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