Who is a Jew? - The Jewish Free School Case

In a decision that has gone mostly unnoticed by the American media, last week Britain's Supreme Court issued a ruling whose impact is potentially quite damaging to the Jewish community. The court held that defining one's membership in the Jewish faith on parentage alone is "racist and discriminatory."

Now in all fairness, Britain has no written constitution, no constitutional separation of church and state, and apparently no abstention doctrine whereby the courts won't get involved in deciding religious doctrinal matters. It also directly funds parochial schools. Thus, the likelihood of a similar case and a similar decision occurring in the United States is relatively small. Nevertheless, this case bears commenting on because of its implications for the Jewish community.

The case involved the Jewish Free School, a government funded Jewish school in London, which under British law, as a "faith school," is allowed to give preference to members of the Jewish religion in admissions, although it is barred from discriminating on racial grounds.

A student applied for admission to this school but was turned down because his mother wasn't born Jewish. The child and the mother were converted to Judaism by a Progressive rabbi, a conversion which was not recognized by Britain's Orthodox establishment. Britain's chief rabbi therefore ruled that the child was not Jewish and not eligible for admission to the JFS. The child's parents then sued the school claiming racial discrimination.

Whether this child's conversion was valid or not is not the issue. The issue here is that the courts decided the question of "who is a Jew?" And they decided that basing one's membership in the Jewish faith on lineage and parentage is discriminatory and racist. In other words the Supreme Court effectively said that Judaism's way of defining its own membership, as practiced for over 3,500 years, is illegal.

The Court's decision thus requires Jewish schools to rely on the belief and practice of a child to determine if that child is Jewish and eligible for admission to a Jewish school. Synagogue attendance, observing holidays and participating in Jewish rituals will now be the deciding factors in determining if one is Jewish or not.

Why belief and practice? Because those are the criteria for determining religion in the Christian world. And now, in England, those are the criteria in the Jewish world as well. As Lord Brown noted, essentially we must now apply a "non-Jewish definition of who is Jewish."

And you know what the ironic part of this decision really is? Hitler didn't care if a Jew practiced Judaism or not, was observant or not, or was converted by the Orthodox or Progressive or Conservative or Reform. To Hitler if you had Jewish blood, if an ancestor was Jewish, then you were Jewish. At least Hitler understood the importance of parentage to Judaism.

While I'm sure many might be glad that the Court struck down an Orthodox-only standard of conversion, bear in mind that this decision also essentially struck down a Reform standard of patrilineal descent and any other standard of lineal descent as well.

When the secular authorities begin to determine "who is a Jew," when the courts choose sides in an inter-denominational debate on the validity of conversions, on how we define our own membership criteria, or on any other standard of religious practice, there can be no good result. And I have no doubt that this decision will also be used by anti-Jewish groups, which are growing in strength and numbers throughout the world, to support their contention that Judaism is racist and that the state of Israel is the equivalent of apartheid South Africa.

Angels Among Us

While the metaphor of Jacob's ladder is well known and I've spoken about it on many occasions, what are we to make of the angels who are going up and down that ladder?

What exactly is an angel anyway? And what does Judaism have to say about angels?

Now I could use the metaphor of the angels in Jacob's dream to just say that the angels going up and down the ladder symbolize our ups and downs of life. But that would be too easy and too simplistic because Judaism sees angels as much more than just that.

Jewish mysticism tells us that there resides in each of us a good angel and an evil angel. Our every step is therefore guided and accompanied by both good and bad angels. It also teaches that even in the next world, angels accompany man where, depending upon our life on earth, we are received either by the angels of peace or by the angels of destruction.

I think that there are two ways to see the true angels that Judaism offers us today. Although they are related, they both involve seeing something angelic in others.

One has to do with elevating ourselves in holiness, to become more godlike. And the other involves seeing angels in others, who exist in our lives to help us through difficult times and enlighten us and brighten our lives.

To explain this a bit further I want to return to Jacob's dream of angels climbing up and down a ladder.

The rabbinic commentator Joseph B’khor Shor (I love that name) argues that it is very significant that the angels are first climbing up the ladder and only then coming down because it signifies that the angels were first coming up from earth in order to get to heaven. And that is the way in which we human beings, people, typically climb ladders.

Shor then tells us that if the angels are truly going up to heaven from earth, that might just mean that the angels' origin is in the earth below rather than in the heavens above.

Think about that. This idea suggests that angels, divine messengers, are of possible earthly origin, and therefore are truly in our midst. To put it another way, Shor suggests that angels are human. That angels are truly among us. That our neighbor could be an angel. Or perhaps a family member. Or a friend.

Too often we tend to believe that godly acts are sent from one direction only - from heaven down to us on earth. But Shor's theory makes us think of the possibility that the word of God or Godly acts originate here on earth and not in heaven. That goodness and godliness just might originate from each one of us.

Which is why we must always act like earthly angels of God, inspiring others to holiness, bringing others closer to God and helping others with the ups and downs of life.

But using this definition, we must also open our eyes to the possibility that God does send us angels, even today. But today they appear in human form, in the form of those who we encounter in our lives. Sometimes these angels in our lives serve to bring us closer to God. And sometimes these angels appear at just the right time, when we need them the most.

And sometimes these angels are just there for comfort and support, to help us out of difficult situations, to provide encouragement and joy, to brighten our days, and to offer unconditional love. Sometimes they inspire us in so many ways, to be and to do our best.

We never know when these angels come into our lives. But when they do come in, hold on to them, for they are special people. And don't ever let them go.

And if we do see angels in others, when we do truly appreciate how they have helped us, then we should take some of that inspiration, some of that angel dust, and use it to be angels for others. Because that is how we can make earth a little more like heaven. By being angels and climbing that ladder.

May we all be a little more angelic in our lives, and in the process help others to fulfill their potential to be more angel-like as well. In other words, may we all be touched by an angel.

A Serious Man - A Serious Thought

I want to bring up one aspect of the new Coen Brothers movie "A Serious Man."

I personally liked it. The friends I saw it with liked it. My wife hated it. I know many rabbis who loved it and many who also hated it.

It was that kind of movie that evoked such visceral reactions and emotions.

I don't want to give away anything about the movie for those of you who haven't seen it yet, but I want to highlight one particular aspect of the movie.

You see in this movie, when the protagonist, a Jewish man named Larry, has problems with his life, he turns to his Jewish faith and he seeks out spiritual guidance from his rabbi.

And what does his rabbi say?

"These questions that are bothering you, Larry, maybe they're like a toothache. We feel them for a while, then they go away."

Larry responds, "I don't want it to just go away! I want an answer!"

To which the rabbi responds - "The answer! Sure! We all want the answer! But Hashem doesn't owe us the answer, Larry. Hashem doesn't owe us anything. The obligation runs the other way.

Larry - "Why does he make us feel the questions if he's not gonna give us any answers?"

The rabbi smiles at Larry and says "He hasn't told me."

Now in the context of the entire movie, this bit of dialogue might not get noticed. But I believe that this dialogue might really just be the whole point in our seeking God and seeking answers to our questions.

And that answer sometimes is, we just don't know. God hasn't told us. And besides, who are we to think that God owes us any answers in the first place.

We don't know what life has in store for us and we don't know what God's master plan for us is.

But I also believe that the rabbi did share an important piece of wisdom with Larry. He said "the obligation runs the other way."

In other words, instead of blaming God for not getting back to us, we should rather focus on our own lives and figure out what we owe God.

Because if we take the attitude that we owe so much to God, that we should be grateful to God and yet not expect anything from him, then maybe, as I've said a few times this week in my classes, then maybe, by just being good and moral and ethical, God will answer us, he will give us that new bicycle for Christmas!!

But the bottom line here is that everyone has trouble in life. Not just Larry. Not just bad people. Not just people who don't believe in God. But good people, God-fearing people, observant people, all people, have troubles in their lives.

Even Rebecca had trouble with her children and family, as did Abraham, Jacob, and yes, even Moses and King David.

So who are we to say that we shouldn't have any trouble in our lives?

The question is how do we react when we face those troubles. How do we deal with these problems?

Do we turn to God and to our faith, or do we run away from it?

Hopefully, it's the former.

But this is what I believe to be true. We must always continue to seek God. We must always continue to seek his hand in the solutions to life's problem. But whether you seek these solutions from a rabbi or from some other source, remember that even if you don't get the answer you want, or even if you don't get any answer for that matter, by seeking, by continuing to search, you are saying, loud and clear, that you still want the answer, that you are still willing to look for it, and that you are still open to the possibility that there is an answer out there.

It means that you haven't lost faith. It means that despite everything, you still have faith in God.

And that is why we must always keep searching for these answers. That is why we must always keep searching for God, even if God or his earthly representatives aren't able to give us the definitive answer, or any answer for that matter.

But I will leave you with this one piece of advice, a starting point on your own search, if you will.

As I quoted earlier, during the movie Larry asks what is perhaps the most important question of all, "why does God make us feel the questions, if he isn't going to give us the answers?"

One answer from the movie is a quote from Rashi, which just might be the best advice we can have in life.

And that is "receive with simplicity everything that happens to you."

May everything that happens to us be for good and for a blessing. But if not, then let us learn to receive the bad not only with simplicity, but with faith in God that it will ultimately turn out for the best.

Good!

I have a friend who is an actuary for a large insurance company. She was working on a 63 page memo for work and needed information from another actuary. So she asked this other actuary how the company had done on a specific mortality assumption.

His answer was straightforward. "Good."

Now we might understand that word and need no further elaboration. But in a world of statistics, risk ratios and probabilities, "good" needs to be quantified. How much is good? 10% better than we expected, 25%; 50%, 75%? We don't know.

In life too, we often use the term good. And we think we know what it means. But if you say you are having a "good" day or someone has a "good" life, what does that really mean?

Take Abraham for example, who along with his wife Sarah dies this in this week's parasha. Did Abraham have a "good" life?

The Torah tells us that Abraham was old, advanced in years and God had blessed him with everything. And later on it tells us that Abraham lived to a "good" old age. But the point the Torah is trying to make is that unlike in the actuarial field, we don't really have to quantify what a good life is. We know it not by math, but by our actions and what we leave to others.

That is why the Torah tells us that Abraham lived a good life only after he made sure that his affairs were taken care of. It means that Abraham made sure that Isaac had found a wife, that he had given the children of his pilegeshes, his concubines, some gifts before sending them away, and that he had prepared a Will which left everything he had to Isaac, his long awaited and beloved son. Having done all that, Abraham can say "mission accomplished," and that indeed life had been "good."

That is certainly one way to define "good." It's not mathematically or statistically quantifiable. But it's something we know and feel, and something we may not even realize until we're gone.

That is why you should read the story entitled "Saga of a Muslim Soldier, which is quite interesting on so many levels and can be found here in the Fall edition of Reform Judaism magazine http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1508.

After reading Mr. Hill's story, tell me. Who has led a "good" life?

Can we say that the old rabbi led a "good" life? Can we say that Mr. Al Amin has led a "good" life? He certainly has led an interesting life.

But I can tell you this.

Abraham is said to have led a "good" life because of the influence he has had on others, because his son Isaac followed in his footsteps and kept up the family tradition.

So again I ask you, can we really quantify what we mean when we say "good."

Being "good," doing "good," having a "good life," and living to a "good" old age are not things that we can mathematically or statistically quantify or describe. But remember that "good" is something we know and feel and something we may not even realize until we're gone.

To paraphrase the words in The Prayer for Our Country, "may we all be an influence for good throughout the world."

A Cross For All

Now that the holidays are over I can perhaps begin commenting on some religion issues. Here's one such issue.

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Salazar v. Buono, a case involving a constitutional challenge to the presence of an eight-foot-tall Christian cross in the Mojave National Preserve in San Bernardino County, Calif. The case arose when Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent of the preserve, filed a lawsuit demanding that the National Park Service, which administers the preserve, remove the cross. Buono argued that because the cross is on government land it amounts to a government endorsement of religion and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

While the argument before the Court encompassed many issues aside from the Establishment Clause one, this exchange between Justice Scalia and Buono's attorney, Peter Eliasberg, is most interesting:

JUSTICE SCALIA: The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war? Is that -- is that -

MR. ELIASBERG: I believe that's actually correct.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Where does it say that?

MR. ELIASBERG: It doesn't say that, but a cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins, and I believe that's why the Jewish war veterans -

JUSTICE SCALIA: It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. It's the -- the cross is the -- is the most common symbol of -- of -- of the resting place of the dead, and it doesn't seem to me -- what would you have them erect? A cross -- some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Moslem half moon and star?

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, Justice Scalia, if I may go to your first point. The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew. (Laughter.)

MR. ELIASBERG: So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion.

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, my -- the point of my -- point here is to say that there is a reason the Jewish war veterans came in and said we don't feel honored by this cross. This cross can't honor us because it is a religious symbol of another religion.

Interesting exchange, huh?

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Justice Scalia believes that the Cross is a universal symbol for respecting all the dead.

I don't know who should be more offended by that, Christians or non-Christians!

Here is the only way one can put this in perspective. Watch Steven Colbert's explanation of this exchange :

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/252639/october-13-2009/the-word---symbol-minded

Baseball and Yizkor

I want to talk about baseball and Yizkor because baseball is a great metaphor for Yizkor, in its simplicity and in the memories of our past and our present that it can evoke.

Like religion, among family, baseball can be a unifying force for good. It’s something that can be shared with the whole family and whose memories can be passed down from generation to generation.

Did you ever see Babe Ruth play? Or maybe it was Joe DiMaggio or Willie Mays. Can you tell those stories to your children and grandchildren? Can you take your grandchild to a game and watch today’s stars while telling him or her about yesterday’s? The ones you idolized as a kid.

And can you develop a bond, a closeness, that your grandchild will remember and then tell his or her children? Can you envision a time where your child or grandchild, after you’re gone, can turn to his child or grandchild and say, your great-grandfather took me to see Derek Jeter. Let me tell you about him.

These are memories. This is how we make memories. Simple yet effective. That is Yizkor.

Forty years ago the New York Mets won the World Series. Do you remember that? Certainly if you were from New York and rooted for the Mets you do. It seems like ages ago and yet it seems like it was only yesterday.

This summer, forty years after they won the World Series, most of the surviving members of the team got together for a reunion. Yes, they celebrated their remarkable achievement. But in the process they also reflected on their losses as well.

In getting together with old teammates and friends, Tom Seaver, the Hall of Fame pitcher, said "It is no doubt the highlight of my baseball life. Winning the World Series changes your life. There's a closeness that comes from it, you're kind of like brothers to your teammates. You have a much different relationship with them when you have that in common."

And then Seaver went on, in words that are eerily reminiscent of what we do at Yizkor, "There will be a lot of laughs. Some tears, too," as he listed the names of players and coaches who have passed away since 1969, like Tommie Agee, Don Cardwell, Donn Clendenon, pitching coach Rube Walker, Tug McGraw, and of course the manager of that team, Gil Hodges.

"Most importantly, at the back of everybody's mind will be Gil," Seaver added. "He won't be there, but he will be there, you know?"

Isn't that what Yizkor is about? Highlights of your life, closeness to family and friends, shared memories? And by getting together for a reunion, whether it's a baseball team or a family, we share these memories, we reminisce, we remember these events.

We laugh. And yes, we cry.

And there's more to the Mets story. You see, this year the Mets moved to a new ballpark, called Citifield. For a number of these former players, it was the first time they were at this new ballpark. And they noticed something, as did many of the fans.

The new park payed homage to a lot of memories. But memories of the old Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants. Where were the memories of the old Mets, they asked? They were not to be found.

And so the old players and the new fans complained to Mets management. And management listened and included more memories of the old Mets in the new ballpark.

Why? Because to us, that too, is important. It's a Yizkor.

We need a Yizkor when we come to the ballpark. We want our experience to not only be about the current team, about the present. We want it, we need it, to also be about our past. We need it so that we can share it with others who we bring to that game. Where we can sit and talk, and bond and reminisce, and share memories.

Here's such a memory.

Steve Monforto has been coming to Philadelphia Phillies games since he was three years old. On September 15 he was at a game with his wife and two daughters. And at that game he finally caught his first foul ball.

After trading fist bumps with nearby fans, Monforto high-fived his 3-year-old daughter Emily, and handed the ball to her. It was the natural thing for any father to do, right? Then Emily threw the ball back.

After a lifetime of coming to baseball games, Monforto finally catches a foul ball. And his daughter throws it away.

So what did Monforto do? In an image now captured on the internet, his immediate reaction was to hug his little girl. (http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090916&content_id=7000336&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)

That was the real story of the game right there, a father hugging his little girl to assure her that she did nothing wrong, a public rite of passage to which so many parents can relate.

"I think she was a little startled by the reaction," he explained. "I just wanted her to know it was OK."

That's baseball. And that's Yizkor.

Even baseball can serve to remind us that Yizkor, that life, is a shared experience which does not have to be limited to a particular place and a particular time.

Max and Erla Strike Back!

Max and Erla Feinberg put a provision in their Wills and in their Trust documents that if their grandchildren weren't to marry a spouse of the Jewish faith, it is as if they were dead and they won't be permitted to inherit from the Estate.

As it turned out, only one of Max and Erla’s five grandchildren married a Jewish spouse and stood to inherit. So what did the others do? It's America isn’t it? So they sued! They sued their own grandparents to get the money.

And last year, an Illinois appellate court declared it illegal, as against public policy, to have such a provision in one's Will.

But on Thursday, in what could not have been better timing, coming between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the Supreme Court of Illinois unanimously overturned that ruling and reinstated the Will and its provisions.

Now I'm not going to get into the legal technicalities of the ruling but I do want to quote for you something that the court said because I don't think a rabbi could have expressed it any better.

"Max’s intent was to benefit those descendants who opted to honor and further his commitment to Judaism by marrying within the faith. Max had expressed his concern about the potential extinction of the Jewish people, not only by holocaust, but by gradual dilution as a result of intermarriage with non-Jews."

A grandparent in Max’s situation is entirely free during his lifetime to attempt to influence his grandchildren to marry within his family’s religious tradition, even by offering financial incentives to do so."

And here's my favorite part. Maybe it's the old lawyer in me, but...

"Equal protection does not require that all children be treated equally; due process does not require notice of conditions precedent to potential beneficiaries; and the free exercise clause does not require a grandparent to treat grandchildren who reject his religious beliefs and customs in the same manner as he treats those who conform to his traditions."

"Although those plans might be offensive to individual family members or to outside observers, Max and Erla were free to distribute their bounty as they saw fit and to favor grandchildren of whose life choices they approved over other grandchildren who made choices of which they disapproved."

Shanah Tovah - Happy New Year 5770

First off let me apologize for not posting lately. Been busy with the holidays.

So Shanah Tovah and Happy New Year to all.

I will post more frequently when things quiet down.

If anyone wants to read my sermons for the holidays just send me an e-mail.

In the meantime, here's an interesting interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia from a Jewish newspaper, Hamodia, where he discusses his views on Supreme Court jurisprudence as it relates to the Establishment Clause -

http://www.hamodia.com/inthepaper.cfm?ArticleID=370

(thanks to Prof Howard Friedman for the link)

May We All Be Blessed With a Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous New Year!

Justice, Justice, Shall You Pursue!

This week's Torah portion dealing with judges and the administration of justice contains the famous words "tzedek, tzedek tirdof- Justice, Justice shall you pursue."

Unfortunately, in today's world, that maxim just doesn't seem to apply anymore.

Let me give you two recent examples.

First, you may have seen or read that the only man convicted in the Lockerbee bombing over Scotland in 1988 was freed from prison the other day and returned home to Libya where he received a hero's welcome.

Yes, a man sentenced to life imprisonment for bombing an airplane and causing the deaths of 270 people was freed because the Scottish Justice Minister had compassion for him because he is dying.

That's justice, right?

Second, the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet published a story claiming that Israeli soldiers are abducting Palestinians in order to steal their organs.

For those of you who don't know what this is about, this is the old anti-Semitic charge of blood libel. And it must be true. After all here is what the editor of Aftonbladet said about the story:

"The publication "stands behind the demand for an international inquiry regarding Israel's alleged body-snatching. We had many discussions on whether to publish the article or not, and to the best of my knowledge, there are no facts there that are incorrect."

No facts that are incorrect? Of course not. After all, the author of the article claims that he interviewed a "Palestinian witness," but "whether it's true or not - I have no idea, I have no clue."

Right again. Why let the facts get in the way of a good anti-Semitic story!

The freeing of a convicted terrorist.

A blood libel in Sweden.

A human rights group raising money in Saudi Arabia by criticizing Israel.

And Galid Shalit, who celebrated his twenty third birthday this week in his third year of captivity, without anyone being allowed to see or speak to him? Where is the expression of humanity and compassion for him?

Oh wait, he's just another Israeli, another Jew. And who cares about another Jew?

Certainly not Human Rights Watch. Certainly not Aftonbladet. Certainly not the Scottish Justice Minister.

But this is the world we live in. A world where the definition of justice is turned on its head.

And I'll leave you with this postscript (courtesy of David Bernstein). It turns out that the Swedish foreign ministry office in Israel also publically denounced the article.

But then the Swedish foreign ministry then criticized its staff in Israel for denouncing the article...... on the grounds that Sweden believes in free speech.

Of course that same Swedish foreign ministry has had a very different definition of free speech when it comes to denouncing articles and pictures that offend Muslims.

But that's understandable, isn't it? It's all in the pursuit of justice.

Update

Quick update - I've been on vacation and will return here Monday or Tuesday. Hope you can handle it till then

Who Defines Kosher? Not The State

Over at Religion Clause, Professor Friedman posted a story on a lawsuit filed by a Conservative rabbi challenging the constitutionality of Georgia's Kosher Food Labeling Act. What is the basis of this challenge? That the law provides food can only bear a kosher label if it meets "Orthodox Hebrew religious rules and requirements."

In other words the State of Georgia has chosen to use an "Orthodox" definition of kashrut. This poses a significant Establishment Clause problem. Why is the State taking a particular religious definition of kashrut? Forget Orthodox vis a vis Conservative for a minute. What about various strains of Orthodoxy? Is Hebrew National not kosher because it has a Triangle K and not an OU?

While the idea of the government protecting the kosher consumer from fraud is commendable, over the years a number of similar laws in New York, Maryland and New Jersey have been struck down by the courts for this very reason. As the New Jersey Supreme Court said, requiring businesses to comply with a particular Jewish religious standard "inextricably" entangled Jewish law with secular law. Think about it. When challenged, the state has no choice but to determine what the true definition of kashrut is. It must choose between Rabbi A's definition and Rabbi B's definition. And that is something the state should never be put in a position of doing.

The solution, in my opinion?

Kosher food laws should not be based on any one particular religious standard to determine whether it's kosher or not, especially because there is no standard universally agreed upon within the Jewish community. Instead, kosher fraud laws should rely on full disclosure made by the seller. A kosher fraud law should state that anyone selling kosher food is required to disclose the basis upon which that claim is made. In other words, if Butcher Z says I am selling kosher meat then he must produce some documentation from Rabbi A attesting to its kashrut. If a consumer trusts Rabbi A then he will buy from Butcher Z. If not, armed with all the facts and with full disclosure, he can go across the street to Butcher X who discloses that his products are under the supervision of Rabbi B.

In this case the state's only involvement would be to see if the food sold is in compliance with that disclosure statement, not whether it is in compliance with "Orthodox Hebrew law." This solution still allows the state to fulfill its goal of protecting consumers from fraud while not entangling it in religious doctrine and violating the Establishment Clause in the process.

Torah Voices

Here's an excerpt from my sermon this week. If you'd like to receive the full sermon please e-mail me. (RabbiMichaelSimon@gmail.com)

Did you ever think about how you can read and study the Torah and still have it speak to you in a modern voice? I believe the best way is with an eye and an ear firmly planted in the present time. It means letting the Torah speak to us in a voice that we can understand and appreciate and that makes sense to our own eyes and ears as we read and hear it.

Here's the thing. I'm not just making this up. I got this idea from Moses, who realized, at the end of his life, that he had to explain and teach the Torah in a way that his audience would hear and understand.

That is why, in recounting the Ten Commandments, he changed the original word zachor to shamor. Because for this new generation of Israelites, who had not known slavery, a different message was needed. For the generation that experienced slavery and the subsequent Exodus, they needed no reminder. They only needed to remember - to zachor - that God created the world. But to this new generation, the generation that had not known slavery, they are told to observe - shamor.

The most important part of this farewell address, the most important part of this message, is that Moses is speaking words that his current audience can relate to. He is not speaking the same words that he spoke in Exodus to that audience. As the audience changed so must the message. And that is why the Torah stresses for us time and time again that the covenant between God and the Jewish people is eternal. That covenant was not only made with the generation who had left Egypt. It exists for the next generation and for all subsequent generations as well. It is a covenant that was made with every single one of us. Those who were standing at Sinai and those who are living in 2009.

Moses' words clearly focus on the present, on the present generation. It means that for each generation of Jews, the Torah, and Judaism, must retain its significance. It must retain its meaning. It must be something that is observed. God’s rules and laws as well as God himself must remain both visible and viable.

The generation that left Egypt heard the Torah in one voice. The generation that was about to enter the Promised Land heard it in another. And every generation since has studied and applied that same Torah with a different voice appropriate for that particular time and place.

As we say after the Kohen is called for the first aliyah, “v’atem hadvekim b’adonai eloheichem chayim kulchem hayom," all of you who have held fast to the Lord are with us and alive today.

That is the ultimate message. To cling to the Torah and to keep it alive, with whatever words and in whatever voice we choose to hear it in.

HRW Follow-Up

Prof David Bernstein (a fellow Flatbush alum I might add) has written another excellent follow-up on HRW's anti-Israel bias, this time focusing on the past pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel activities of Sarah Leah Whitson, it's Middle East Director.

You can read the complete post at http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1247622550.shtml (scroll to the bottom for August 4) but here it is in a nutshell:

"What the official bio doesn't tell you is that Whitson was an active member of the New York chapter of the American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee. She had served on the Steering Committee (source: ADC Times, Apr 30, 2002). When HRW hired her, she was serving a two-year term on the new Board of Directors, which replaced the Steering Committee (Source: ADC Times, Jan. 31, 2004).

The Jan. 31, 2004 ADC Times, which noted Whitson's election to the Board of Trustees, reported that the New York chapter "continued our Palestine activism over the summer."

So when HRW hired Ms. Whitson to be its Middle East director, it was hiring someone that was in the middle of serving what amounted to a second term on the Board of Directors of an organization that was firmly and openly on the Arab side in the Arab-Israeli conflict. And she had personally engaged in pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel activism while serving in that position.
In short, Human Rights Watch, while purporting to be a neutral arbiter of human rights issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict, hired as its Middle East director a person who at the time was intimately involved in pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel political action, and who, not surprisingly, appears to have rather strongly held, far left-wing views on the Arab-Israeli conflict."

As I wrote last week, it's a shame that this story is not more widely reported but kudos to Professor Bernstein for not letting it die and for digging out the truth.

Z Street

I just came across a new organization called Z Street.

Here is a bit from their charter:

Z STREET is an organization of Zionists who join together at this time of great danger to the Jewish State of Israel and, increasingly, to world Jewry.

I. Z STREET proudly asserts the right of the Jewish people to a state.

II. Z STREET proudly reclaims the words “Zionist” and “Jewish State” as ones to wear with pride, and completely rejects their recent branding as shameful or impolite terms.

III. Z STREET maintains that Jews have the right to live anywhere in the world, including, and especially, within greater Israel.

This seems like an organization that is deserving of support
You can find them at http://ziostreet.wordpress.com/

Prayer, Prayer on the Wall.......

One of my "academic" interests revolves around the First Amendment's religion clauses. I will tell you that I approach these clauses a bit differently as a pulpit rabbi than as I did as an attorney or professor, and from time to time I will blog here on some developments in the field and my feelings about them. I read Melissa Rogers' blog and 'Religion Clause' by Professor Howard Friedman religiously (pun intended) for their excellent coverage of newsworthy items impacting freedom of religion and establishment clause cases and news.

So in that vein, something struck me last week in synagogue as we were reading "A Prayer for Our Country." It goes as follows:

"Our God and God of our ancestors: we ask your blessings for our country, for its government, for its leaders and advisors, and for all who exercise just and rightful authority. Teach them the insights of Your Torah, that they may administer all affairs of state fairly, that peace and security, happiness and prosperity, justice and freedom may once again abide in our midst."

Does anybody have a problem with that prayer?

I do. What bothers me is the line "teach them the insights of Your Torah". The insights of the Torah! We want our leaders to observe the Torah? We want them to govern this country based on Torah law? I thought we had a separation of church and state. Is this what we really want? And any particular insight?

I know, let's teach President Obama an insight from this week's Torah portion. You know, the one about observing Shabbat as a day of rest. Good idea, says the President and Congress. Let's make Saturday a day of rest. Everyone must rest. No business may remain open. No government services.

What do you think? Or maybe there would be greater support if we make that day Sunday. Thanks Torah! What a great idea!

Need I go on? Should we perhaps force everyone to keep kosher? Or perhaps this would be a great starting point, great impetus to learn the insights from the New Testament or the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Vedas, or from Zen Buddhism?

The prayer that I found which is used in Catholic Churches ends with the line "and the restoring of all things in Christ."

My point? If we are offended by that last line, if we want to maintain the US as religiously neutral, maybe we should be careful what we say in our prayers as well!

As they say, be careful what you wish for. It may come true.

Shabbat Shalom!

Mazal Tov Avi Melech

Avi Melech Botwin had his bris the other day. Mazal tov! Another Jewish child brought into this world.

There's just one problem. Avi Melech isn't Jewish.

If you don't know who I'm talking about that's ok. I'm talking about the Showtime television show Weeds. I love the show. It has great humor, social satire, writing, acting, etc. And I especially love the Jewish content. Through the years there have been references to unveilings, shiva, Shabbat dinners, Yeshivah study, bar mitzvahs, and so on. There has even been authentic dialogue in Hebrew with the correct pronunciation of the blessings and the reference that you need ten Jewish men to make a minyan. And the explanation of the name Avi Melech was perfect.

But despite all this, the Jewish aspect somehow always turns into comedic stereotypes, like the most recent episode where the bris turns into another excuse to eat bagels and whitefish.

So I'm a bit torn by this. The attempt to bring mainstream Jewish traditions into the show and have it seen by a wide audience is most welcome. But while certainly hilariously funny and on point, does it always have to involve some stereotypical Jewish humor??

And then let's face it. While the idea of a bris is nice, the fact is that neither parent is Jewish. Last I checked that means the child isn't Jewish. But hey, why miss a good opportunity to eat some bagels and whitefish!

Your thoughts?

You can't make this stuff up!

More from David Bernstein on the HRW controversy (here's his full post)

"Are Human Rights Watch Officials Just Thin-Skinned? (No!):

In a previous post, I criticized Human Rights Watch Director Ken Roth's characterization of the criticism HRW receives regarding its coverage of Israel. Roth wrote, in an email to Jeffrey Goldberg, "We report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception." I've also noted that (at least according to NGO Watch, and to my knowledge), HRW has never officially recanted or apologized for any of the errors or distortions critics have identified in its reporting on Israel.

There are two possible explanations for the above. One is that HRW is implicitly hostile to Israel and its supporters. The other is that Roth and colleagues are just arrogant you-know-whats who don't take criticism well, and would react the same way regardless of the source of the criticism.
It was therefore enlightening for a reader to point me to a prior controversy involving HRW and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. HRW criticized Palestinian officials for urging civilians to serve as human shields. Anti-Israel commentators, led by rabidly anti-Israel activist Norman Finkelstein, went ballistic.

So how did HRW react? Did Ken Roth say, "We report on Palestine. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception." Did Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson accuse HRW's critics of racism? Not exactly. HRW instead issued an abject apology. In fact, if you try to find the original press release on its website, you instead find a page that first has the lengthy apology, and only then republishes the original press release.

You can't make this stuff up!"

The original post can be found at volokh.com

Twas The Shabbat Before Tisha b'Av.....

Here's an excerpt from my sermon this week. If you'd like to receive the full sermon please e-mail me. (RabbiMichaelSimon@gmail.com)

Wednesday evening begins the observance of Tisha b'Av, the commemoration of the destruction of the Temples in Jerusalem as well as countless other tragedies which have befallen the Jewish people. In light of the destruction of the first Temple, the prophet Isaiah chastises the Jewish people for their behavior. He compares them to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah!

The crimes that caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah were economic, judicial and social crimes, not sexual ones. Those cities had failed to create a just and fair society.

And in Isaiah's time, the time preceding the destruction of the first Temple, no one was concerned that there were people who were hungry or were forced to live in the street or had no work while others lived in great wealth. Sound familiar?

Isaiah compared the leaders of the Jewish people to the leaders of Sodom and Gomorrah, in that they both cheated the poor and perverted justice. And the people were similar to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah in their evil actions as well.

So what does the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have to do with Tisha b'Av?

The answer is that the Sodom and Gomorrah story gives us a window into which we might view and perhaps understand a little better not only the reasons for the destruction of the Temples, but a way of applying them to our own times as well.

Isaiah reasoned that the way to avoid some of the destruction and despair that has overcome the Jewish people, especially on Tisha b'Av, is to build a more just and fair society.

So Tisha b'Av comes around also to remind us of the work we still have to do, individually and collectively, to make ourselves and our society better. And it reminds us that if we don't repent and change our ways and make ourselves and our society better, then we will be punished. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed as were the Temples.

In just seven short weeks we will celebrate Rosh Hashanah, a time for introspection, cheshbon nefesh, and teshuvah. But we need not wait for Rosh Hashanah to begin this process. We needn't even wait for the beginning of Elul when we sound the shofar each morning.

No. Tisha b'Av reminds us that we can and should begin right now. It's a reminder that if we have faith in God, if we begin the process of teshuvah; and most importantly, if we erase corruption and unjustness from our society; then we will know that the world envisioned by God and the prophets, a society marked by justice, honesty, and love for one's fellow man, will be a world which we must all strive to create, a world and a society which will endure and prosper and which will never be destroyed.

Shabbat Shalom to all!

A Story You Won't Find In The MSM

For the past few weeks over at the Volokh Conspiracy (http://www.volokh.com/), Professor David Bernstein of the George Mason University School of Law has been following the story of how Human Rights Watch has raised funds in Saudi Arabia by essentially appealing to the need to combat "pro-Israel forces." The bottom line is, as always, that Israel alone is singled out for criticism. But read Professor Bernstein's posts and you can see the lengths to which HRW has gone in order to defend its actions and accuse Israel's supporters of engaging in lies and deceptions. Professor Bernstein has done an outstanding job of following through on this story and deserves our thanks.

Here is a snippet from his latest post. "And after Whitson's several minute-long exhaustive survey of Israel's alleged sins, she spends all of approximately twelve seconds on Hamas and Hezbollah, and this is the total of what she said: "of course there are also violations of international humanitarian law by the armed groups that are fighting Israel, namely Hamas and Hezbollah, but of course there are armed groups that have been in conflict with them [sorry this isn't coherent--ed.]. And that's something Human Rights Watch has documented." That's it.

After the exhaustive list of Israel's alleged crimes, no mention of

Hamas's suicide murders
Hezbollah and Hamas's indiscriminate (really indiscriminate) lobbing of missiles into Israel
H & H's use of human shields, use of civilian establishments for military purposes, and failure to wear military uniforms
the kidnapping and murder of Israeli soldiers
Hamas's reign of terror against Christian Palestinians
Hezbollah's threat to democracy in Lebanon
Syrian and Iranian state sponsorship of terrorism
Hamas's murder of Fatah supporters

and so forth and so on."

Here are a few links to read more on this story.

Prof. Bernstein's Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528343805525561.html).

Jeffrey Goldenberg in the Atlantic (http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/fundraising_corruption_at_huma.php)

JTA article about this story
(http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/07/21/1006677/daniel-levy-apologizes-for-hrw).

One Small Step For Man......

Did you ever stop and realize that there are a number of similarities between what happened to the Israelites in the desert and the Apollo 11 story. You see, the Torah, like the Apollo space program, is also about getting man to reach a particular destination. The Torah actually gives us two in fact. The first is a physical destination; reaching the land of Israel. The second is a spiritual destination. Having us become closer to God and better people by observing God's commandments.

And just like man could not have reached the moon without all the effort and manpower of so many who worked on that project, so too, the Israelites could not have reached the Promised Land without the efforts not only of Moses and Aaron, but like the Apollo program, through the efforts, manpower, trial and error, and even death, of many people, all of which had to have occurred in order for the Israelites to reach their destination, the Promised Land.

And that is perhaps one of the reasons why the Torah goes out of its way to tell us the names of the daughters of Zelophehad; Machlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah. The Torah wants to remind us that we must never forget the people, large and small, who enabled us to reach our destination; the people who helped shape our laws and society. And so these five women are specifically mentioned in order to impress upon us the important lesson that every person who is involved in making our society better, or more just, is deserving of recognition.

We weren't around thirty five hundred or so years ago to witness the events that were described in the Torah. But we were alive, and can recall, the miraculous events of forty years ago, when man achieved the impossible and walked on the moon.

But what we can take away from both historical events is that there are many small steps that need to be taken by man in order to make that one giant leap for mankind. We learned that we can't just snap our fingers and like magic walk on the moon or conquer Canaan. It took a long time to get to both places with many steps and missteps along the way.

We still have many more goals to achieve, many more moons to conquer, many societal ills still left to eradicate, more tikkun olam yet to accomplish. But we have learned, both from Apollo 11 and from our Torah, that if we are patient, if we allow ourselves to take those small steps, and if we recognize the efforts and sacrifices of all those who helped us get there, then we too will be able to make what hopefully will be many more giant leaps for mankind.

The Eagle Has Landed

On July 20, 1969 man walked on the moon.

On July 20, 2009 I landed on a blog

So what am I doing here? Good question. I'm here because many people claim to be interested in what I think. So this is as good a place as any to express those thoughts in a way that is shorter than a sermon but longer than a tweet.

What will I blog about? Judaism of course. Israel. Religion in general. Share with others some websites of interest. And of course the New York Rangers!

Thanks to all who have encouraged me to do this. You know who you are (ok thanks is not the right word. The right word is more like why are you making me do this!)

And I will leave you with this comment by my so-called friend Marcy Morris when I told her I was starting a blog......"hahahhaha. i actually laughed out loud to that one"