Sunday, September 9, 2012

J'accuse, by Alan Dershowitz

here's Alan Dershowitz:

Why do countries with long histories of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry seem to care more about the so-called rights of young children not to be circumcised than do other countries in the world with far better histories of concern for human rights? The same rhetorical question can be asked of countries, such as Norway, that care so much about the rights of animals not to be slaughtered according to Jewish ritual. These questions are entirely rhetorical because every thinking person knows the answer. It's not because Germans or Norwegians are better people and care more about children and animals than do Americans. It is because they care less about Jews. Or more precisely they care a lot about Jews. They just don't like them very much and don't care if they are forced to leave the country because they cannot practice their religions there.

So let no one praise a nation that murdered a million Jewish babies and children for shedding crocodile tears over the plight of the poor little baby boy who, following a many thousand year old tradition, is circumcised a week after birth. Every good person should condemn Germany for what really lies at the heart of efforts to ban circumcision—old-fashioned anti-Semitism, a term coined by Germans for Germans and against Jews.

History is not irrelevant in assessing current policies. The history of Germany (and Norway) in prohibiting Jews from practicing their traditional rituals goes back to a time when overt anti-Semitism was not only acceptable, it was de rigueur. Today, new words replace discredited old ones. Anti-Zionism instead of anti-Semitism. The welfare of children instead of the banning of religious rituals. But it's all the same. Anyone who falls for the new pseudo scientific nonsense about the evils of circumcision or ritual slaughter is as naïve or bigoted as those who fell for the old pseudo scientific racial claims of Nazism.

Indeed, there is an ugly whiff of "racial superiority" in the implicit assumption underlying these bigoted laws: Namely, that Germans and Norwegians are somehow morally (if not racially) superior to other countries that permit such "barbaric" practices.

So let's call a spade a spade and let's call anti-Semitism by its true name.

How then should reasonable people respond to these unreasonable efforts to make it difficult to practice traditional Judaism? Some have called for a legal response. Perhaps. But fighting these bigoted practices in court plays into the hands of those who are proposing it. In Nazi Germany, respected jurists were able to use the law to justify the most primitive forms of racism. Indeed Nazism operated through the Nuremburg laws and other such anti-Semitic legal enactments, which were declared entirely lawful by the German courts. Efforts to use the law against these manifestations of racism backfired, by legitimating the Nazi's legalistic undertakings. So let those who seek to challenge these laws do so but not without understanding the downside of such action.

Some may suggest that the alleged science purporting to support these bans be challenged on the basis of scientific truth. Perhaps. But that too may play into the hands of those who would argue that even acknowledging a possible scientific basis for these bigoted proposals lends some legitimacy to them. "Science" too was used to support Nazi racial studies. Should German scientists now conduct "twin studies" on circumcised and uncircumcised siblings? Why is Germany not willing to accept the conclusion reached by the American Academy of Pediatrics following a five year review of the best research, that "the health benefits" of circumcision – including reduction of HIV and papillomavirus transmission – "out weight the risks?"

The best response is to shame the Germans into rejecting this new form of left wing anti-Semitism, by showing them how similar it was to the Nazism they now claim to abhor. This approach will not work in Norway, because Norwegians have forgotten their history and still believe they were victims of Nazism rather than collaborators. Norway's anti-Semitic laws preventing Kosher slaughter of animals date back to the pre Nazi period and have remained in force since that time. Norway seems to have no shame nor is it capable of being shamed. Many Germans, on the other hand, seem willing to remember the past—at least up to a point. They must confront that past and look into the historical mirror before they once again go down the road of treating their Jewish citizens as second class or worse.

Shame on those Germans who would ban circumcision. Shame on those Germans who do not care enough to rise up in anger against the pseudo scientific bigots who falsely claim to be interested in the sensitivities of children. Praise for those Germans who do stand against the bigotry of their countrymen.

Let other countries with cleaner hands take the lead in conducting real scientific research and in seeking to protect the rights of children and animals. The dirty hands and filthy past of Germany forever disqualifies that country from leading the effort to ban Jewish rituals. For shame!

Friday, January 28, 2011

Gigantic Rashi's!

Have you seen the Rashi's in this week's parsha?  They are HUGE!!  Why the sudden change in style, oh Father of Biblical Commentators?

I think I have figured it out.  Rashi's mission is to give the reader "Peshuto Shel Mikra", with the assistance of relevant Medrashim. Until now, with mostly stories, the task has been simple: Look at the verse, notice difficulties or inconsitencies, and go to Medrash or Onkelos to solve problems and explain verse.

Now, neck-deep in Halacha, the task is not that simple.  Why?  It is not because Halacha is taken more seriously. It is because Halacha is often the product of pesukim from throughout Chumash.  So Rashi has to refrain from offering the halachic meaning of these "Mishpatim" passages alone, because that would not be the final halachic conclusion, and would be misleading.  The final halacha is the result of medrashim and gemaras reconciling and synchronizing psukim from Mishpatim with others in Vayikra or Devarim, with these Mishpatim passages playing a role.  So in order to offer pshuto shel mikra while remaining faithful to halacha, Rashi has to explain the whole picture, conflict and resolution.  Hence the lengthier Rashis.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Elevator Pitch

An old joke I heard many years has a Rabbi delivering a forty-five minute drasha. After davening he is approached by a guest to the shul who tells him, "Rabbi, I work for NPR and think the thoughts you shared in your sermon would be perfect for our audience. Would you be able to encapsulate the sermon into a three minute segment?"  The Rabbi, eager to increase his fame and renown, quickly answers, "Yes, of course!"

 The guest deadpans, "Then why didn't you?"

 Beyond the funny premise of the joke that rabbis' sermons have been known at times to be too lengthy, I take another point from the story.  The point I appreciated is that while not all talks or classes can or should be three minutes long, they should be capable of being summarized.  There was a Jewish magazine ten or so years ago called "Olam".  It had its articles and Divrei Torah arrayed throughout the magazine according  to attention span: Thirty second aphorisms, one minute thoughts, five and ten minute articles.  Some of the differently lengthed articles spoke of the same topic, but with different lengths to attract people with different interests in depth.  

 The Gemara sends a similar message with a passage that says "Moses gave Israel 613 commandments, David reduced them to 10, Isaiah to 2, but Habakkuk to 1: the righteous shall live by his faith."  The idea that long and complex things should be summarizable in what some people refer to as an "Elevator Pitch" is found in other places, including Parshas Yisro, Chapter 19:

 

3. Moses ascended to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, "So shall you say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel, 4. You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and [how] I bore you on eagles' wings, and I brought you to Me. 5. And now, if you obey Me and keep My covenant, you shall be to Me a treasure out of all peoples, for Mine is the entire earth. 6. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of princes and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the children of Israel."

 Rashi makes a big deal about the opening and closing remarks. On "So shall you say", Rashi explains that God meant  "These words, in this order."  And at the end of the tiny speech, "These are the words", Rashi explains, "No less and no more."  This is the "Elevator Pitch" for the entire Torah.  

 We have 613 Mitzvos, containing thousands of details, and this is the summary, so concise that God wanted nothing more said at all. This is the gist: You know how much I love you, punished those who have hurt you for hurting you and not for all the other wrongs they committed.  I have protected you till now and will be devoted to you. I believe this is the source in Chumash for the well known statement by Chazal in Avoda Zara 3a, "Ein HaKadosh Baruch Hu Ba B'trunia Im Briyosav" which basically means that Hashem does not expect people to do things that they cannot do.  Mitzvos were not given to punish us, or make our lives more difficult, or to subjugate women.  The entire system of Torah and Mitzvos, including Rabbinic Laws and interpretations whose legitimacy is based on Torah's,  is built on the foundation of Trust we should have, a trust based not on blind faith, but on the experience of affection Hashem showed us.  

This is the meaning of the statement by Chazal, the Sages, that Hashem offered the Torah to the other nations, who then asked, "What is written in it?"  When they heard of some Mitzvah they couldn't fathom keeping, they rejected the offer.  Only people who do not have a pre-existing relationship with the One making the offer can ask such a question.  To those who cannot trust that the One making the offer has their benefit in mind, every Mitzvah is suspect.  

 To someone who has heard the pitch, "You know firsthand that I've got your back, defend you, protect you and will continue to treasure you", the only thing that needs to be said is "Naaseh", "We'll do it."  The rest is all an expansion on that.  

Friday, December 10, 2010

Some healthy honesty from Open Orthodoxy

Four "pioneer female rabbis" met in the Boston area Monday evening for a "Hanukkah celebration" called "Raising up the Light." The event featured the first ordained North American Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative female rabbis, and "the first Open Orthodox rabba," reported the AP.

That "Orthodox rabba," as reported, was "Rabba" Sara Hurwitz, who was ordained by Rabbi Avi Weiss of Riverdale.

The panel discussion with rabbis Sally Priesand, Sandy Sasso and Amy Eilberg and Rabba Sara Hurwitz was held at Temple Reyim in West Newton with more than 500 people in attendance.

According to a report in the Wicked Local Newton, the evening, sponsored by the Synagogue Council of Massachusetts, "was a celebration of their courage and fortitude to change the course of Jewish history by sparking the rabbinate (organization of rabbis) to evolve from exclusive male leadership to an acceptance of females."

While Avi Weiss has said that it is not the intention of his institution, Yeshivat Maharat, to confer the title of "Rabba" upon its graduates, his protégé, Ms. Hurwitz continually uses the title on herself.

At the recent event at Temple Reyim, the moderator, "Rabbi" Sharon Cohen Anisfeld, dean of Hebrew College Rabbinical School, invited each of the four "rabbis" to tell her story.

Hurwitz told the audience that she viewed her path toward becoming the first Orthodox Rabba "not as a rebellion, but as a continuation of the natural evolution that began with the other three women on the panel," according to the Wicked Local Newton.

According to the report, at Avi Weiss' Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, while Hurwitz is still the only female Orthodox "Rabba,"  "there have been about 35 applicants, some of whom are in training now." 

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Chanuka Halakha

1) If someone was on a plane on the first night of Chanuka, and had her husband light at home, may she make a Shehecheyanu when she lights her menora on the second night of Chanuka?

2) If someone forgot to make a "She'asah Nissim", may he make the bracha after the lights have all gone out?

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

What is Halacha and what isn't, even if its proponent is an Orthodox Rabbi.

This is important.

Yosef and the Mask

42:8- וַיַּכֵּר יוֹסֵף, אֶת-אֶחָיו; וְהֵם, לֹא הִכִּרֻהוּ

The big difficulty here is the fact that none of the brothers recognized Joseph. Rashi, quoting our sages, comments that he had left them without a beard, but many of the commentators find this insufficient. While many suggestions have been offered, all seem to fall a little bit short, because there were ten of them, and could not even one of them discerned the truth?

Perhaps Joseph was wearing a mask, something the Egyptian Pharaohs were known to have worn. While Joseph was only the Prime Minister to the monarch, he may have worn one also. A bit fanciful, perhaps, but nevertheless a possibility.


The Ramban's words are: "...U'k'she'ba Yosef B'Mirkeves Hamishneh, V'Al Panav Hamitznefes K'Derech Malchei Mitzrayim, lo haya nikar l'echav v'gam echav lo hikiruhu..."

I thought mitznefes meant Hat. But I can see how it would mean mask in this context.

Another proof for this suggestion is that immediately after the revelation, the verse says “ the brothers could not speak, because they wers astonished at his face”. ( nivhalo miponov). It suggest that only now they saw his face.

Hat Tip to David Farkas