When in Rome

Right or wrong?

It's a question that most of us ask ourselves from time to time. Most of us. Not all because some aren't concerned about the answer. But those who do ask are usually concerned. And they're involved in an activity which is new to them. They haven't formed an opinion and the boundaries and rules aren't clear. Often the goal is to do what's legal rather than what's right, and in such a situation you have to know the rules. If you're going to exploit the law, you have to know the law.

It's not a new problem, but the answer may be difficult. There's an old joke about a student preparing for a test and obtaining the questions asked on previous exams. Noting that the questions seem the same from year to year he inquires of student senior to him and is informed that though the questions are the same, the answers change. (And that's the case regarding right and wrong – from time to time and from place to place.)

One and one will always be two (in base 2 or above) but it's less clear that human sacrifice is legitimate. The latter issue is one that is based on societal beliefs, preferences, and judgments, and they're subject to change. Which raises a question I've mentioned on many occasions in the past: absolutes. I haven't changed my opinion, although many will consider it old-fashioned and insensitive to the current, understanding, persuasion. It's not multi-cultural. It doesn't recognize that different societies view things differently and to oppose what may be practices that may be the norm elsewhere betrays a lack of tolerance, or worse on my part. But I accept the idea that there are absolutes.

And the different societies which I mention aren't all separated simply by location, but by time as well. Does that change the principle? Was it ever, anywhere, justified to sacrifice babies to the “gods?” It was the practice in some ancient, and not so ancient, societies and cults to do so, but we would reject it immediately, irrespective of the fact that it might have been a “normal” practice somewhere at some time. There are absolutes, and, among those who care about right and wrong, I suspect there are strictures on their behavior which supersede the customs of the society in which they find themselves.

If, however, such absolutes exist, there has to be a source. For me that source is the Bible, although I know that some of the absolutes it contains are shared by societies that have never seen one. (I'll come back to that point presently.) It's a good guidebook, although the sages of Judaism have advised us to obey the laws of the state in which we live. There's an exception, however. If secular law conflicts with Torah (Biblical) law, we are to follow that in the Torah. (“Right” is defined by the Torah.) By doing so we deny the following of the aphorism about Rome and its practices. When they conflict with our laws we don't follow them, although we may comply with local customs otherwise. Indeed, when we're in a Jewish community with different customs we follow theirs rather than our own. It's our practice to try to follow the rules of the community in which we find ourselves.

That leaves one subject to be addressed: the fact that there are some absolutes which exist in societies unaware of each other. Somehow or other we all recognize certain limits to our choices. And some of them are shared, even though other practices may be at great variance. How have we achieved this common position when many of our other customs are so different from other societies?

Suggesting that some of these are obvious and serve to protect us as we protect others is begging the question. It may be true, but it doesn't explain anything. Why are certain things obvious? Why should everyone have, in regard to some aspects of our lives and beliefs, a common view of right and wrong? The only explanation that I can conceive of in this age of electronics is that we're all programmed in the same way – at least in regard to some moral as well as physical characteristics. It's in our DNA.

But sometimes cultural influences override DNA. When human sacrifice existed in some societies, they believed that what they were doing was right. At least those in charge thought that their practices were proper, even if there were some who disapproved. That doesn't mean that they were right any more than it means that we should give free rein to cultures among us that have traditions that deviate from the absolutes. Every society has rules, and the hierarchy of its restrictions includes, or at least should include, the absolutes.

But when there is disagreement about the absolutes, who decides what they are? G-d. The One who created us and assigned our DNA. There is a right and there is a wrong. Even if there are some who are unwilling to acknowledge them.

When in Rome, or anywhere else, do what the Romans do. Unless you know that they are doing wrong. Then do what your conscience – as controlled by your DNA – directs you to do. If the society in which you are chooses not to follow the absolutes, it is wrong. That's not a matter of different societal norms and sensitivity to the practices of others. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

In the words of the cliché, “do the right thing.”






March 28, 2017

Staying Together

According to Ahad Ha'am, “More than the Jews have kept Shabbat, Shabbat has kept the Jews.” Ha'am wasn't religious. He was a “cultural Zionist,” but that didn't stop him from realizing that the self-identification provided by the weekly appearance of the day of rest has united us. It didn't matter if the day was observed religiously or was simply recognized as different – something Jewish; the idea told us something about ourselves. The concept, in one form or another, has been accepted by most of the world now, but that doesn't detract from our recognition of its origin and our attachment to it.

But there are other factors that unite us – at least in terms of self-identification. Holidays do that, especially the ones that feature eating of special foods. Jelly donuts and potato pancakes on Hanukkah, hamentaschen on Purim, and, of course, all the dishes that contribute to the feasts we enjoy on Pesach (Passover). Even those who aren't observant reserve Pesach for family assemblies. Somehow it resonates. As do the life-cycle events, like Bar and Bat Mitzvot which often signal the end of formal association with Judaism. But they are an affirmation of who we are – though that affirmation is all-too-often by the parents rather than the child. It is sad to note that the absence of a formal Jewish education, the absence of any culture of belief in the house, and the attractions of the non-Jewish world frequently overpower knowledge and remembrance of our heritage.

We're also united by a common enemy. That enemy is a world that would prefer our absence. Antisemitism used to be an open, acceptable, reaction to Jewishness. In order to avoid the enemy, many wanted to assimilate but found that they weren't wanted in universities, societies, and in the world in general. Today campaigns against Israel and the Jews are everywhere to be found, in the United Nations, national governments, and among individuals. And the level of affiliation with Judaism is often irrelevant. Hitler didn't care if his victims were observant or not. They were Jews and subject to annihilation. Unfortunately, the malady doesn't end there. Nowadays people try to hide their antisemitism, claiming that they only object to the policies of Israel. But their ignoring of other countries violating whatever standards they claim to support makes it clear that to them “Israel” means “Jews.” It's interesting that the religion of Abraham is so abhorrent to the Abrahamic religions that descended from it. Together Christianity and Islam represent about 55% of the world's population while Judaism is about 0.2% (that's about 275 times, for the math-challenged). Yet they blame Judaism for the problems we all face. The Abrahamic religions reject Abraham's people.

But just as there are ideas and acts that bring us together, there are some that drive us apart. It's fruitless and misleading to blame all our problems on others. The worst enemy of the Jews is not the rest of the world. It is us. It is the Jews. There may be no Haman, Torquemada, Khmelnytsky, Hitler, or Stalin among us, but, sadly, there are many Jews who would sacrifice their people for their own benefit, or for the sake of imagined wrongs. And there are many who accept what they “learn” from the media: societal fads and ideologically-driven views.

We like to think that if everyone would leave us alone, everything would be all right. But it won't. In the words of Walt Kelly, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

We differ, among other things, in terms of religious observance and, very markedly, political philosophies. And our differences drive us apart. Unfortunately, we don't hesitate to condemn the views of our brothers and sisters (and, ourselves) to blame Israel – usually finding fault without trying to understand those views; often without even listening to them. 

Some years back the United Jewish Appeal started promoting the slogan “We are one.” Perhaps it worked for philanthropy, but we still don't always understand each other. To the rest of the world we may be one people, but the reality is that we aren't unified. We're certainly not unified in support of Israel, Jewish education, or the views of other strains of Judaism. Only 10% of American Jews consider themselves orthodox [as of 2016] and many more – perhaps three times that number – don't affiliate at all. The different movements, moreover, often have strained relations with each other and condemn the nature of the observance or non-observance of anyone not in their camp.

And our political stances are frequently violently opposed. For many there is the conviction that the most important characteristic of Judaism is liberalism, and they identify with liberal groups irrespective of what they endorse, often without investigating the meaning of a particular issue and their support of it. On the other end of the spectrum are those who invariably support Israel and increased Jewish education and base their support of conservative causes on those issues. Indeed, Israeli policies are sometimes the reason we separate ourselves from others of our religion. For too many the politics is more important than the heritage. And vehemence is appropriate rather then listening to each other while crafting a more unified approach. We're right and they're wrong. We don't compromise, and we don't take prisoners. 

Our only hope is that we will begin to listen to each other. Perhaps we can come together based on the features of our religion that keep us together and not let our disagreements, whether political or religious, drive us apart. It will take a lot of good will from our fellows, but after two millennia it's clear we're not going to get it from outsiders.

March 19, 2017

Holding On

More than the Jewish People have kept the Sabbath, the Sabbath has kept the Jews – Ahad Ha’am

Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsburg was an early Zionist and an essayist, writing over the pen name of Ahad Ha’am. He was secular but believed that it was necessary to have a Jewish state, not simply a state for Jews. Although raised in an observant household, he rejected many of the strictures of Judaism. He recognized, however, the centrality of the religion in the lives and in the essence of his people but, while Palestine would ultimately be the home of the Jews, now was not the time for them all to descend on it. Perhaps an ingathering would take place in messianic times, but meanwhile the Jews already in Palestine would set an example for those elsewhere.

Ahad Ha’am was what we now call a “cultural Zionist.” He believed in Judaism's ethics and in the Jewish People. And he knew that “Palestine” was their home. At least ultimately. He worked to establish it. But until then it was necessary to strengthen Jews in the diaspora, where he favored a Jewish nationalist revival.

Perhaps he was a “secularist” and not personally observant, but he recognized that it was our traditions that kept us together. And antisemitism. According to a citation in Wikipedia, Ginsburg wrote in a latter to Max Nordau, Only anti-Semitism had made Jews of us. Our best way of preserving ourselves was preserving Judaism.

For him it was Shabbat that kept us together, and there is no denying its importance as a binding force. Of course there are many others, of which a few examples are Torah, the siddur, the mezzuzah, prayer, and pride. Whether or not he “believed” in G-d, it seems clear that he believed in the Jewish People, and in the traditions that held them together. We have our own state now, but if we are to survive in a world that wants to eliminate us, it will because we follow our traditions.

The survival of the Jewish People over many millennia when other nations have come and gone has been noted by many, Jews and non-Jews, who have difficulty explaining it. Mark Twain wrote

If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.

Tradition has kept the Jews.

Recent surveys suggest the eventual assimilation of non-traditional Jews, while there will be a continued increase in the number of those who follow tradition – primarily the Orthodox. There has been, and will continue to be, a shift to the right among them. Whether this is good or bad is not the point. More important is the idea that tradition is what Judaism has going for it and, if we are to survive, members will have to pay more attention to maintaining and strengthening them, rather than discarding them.

Tradition, and the will to survive – whatever it takes.

January 18, 2017

Rose Is A Rose

[In a little less haste I rewrote an essay I had assembled already – The Changing Jewish Heritage http://theimperiousloudmouth.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-changing-jewish-heritage.html– because I was looking for words that better reflected my point of view. I ask your indulgence.]

Ironic, isn't it. On Halloween, just over five centuries ago, Martin Luther doffed the garments of a position in the Pope's church and donned those of his new calling. With his 95 Theses he split with Rome and opened a wound that had existed in the church for hundreds of years. Wycliffe and Hus had expressed their dissatisfaction much earlier, but no significant movement followed.

Knox, Zwingli, Calvin, and others (even Henry VIII, though he was not noted as a theologian), however, soon followed Luther's lead and the Protestant Reformation was born. And there were new religions. Each had its own churches, rituals and beliefs – its own costume. From one, many. That's not to suggest there weren't commonalities. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, Christian is a Christian is a Christian. At least in one respect. An Episcopalian is an Anglican is a Presbyterian – or, for that matter, a “Moonie” or a Mormon. They're all Christians, accepting the divinity of Jesus. They subscribe to the idea of a common heritage from which had arisen many different, but linked, religions – a common origin with a variety of different coverings. Humans wearing different costumes. Halloween. A day of sanctification.

The Jewish Reformation began toward the end of the eighteenth century and the start of the nineteenth. That was the start of Jewish protestantism. There had been “heretics” before, but no unified trend. The establishment of Reform Judaism marked the beginning of a movement to group Jews according to beliefs and rituals. It makes sense: a havura member is certain not to follow the practices Haredi Jews. But both, having Jewish mothers, are Jews.

Another irony. Neither sees the validity of the other's beliefs and (if any) rituals, but both pass the religious test. We are obsessed with the question “Who is a Jew?'” while ignoring the fact that it is not a relevant question. It was settled long ago. A Jew is the child of a Jewish mother (that excludes “patrilineal Jews) or someone who has undergone a valid conversion – whatever that means. Anyone fitting that definition is a Jew. But there are differences between a “social” Jew and one who practices “modern orthodoxy,” and it is self-deception not to recognize that they are different religions: they believe different things and their practices are different. As are their houses of worship.

It is not necessary to decide who is right – only to admit that we have different views and we worship in different ways. Jews have a common heritage. We are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But while we all believe that ours is the only “true” Judaism rather than the perspective of one of many “protestant” Jewish religions, the infighting is inevitable. We're all Jews, but we practice different religions. Ideally we'll take “Jew”out of the title of our religion and identify ourselves as Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or whatever. Better still, a “Minyanarian,” “Schechterite,” and “Egalitarian.” Costumes reflective of their beliefs.

But the Messiah will come first.

January 21, 2018

The Changing Jewish Heritage

In recent weeks and months there has been a lot of dispute about the control of religion in Israel by the Chief Rabbinate. There are some disagreements among the Orthodox, but most of the complaints come from the Reform and Conservative movements. Maintaining that they are as much Jews as the Orthodox since Jewishness is dependent on heredity rather than practice (a strange claim at a time of increasing acceptance of patrilineal descent, acceptable intermarriage, and the “welcoming” of non-Jews) they demand equal acceptance of their rulings and practices, and equal access to all Jewish sites on their terms. This doesn't seem to be in accord with the “status quo” agreement that went into effect when the State of Israel was founded, but that was then and this is now. The world has changed and there are many, especially Americans, who believe that Israel and Judaism should change as well.

The focus of the argument at this time is the Western Wall in Jerusalem. The Wall is under control of the Rabbinate, which requires observances at that site to be according to (Orthodox) Jewish tradition. All services held there must observe its practices – separation of the sexes, traditional services, and others – rather than be change to accommodate those who want something else.

But it's not so simple.

When Martin Luther was born, “Christianity” meant what we now call Catholicism. But his demands, and those who followed him, didn't achieve what he sought in Rome, and the Protestant movement, with a variety of practices among its many adherents, was born. All those who joined the new churches were Christians. They all accepted a heritage which views Jesus as the savior. Many of those in the very early church (long before Luther) were Jews, but they disagreed with the traditions under which they had been raised. Indeed, those with an uninterrupted matrilineal line from those early Christians are, according to Jewish law, Jewish, though they are, for the most part, unidentifiable and would probably reject the designation. Some, however, would welcome it. There are many who view “converts” as hereditary Jews who are unaware of their family's history and there have been many actions against Jews in the past that forced them to accept other faiths.

In any event, you can be Christian and of another faith than Catholicism. Another faith. A Seventh Day Adventist or a Mormon wouldn't expect the Pope to change the Church's practices because he disagreed with them. Neither would a Pentecostalist demand the “right” to hold services in the Sistine Chapel because he is a Christian. That may be the case – indeed it is the case – but they're of different religions from the “mother” church. The Catholics know it and the Protestants agree.

Similarly it can be argued that the Reform and the Conservative movements derive from the same source as Orthodox Judaism. But they're very different in many ways. The essay on Reform Judaism in The Jewish Virtual Library reads, in part,

Between 1810 and 1820, congregations in Seesen, Hamburg and Berlin instituted fundamental changes in traditional Jewish practices and beliefs, such as mixed seating, single day observance of festivals and the use of a cantor/choir. Many leaders of the Reform movement took a very "rejectionist" view of Jewish practice and discarded traditions and rituals. For example:

• Circumcision was not practiced, and was decried as barbaric.
• The Hebrew language was removed from the liturgy and replaced with German.
• The hope for a restoration of the Jews in Israel was officially renounced, and it was officially stated that Germany was to be the new Zion.
• The ceremony in which a child celebrated becoming Bar Mitzvah was replaced with a "confirmation" ceremony.
• The laws of Kashrut and family purity were officially declared "repugnant" to modern thinking people, and were not observed.
• Shabbat [the Jewish Sabbath which occurs on Saturday] was observed on Sunday.
• Traditional restrictions on Judaism.Shabbat behavior were not followed.

Many of the new practices were subsequently abandoned, but the new movement had published its “95 Theses” as much as Luther did four centuries earlier, and “Jewish Protestantism” was born. Jews were practicing a new religion that was significantly different from the one that had been observed by their ancestors.

“Conservative Judaism” began as a compromise position between Orthodox Judaism and the new movement but it has since moved to the left and also represents a separate religion. Those who follow it may be “Jews,” but their religion is not Judaism. It may be appropriate to work with them when our needs coincide, but to suggest that we observe the same religion and tradition – that we accept the same heritage as those who follow Conservative and Reform practices – makes no sense whatever.

It's time we recognized that all who label themselves as “Jews” – and there are many who reject the designation entirely – are not of the same religion.  There are many different Jewish religions whose adherents have different beliefs and follow different rites from those of the "mother church."  As with Christianity there are many Protestant Jewish religions, and those who follow them,  though Jews, do not practice Judaism.

Israel follows the “normative” Jewish heritage even if others don't. Jewishness may be a civilization, but Judaism is not. When, a few hundred years from now, this is accepted, religious peace in Israel may come about.

December 17, 2017

Who is a Jew?

Who is a Jew?

It's an old question. But it's a silly and meaningless one. And the Rabbis answered it long ago: it is the child of a Jewish mother, or an individual who has undergone a valid conversion. We may disagree on what constitutes a “valid” conversion, but that's the definition.

Still, it's the wrong question. Far more significant is the uncertainty about “What is a Jew?”

In 1517 Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to his church door. He protested various dogmas and practices of Christianity, triggering the Protestant Reformation. He remained a Christian but his “spin,” and that of others, resulted in the establishment of the many denominations of Christianity. We would not debate whether a Mormon was Christian, but neither he nor a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America would have the chutzpah to demand the use of the Sistine Chapel for a service of their own, or to question the Pope's standing. Even within the Roman Catholic Church there are many who are more liberal or more conservative than the Pope, but his authority is recognized. Other views are not accepted as representing “authentic” Roman Catholicism. They are teachings that differ from those of Jesus. Whether they are right or wrong is beyond the scope of this discussion. It is enough to concede that they are different.

Yet both Anglicans and Christian Scientists have equal claim on the designation of “Christian,” even though they reject the teachings of the “mother” church and practice different religions. (Similarly Sunnis, Sufis, Shias, Alawites, and Druze – among other groups – consider themselves Muslims, though they may reject the religion as practiced by the others.)

There are a host of parallels in Jewish history. The protests of many Jews about the practices of their religion, and the establishment of “Reform Judaism,” marked the onset of the Jewish Reformation, resulting in the establishment of numerous denominations, sects, “chevrahs,” and other variations – Jewish protestants. Unlike Christianity, however, each considers its variation as the center, while other perspectives are, necessarily, the outliers. Although Christianity may, almost uniformly, recognize the authority of the Pope in many areas, and the sanctity of the Vatican which Roman Catholicism administers, as outside their realm, dissident Jewish groups, Jews who do not practice “normative Judaism,” whose practices vary from those of the “mother church,” demand a voice in the direction of the religion. And they demand equality in decisions about the use of Jewish holy places.

What is “normative Judaism?” Using Catholicism as a model (and many will object to this) it is the religion accepted as tradition now and through the millennia; it is the Judaism administered by the Chief Rabbinate in Israel – the Jews sacred land. That is Judaism, and the other denominations of Jews practice different religions. (I personally have some disagreements with the way normative Judaism is observed but, as the saying goes, if I deviate I know from what I am deviating.) Perhaps those other Jews should be given territory to practice their faiths, though I know of no precedent for this in Christianity.

The question then revolves around the practices of the Jews in question: what do they believe, to whom do they look for direction, and what is their religion? If they fulfill the criteria set by the Rabbis, they are Jews. But that, alone, does not entitle them to speak on behalf of Jews who practice another faith. They find nothing regarding Judaism outside their domain. But it's their heritage, not their religion. We also need to consider their spin and their choice of authorities. If they don't observe “normative Judaism,” they're Jewish protestants – even if they're holier than we and refuse to recognize a Jewish State until the time of the Messiah.

If they reject the multi-millennial traditions of their people they are protestants.

That's how the Christians started out.

The Changing Jewish Heritage

In recent weeks and months there has been a lot of dispute about the control of religion in Israel by the Chief Rabbinate. There are some disagreements among the Orthodox, but most of the complaints come from the Reform and Conservative movements. Maintaining that they are as much Jews as the Orthodox since Jewishness is dependent on heredity rather than practice (a strange claim at a time of increasing acceptance of patrilineal descent, acceptable intermarriage, and the “welcoming” of non-Jews) they demand equal acceptance of their rulings and practices, and equal access to all Jewish sites on their terms. This doesn't seem to be in accord with the “status quo” agreement that went into effect when the State of Israel was founded, but that was then and this is now. The world has changed and there are many, especially Americans, who believe that Israel and Judaism should change as well.

The focus of the argument at this time is the Western Wall in Jerusalem. The Wall is under control of the Rabbinate, which requires observances at that site to be according to (Orthodox) Jewish tradition. All services held there must observe its practices – separation of the sexes, traditional services, and others – rather than be change to accommodate those who want something else.

But it's not so simple.

When Martin Luther was born, “Christianity” meant what we now call Catholicism. But his demands, and those who followed him, didn't achieve what he sought in Rome, and the Protestant movement, with a variety of practices among its many adherents, was born. All those who joined the new churches were Christians. They all accepted a heritage which views Jesus as the savior. Many of those in the early church were Jews, but they disagreed with the traditions under which they had been raised. Indeed, those with an uninterrupted matrilineal line from those early Christians are, according to Jewish law, Jewish, though they are, for the most part, unidentifiable and would probably reject the designation. Some, however, would welcome it. There are many who view “converts” as hereditary Jews who are unaware of their family's history and there have been many actions against Jews in the past that forced them to accept other faiths.

In any event, you can be Christian and of another faith than Catholicism. Another faith. A Seventh Day Adventist or a Mormon wouldn't expect the Pope to change the Church's practices because he disagreed with them. Neither would a Pentecostalist demand the “right” to hold services in the Sistine Chapel because he is a Christian. That may be the case – indeed it is the case – but they're of different religions from the “mother” church. The Catholics know it and the Protestants agree.

Similarly it can't be argued that the Reform and the Conservative movements derive from the same source as Orthodox Judaism. But they're very different in many ways. The essay on Reform Judaism in The Jewish Virtual Library reads, in part,

Between 1810 and 1820, congregations in Seesen, Hamburg and Berlin instituted fundamental changes in traditional Jewish practices and beliefs, such as mixed seating, single day observance of festivals and the use of a cantor/choir. Many leaders of the Reform movement took a very "rejectionist" view of Jewish practice and discarded traditions and rituals. For example:

• Circumcision was not practiced, and was decried as barbaric.
• The Hebrew language was removed from the liturgy and replaced with German.
• The hope for a restoration of the Jews in Israel was officially renounced, and it was officially stated that Germany was to be the new Zion.
• The ceremony in which a child celebrated becoming Bar Mitzvah was replaced with a "confirmation" ceremony.
• The laws of Kashrut and family purity were officially declared "repugnant" to modern thinking people, and were not observed.
• Shabbat [the Jewish Sabbath which occurs on Saturday] was observed on Sunday.
• Traditional restrictions on Shabbat behavior were not followed.

Many of the new practices were subsequently abandoned, but the new movement had published its 95 Theses as much as Luther did four centuries earlier, and “Jewish Protestantism” was born. Jews were practicing a new religion that was significantly different from the one that had been observed by their ancestors.

“Conservative Judaism” began as a compromise position between Orthodox Judaism and the new movement but it has since moved to the left and also represents a separate religion. Those who follow it may be “Jews,” but their religion is not Judaism. It may be appropriate to work with them when our needs coincide, but to suggest that we observe the same religion and tradition – that we accept the same heritage as those who follow Conservative and Reform practices – makes no sense whatever.

It's time we recognized that all who label themselves as “Jews” – and there are many who reject the designation entirely – are not of the same religion.

And Israel follows the Jewish heritage even if others don't.

Our Children, Our Food

To begin with, notwithstanding the title, this essay has nothing to do with Jonathan Swift's proposal. Now that that's out of the way I'll proceed with some food for thought. Note as well that this essay and “Our Children, Ourselves” are a unit totally unrelated to other discussions of parenting and written at a later time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Crediting Hashem for our children and the way they turn out, a friend of mine wrote, “I am a firm believer in that what you get in the nursery after they are born is what you get. If you are lucky, you can move them maybe an inch, but that’s it.” I'm not quite sure I fully agree with it, but I think my view needs a little expansion.

First of all, as I mentioned in a previous essay, I'm sure the child will develop along the lines he learns from his parents and friends, and from his teachers. But even that needs to be clarified. It's more than I said before. I'm comforted by the knowledge that, according the Jewish teachings, there are three who contribute to a child's birth, the mother, the father, and Hashem. But it's not over with that. What comes next is of great importance, not only to them, but to the society, and the world, in which they live.

There's an old, and bad, Jewish joke – a chestnut as it were – that claims to express the meaning of our holidays and our celebration of them. It boils down to “They tried to destroy us. We won. Let's eat.” As I said, it's a bad joke, but in its own way it explains a lot of what we understand about our children and our religion. All references to food and Judaism begin with the “Jewish mother” who is forever trying to feed us – to stuff us – no matter the circumstances. She is our first teacher. We get our initial education along with our mother's milk. It may start as simple comforting and feeding but, sooner or later, leads to the simple stories and ideas of our people. And later on, as the parents set the table for Shabbat dinner, they are preparing their children for the Shulchan Aruch. Certainly the bentching following the meal does so.

Those considerations, however, raise the question of how are children are fed both physically and spiritually. Before Sinai the Jews wailed for food and water. Perhaps, however, they sought Hashem's laws which hadn't yet been revealed. Perhaps their hunger was not only for physical food but for the Torah that revealed to them how they were to live. It would be from the Torah that learned both of their heritage and their future. That was the mahn and the water. And the quails as well. And there they would learn other lessons as well. They'd learn, along with all the other mitzvot, that, according to the laws of kashrut, they should not be eating whatever they want, but what Hashem wants. And they would learn from what they ingested into their mouths and minds, both the physical food and the message it transmitted.

They would also learn, after being instructed to “love the Lord thy G-d with all they heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might,” that if they turned aside from Hashem … the land [will] not yield her fruit.” The words come as part of a paragraph which deals with reward and punishment and, equating “fruit” with Torah and the halakhot, it tells us that if we do not follow Hashem's laws, they would not be ours. A meet punishment.

The same prayer, the Sh'ma, tells “And these words … thou shall teach them diligently unto thy children.” In the end the goal is “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land that the Lord swore unto your fathers.” Both we and our offspring will be rewarded if what we feed them is not only food for their bodies but for their spirits as well.

It is interesting to give thought to the excesses of learning, for that can be understood to be the transgression of the rebellious son mentioned in D'varim (Deuteronomy). His gluttony can be understood to be the eagerness to go beyond the Torah and learn false teachings. “They [his parents] shall say unto the elders of his city: This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” That is how his parents might describe the behavior of a son who has strayed from his tradition. He has ingested words and ideas other than those of Hashem, and it is as if he had eaten of foreign fruit.

As parents we have a responsibility, along with all the others, of feeding our children nourishing food for their souls as well as their bodies.

My friend accepts the idea that children are unchangeable. It's possible that we have the same view, only that when she believes “that what you get in the nursery after they are born is what you get” she is presuming that the development that we teach and encourage is already built into our offspring no matter what we do. Perhaps, but I think it's our responsibility to help them along even if they don't need help. We learn that Hashem's omniscience is compatible with our free will. Similarly proper training of our children does not interfere with the development He plans for them. It is an aid not a challenge. After all, all three of us participated in his (or her) creation.

Let's eat. Spiritually. And let's feed our children the same.

August 31, 2017

Various Revelations/Ideas V

Boy am I arrogant. I viewed my ideas and the various thoughts I have as “revelations.” They're not, of course. Merely my uncertainties. That's the reason for the placement of “Ideas” along with “Revelations.” Next time around I'll drop the latter altogether but I thought I'd keep it for this transition piece – also, as usual, a hodge-podge of thoughts that I'm too lazy to convert into full essays.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On the back page of the first section of yesterday's New York Times is an ad for the “Nest Learning Thermostat.” it reads: “Global warming is a lot of hot air.” That's true, but a little misleading. From the point of view of denotation it's absolutely correct, but “hot air” has a connotation – “false bluster” – that strikes me as totally inappropriate to the message of the ad which is

Today and every day, our mission at Nest is to create a home that takes care of the people inside it. And the world around it.

Sounds noble, but the debate is political as well as scientific, and mixing metaphors, or whatever Nest is doing, doesn't help. But it may sell thermostats. And, after all, that's the reason they invested in a full-page advertisement.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also in yesterday's Times was a 35 column-inch (actually it was much larger when you add in the headlines and pictures) on the race for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska – a city of great importance to New Yorkers. Featured in the story were Heath Mello, the Democratic candidate, and Bernie Sanders who, though not a Democrat, involves himself greatly in Democratic politics and prides himself on his populist approach to party members. The article focused of abortion and the economy, two subjects of interest to Nebraska voters.

Interestingly, the article, which began on the front page of the Times (above the fold) neglected to mention the name of his opponent, Jean Stothert, Omaha's mayor, and the winner of the first round of the election. I suspect that in an article as long and as prominently placed as this one the editors could have found room to include this information for their readers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A final thought relates to Jewish law. A group large enough to pray together is called a minyan. It consists of ten male Jews above the age of thirteen. How this definition came about is not the point of my mental maunderings and I won't pursue it.

Imagine, though, a situation in which the rabbi walked into a synagogue and saw a woman sitting among the men. Her outfit was tznius (modest) and her sheitel (wig) lovely. All appeared to be in accordance with Jewish law. But she was sitting in the men's section and counting her and the rabbi there were ten. When questioned “she” insisted that she was a man by birth but identified more with women than men, and dressed accordingly. No surgery had been performed and “her” sex could be confirmed. No one else came.

Because of the requests to say Kaddish (a prayer in remembrance of the dead) a decision has to be made as to whether there is a minyan present. At most non-orthodox synagogues women are counted, if there is a requirement for a minyan at all. But not here and the question exists. Should the “woman” be counted? She is certainly a man and eligible according to law, but her dress suggests a rejection of her status. And the question of maris ayin ("appearance to the eye") has to be considered as well.

I suspect this idle thought has already been considered by those in the know but I'm not one or them. So, in the meanwhile, I can imagine.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A few more IDEAS next time.

April 23, 2017

Jewish Geography

A few days ago my daughter sent me a copy of a document from 1937 that had reached her shortly before. On the last page, and unrelated to the reason for its transmission, was an ad from a caterer that noted the name of its supervisor (of kashrut) who happened to be an uncle of mine. Seventy-nine years ago, but a connection from an unlikely source.

We're always looking for connections. As one ad puts it, “We're all connected.”

That's not a new idea. In 1929 Frigyes Karinthy originated the idea of “six degrees of separation” and it was later – 1990 – popularized as a concept by John Guare in his play of the same name. The premise is that everyone on earth is connected – not necessarily directly but, through friends, and friends of friends, etc. – in six or fewer steps.   (Sooner or later someone will come up with an "app" that lists everyone, and all the necessary data, so that we can eliminate those "degrees" and make direct connections.) 

Everyone on earth. That's a lot of people. And I'm not that much removed from any of them, though I have nothing in common with the vast majority. But what about those with common interests? Specifically, from my perspective, what connections have I, if any, with fellow Jews around the world?

It's not an idle question. Attempts to destroy the Jewish People have been frequent through the millennia, by conversion, killing, and dispersion. In terms of dispersion, which has been partly imposed on us and has also been adopted by some of our members in an attempt to better their lives, Jews have not been destroyed but are scattered around the globe. Yet they – we – have remained unified both because the world has separated itself from us, and we have separated ourselves from the world. Both of these mechanisms are less prominent than they were in the past, but both remain (though there are certainly large numbers of Jews who would prefer to blend in with the majority rather than be identified with their ancestors).

One of the means of our existence as a unified group, despite our dispersion, has been a commonality of language, or, more accurately, of languages. In addition to their knowledge of the language of whatever country in which they were reared, it was, and is, common for individuals to be familiar with Hebrew, Yiddish, or Ladino, and this has allowed communication between Jews from various nations. It allowed rapid communications between Jews of vastly different cultures and, with the aid of messengers, at great distances. It has permitted commerce where it might otherwise have been inhibited by the inability to communicate. And because Jews tended to associate with others of their religion because they were able to understand them, they were viewed with suspicion as an insular, clannish people. It was one of the many disingenuous excuses for antisemitism.

Also resulting from the scattering, is a desire to reunite at a distance. When we meet someone from elsewhere, it is a common practice to interrogate him or her on familiarity with fellow Jews in the area. (I doubt that this preoccupation is limited to Jews, but this is the group with which I'm most familiar.) “Do you know ____?” And it's not that unusual that there is some kind of connection. It may not be primary and may require the naming of several different individuals or families, but it is often productive.

One of the features that helps in making the connection with friends and their families is the knowledge of the synagogue attended. Organizational membership may be the key to finding others. Another important determinant of success is the size of the community. The smaller it is the more likely that people know each other. Not surprisingly, the frequency of a connection being made with someone from a large city is low. But it is even less surprising that there are so many instances in which a common figure is identified. In the limited community it's not likely to require six degrees.

And there is no temporal limitation. The mention in an old document of my uncle demonstrates a connection identified across the years, and that it was located by a daughter nearly six thousand miles from the place where the record originated demonstrates that the bonds of this kind may be found anywhere. In large part this results from the recent increase in the use of social media by which more and more kinships and friendships will be discovered.

However separated our people may be, our interest in our fellows around the globe, our curiosity about each other will continue to unite us. Others may play the same geographic game as we, but none with as much firmness of purpose. We have a lot to gain by making the connections.

Now You Know Everything

 

In the highly unlikely event that you've been reading my maunderings for the past two years, you know a little about how I think. You're also aware that I know everything. At least you should be. I've told you so. But while I know everything, I don't tell it all. And there are several reasons for this.

The first is that there isn't enough space. Look up anything using a search engine and you'll find uncountable references, irrespective of the unimportance of the subject. However inane it is,ⁱ many people have written about it. Many of those references are wrong. I know they're wrong because they disagree with me. It's obvious, though, that the plethora of writings on various subjects is unmanageable. Once the Library at Alexandria could house much of the world's knowledge. More recently the Library of Congress has managed to contain a small amount of this knowledge, and now the internet tries, but totally fails, in the same quest. Only I know everything -- but as you can guess, there isn't enough room to reveal it all, so I dole it out in small amounts.

Another important reason is that the reader simply won't understand all I have to say. He'll be depressed. And the last thing I want to do is to make the ignorant feel inadequate. He knows it already and I don't want to rub it in.

Much of what I know isn't relevant to current society and mores. American culture nowadays is undisciplined and ruled by the media, old wives's tales, technology, and other fads, and there is little appreciation of the past and its contributions. Any society that can condemn fat and salt while lionizing exercise and iPads is corrupt and has been badly misled. Any country that gives away money and permits cigarettes is just looking for approval by voters. But that's not all of my message 2 U.ⁱⁱ

Rather, I'd like to go over one subject that's important to me but, assuming it would hold less interest for you, I've underplayed. The subject is religion -- specifically mine, Judaism. This morning, though, as I was looking at my tzitzit,ⁱⁱⁱ it struck me that my view of Judaism was of sufficient interest to me that even if you can't relate to it there are some things I want to say. Because even if I know everything, I don't have to like everything the way it is.

Don't misunderstand. My intent is not to fault Judaism, but I can't ignore the faults of some of its adherents. Because so many have been assimilating and intermarrying – especially in the context of a free American society – the overall number of Jews has been decreasing, and there has been fear that our community would die out, and with that, among other tragedies – especially spiritual – we would lose whatever political influence we have. Since we have long supported Israel,^iv and America has joined in this stance, there has been fear that American assistance might be jeopardized. Fortunately the non-Jewish community, especially the Christian right, favors our country's support of Israel. And fortunately as well, the Orthodox population is increasing both absolutely and, even moreso, proportionately, so that, at least in the New York area,^v the number of Jews is increasing, along with the observance of biblical injunctions.

But we're like all other people, and there are numerous problems among the Orthodox as well. The difficulties of adapting to modern society, and the close watching by modern society, have led both to scandals resulting from unacceptable behavior by some who fashion themselves as “good” Jews, and to increasing pressure on Israel both by non-Jews and some Jews as well. It has also led to greater pressure on Israel, since many view this as a politically correct way to express anti-Semitism, a bias that has existed in countless different forms for millennia.

To a degree, the anti-Semitism has helped us to survive. Jews were kept separate from non-Jewish communities and were united in the will to survive. With an inclination toward knowledge – especially of their religion – and the exclusion from the outside world, the Jewish community developed a large number of Rabbis and scholars^vi who interpreted the holy books far beyond what was sensible^vii or true, and that, even if inapplicable to our times, is what we have to follow. It has become tradition, even if we might prefer a different view of the material.

But I recognize that much of this came about because of the insularity forced by anti-Semitism, and I recognize that the activities of those scholars, and the traditions that arose from their debates, are what have helped us to survive, and that modern fashions and trends are destructive. And the loyalty of so many Jews provides the glue that will continue to keep our community together, notwithstanding the pressure from so many of our own people to adapt to the society in which we live.

So I can live with the traditions. And I can live with the knowledge that some of what I know – which is everything – is wrong. My view of life, even if it's a view anchored in the past – no, because it's a view anchored in the past – is true. As I said, I know everything. And I don't have to tell you (I said also that I don't intend to tell you everything) there is nothing new under the sun. Just trust me.

Next episode: “Forethought” – Full frontal capacity.

i       And I know inane.

ii      Did this all start with Francis Gary Powers and the Pentagon in the 1950s?

iii    The fringes or threads mentioned in Bamidbar (Numbers) 15:38 and D'varim (Deuteronomy) 22:12 that are worn “on the corners of your garments.”

iv    Although more and more liberal and unaffiliated Jews now question that support. The greater the temporal separation from the Holocaust and the founding of Israel, and the more detachment from Judaism as a religion, the less interest Jews have in Israel.

v     The numbers come from a UJA-Federation report and include the facts that 40 percent of the city's Jews consider themselves Orthodox – it was 33 percent in 2002 – and 74 percent of all Jewish children in the city are Orthodox.

vi    A cadre of padres?

vii   In fact, some of the scenarios suggested in the Talmud are bizarre or laughable, and some of the science and history is clearly fallacious. We often view what we don't like as metaphorical, and look for a more acceptable interpretation.

Dina

 

It's counterintuitive to think that members of one religion might write the rules for another, but that's just what happens in Judaism. Not that Jews write laws for non-Jews,ⁱ but they obey those formulated by others – invariably non-Jews. And it's been going on for a long time. Some semblance of the law probably dates back to the time of Samuel,ⁱⁱ and it has become common practice to pray for the nation and government under which the the Jewish community lives, and to accept the law of the land.

The basic principle is dina d'malchuta dina, “the law of the land is the law.”ⁱⁱⁱ And whether the source is halakha^iv or minhag,^v we are bound by it. According to Nehemiah,^vi “Thou has set [foreign kings] over us because of our sins; … they have power over our bodies, and over our cattle, at their pleasure.” This is considered support for the view that, from a halakhic perspective, we must obey the laws of our rulers when we live under a foreign government, and we must support it. More to that point, however, are the words of Jeremiah,^vii “Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.”

The key word, for me, is “captive.” There is an assumption that we will continue in a subservient position – one in which others have power over us. It is certainly our assumption. We envy our captors and try to be like them. Our psychology is that of the Stockholm Syndrome, and we identify with the society in which we live, attempting to assimilate into it. But, as the German-Jews learned, that strategy doesn't always work. Nor is it effective where there is a theocracy and the conversions of Jews are either not permitted, or viewed with suspicion. The Conversos^viii found that out in fifteenth century Spain.

So we have adopted other coping strategies which, to one degree or another, are intended to help us survive. One of the more revealing – indicating our feelings of inferiority and vulnerability in the societies in which we live – has been the impulse to seek invisibility and silence when we are faced with situations about which we may actually have passionate feelings. We don't advertise them. After all, “What will the goyim think? It's not so much that we care what they think. We know what that is. Antisemitism has been around for two thousand years so the message isn't particularly secret. But our main goal is that they don't think about us at all. So we try not to be noticed.^ix

In fact, we have developed the principle of maris ayin, “the view of the eye,”^x and we avoid whatever someone else may consider a negative action. We have even indulged in self-censorship so that we will not leave evidence of some idea that might be used against us – statements, for example, of what we view as the superiority of Judaism over other religions. In centuries past, our literature was scrutinized for such statements by non-Jews^xi and we were forced to remove those statements. So we often prepared our texts for such investigation by “cleaning them up” ourselves.

When we do get adventuresome, when we raise our heads a little, it is to build alliances. We espouse the goals of others and fight on their behalf. We are liberals and we are ready to take up any cause that will help someone else.^xii We are all too often more concerned about others than ourselves.^xiii And to solidify our liberalism and, in the United States, to prove our dedication to preserving the rights of all who may be the victims of prejudice, we lead the fight for social justice, for the ACLU, and for a high wall of separation between church and state, while fighting any attacks on our rights^xiv and principles such as those in the Patriot Act, tax breaks for the rich and, unfortunately, Israel. The last of these efforts – our refutation of Israel – not only disproves the idea of dual loyalty, but demonstrates our dedication to the underprivileged – in this case the oppressed Palestinians.^xv The Jews of Germany were more German than their countrymen, and we are more liberal and understanding than anyone else. So we wind up too often the leaders of efforts which result in the strengthening of terrorists, and of actions to ban attempts to provide improved security – all in the name of liberalism and justice.^xvi

The zeal to end particularism and promote “equality” and “universality,” however, is, in effect, a zeal to put an end to Judaism. What might have been one of the world's largest religions is among the smallest. Indeed, we view ourselves – and are viewed by others – as a small minority.^xvii That paradox is one of the factors that has kept Judaism alive for millennia. (Some see theological explanations as specious, so they will be omitted at this time.) The remnant who remained were passionate about maintaining the faith or their ancestors – if only to spite the non-Jews. They had been promised they would be as unmerous as the stars in the heavens, but like the stars in the heavens, the vast majority could not be seen – especially in the light of day. 

But that is not the end of the story, and it is we cannot let our successes blind us to the dangers around us. After Haman was hanged his edict remained. There was a possibility that he would achieve his end even after death. Similarly Hitler may triumph posthumously if assimilation completes the Holocaust's work. So despite internal forces aimed at keeping Judaism alive, there are extensive pressures to eliminate Israel and to take the religion out of Jewishness. Jews are tolerable only as a nation, no better than anyone else. For as a nation they can be eliminated without any taint of religious persecution.

Hillel said, “If I am only for myself, what am I?” And that is the Judaism of most Jews, as well as the byword of most non-Jews. It's fine if the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob devote themselves to concern for others as long as they are not deluded into thinking that Judaism and Israel have any inherent value. So the thinking goes.

But before that, Hillel said “If I am not for myself, who will be?” And after that, “If not now, when?” It is incumbent on us to make sure that the assimilationists and the universalists don't triumph. According to the Bible, Judaism is to be “a light to the nations.” We must not let the nations extinguish that light.

Never again. We can write our own rules.

Next episode: “The Council Of Wise Folks” – No. I didn't say wise guys.

i     Although Jews talk about the Noachide laws – laws which we maintain non-Jews are obligated to follow – it is our belief that these were instituted by Hashem (G-D), not by the Jews themselves.

ii     About 3500 years ago.

iii    There are exceptions, however, for situations in which secular law is in direct conflict with religious law and in some other instances, but since most secular laws like the payment of taxes, or injunctions against jaywalking and speeding for example, don't involve such issues, we are obliged to follow them. Not that everyone does.

iv     Jewish religious law.

v     Custom.

vi     Translation in Soncino Press edition. Nehemiah 9:37.

vii    Also Soncino translation. Jeremiah, 29:7.

viii    “Conversos” (“the converted”) is preferable to “Marranos,” but the latter is more more frequently seen. It means “swine.” Anusim, “the coerced,” is also sometimes used.

ix     Interestingly, the view that “silence is golden” is sometimes carried to extremes. And very well. The two most famous mimes of the twentieth century, Marcel Marceau and Harpo Marx, were both Jewish.

x     That's what it means literally, but it refers to what is seen – even if it is completely permissible in Jewish or secular law – that might be misinterpreted by someone else (even someone Jewish) to our detriment. Consequently we are to avoid any action that may be misunderstood.

xi      Often former Jews seeking to justify their own apostasy.

xii     It cannot be denied, of course, that when we stand up for someone else we are also standing up for ourselves. Our defense of the rights of other minorities can be translated into a defense of our own people. As can our concern for a separation of church and state. It may be expressed as advocacy of Seventh Day Adventists, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons, but it is also self-justification and protection. Sadly, many will not do for their fellow Jews what they do for others. Their view is that if there were a G-D, He would help those who help others.

xiii    The basic assumption is that they're right and we're wrong.

xiv    “Profiling,” which is such a powerful and useful tool for self-protection, especially in Israel, is viewed as discriminatory and rejected. It's better to be sorry than safe.

xv      We ignore the oppression of the Palestinians by their own people and blame all their problems on the Israelis.

xvi     Sadly, some of the most vicious antisemites are Jewish. Their determination to help others is accompanied by a similar determination to denigrate their fellow Jews.

xvii   The Jewish concepts of definition of “Jewishness” by the religion of the mother, and of the permanence of that Jewishness, irrespective of the practices of the mother, mean that since Abraham's time the number of Jews has increased geometrically. Most converted either voluntarily or involuntarily and very few, today, identify themselves as Jews even though there must be a very large number of people who fulfill the definition set by religious law.