacking Jews, which led to an enactment against keeping the Yeshivas open during the eve of Dec 25th).”

As a side note, traces of this kind of historical memory can still be seen in certain Sephardic synagogues which operate almost incognito–away from public view, e.g., behind a storefront, and so on. Note how all references to Jesus or Christianity have been suppressed by the Rabbi Y.Y. Schnersohn.

The Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe adds, “It is our custom to refrain from studying Torah on Nittel Nacht until midnight. The reason, as the Previous Rebbe heard from his father, the Rebbe RaShaB (Rabbi Shalom Dov Baer Schneersohn, a.k.a., the 5th Lubavitcher Rebbe), is so that one will not add spiritual vitality to that person [Jesus], and those who presently follow his views [i.e., Christians everywhere]. The Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe (i.e., Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schnnersohn, the 6th Rebbe) quotes his father in the popular Hayom Yom (Teves 17), ‘I am not fond of those students who begrudge these eight hours and cannot tear themselves away from Torah study!’” [1]

Incidentally most ultra-Orthodox Jews, like the Lithuanian and Sephardic communities, disregard this custom; for them—the study of Torah is of primary importance.

HOW ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND THE ORIGIN OF THIS CUSTOM?

To understand a Jewish custom, it pays to have the curiosity and determination of a Sherlock Holmes. Most of you reading this Hassidic instruction might be wondering: “What in the world are they talking about? Why should we finish Torah study before Christmas Eve?”

The answer is more complex than most of us realize. Permit me to explain:

The origin of Nittel Nacht in modern rabbinic literature is one of the more fascinating chapters of Jewish history and folklore. “Nittel ” actually comes from the Latin, “Natalis,” or, “Nativity Night.” It is truly ironic that 99% of all the Hassidic Jews follow this observance, haven’t the foggiest idea that Nittel Nacht means “Nativity Night.” It is also possible that Nittel Nacht may be a corruption of the Latin dies natalis, “birthday,” i.e., the “birthday” of Jesus.[2] Continue Reading

One of the most important teachings of rabbinic Judaism is the belief that the law of the land remains sacrosanct in most instances (except when it conflicts with Jewish law with respect to religious matters, e.g., banning all outward religious observances and holidays–a tact that the Greeks, Romans, and Communists tried).

Consequently, Jews traditionally follow the principle “Dina Demalkhuta Dina:” (“the law of the kingdom is the law.”) Rabbinic authorities always tried to accommodate the governing political power in all areas pertaining to secular and ethical matters.  Should a person be guilty of a crime, and is being pursued by the gentile authorities, the accused criminal must be handed over to the authorities because he is endangering their welfare.

Beyond that, civil magistrates have a duty to uphold its laws for the common good of all people. In a fascinating and detailed responsum of the Rashba (14^th century), we read:

In the law of the land, none of these things matter, as their law is based solely on the determination of the truth. A death verdict under local law can be derived from the testimony of relatives, or even a confession, without prior admonition, and without (a court of) twenty-three, as the local law is based solely on the determination of the truth.

If you do not agree to this, but rather insist on applying Torah law, according to the regulations of the sanhedrin, to all matters, the world would be desolate, as murderers and their companions would multiply…. Furthermore, R. Elazar b. R. Shimon would catch robbers and criminals on the authority of the government, and they would be punished and killed. R. Yishmael b. R. Yosi would do the same.

Although R. Yehoshua b. Korcha said to him: “Vinegar son of wine etc.,” and Eliyahu said the same to R. Yishmael b. R. Yosi, nevertheless, it is not possible that they were completely in error concerning an explicit law. (The criticism was because,) in light of their piety, they should have avoided killing for an offense that does not entail the death penalty according to the Torah. “Vinegar son of wine” means that they were not acting as piously as their fathers. Had they been completely in error and acting illegally, they would not have been called “vinegar son of wine,” but rather miscreants and complete evildoers – God forbid (such a thought) concerning such pious and great sages of Israel!

Furthermore, you should know that R. Yishmael answered Eliyahu: “What can I do? It is a royal command;” and Eliyahu responded: “Your father fled to Asia (Minor), you should flee to Laodicia.” If it were a genuine prohibition, what sort of an answer would it be to say that it is a royal command; he should have died rather than transgress! And Eliyahu should have answered him: How do you know that your blood is redder? It is clear that it is as we stated – if he is appointed by the king, he acts in these matters according to the law of the realm, for the king establishes stability with these laws. [1]

Historically, this law has had numerous other applications in Halachic literature as well.  The logic of this position is all the more important especially since anti-Semites have frequently argued that the Jews refuse to obey the King’s laws, and operate with complete disregard of civil law. Haman is quoted as having said:

“Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus: “Dispersed among the nations throughout the provinces of your kingdom, there is a certain people living apart, with laws differing from those of every other people. They do not obey the laws of the king, and so it is not proper for the king to tolerate them. (Est 3:8 NAB).

A STRANGE BROOKLYN RALLY

With this simple thought in mind, the Jewish community has a moral right to confront the leaders of the Lubavitcher movement for raising money for  Rabbi Eliyahu Ezagui. Some of you may recall that Ezagui was recently convicted and sentenced for perpetuating mortgage fraud against his fellow Lubavitcher Hasidim! Continue Reading