LBJ - A [Lost] Legacy of Decency Towards the Jewish People

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this article. I have heard "anecdotals" of how LBJ was supportive of local congregations in the Austin Texas area. I have also heard that he was a friend of Israel in a most general way. This was a stark revelation. I never realzied how much LBJ really went out of his way to help the Jewish people. His sincere desire to end victimization of African-Americans despite being a Souterhn Politican was an act of courage tha I have always applauded. That he was a "profile in Courage" for Civil Rights and Voting Rights is beyiod dsipute. What I have failed to notice - until this article - is that he stended the same decncy ahnd humanity to us Jews.

I feel humbled that I never had a chance to apprecaite all of this utnil SO many years afterwards. It haunts me that I have been oblviious to his generosoity to our people

KT
RRW

Past news reports do little to reveal the full historical extent of Johnson's actions on behalf of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Most students of the Arab-Israeli conflict can identify Johnson as the American president during the 1967 war. But few know about his active efforts to rescue hundreds of endangered Jews during the Holocaust - actions that could have thrown him out of Congress and into jail. Indeed, the title of "Righteous Gentile" is certainly appropriate in the case of the Texan whose centennial year is being commemorated this year. I had once before sent an article to you about Johnson and his feeling about Jews, but this report is much more forthcoming. YOU REALLY SHOULD READ IT!......Bob

LYNDON JOHNSON AND HIS ACTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE
25 Dec 2008


A few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that newly released tapes from US president Lyndon Johnson's White House office showed LBJ's "personal and often emotional connection to Israel." The news agency pointed out that during the Johnson presidency (1963-1969), "the United States became Israel's chief diplomatic ally and primary&nb sp; arms supplier."

Appropriately enough, the annual Jerusalem Conference announced this week that it will honor Johnson in February 2009.

Historians have revealed that Johnson, while serving as a young Democratic congressman in 1938 and 1939, arranged for visas to be supplied to Jews in Warsaw, and oversaw the apparently illegal immigration of hundreds of Jews through the portGalveston, Texas. of

A key resource for uncovering LBJ's pro-Jewish activity is the unpublished 1989 doctoral thesis by University of Texas student Louis Gomolak , "Prologue: LBJ's Foreign Affairs Background, 1908-1948." Johnson's activities were confirmed by other historians in interviews with his wife, family members and political associates.

Research into Johnson's personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America. According to Gomolak, Aunt Jessie had nurtured LBJ's commitment to befriending Jews for 50 years. As a young boy, Lyndon watched his politically active grandfather "Big Sam" and father "Little Sam" seek clemency for Leo Frank, the Jewish victim of a blood libel in Atlanta. Frank was lynched by a mob in 1915, and the Ku Klux Klan in Texas KKK attack. Johnson's speechwriter later stated, "Johnson often cited Leo Frank's lynching as the source of his opposition to both anti-Semitism and isolationism." threatened to kill the Johnsons. The Johnsons later told friends that Lyndon's family hid in their cellar while his father and uncles stood guard with shotguns on their porch in case of

Already in 1934 - four years before Chamberlain's Munich sellout to Hitler - Johnson was keenly alert to the dangers of Nazism and presented a book of essays, Nazism: An Assault on Civilization, to the 21-year-old woman he was courting, Claudia Taylor - later known as "Lady Bird" Johnson. It was an incredible engagement present.

FIVE DAYS after taking office in 1937, LBJ broke with the "Dixiecrats" and supported an immigration bill that would naturalize illegal aliens, mostly Jews from Lithuania and Poland. In 1938, Johnson was told of a young Austrian Jewish musician who was about to be deported from the United States. With an element of subterfuge, LBJ sent him to the US Consulate in Havana to obtain a residency permit. Erich Leinsdorf, the world famous musician and conductor, credited LBJ with s aving his life.

That same year , LBJ warned a Jewish friend, Jim Novy, that European Jews faced annihilation. "Get as many Jewish people as possible out [of Germany and Poland]," were Johnson's instructions. Somehow, Johnson provided him with a pile of signed immigration papers that were used to get 42 Jews out of Warsaw.

But that wasn't enough. According to historian James M. Smallwood, Congressman Johnson used legal and sometimes illegal methods to smuggle "hundreds of Jews into Texas, using Galveston as the entry port. Enough money could buy false passports and fake visas in Cuba, Mexico and other Latin American countries.... Johnson smuggled boatloads and planeloads of Jews into Texas. He hid them in the Texas National Youth Administration... Johnson saved at least four or five hundred Jews, possibly more."

During World War II Johnson joined Novy at a small Austin gathering to sell $65,000 in war bonds. According to Gomolak, Novy and Johnson then raised a very "substantial sum for arms for Jewish underground fighters in Palestine." One source cited by the historian reports that "Novy and Johnson had been secretly shipping heavy crates labeled 'Texas Grapefruit' - but containing arms - to Jewish underground 'freedom fighters' in Palestine."

ON JUNE 4, 1945, Johnson visited Dachau. According=2 0to Smallwood, Lady Bird later recalled that when her husband returned home, "he was still shaken, stunned, terrorized and bursting with an overpowering revulsion and incredulous horror at what he had seen."

A decade later while serving in the Senate, Johnson blocked the Eisenhower administration's attempts to apply sanctions against Israel following the 1956 Sinai Campaign. "The i ndefatigable Johnson had never ceased pressure on the administration," wrote I.L. "Si" Kenen, the head of AIPAC at the time.

As Senate majority leader, Johnson consistently blocked the anti-Israel initiatives of his fellow Democrat, William Fulbright, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Among Johnson's closest advisers during this period were several strong pro-Israel advocates, including Benjamin Cohen (who 30 years earlier was the liaison between Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis and Chaim Weizmann) and Abe Fortas, the legendary Washington "insider."

Johnson's concern for the Jewish people continued through his presidency. Soon after taking office in the aftermath of John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963, Johnson told an Israeli diplomat, "You have lost a friend, but you have found a better one."

Just one month after succeeding Kennedy, LBJ attended the December 1963 dedication of the Agudas Achim Synagogue in Austin. Novy opened the ceremony by saying to Johnson, "We can't thank him enough for all those Jews he got out of Germany during the days of Hitler."

Lady Bird would later describe the day, according to Gomolak: "Person after person plucked at my sleeve and said, 'I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for him. He helped me get out.'" Lady Bird elaborated, "Jews had been woven into the warp and woof of all [Lyndon's] years."

THE PRELUDE to the 1967 war was a terrifying period for Israel, with the US State Department led by the historically unfriendly Dean Rusk urging an evenhanded policy despite Arab threats and acts of aggression. Johnson held no such illusions. After the war he placed the blame firmly on Egypt: "If a single act of folly was more&nbs p; responsible for this explosion than any other, it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision [by Egypt] that the Strait of Tiran would be closed [to Israeli ships and Israeli-bound cargo]."

Kennedy was the first president to approve the sale of defensive US weapons to Israel, specifically Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. But Johnson approved tanks and fighter jets, all vital after the 1967 war when France imposed a freeze on sales to Israel. Yehuda Avner recently described on these pages prime minister Levi Eshkol's successful appeal for these weapons on a visit to t he LBJ ranch.

Israel won the 1967 war, and Johnson worked to make sure it also won the peace. "I sure a s hell want to be careful and not run out on little Israel," Johnson said in a March 1968 conversation with his a mbassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, according to White House tapes recently released.

Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.

The crafting of UN Resolution 242 in November 1967 was done under Johnson's scrutiny. The call for "secure and recognized boundaries" was critical. The American and British drafters of the resolution opposed Israel returning all the territories captured in the war. In September 1968, Johnson explained, "We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 Jun e 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbors involved."

Goldberg later noted, "Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was de liberate." This historic diplomacy was conducted under Johnson's stewardship, as Goldberg related in oral history to the Johnson Library. "I must say for Johnson," Goldberg stated. "He gave me great personal support."

Robert David Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College, recently wrote in The New York Sun, "Johnson's policies stemmed more from personal concerns - his friendship with leading Zionists, his belief that America had a moral obligation to bolster Israeli security and his conception of Israel as a frontier land much like his home state of Texas. His personal concern s led him to intervene when he felt that the State or Defense departments had insufficiently appreciated Israel's diplomatic or military needs."

President Johnson firmly pointed American policy in a pro-Israel direction. In a historical context, the American emergency airlift to Israel in 1973, the constant diplomatic support, the economic and military assistance and the strategic bonds between the two countries can all be credited to the seeds planted by LBJ.

*** The writer served as deputy chief of mission of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Today, an international consultant, he blogs at www.lennybendavid.com.

Thank you for this report: Jon Mandell

Islamic Monotheism

I was directed to a posting on youtube about a person who was an Orthodox Jew for 10 years, then became a Muslim. On the video this person said he was frum from his late teens until his early thirties and then, through discussions over the internet with a Muslim, became a devout Muslim. In the small piece of this video that I saw, this person contended that an argument that really convinced him of the truth of Islam was that it was the perfect Monotheism, Now I understood what this person was contending in regard to Christianity but I could not fathom what he meant by contending that Islam was a better form of Monotheism. The person continued. The problem with Judaism, according to this person, was that it gave power to the Rabbis and thus lessened the oneness and overall power of the deity. I write deity in this case with a small d -- for this person was not referring to HaKodesh Baruch Hu. What amazed me was that this individual, after being frum for over 10 years, could not understand the problem with this contention and this idea that Rabbinic power lessens the greatness of God. It is precisely because Hashem gave power to rabbis, human beings, that we recognize His True Greatness.

Islam is all about submission to the deity. Through submission, one is deemed to recognize the deity as the one, overall force in the world. The problem is: what about the human being? What was the human being created for? The greatest gift that God can give a human being is the ability to be Godlike which includes individuality, independence and autonomy. It is with this perspective that Hashem gave us the Torah in such a manner that it still demanded human involvement, human thought, human decision making. We accept the dominion of Hakodesh Baruch Hu by submitting ourselves to the direction of Torah -- but, then, God's directive still demands our analysis. We have to figure out what God wants from us. We have to think. We have to still make decisions. On the surface, it may look that God's power is chas v'sholom being reduced by this involvement of human beings in the determination of what is demanded. It may seem that God's overall Authority, His Oneness, is being challenged by the involvement of human decision makers in the process. What is not being understood is that God is so above the need for this type of full submission that He wished to create an entity upon whom he could actually bestow some of His essential attributes -- because He is so unique and so One of an Entity that whatever He bestowed upon humanity would not detract from Him one iota in any event. So Hashem created a system that demanded of Man to recognize His absolute Dominion yet still gave Man the ability to participate in the process and thereby experience imatio Dei. Rabbinic power is thus not a challenge to the Oneness of God but actually declares the Greatness of this Oneness.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

7. Taking an Oath by God’s Name

“I swear, it’s wrong what Israel’s doing in Gaza.”

This I overheard while waiting in line for a falafel.

“You know what’s wrong? What’s wrong is that they didn’t do it sooner. I swear: that’s what’s wrong.”

They were, I believe, fighting over who would pay the tab. “I’ll pay.” “No, I’ll pay.” “How could I take a gift from someone who thinks…” Et cetera. And so I waited.

By the time I got up to the front to order, I wasn’t sure what I wanted anymore. The woman said, “You’ve been standing in line for fifteen minutes—how could you not know what you want?”

“I think I knew what I wanted when I got here,” I said, “but that was a long time ago. Now I’m not sure.”

So I let the couple behind me go ahead while I reconsidered my order.

It’s a complicated decision. You’re not just ordering for yourself. You’re also ordering for the person you’re going to be five minutes from now when you eat whatever it is you order, and the person you’ll be twenty-five minutes from now when you’re done eating, a day from now when you’re exercising, thirty years from now when you’re going to the doctor for a check-up, fifty years from now when you’re reminiscing. You’re ordering, when you think about it, for a lot of people. And you want to please all of them, or at least as many as possible—don’t you?

To complicate matters, each permutation of you makes different choices depending on the choices you make today. So you can’t just jump ahead to a seventy-year-old version of yourself and ask him (or her) what he’d like you to order because his answer will be different depending on what you did.

Even worse, according to a recent psychological study, we generally view our past selves in a manner similar to the way most people view their parents: nothing we did was right. For example, if you’re a non-disciplined eater, in the future you’ll probably look back on your past self with disdain, blaming your past self for your current health problems. If, however, you’re a disciplined eater, in the future you’ll blame your past self for not having enjoyed life more while you were young.

And you think all this doesn’t come to mind when I’m standing in line to order a falafel?

So I’m wondering: how is it that these two guys who just left (still arguing) are able to come to definitive opinions about an issue that intermingles sensitive and complex aspects of faith, politics and mortality and I’m unable to choose my lunch?

“What’ll it be, then?” I still wasn’t ready, so I resorted to the incredibly absurd stall-tactic of objectifying tastes: “What do you recommend.” “The spicy such-and-such is excellent.” “Is it very spicy?” “Yes. That’s why it’s called…” “Right. What else is good?” “The tofu thing is good.” “But does it have a lot of tofu in it?” And so on.

It’s frustrating because there is an ideal solution here. Isn’t there? There must be one dish that will best serve all my needs, now and into the future. God knows what I should order. With some investigation and perseverance, I should be able to know, too.

What I would like to be able to say is, “I want the falafel.” Very definitively, with a sense of authority and calm.

“Are you sure?”

“Yes. I want the falafel. I swear: I want the falafel.”

I imagine this type of certainty is accompanied by an incredible sense of relief. The endless permutations of This Moment are reduced to one, clear path. All that remains is to take the necessary steps in the right direction. The horrifying image of an infinite number of compasses pointing North in an infinite number of different directions—with a blink, it disappears. North is North. “I swear.” (See, for example, Charlie Chaplin’s paper compass in ‘The Gold Rush’.)

But we are far too limited to attain such certainty. I can do my best but I will never really know what I should have for lunch.

So what, then, do we say when the waitress asks for our order?

“I’m sorry—I am far too limited a being to know what I will have for lunch.”

That won’t work. Humans can’t escape making choices. Even abstention is a choice.

“Since I will never know what I should have for lunch, I’ll have to choose randomly.”

But should a lack of complete knowledge cause you to dispose of or disregard the knowledge you’ve attained?

“Though I do not have complete knowledge, I must, for the sake of action, believe that the knowledge I have is sufficient for these purposes.”

On the other hand, should self-deception be necessary to live a productive life? Incomplete knowledge may be all we have but does that require us to imagine a certainty that doesn’t exist?

“Come on! There are people waiting: what’ll it be?”

We fumble through life with dimly lit candles, barely able to see a step in front of our eyes. With this restricted visibility, the people rushing ahead into the dark can often appear to be the brave ones. Some will be drawn to emulate them. After the fact, we may try to distinguish between the brave and the foolish but the variable of luck is irremovable. Those who cling close to the sidewall and tiptoe are no wiser: they waste what little wax their candle has. Maybe the only choice is to maintain a steady pace and, when asked, say with confidence, “I swear with God’s Name: I see just one step ahead, and hardly that.”

An oath taken with God’s Name is an oath taken without hubris. It is an oath that, from its very conception, makes mention of the All-Knowing, and so distinguishes us from our creator. In modern times, Rabbinical law has directed us away from the practice of taking an oath. It may be thought that we lack the confidence, the knowledge base, or the devotedness to swear with God’s Name today; I sooner think we simply lack the humility.

If it is appropriate to liken each individual’s intellect to a dull light, then it is certainly true that the wise person is “he who learns from all” (Pirkei Avot, 4:1) since it is then the wise person who makes use of the most candles. But still, this combined light cannot begin to compare to God’s Knowledge. Nevertheless, choices must be made, actions taken, paths formed. All in all, lunch must be had. But not with certainty. If we can regain this humble awareness of our limited vision, perhaps some day we will once again be able to swear in the Name of God.

And then maybe we won’t have to wait so long in line to order a falafel.

Announcing NEW Bio of Nehama Leibowitz

THE Trailblazer amongst women studying, analyzing, and publishing new Torah thoughts!

--
Kol Tuv Best Regards,
RRW
NishmaRRW@gmail.com

Be'eri 5, Jerusalem Israel 623-5559

Hot off the Press:

Nehama Leibowitz: Teacher and Bible Scholar

By Yael Unterman

Hardcover 607 pages !

Regular Price: 130 NIS

Special Price: 99 NIS

Check or cash for this special price please

"Professor Nehama Leibowitz (1905 – 1997), winner of the Israel Prize in Education, was a unique figure in the twentieth-century Jewish landscape. She wrote a best-selling series, Studies in the Weekly Torah Portion and provided a one-woman correspondence course in Bible, using her famous gilyonot (worksheets), for more than thirty years. A brilliant teacher, an erudite scholar, and forthright, warm and humorous human being, she left her mark on tens of thousands of people around the world: taxi drivers, waitresses, professors, rabbis, kibbutzniks and students.

This book documents her life story, inspiring personality and scholarship. It discusses her strong views on such issues as Zionism, humanism and feminism, as well as the influences that shaped her. Other topics covered include her pioneering approach to Bible and commentaries that changed the face of Jewish Bible study, her acceptance as a prominent Torah scholar despite her gender, and the future of her work in light of recent scholarship.

Nehama Leibowitz's story is not only that of an accomplished woman or even of a great Jewish personality, but also touches upon some of the major developments and concerns of twentieth-century Jewish life."

Maintaining Jewishness must be part of any action on behalf of Israel

There was a demonstration, today, in Toronto against Israel's actions in Gaza. I not only heard about it on the news tonight but I actually received an email, on Thursday, about such a demonstration being planned. This email, in response to this proposed demonstration, called upon Jews to counter-demonstrate -- yes, in downtown Toronto, at 2pm Saturday. Yes, I was being asked to join the counter-demonstration on Shabbat!

Many questions went through my mind. Was this counter-demonstrating actually assur, prohibited, specifically, on Shabbat? If it was a direct violation of Shabbat, was there any argument for a heter based on the circumstances? Even if it was not a direct violation, this demonstration was far away from the Jewish neighbourhoods in Toronto -- should one trek so far to counter-demonstrate? Was it in the spirit of Shabbat? What really hit me, though, were not the technical questions concerning Shabbat but what was being presented about the nature of this conflict. Is this fight just another nationalistic battle between two entities, each wanting nationalistic dominion, or does this fight have a dimension beyond that, of moral, ethical and Divine proportions? This call for a strong presence at this counter-demonstration seemed to come from someone with strong nationalistic feelings for Israel and for Jews -- but there wa something missing in not recognizing the significance of Shabbat within this scenario. Caring for Israel and for Jews is, of course, very important -- but it is not enough. There is a reason for the significance of the Jewish People and, by extension, a Jewish land -- and that is marked by Shabbat. Would a counter-demonstration be so significant that it would be worth the price of not properly marking Shabbat?

Of course, we are not to rely upon a miracle and are to act pursuant to derech hateva, the ways of reality. Of course, in regard to a military issue, one must act as necessary -- and if this counter-demonstration actually would make a difference in regard to Jewish lives, it would be mandatory to attend, not just possibly permissible to attend on Shabbat. The question for me, though, actually concerned what should be the focus of our Jewish fervour. I doubt that attendance at this counter-demonstration would actually make a signficant difference in what will be -- but the ones who wanted to have a successful counter-demonstration still felt it important. It, most likely, was important to them for the image of the Jewish people was under attack -- and they did not want that verbal attacks against Israel to go unanswered. This is, to a large extent, admirable. Yet on Shabbat itself something else it at stake -- what Jewishness is really all about. We cannot let the nationalistic fervour that makes us act on behalf of Israel like all strong nationalists act on behalf of their nation allow us to lose sight of the specialness of Israel and Jewishness. Just keeping Shabbat was, thus, in my opinion, more important.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

6. Cleaving to God

Isn’t it funny: the smaller the world gets, the less we see each other. First the postal service, then the telephone, then email, instant messaging, (blogs), Facebook, Skype—bottom line, you have to be very creative nowadays if you want to come up with a believable excuse for not being in touch with your parents. But going home for a visit? Who needs to? You’re speaking to your family every day, you’re exchanging one- or two-sentence emails or text-messages on an hourly basis, you even see them over video-chat at least twice a week. Why ever go home?

Of course, technology has still been unable to make face-to-face human interaction obsolete. There’s still something to breathing the same air, stepping on the same grass, seeing the same people walking by, the same clouds, the same birds and buildings. And, as far as I know, you still can’t touch over the internet and you can’t send a blank email to express the kinds of silent things you can express in person. But the reasons for actual contact, as opposed to digital contact, are dwindling. So what’s the problem with that?

Let’s take the case of the string holding up the pole. The pole was precariously placed above the greenhouse. Two boys came along on their way to go fishing. Suddenly, the boys realized that they had forgotten to bring string. Just their luck: here was some string. But the string, as they knew, held up the pole. The boys looked around and found a nice, solid block of wood. They placed the wood securely against the pole. Satisfied with their work, they snipped the string. And the greenhouse collapsed. The string wasn’t holding up the pole at all. It was holding up the greenhouse.

A boss arranges a meeting with his new employees to discuss plans for the future. His young, savvy assistant thinks he’ll save the boss some time. Without telling his superior, he takes the initiative and sends out a quick text message: “Meeting cancelled. Please email ideas instead.” The boss is furious. “What do I need their ideas for?” The meeting wasn’t about ideas. It was about meeting.

I remember being lonely one day and visiting a friend of mine. He lived about forty minutes away from me. When I arrived, he asked why I was there. I said I was there to pick up a small book that I had lent him. He said, “You came all this way for that?” “Well,” I said, “that’s the pretense.” A good friend, he smiled and we sat together and talked. Later, as I was leaving, he called after me, holding out the book I had lent him: “Don’t forget your pretense.”

Sometimes, of course, the string does hold up the pole. Sometimes the meeting is about ideas. And sometimes the string holds up nothing and the meeting is about many things. The rule is: don’t forget your pretense. Or the Modern Day solution to loneliness could become Fed-Exing borrowed items back to their rightful owners, saving everyone the hassle of making the trip in person.

Why do we have personal Rabbis? Do we still need them? You’re not sure if the chicken is kosher? There are at least a hundred books you could buy, websites you could visit, videos you could download that will tell you if your chicken is kosher. And if you’re still unsure, just email one of the many “Ask the Rabbi” links that you’re sure to find along the way. To be safe, email all of them: it doesn’t cost you anything extra. That way, you can make an informed decision on your own. Isn’t that the goal, anyway—to be self-sufficient?

Even in ethical and philosophical matters, there are libraries of sources available to the dedicated student. Of course a Rabbi would be useful to help distinguish between the worthwhile and the worthless, but that’s icing, isn’t it? Is a Rabbi just a glorified index and bibliography? Does the Rabbi of the modern world amount to the guy telling you what to read next?

Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvoth, Positive Commandment 6: “By this injunction we are commanded to mix and associate with wise men, to be always in their company, and to join with them in every possible manner of fellowship: in eating, drinking, and business affairs, to the end that we may succeed in becoming like them in respect of their actions and in acquiring true opinions from their words.”

Yes, you can look it up online. Your Rabbi knows this, too. But sometimes the chicken is the pretense. As long as you’re aware of this, you won’t get lost in ‘Ask the Rabbi’ emails or Illustrated Guides for the Perplexed. However, if you start to think that the point of your Rabbi is exclusively to distribute facts that you could, with a little effort, acquire on your own, you insult all parties.

Don’t email your Rabbi—take him out for coffee, go for a drive with him, watch a movie with him: “that we may succeed in becoming like them in respect of their actions and in acquiring true opinions from their words.” But, it may be countered, “I want to watch Simpsons and my Rabbi doesn’t like Simpsons.” As the old joke goes: “Ah-cha.”

When is Humanitarianism NOT humanitarianism?

Harry Truman is quoted as saying that -- while everyone described and describes his decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshimo as his most difficult decision and the very personification of the his famous desk sign "the buck stops here" -- the decision to drop the bomb was his easiest decision. It was so obvious what had to be done and what action would actually be the most humanitarian. The choice was the prolong the war, causing numerous casualities and hardships for more years or end the war in one strike which, while specifically brutal in the moment causing untold immediate grief to many, actually, in its context, was the more humane choice. To Truman, the humane choice was obvious so he dropped the bomb. What he understood was what humanitarianism is really about. It is not a response to the emotions of the moment and to the one who can cry the best or present himself/herself as the most oppressed or the most in need. It is especially not responding to the moment but the greater whole.

Of course, that really isn't good for the pictures. The immediate situation, especially if it can be presented in all its drama and, yes, emotions, that is what sells. And that is what gets people to keep tuned to your station or network or buying your papers or newsmagazines, especially with photos. Do you ever wonder how long the Second World War would have been prolonged if there were modern-day humanitarians with media coverage back then? Germany would be sending them into the places, filled with civilians, devastated by Allied bombs. But wouldn't these humanitarians also describe the evil done by the Nazis? Do you think the Nazis would show them those places? They knew how to take the Red Cross to Thereisenstadt but nowhere else. And do you think the media would rock the boat and potentially be thrown out. Afterall there is no freedom of the press so the press knows how to play to get the pictures. Luckily though, the Allieds did not have to contend with humanitarian groups with myopic vision and a media knowing what sells.

It is sad that Israel today does not have this fortune.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Can anyone explain why this is not offensive?

The Toronto Globe and Mail recently had an article regarding a public television broadcaster in Belgium, VRT, that has been accused of gross insensitivity towards Jews. You are invited to read the story at
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081226.BUZZ26-3/TPStory/TPEntertainment/Television/

Whenever I read a story of this nature, I always try to find some argument as to why the person being accused of this insensitivity thought it was not so. This is not an argument that there is no real anti-Semitism anymore. I am clearly aware of the reality of anti-Semitic bias in the media. Yet, I also believe that there is also an attempt by the media to try and hide the existence of this bias and thus I believe that when a biased story does emerge -- and they clearly do emerge -- there must have been some argument made by someone in the media world that tried to maintain that the report or story was not biased, not anti-Semitic. I think it is important to identify this perception as it makes us better prepared to argue our point.

I am thus most perturbed by the story presented in this article. I just can't see how anyone could perceive that words of the comedian mentioned in this article not to be insensitive. They are just simply remarkably crude.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Eye for an Eye

I was reading about this case, I believe in Saudi Arabia, concerning a man who poured acid on a woman's face causing her severe disfigurement and blindness in one eye. This woman has refused to accept "blood money," a fiscal compensation for her injury but demands that this undergo what she went through, including becoming blind. The old adage of "an eye for an eye" which, I guess, Islam applies literally. While giving a right to a victim to take financial compensation for an injury, it would seem that Islam grants the victim a final say and if the victim wants a similar to injury to occur to a perpetrator that occurred to a victim, so be it. What interested me, though, is why would a victim choose such a punishment rather than financial compensation which can benefit, in this case, her?

Of course, within Torah law, a victim does not have such a choice. Financial compensation is the sole punishment available in the vast, vast majority of cases. (The case of an injury below the value of a sheva pruta, the smallest monetary value, need not be considered.) Yet within the Torah text, the punishment is presented as "an eye for an eye." While this is understood as referring to financial compensation, this case in Saudi Arabia demonstrates a distinction and the desire of the female victim to see the perpetrator suffer is most revealing in highlighting this distinction. It would seem to me that at issue is: how to respond in a case of battery? This woman's desire is for the man that caused her such harm to feel the pain of a similar harm. This is more important to her than receiving compensation, than receiving assistance in dealing with the harm that has befallen her. She, simply, wishes to punish is the most direct way -- to have this man suffer similarly to how he made another suffer. Financial compensation does not do that. What it does is help the one who has suffered mitigate the effects of the suffering. One would think that this would be a higher priority to the one harmed -- after all it helps this person out. This Saudi Arabian woman is actually refusing that which would really help her.

This gives great insight into the Torah. By using the language of "an eye for an eye" the Torah is, perhaps, informing us that, in theory, a person who causes such great harm should be punished with experiencing a similar harm. That is the most honest repercussion for an evil deed. The fact that this woman wants this type of punishment to occur to the one that harmed her can be understood on this level. This is a certain level of justice. The problem is: what's the effect? One harmed must still live -- and now with an adversity of overcoming the harm. In the context of life -- of a value to life -- this must be the overriding concern. Thus the call must be for compensation, for assisting the one harmed rather than simply punishing the perpetrator in a vacuum. This is a great Torah insight. Indeed true justice, in a vacuum, would demand that someone who harms feels the pain of this harm. Yet, in a context of the challenges of life, a purpose in life, lessening the negative effect of the harm must have priority. We remember the idea of "an eye for an eye" but compensation must have priority because we must deal with the future, with assisting the one harmed to live. When one considers this perspective, one can begin to understand that one can only have this type of perspective if one truly finds that growing and developing in life is of paramount importance -- and this is not only Torah but, it would seem. a uniqueness of Torah.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Chanukah: What Exactly is its Message?

The story of Chanukah is not solely about a military battle centuries ago between an imposing ruling class and a conquered Jewish nation. It is a celebration of the victory in an ancient battle against assimilation from which we are to draw strength in the Jewish people's continous battle against assimilation. Yet while this charge seems to be straightforward, the lesson of Chanukah actually is understood in many opposite ways

There are those who contend that Chanukah stands for the total rejection of Hellenism and any non-Torah, foreign ideas. There are others who contend an opposite lesson that Chanukah does not stand for the total rejection of Hellenism but for Hellenism to be incorporated, to the extent possible, under the banner of Torah. The enemy, within this viewpoint, wanted to make Torah secondary to Hellenism. The Maccabees thus fought for the opposite, for Torah to be paramount, but not for Hellenism, or the outside secular world, to have no voice. Each side brings arguments for their viewpoint, not just from the array of Torah statements and discussions on this issue, but from the Chanukah story itself.

The strange thing, though, is that the very holiday of Chanukah practiced today may have its own voice in this disagreement albeit in a somewhat different manner. Are we to reject the forces of assimilation fully or are we to assimilate ideas from outside of Torah that can enhance Torah? More basic, do we reject assimilation by totally rejecting it or do we fight assimilation by giving it some voice and then bringing it under the kanfei haShechina? Our natural inclination is most likely the former and we would expect Chanukah to stand for the total rejection of any incling of assimilation. The strange thing is what has happened to the very holiday of Chanukah -- it has become the most assimilated of Jewish holidays. How the world sees Chanukah, how many Jews see Chanukah, is vastly different to the halachic definition of the holiday. Chanukah has taken on all the trappings of the general season. Is this not ironic? The holiday that stands for the fight against assimilation has become the most assimilated Jewish holiday. Yet what would have happened if there was no Chanukah? How many Jews would have celebrated this season anyways without giving it any Jewish dimension? I could not believe it when I heard of people actually having Chanukah bushes -- but how many of these people would have had trees anyways in their homes because they wanted to get into the spirit of the season? The Chanukah bush actually, albeit on the lowest level, kept them at least making some connection to their Jewishness.

There is the question of the ideal. Torah only or Torah with general knowledge? That is a Torah machloket that has lasted the centuries. The story of Chanukah has been used to support both sides. But in the basic battle against assimilation -- you do what is necessary. Sometimes you have a strong stand and sometimes you just try to keep some Jewish consciousness. The celebration of Chanukah in our age represents this lesson to me.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

5. Worshipping God

May 20, 2001. Game 7 of the NBA Eastern Conference Semifinals between the Philadelphia 76ers and the Toronto Raptors. With two seconds left, game on the line, Raptors guard Vince Carter took a shot. It was, considering the circumstances, a pretty good shot. For that fraction of a second while the ball was at its apex, all of Toronto held its breath. Happened to miss. Happened to be just a little too strong. Bounced off the side of the rim.

Prayers go unanswered.

Then the cheers came. Fans rushed the court. Confetti fell from the ceiling. There was a brief flash of a moment when I thought, “Wait—did it go in?” I had forgotten the game was in Philly. My prayers weren’t answered. Theirs were.

You really get a sense of what it means to worship when you watch your home team playing an away game. Every shot your team hits, silence. Every shot your team misses, cheers. Every mistake your team makes is an act of God done for the sake of the home team. Your team never loses on the road; the home team wins.

Even more so, go to a sporting event that you care nothing about. Watch the crowds of people stake everything on something they have absolutely no control over. Watch people jump out of their seats, yell at the referees, throw their peanuts. Watch them laugh and clap and whistle. Watch them cry. Watch them pray.

Two people stand side-by-side in shul on Friday night. One is a travelling salesman. The other is a farmer. The salesman has not been able to feed his family. He is setting out on his longest journey of the year, starting Sunday. He prays to God that the weather will be good. The farmer has not been able to feed his family, either. There has been a terrible drought and his fields have not produced any fruit. He prays to God for rain.

We assume, perhaps, that there’s something capitalistic about this. You pray your prayers, I’ll pray my prayers and we’ll let the Invisible Hand of God settle it. But there’s a problem:

When the Kohen Gadol emerged from the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, he would recite a short prayer. Included in the prayer was the following supplication: “May the prayers of travelers not enter before You.” Travelers would ask God to withhold the rain. This would be bad for almost everybody else because rain was necessary if there was to be food. The Kohen Gadol, therefore, prayed that the travelers’ prayers not be answered. (See TB Yoma 53b.)

Why not just leave it up to God? Farmers pray for rain, salesmen pray for sunshine: we all pray as we see fit and God does the tally. Why does the Kohen Gadol pray that certain prayers go unanswered?

Maybe because it’s true. If I pray that Carter hits that shot, I’m praying that the Philadelphia 76ers lose, that a stadium’s worth of people are disappointed, that all over Pennsylvania, basketball fans sit still, in shock, watching replay after replay, saying, “If only…if only…”

If I pray for sun, I’m praying that it doesn’t rain; if I pray for rain, I’m praying that it isn’t sunny. There is no form of worship that can escape this. All of your prayers, if answered, will have consequences; those consequences may mean unanswered prayers for others. In the very moment of prayer, the Kohen Gadol notes, to the best of his knowledge, who will suffer if this prayer is answered.

The gemara (TB Taanit 24b) tells of one time when the Kohen Gadol’s Yom Kippur prayer was not answered and God heard the prayer of a traveler. The traveler was Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa. When it started to rain, he prayed to God, “Master of the Universe, the whole world is at ease but Chanina is in distress.” The rain stopped. When he arrived home, he prayed to God, “Master of the Universe, the whole world is in distress but Chanina is at ease.” And the rain started again.

Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was aware that his prayers would mean suffering for the majority of the population. He did not deceive himself into thinking that he was alone in the world. Still, he prayed for a temporary pause in the rain as he made his way home. This is honest prayer, sincere worship, matching the kind expressed by the Kohen Gadol. Perhaps it is, at least partially, because the prayer matched the Kohen Gadol’s in form, because Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was cognizant of his prayer’s negative effect on others, that it was able to override the Kohen Gadol’s prayer. Was it wrong for Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa to pray for something that would result in loss for many people? Obviously not—his prayers were answered and he is considered a great man. But would it have been wrong of him not to recognize their loss?

Implicit in almost any prayer is the prayer for someone else’s prayer to go unanswered. There’s no escaping this, yet visualizing it as you pray can be troubling, not to mention overwhelming at times. If not for the obligation to worship God, I would leave it up to my subconscious to communicate to God my desires and my needs. That way I would not have to think about who will go hungry as I eat, who will be poor if I am rich, who will mourn when I rejoice. And I would not have to think about all those fans in Philadelphia, cheering as the ball bounced to the floor.

Poll Results - How Do You Choose Your Halachic Behaviour?

These are the results of the last Nishma poll which ran the month before Rosh Hashanah 5769
***********
This was the poll question:

How Do You Choose Your Halachic Behaviour?
It is often the case, within the Halacha, that variant opinions are presented and we are called upon to choose the opinion which we will follow. The question is: how do we make that decision?The case of mayim achronim, the washing of hands before Birkat Hamazon, the Grace after meals, is an example of just such a case that may illustrate the various ways that we approach this question. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 181:1 clearly states that mayim achronim is a chovah, an obligation (for both men and women). In sief 10, though, he writes about others that do not have the custom of washing their hands at this time, which is an opinon of Tosafot, Berachot 53b. The Mishnah Brura, 181:22, though, brings four eminent poskim - The Vilna Gaon, the Magen Avraham, the Maharshal and the Birkei Yosef -- who still maintain that people should wash their hands at this time.So what do you do...and, more importantly for this survey, why?
The poll choices and responses: I wash or do not wash mayim achronim because...
(Vote total 26)

a) it is what I feel is the dominant halachic opinion within the poskim; [belief in Halachic consensus]
Response 4/26 - 15%

b) my personal Torah study and research leads me to believe that my position is the correct one; [following one's conscience regardless of external pressure]
Response 5/26 - 19%

c) I wish to follow the normative behaviour of the community in which I live [peer pressure] Response 0/26 0%

d) I like doing something a bit different than what others are doing [non-conformist, original] Response 1/26 - 4%

e) it is what I simply want to do
Response 0/26 - 0%

f) it is the way I was brought up
Response 8/26 - 30%

g) it is what I was taught when I became religious
Response 2/26 - 9%

h) uninformed habit
Response 6/26 - 23%

Results

While most respondents indicated that they basically act in a manner the mirrors what they have seen (option "f" and option "h") it is quite significant that there was still a sizeable majority which indicated that they have made an informed decision on the matter (option "a" and option "b"). These latter two options actually reflect the two major poles in halachic methodology today, whether our approach to psak should be as collators, presenting the reasoned basically majority opinion of the past, or as decisions makers, presenting our conclusions on a matter.

Cheftza shel Torah

While I was preparing my Insight last week,* I noticed a difference of opinions amongst the commentators and within the midrashim on numerous issues including the nature of Esav. To some Esav was one of the greatest rishayim, evil doers, of history. To others, Esav, while objectively not comparable in righteousness to Yaakov and his sons, was, in the context of that generation, not so bad. While this in itself did not really hit me as a new perspective -- I, of course, have seen over the years many disagreements in the Torah literature on numerous matters -- what hit me was the fact that in some of my Insights, I develop a concept based upon one perspective of Esav while in others I develop a concept based on another. This week's Insight was built upon the latter perception of Esav, that he was not so bad, but many other Insights were based upon the former perspective that he was a terrible rasha. What does that say about my Insights over the years in that I fluctuate regarding these different viewpoints? The fact is that I am sure, over the years, I have developed some ideas based upon one perspective -- one side in an argument -- while in others I based my ideas based upon another perspective -- including the other side of an argument. Should I not be consistent in my presentation of Torah?

The fact is that, in regard to the actual personality of Esav, I would answer a question by responding that there is a machloket, a disagreement. The fact is that actual knowledge of Esav's personality is not really my concern and I can live with accepting the reality that I really don't know. In stating that the study of Torah is not a history lesson, we also state that the basic issues of history, including the actual personality of historical figures, is also not really our interest. Our interest, rather, are the ethical lessons that we can learn from these presentations. In that regard, both sides of the machloket are not only equally valid but have equal value in presenting a Torah idea. The bottom line is that ideas developed using one or the other viewpoint still represent, even if contradictory in some basic assumption or perspective, an idea that is acceptable with the corpus of Torah thought. Both are a cheftza shel Torah. Both represent an idea that in the broad gestalt of Torah thought would have to be deemed acceptable. While the actual solution to the question upon which the commentators may disagree would inform us of which position is correct within the confines of this specific case, the fact that a specific idea can even be contemplated and considered and accepted by some within the world of Torah, must inform us that this idea -- even if we disagree with its application is a specific context -- has validity as a Torah thought.

I believe that this idea is actually most important in understanding the concept of eilu v'eilu. While one idea may be accepted as the actual psak l'dorot, the fact that the other idea existed and was considered a possibility must mean that the one who contemplated this idea -- even if he later rejects it on some technical ground -- must mean that the other idea was, at least, perceived as a possibility within the general corpus of Torah. Furthermore, if someone I recognize as a great talmid chacham presents an idea, even if I disagree with its correctness on technical grounds and side against it in psak, the idea must be accepted as theoretically a possibility within the corpus of Torah. It is a cheftza shel Torah. It such has value within our analysis of the ideas within Torah.

Returning to the case of Esav, since I am not really interested in what Esav was really like, the ideas that ensued from both perspectives of Esav do have value in our understanding of Torah. Thus, in discussing the broad realm of Torah ethics, it is not really contradictory to develop a general Torah ethical perspective quoting perspectives from both sides of the technical argument of what Esav was really like. If both ideas exist within the realm of Torah, they are both a cheftza shel Torah. They both have a place in trying to understand the corpus of Torah.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

*For those who may not be familiar with them, the Insight is a short dvar Torah that Nishma puts out almost every week. To see examples of past Insights, see the Nishma website at http://www.nishma.org/. To receive more recent Insights and future ones, please sign up on the Nishma mailing requesting Insight by email (they are also available in snail mail in groups of five).

4. Fear of God

Standing in line waiting for a guard to check your bag so you can enter a sporting event, you’re almost guaranteed to hear someone say, “See this line? This line is the terrorists winning.” And if ever you’ve been stopped at the Canadian/American border, you’ve probably heard someone say, “I’m going to miss my meeting/party/concert/doctor’s appointment because of the terrorists—see how they get us?” Or at the airport, when the security officer informs someone that he can’t bring liquids onto the airplane, grumbling as he throws his water bottle into the garbage: “Another victory for the terrorists.” But could this really be the goal of terrorists, to reduce the consumption of Evian en route to Shanghai?

We get shots to prevent disease. These shots are often inconvenient and a little painful. But we do it because the disease is thought to be more inconvenient and more painful. We put on our seatbelts even though it is more comfortable to drive unrestrained. We exercise and control our eating habits even though it is challenging. We keep the music low, restrict our spending, and resist the temptation to stare at the sun. We do all this because we accept that there is cause and effect in this world and we’re weighing a minor nuisance now against a major calamity later. Wearing sunglasses is not a ‘victory for the sun.’ It is a personal choice in response to reality.

Why don’t we view terrorism as a natural disaster? Like a hurricane or a tornado, an act of terrorism occurs (according to our standards) without any discretion or moral compass. We don’t talk of wins and losses in regards to natural disasters—why do we talk of wins and losses in regards to terrorists? Isn’t that, in some way, legitimizing their efforts? Doesn’t that suggest that there is some comprehensible logic involved in their actions? But if we view terrorism as a completely irrational act of nature—predictable in the same sense that meteorologists can predict the weather but never understandable—won’t we already begin the process of dismantling their legitimacy?

Fear can be broken down into two categories: fear of that which we can affect and fear of that which we cannot affect. In the first category are such things as fear of driving carelessly, being unprepared for a test, or saying something foolish. The second category includes fear of being fooled, ridiculed or injured.

There is usually overlap between the two categories. For example, the fear of being robbed includes the fear of being careless (first category) and the fear of being overpowered (second category). Natural disasters cannot be prevented (second category) but their disastrous effects can hopefully be reduced with proper planning and care (first category). Since terrorists operate within a system that we cannot relate to, their actions fall under the second category of fear. As much as terrorists would like us to believe that we are responsible for the horrific acts that they perform, in reality we must see that there is as much human consciousness or conscience in their actions as in a tsunami. On the other hand, there are things that we can do to try to minimize the occurrence and effectiveness of terrorism—this falls within the first category of fear. In both these ways, terrorism is much like a natural disaster.

There may be precedent for this viewpoint in the gemara Taanit. The mishna on 19a states:

For these [the following] we cry out [and fast] in every place [not just in the place where the event occurred]: for windblasts; for [a severe drought]; for [certain severe types of] locusts; for dangerous animals; and for the sword; we cry out for these because they are travelling disasters.

This mishna includes “the sword” with natural disasters.

Of course, as we see from this mishna, those with faith in God often do not subscribe to the concept of ‘randomness.’ The gemara Taanit deals largely with what causes the behaviour of the rainfall, how our actions are responsible for wet or dry seasons, and what we can do to gain forgiveness from God so that there is rain in the proper time. Therefore, that which is often seen as beyond our control is placed within our control.

The old proverb goes: “If you can do something, why fear? If you can't do something, why fear?” And it’s true: if you can help reduce terrorism by disposing of your water bottle, so do it. Drive safely, wait in line, get your shots—don’t fear. You did what you could. And if you can’t do anything about it, what do you gain by worrying?

This works well as long as everything breaks down neatly into one of the two categories of fear listed above. But God doesn’t really fit into either category. He is certainly beyond our control, which would have Him in the second category. But we know that He responds to us, to our actions and to our prayers. He doesn't belong in the first category, though, because God is inherently incomprehensible and we will never really understand exactly how our actions affect His Will.

Fear of God is completely unique. We fear terrorists because they will not listen to reason—they are outside of our domain. God, on the other hand, works according to a perfect system. We, however, are unable to grasp that system. As we try to act according to God’s Will, we must take every step with fear. We will never know if the choices we make are right. It is specifically because we believe in a rational, responsive and merciful God that we believe fear is necessary. The obligation to fear God is the obligation to recognize that you do not know what God demands of you but, still, your actions will have consequences. That, to me, is incredibly frightening. If I was not obligated otherwise, I'd probably fling God back and forth between the two categories of fear so that I could always conclude, "Why fear?" The commandment to fear God forces me to view Him as eternally, paradoxically within my control and beyond my reach.

What, exactly, is a Jew?

Here's another article dealing with conversion in Israel http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/120408/njJewishLeadersPressing.html. It seems that the federations in North America do not like the present method as, in their eyes, it excludes people who, effectively, should be seen as Jews. What gets me is that we have been discussing the question of "Who is a Jew?" for years, we never truly investigate or even ask the question of "What is a Jew?". Simply, to the federations, the term Jew really has not religious significance. It is an ethnic, social, nationalistic term -- and, simply, identifying with the group is what, essentially, identifies you with the group. In applying the terms of the Rav, it is shared fate. Under the canopy of Halacha, though, the Jew has a different dimension and, while incorporating the concept of shared fate (and the concept of nationalism), has a further aspect to it that differentiates the term for all other nationaistic terms. It has a religious dimension. In the view of the Rav, this could be described as shared destiny which, at its root, means a shared consciousness, purpose and understood significance. Within this understanding of what the term Jew means, becoming Jewish is more than identifying with the group but necessitates joining in the goals of the group -- more correctly, what the goals of the group should be. According to Halacha, this demands that one must accept Halacha, practice Halacha, and be commited to Torah goals. This is what conversion is about.

The problem is Israel is, thus, that we are dealing with two different understandings of what the term 'Jew" means. Maybe the problem is that Torah conversion should not be the criteria for Israel's use of this term. There will be, though, other problems with not having gerut k'Halacha as this criteria. Maybe the answer is, as many have done over the years, to apply more lenient understandings of the halachot of gerut because of the nature of this problem. Maybe the need is for a discussion on this level. This demands a discussion not of what really is the law of gerut --which seems to be the case now -- but a discussion of the underlying issue and thus the question of what should be the practical halachic conclusion -- for as we all know, there almost always are differing opinions. This is not the case today for people are still using that problematic term that 'this is the halacha' without presenting that there are differing opinions and there is an issue of what opinion to apply and whether this is a situation to apply minority opinions. This can only come about, though, if we recognize that the issue is the colloquial understanding of Jewishness itself. We have to stop hiding behind a belief that everyone understands the nature of the halachic view of gerut. The reason the world doesn't get it is simply because they don't understand what being Jewish has to do with God anyways. That's the greatest irony -- for what really is Jewishness without God?

(As a final note, I believe, this was so ironic to Rav Kuk that he had to believe that all the chilonim who built up the land would eventually return to Torah.)

Rabbi Ben Hecht

A Lesson from the Automotive Three

Much has been made about the use of corporate jets by the CEOs of the Big 3 car makers when they travelled to Washington to ask for money from the U.S. government. It seems that they learnt their lesson and the rumour is that the next time they have to travel to Washington to get this money, they are going by car. Whether that is what the lesson should have been or not, the point is that how something looks matters regardless of what the truth is. That is not to say that it is more important than the truth but it also must be a consideration. An article on this subject, by Rabbi Hecht, was recently published in the Jewish Tribune (Toronto).
To view the article on line, go to http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/content/view/1140/53/

Lessons from Mumbai

There seems to be an attempt by some in the political world and in the media to distinguish between acts of terrorism in Israel and similar acts elsewhere in the world. Through maintaining such distinction, such individuals can argue for one method of responding to terrorism in the rest of the world while arguing for another method to be applied in Israel where, pursuant to the perception of these individuals, the terrorism is even seen to be understandable. I wonder what these people will do with the events in Mumbai. Here is a global act of terrorism that not only included Jews in their tragic numbers but specifically included in the terrorist planning a Jewish site with specific Israeli connections. What happened in Mumbai states that there is no distinction between terrorism in the rest of the globe and the terrorism that occurs in Israel. They both have the same motivation and intent. Its time for the world to start recognizing this and stop demanding of Israel what they would not do in their own battles against terrorism including talking with a "government" that supports terrorism.

Yet there is not only a lesson for the world from the tragedy of Mumbai but one for us as well. Of course, our hearts went out to our fellow yidden murdered in this horrible way and to their families. HaMakom yekom damam. It is only natural that our pain is much greater when Jews are included in the innocent victims of such hatred. Yet, if this event shows that the world should recognize that what is happening in Israel is a mirror on the world, what is happening in the world is also a mirror on what happens in Israel. We are told that everything in the universe is for the sake of klal Yisrael. This is not meant to tell us to see everything through particularly Jewish eyes and only consider what is happening in the world in terms of how it can impact narrowly on Jews. It is meant to tell us that what happens in the world, by definition, affects what happens to us because we are an integral part of the world. Terrorism anywhere in the globe is a concern of klal Yisrael because we are invariably part of the world. The state of the world is a Jewish matter.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

3. Love of God

How do you know if you’re in love?
Old wisdom has it like this:

Is the person attractive?
Yes.
If the person were not attractive…?
Still.
Okay. Good. Is the person wealthy?
Yes.
If the person were not wealthy…?
Still.
Okay. Good. Is the person smart?
Yes.
If the person were not smart…?
Well…still…
Okay. Good. Is the person kind?
Yes.
If the person were not kind…?
I…
Still…?
Well…I guess…
Okay. Good. Is the person likable?
Yes.
If the person were not likable…?
I mean…
If the person were not likable, would you still like the person?
I don’t know how to answer that.
If the person were not the person…?
What?
If the person were not the person, would you still love the person?

When you can answer “Yes.” to this last question, you have found true love.

Right?

If God were not God, would you still love God?

W.B. Yeats, “For Anne Gregory”:

“Never shall a young man,
Thrown into despair
By those great honey-coloured
Ramparts at your ear,
Love you for yourself alone
And not your yellow hair.”

“But I can get a hair-dye
And set such colour there,
Brown, or black, or carrot,
That young men in despair
May love me for myself alone
And not my yellow hair.”

“I heard an old religious man
But yesternight declare
That he had found a text to prove
That only God, my dear,
Could love you for yourself alone
And not your yellow hair.”

Does it then follow that only God (my dear) could love Himself properly? That Man is incapable of a love un-blinded by “yellow hair”?

Rambam’s definition of love (at least as it concerns God): “…to dwell upon and contemplate His Commandments, His injunctions, and His works, so that we may obtain a conception of Him, and in conceiving Him attain absolute joy” (Sefer HaMitzvot).

It is certainly one aspect of what we generally consider love: to focus the attention of our consciousness, to meander through dreams and memories, and, in so doing, to “attain absolute joy.”

But what about this love (E.A. Robinson, “Reuben Bright”):

Because he was a butcher and thereby
Did earn an honest living (and did right),
I would not have you think that Reuben Bright
Was any more a brute than you or I;
For when they told him that his wife must die,
He stared at them, and shook with grief and fright,
And cried like a great baby half that night,
And made the women cry to see him cry.

And after she was dead, and he had paid
The singers and the sexton and the rest,
He packed a lot of things that she had made
Most mournfully away in an old chest
Of hers, and put some chopped-up cedar boughs
In with them, and tore down the slaughter-house.

Does love of God exclude such love? The kind of love that tears down slaughter-houses?

A moment, when meticulous construction collides with luck, and God is loved by you—such a moment can haunt a person when it’s gone, can’t it? A lost love—how can such a love be reclaimed? How does a person retain elevation even upon descending?

How often can we expect to achieve proper contemplation of God? How often, then, can we expect to love God? Unless love of God includes more than the joy of contemplation: includes also the torture of fading memories, waning resolve and a desperate heart; the love that fears, that doubts, that enrages and is enraged; the love that falters and retreats; the love that lives in idealized realms, unknown dimensions and unconquerable universes; a love that is indistinguishable from raindrop to split sea, from Sinai to tiny, tiny mountain.

We know that proper love is not beyond our grasp since we are commanded to love God. But it must be remembered that it is a command; it is not inevitable. Belief in God is a separate edict—logically, then, belief does not automatically result in love. Similarly, love does not depend on (or even necessarily lead to) belief. It is its own responsibility: we are obligated to love God. Rambam views this love as emanating from contemplation. Contemplation of what? “Great honey-coloured ramparts at your ear?” No. “His Commandments, His injunctions, and His works.” Nothing to do with God as Entity but with God as Creator—this is how we “obtain a conception of Him.” To love a person’s beauty is in fact to love God, the creator of the person. But to conceive of a person’s developed essence, cultivated qualities and effect on the world and, in so doing, to obtain a conception of the person and find joy in this conception—this is to love the person.

But this joy that is felt at the apex of conception is at once the most potent and most fleeting aspect of love. The command to love God cannot be reduced to this sensation, although it may be the loftiest manifestation of love. “It must be man’s aim, after having acquired the knowledge of God, to deliver himself up to Him, and to have his heart constantly filled with longing after Him” (Rambam, The Guide, 3:51). This longing, intermingled with moments of “absolute joy,” is love. Joy, we know, is achieved through contemplation; how is longing achieved? “He accomplishes this generally by seclusion and retirement. Every pious man should therefore seek retirement and seclusion, and should only in case of necessity associate with others.”

This love is quiet, isolated and private. It is not a proclamation—it does not involve singing or dancing in the streets; it is a lonely romance that exists in prayers and thoughts and silent devotion—from W. Blake, “Love’s Secret”:

Never seek to tell thy love,
Love that never told can be;
For the gentle wind doth move
Silently, invisibly.

Contemplation of God will bring us joy, and all moments leading up to and away from this joy will bring us longing—this is love. It is carried close against the chest, hidden, proof that we are alone, that we are never alone.

I have found the dominant of my range and state —
Love, O my God, to call Thee Love and Love.
—G. M. Hopkins

Ma'arat Ayin

I am looking at the questioning of the CEOs of the Big Three as they are peppered with questions about how they flew to Washington on private jets to ask for money from the government. One of the congressmen actually raises the issue of how it looks. Realistically the cost of this means of flying versus the use of a cheaper means of flying has no real implication on the issue. Saving $20,000 or $100,000 is meaningless in terms of the magnitude of the bailout request. Yet, its a matter of impression. How can you ask when it looks like you really don't need?

What it looks like is really the issue of ma'arat ayin. The issue is not whether the actual action is right or wrong but rather how the other perceives it. This case of the flights from Detroit to Washington would seem to revolve around the same issue. The perception counts. Yet the CEO's didn't seem to understand that. Their response was that it was company policy, for security issues, for CEOs to fly in private jets. While we can question what that really means, let us assume that it was true. So there was a reason to fly this way. But what then about the ma'arat ayin? The issue that hits me, and a concept that I believe many people do not recognize in the matter of ma'arat ayin is that perception matters. As the old adage goes, it is not enough that justice is done but also is perceived to have been done. We do not live solely in our own minds. In live within a community of fellow human beings and we must be sensitive to their thoughts, their perceptions, their feelings. What hit me about the CEOs was not that they did what they did -- for they believed (or let us say may have believed) that there was a reason for flying in private jets. What hit me is that they didn't even seem to see that there was a problem in what people may think. They ultimately weren't sensitive to the other -- even by just recognizing that there might be in a issue because of the perception. That leads me to wonder about the whole problem.

But what were they suppose to do? There seemed to have been a reason for flying in private jets, i.e. for security. Did they, though, discuss the matter before coming to Washington? Maybe they should have considered of all flying on one of the private jets rather than bring all three jets to Washington? Maybe they should have thought of other security measures that would be cheaper and work just as well? Maybe there really was no solution -- but then when asked about this issue, they would have been able to respond that they understood it, considered it before they flew to Washington but for other reasons they had to fly this way. Maybe they would still have been attacked for their decision and the perception that they made that decision as a result of their sensitivity, but the fact that they considered it also would have shown at least the basis of a sensitivity -- that they were concerned with perception. That is really what ma'arat ayin is about as well. Halachically, a real need can often override ma'arat ayin. If you have to do the action, a bar of ma'arat ayin can often be waived. The point though is for one to consider it, to consider perception, to consider the other.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Quantity and/or Quality

The recent article in the Jerusalem Post on line concerning conversions in Europe (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404749594&pagename=JPost%) reflects a difficulty that is faced both in the realm of conversion as well as outreach to all Jews in general. The equation is simple. The lower we set the standards for inclusion in the "group," the larger the numbers we can attract to the group. The higher the standards, the lower the numbers. So what do we strive for, standards or numbers?

The question is actually not so simple. There is also, for example, the factor of time. Again, for example, the person we attract today with lower standards may become the standard bearer of distinguished Torah standards into the future. We can also question how we evaluate our standards. A person may be meticulous in one aspect of Torah while ignore another aspect. Do we call for all or nothing? Then we can ask: Is there anyone, outside of a few selected tzaddikim, that can meet a standard of all or nothing? The metaphor of the ladder is often presented as a manner by which we are to look at ourselves and others. It is not solely where you are on the ladder but whether you are going up or down? But the questions are still there. There must be, especially in the case of conversion, a minimum standard of where one is -- however we set that will affect numbers. Also we, the Jewish community as a whole and individuals -- both rabbanim and lay -- still must evaluate how we assist, direct, even push, one to greater heights; how do we know whether we are pushing too much or too little? And even this decision may affect numbers?

Another factor may be that numbers and standards are interrelated not only inversely but directly as well. The greater the numbers, the greater the ability to set and develop standars. As the rabbis in the smaller communities in Europe pointed out. with greater numbers they can build a strong Jewish communal structure which would improve the standards of the community. In the other way, there is also the possibility that with greater standards, Torah observance would stand out in a positive, distinctive manner which may also positively attract people to Torah observance thereby increasing numbers.

The bottom line question is, though: what do we want? We all want more Jews but what does that mean? In this whole modern concern regarding intermarriage and assimilation, this is the question. Do we just want people who identify as Jews regardless of what this term means or do we want people who meet a certain standard that makes the term Jewish mean something? Of course, then we have to figure out what this standard is, but the answer to assimilation and intermarriage cannot be just to increase the number of people who simply call themselves Jews regardless of what it may mean. The question is: what is the basic standard that we must demand?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

2. Unity of God

There is a tragedy to God’s unity, isn’t there? He’s peerless. Unity is complete solitude, complete self-sufficiency. Do we envy God His unity? Most people admit to the fact that they want to be needed, but do we also want to need?

In our pursuit towards greatness, do we view unity as a goal—‘in the image of God’—or as a failing—‘it is not good for Man to be alone’—?

There’s this balance that we’re taught as children: Play nice with the group; Don’t copy—that’s rude. So we’re flung into society and told to blend in when we stand out and to stand out when we start to blend in. In other words: Individual=good, Isolated=bad. In kindergarten: “He’s very popular among his fellow classmates but is not afraid to act alone on certain issues: gold star.”

Of course, this is how society functions. If we were each totally self-sufficient, there could be no growth—we’d have to hunt for our own food, build our own houses, sew our own clothes, treat our own wounds, etc.—there would be no time for advancement. If we sacrificed all individuality, however, there would be no specialization: no cooks, no carpenters, no seamstresses, no doctors. In either case, humanity would soon be extinct. Perfect unity—either unity of the individual or unity of the group—is incompatible with our survival as humans.

But our drive to be as much like God as possible compels us towards unity. Perfect levels of self-sufficiency, self-awareness, and self-confidence appeal to us like immeasurable treasures. But when we equate these things with utter and complete solitude, do we still hunger for them?

The funny thing is that our world develops and expands based on the individual’s desire for unity of self. In trying to be the best we can be—essentially, trying to escape reliance on anything other than the self—we push towards a greater existence. Society excels by virtue of the individual’s attempt to rid himself of the need for society.

At the same time, we speak of One Nation and we long for unity in society. In a dreamlike way, we wonder about a world in which everybody sees things as we do. In a generic sense, this dream unites us. But the specifics of the dream are distinct from individual to individual—my One Nation is, most likely, vastly different from your One Nation. What would you be willing to sacrifice for parity of values? Would you be willing to sacrifice your own values?

Perhaps our role here prohibits us from achieving either form of unity. We can’t be unified as individuals because we are part of the group; we can’t be unified as a group because we are individuals. But there may be a form of unity that is unique to humans which can only be expressed in the negative: I am unified with the self because, despite the pull towards society, I am not apart from myself; and I am unified with society because, despite the pull towards individuality, I am not apart from society. Unlike the kindergarten doctrine from above which describes a well-adjusted child-of-the-world, this vision depicts a troubled individual, clinging to two mutually exclusive unities, trapped somewhere in the middle—not not here and not not there. It is a unity achieved through struggle, sacrifice and meticulous philosophy. I think the model for this kind of unity can be found in prayer: ten men, joined, dependent, each standing silent, isolated, alone. So the question may be: do our shuls and synagogues evoke the indescribable sensation of mutually exclusive unities? And if not, why? What can we do to be more like God, less alone?

Who is charedi?

In an article on Ynet entitled "Who is charedi?" at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3619172,00.html, Tali Farkash, a charedi journalist who works for Ynet, responds to this question as posed by her colleagues at the paper specifically in connection to Tzvia Greenfield, the new MK for the Meretz party. In attempting to answer that question, she postulates different yardsticks by which to answer the question. At the root of her problem is actually the very definition of what it means to be charedi, specifically as distinct from any other form of Orthodoxy. Her main challenge against Ms. Greenfield actually seems to be a problem that many within Orthodoxy may have; the question perhaps should have been: how could anyone Orthodox support Meretz? Nevertheless that is not the question and this, perhaps, brings up a greater issue. So often when people attempt to define charedi positions, they develop arguments that simply apply to all Orthodoxy thus resulting in a lack of clarity of what really are the points of distinction between the different factions within Orthodoxy.

Of course, we could ask: do we need this clarity in the first place? The problem is that as long as we use definitions such as charedi, a lack of clarity only furthers the problems we encounter due to a lack of understanding of what we truly believe. Someone could even challenge Ms. Farkash for calling herself charedi while working for the chiloni Ynet. I have seen people argue for an individual to accept the view of a certain faction within Orthodoxy because of some argument that they make only in the name of their faction when, in reality, it is actually a basic principle maintained by all Orthodoxy. I have also seen the opposite whereby one expresses a view that is only maintained by one faction of Orthodoxy in a manner that implies that it is fundamental to all Orthodoxy. I actually think labels are important but specifically as shorthand to understand what a person's philosophical, halachic and hashkafic viewpoints may be. Otherwise they are worse than useless, beading dissent and sinat chinum. As such, the question of who is charedi has some merit but only if we know what it being distinctly expressed by this term.

Returning in conclusion to Ms. Farkish's article, the only measure that she mentions that may be specific to the charedi definition is the acceptance of a certain authority. In this regard, I could see an argument that could maintain that Ms. Greenfield is not really charedi. But you know what's interesting. On the site of article are a picture of Ms. Greenfield and Ms. Farkash. Which one do you think looks more charedi? Of course Ms. Greenfield is actually also Dr. Greenfield with a Ph.D. in philosophy so isn't labelling her charedi problematic in the first place? Ms. Farkash, though, doesn't really mention this. I think in the end what I am really trying to say is: who cares? The term charedi seems to be used by someone as they seem fit, with their own agenda. Thus it is really meaningless. Which may be the greatest problem for it is simply a term used by someone to further their own agenda -- either by getting people to support a position because it is charedi or getting someone to challenge a position because it is charedi. Why not simply think and evaluate matters on its merit rather than its label?

In the end who cares if Dr. Greenfield is charedi or not It only matters if the term charedi itself has meaning and then it only really matters if an answer to that question really affects our understanding and our need to know.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Lech Lecha: The Personality of Blessings

Originally published 11/6/08, 5:58 PM.
From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.
This week's parsha is Lech Lecha and the topic is blessings, specifically what blessings say about the person being blessed. What one considers a blessing tells us much about that person. For a further discussion on this idea, see http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5761-07.htm