Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

For the fifteenth time, Russia and China have used their veto in the UN Security Council in relation to resolutions concerning the conflict in Syria, not least to reduce Assads oppression of the Syrian people. Yet again, the international community has failed to extend a helping hand to the Syrians and once more stands by helplessly as the tragedy continues to unfold.

The latest veto created a strong wall to support the Assad regime and its crimes, again thwarting an international resolution demanding an end to the aggression against the Syrians and alleviating their suffering. In doing so, Beijing and Moscow hindered the political and humanitarian path in favour of the presence of Russian brutality behind Assad.

Disrupting humanitarian aid for Syria exposes the helplessness of the UN and its failure to protect international peace and human rights. The undisguised inability of the international organisation to do anything that the permanent members of the Security Council do not want to happen has been rooted for seven decades in the minds of the Arab public; veto is one English word that sticks in the collective memory. The US has used its veto dozens of times to protect the Zionist occupation state from being called to account for its violations against the Palestinians and their rights. Every time that the Security Council has to vote on a resolution demanding justice for the Palestinian people, the US veto swings into action. Moscow and Beijing are now imitating Americas arrogance to protect the Assad regime and defend its crimes.

Revealed: Moscow-based Syria business network helps develop Assads chemical weapons arsenal

Aside from protecting the Syrian regime from international accountability, the Russians and Chinese have resorted to using humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip. In return for the blockade on the regime being eased, they will allow aid to get through to the people of Syria who have suffered from the violence inflicted by Assad and his allies since 2011.

Some elites belonging to the Moscow-Beijing axis in the Arab world believe that using the veto does not affect the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause. However, the Russian and Chinese skill in playing the game is not to appear quite as arrogant as the Israeli occupation and its supporters, who are not physically present on the ground as those who protect Assad and his henchmen are. The fixation of these Arab elites on Moscows veto and its policy in Syria allows them to avoid taking a clear position on the crucial issue of the future of the Syrian people while also avoiding any confrontation with those responsible for the crimes to which they are subjected.

Numerous reviews by the UN have indicated that the Assad regime is responsible for committing war crimes and guilty of using chemical weapons, torture, collective punishment and starvation. There is ample physical and legal evidence to prove this, which is why Russia and China resort to vetoing any decision or resolution condemning the Assad regime. Such reviews are well known to the Palestinians and Arabs.

Without knowing this context, it is difficult perhaps impossible to know what Moscows vision is for the future of the Syrians without the Assad regime. Russias actions on the ground in Syria have been hostile, even while it expresses concern for Syrias territorial integrity and sovereignty. However, the reality is that the Russians are behaving like occupiers to secure their interests linked to the presence of Assad. This includes providing the regime with new military bases and pawning the capabilities of the Syrians for decades through sham agreements.

READ: Russia, China veto Syria aid via Turkey for second time this week

Moscows statements and stances regarding the Syrian issue and its own policy are based on using its military strength to stabilise Assads position. It also uses deception, threats and blackmail against the Syrian people and international organisations. However, the protection of Bashar Al-Assad is not only beneficial to Moscow, because it is more than likely that Russia has coordinated what it has done with Israel, the US and the West in order to serve their mutual interests.

The US is not angry with the Russian behaviour in Syria or the Security Council. Indeed, Russias use of the veto further reinforces its use by the US to protect and support the Zionist occupation and neutralise the effects of international resolutions. With its own support for the Syrian tyrant and the Zionist occupation, Moscow is giving the world another arrogant pole which confirms that there can never be justice or liberation as long as a veto can be used at the UN.

This article first appeared in Arabic inArabi21on 14 July 2020

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Excerpt from:
The veto is the muscle flexed to protect the Zionist occupation and the Syrian tyrant - Middle East Monitor

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The veto is the muscle flexed to protect the Zionist occupation and the Syrian tyrant – Middle East Monitor
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

Chaim Azriel Weizmann, the first president of Israel, and other founding members of the Zionist state could go to any extent to serve the interest of their community hobnobbing with Germans, holding secret meetings with the Turks and then finally banking on the British Empire for the establishment of the Zionist state. Once they realized that the Sun of the British Empire would soon set, they started cultivating close ties with the rising power the US.

Although Israel was primarily created to serve the British interests, through its sheer dedication it proved to be more useful for Washington that had replaced London as the global player after the Second World War. While their ties with America remained very cordial, they also ensured good relations with other Western countries and to the utter surprise of many with the Soviet Union as well that was supporting the Arab states and the Palestinians. The US and the USSR were sworn enemies but the most trusted friend of Washington never infuriated Moscow, dealing with the red power in a very diplomatic way.

Israelis seem to be adroit at sensing changes in the global power equation. They realize that the US may have been militarily a global power with immense economic potential but there are other centers of power emerging on the global political horizon and that Tel Aviv must maintain good ties with them as well. It is perhaps this logic that has prompted them to hobnob with Beijing, ignoring US warnings in a diplomatic way and allaying its fears in a very gentle manner. Tel Aviv and Washington have had common strategic goals for decades but now the Zionist state seems to have a different approach over the issue of the Chinese ascendancy on the global stage.

It is really interesting to note that Washington considers the rise of Beijing as a great threat to its global hegemony but Israel finds it difficult to keep itself away from the rising powers bounties that it is showering on other states. A strong economic power, China is also trying to match the military might of America by raising its defence expenditure. This has created consternation in the power corridors of Washington but in Tel Aviv business is as usual. It seems that Israel is determined to benefit from Chinese technology and its expertise on infrastructure development.

The Shanghai International Port Group is building a new container port in Haifa, which some US officials believe could be used to conduct surveillance on the US 6th Fleet whenever it ports at a nearby naval base. Chinese companies are building another Israeli port in Ashdod and a light rail project through the greater Tel Aviv area, which will run a few hundred yards from the Israeli military headquarters. Meanwhile, Chinese companies invested some $400 million in Israeli start-ups in 2018 and $243 million in 2019.

Washington seems to be furious over these intentions of its close ally. This May, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned Israeli against getting too close to China. We dont want the Chinese Communist Party to have access to Israeli infrastructure, Israeli communication networks". He believes such things could endanger the Israeli people and the ability of the US to cooperate with Israel. But Israel does not seem to be buying Pompeos arguments. Its policymakers believe that their national interests are served well by cooperating with a rising power. Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington, asserts that Tel Aviv stands to gain with such cooperation saying, Israel sees China as an opportunity.

Israeli threat perception seems to be entirely different from the one held by Washington. For the Zionist state, it is Tehran and the rising Shia power across the Middle East that pose a national security threat. It is because of this reason that the radical elements want stern action against Iran which is believed to have been bankrolling Bashar Al Asad, pampering Hezbollah and arming the Houthi rebels. Tel Aviv seems to be on a mission to destabilize Iran. A string of bomb explosions and mysterious sabotage activities inside Iran seem to have a hallmark of Israeli intelligence. It is interesting to note that Tel Aviv is not interested in casting doubts on Beijing. It seems that Tel Aviv is working on a strategy to counter Iran in the region and does not believe that extra regional powers could harm its security. Shira Efron, a fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, thinks China has never been in Israeli threat assessments like Iran is because the communist country is not in the neighbourhood.

Israeli has always been hungry for technology which many believe is crucial for its existence, surrounded by hostile Arab neighbours. It was the technological advancement of the Zionist state that handed it a stunning victory during the 1967 war. Its policymakers seem to have a dogged determination to maintain this technological superiority and they would not mind acquiring it from Moscow, Beijing or Washington.

But with the rising tension between the US and China, it seems that Israel will have to pick a side. Tel Aviv has received billions of dollars over the decades from America. The US has been its biggest ally. The Jewish diaspora in America is one of the biggest sources of Israel's prosperity. Western countries in general also backed Israel because of its proximity with Washington. So, this will be a litmus test when it finally comes to picking a side.

And it seems that this time is not very far. From the Covid-19 pandemic to Hong Kong, Washington does not miss any China-bashing opportunity. It is likely to throw support behind any country that creates problems for the communist state. The recent hard-hitting statements of American officials during the standoff between India and China clearly indicates the intensity of grudge that the US harbours against Beijing. Though Israel expressed reluctance in awarding some commercial contracts to China in a bid to appease Washington, it still would want to strike a balance between its relationship with the sole superpower and the rising global economic force. But will the US, which has bankrolled the Zionist state since its inception turning a blind eye to its illegal activities and earning the ire of its allies tolerate such an ambivalent position? Such a situation will definitely put Israeli policymakers in a bind.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

Email: [emailprotected] gmail.com

Read the original post:
Global balancing acts - The News International

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Global balancing acts – The News International
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

Photo Credit: Yeshiva University

Hes returning full-time to his true love teaching.

On June 30, Dr. David Berger who has authored several books and over 100 academic articles stepped down as dean of Yeshiva Universitys Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies after serving in that position for 12 years. Ive never wanted to be an administrator, he told The Jewish Press.

Dr. Berger will remain, however, at the institution, doing what he has done for five decades now, teaching Jewish History. He is being replaced by Dr. Daniel Rynhold, who has served as a professor of Jewish philosophy at the institution for over a decade.

Dr. Berger is the author of, among other works, The Jewish Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages and Persecution, Polemic, and Dialogue: Essays in Jewish-Christian Relations. The Jewish Press recently spoke to him about his background, academic career, and his primary area of expertise, medieval Christian-Jewish disputations.

The Jewish Press: You grew up in Brooklyn, but I imagine it was a very different Brooklyn than the Brooklyn of today. How would you compare the two?

Dr. Berger: Well, I grew up in Brownsville, which was a Jewish neighborhood when I was growing up. Today, theres no Jewish community there at all.

It was actually already somewhat in Jewish decline in my youth. When we moved to Boro Park in 1961, only very few religious Jews still lived in Brownsville. The Young Israel of Brownsville, for example where I had grown up had already moved to East Flatbush.

Boro Park is largely chassidic today. I imagine it wasnt when you moved there.

When we moved, the Young Israel of Boro Park was thriving, and the other large shul was Beth El. Neither of these were charedi shuls. There was also a major Conservative shul in Boro Park. So it was certainly quite different from what it is today.

For college, you went to Yeshiva University. Which rebbeim did you study with there?

My first year, I studied with Rav Henoch Fishman, who had learned in the Mir Yeshiva in Europe. He was one of the greatest tzaddikim I have ever come across.

His shiur was in Yiddish, but I understood Yiddish, and he was a very significant influence on me. I had gone to Flatbush High School, and when I arrived at Yeshiva [University] and was told to find a chavrusa, Im embarrassed to say that I had no idea what a chavrusa was. In Flatbush yeshiva, Gemara was taught like a regular class. There was no chavrusa learning.

In any event, I was deeply influenced by him, and one of the great compliments he gave me was when he urged me to become a rosh yeshiva. He was a wonderful, wonderful human being.

My second year, I was in the shiur of Rav Ahron Soloveichik, who probably had more of an impact on me than any teacher or rosh yeshiva I ever had including the Rav [R Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik], with whom I studied the following four years. Now, I dont need to say what a gigantic figure the Rav was he was one of the great minds of the 20th century but his brother actually had a greater spiritual influence on me. He was an extraordinary person.

You subsequently got semicha from YU and a PhD from Columbia University in 1970, and taught Jewish History for many decades at Brooklyn College, the CUNY Graduate Center, and Yeshiva University. How would you compare teaching Jewish History to mostly non-frum students at Brooklyn College to teaching Jewish History to mostly frum students at Yeshiva University?

You can tell more stories and jokes at Yeshiva. In Brooklyn College, I told plenty of jokes, but they didnt always go over as well.

Theres also a much more heimishe atmosphere at Yeshiva. Theres a sense of being at ease and having a commonality of culture and purpose that makes teaching at Yeshiva different. In Yeshiva, you can also expect a certain knowledge of Judaism and Jewish texts that you cant expect at Brooklyn College.

You announced in May that you would be stepping down as dean of the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies. What prompted that decision?

Twelve years of being dean were enough.

In 1975, when Haym Soloveitchik [Rav Yoshe Ber Soloveitchiks son] became dean of Revel, I started teaching there part-time, and then I was offered a full-time position at Revel in 2006. It was an attractive proposition since my heart was in Yeshiva all along, so I retired from CUNY after 36 years and came to Yeshiva.

A year later, I was persuaded almost pressured to accept the deanship of Revel on the grounds that I was the only appropriate person to succeed Dr. Arthur Hyman who [was in his mid-80s and] wanted to step down. So this is a job I undertook out of a sense of obligation, and I think that, after 12 years, Ive fulfilled the obligation. Ive never wanted to be an administrator.

One of your areas of expertise is medieval Christian-Jewish debates. What would you say is the one feature of these debates that most Jews dont know about?

I dont think they know very much about them at all. The ordinary educated Orthodox Jew has not been exposed to polemical literature. Some very knowledgeable Jews might have [at best] read the Vikuach HaRamban.

But in a broader context, going beyond the debates themselves, one example might be how Judaism classifies Christianity. Is it avodah zarah? Some authorities say that associating G-d with another entity shituf is permitted to non-Jews. What does that mean? To what degree does it apply to Christianity?

Its a very complicated, important, and central issue in halacha, not just polemics. But most people who know about it only know about it in an extremely superficial way.

What do you think would surprise contemporary Jews the most about medieval Jewish-Christian disputations?

I think they might be surprised by the fact that sometimes Jews may have said things they didnt mean in order to avoid persecution. In his disputation in 1240, for example, Rav Yechiel of Paris said that when the Talmud says nasty things about Jesus, its referring to a different Jesus from the one Christians believe in. Is that a sincere statement? Its a very interesting question and a matter of dispute among historians.

Heres another example: In Rav Yechiels disputation, he says the Talmuds discriminatory laws against non-Jews dont apply to Christians. They only apply to the nations of antiquity. Once again, the question of Rav Yechiels sincerity has been raised.

But the Meiri, who did not have a disputation with Christians, actually says the same thing even more vigorously and systematically. He says these laws dont apply to umot gedurot bdarchei hadatot, which literally means nations who are limited by the ways of religions that is, nations that have decent moral codes and believe in one G-d. So that means Christians and Muslims are exempted.

Christianity has changed to a great extent from the medieval period, yet many Jews remain distrustful of it perhaps because were constantly reading about Christian persecution of Jews in the past. Can you describe some of the differences between contemporary Christianity and medieval Christianity vis--vis such matters as the crucifixion?

There has been an extremely important transformation in Catholic teaching and in some Protestant teaching as well. The famous turning point was the Second Vatican Council declaration, which goes by the Latin title Nostra Aetate.

Section 4 of Nostra Aetate deals with Jews, and it says only those who were actually present at the crucifixion and urged that Jesus be crucified are responsible for his crucifixion. This guilt does not apply to other Jews at that time and does not apply to subsequent Jews. That was a transformative moment in the history of the church. The Vaticans recognition of Israel, for example, could not have happened without it.

The degree, however, to which this change affects general attitudes towards Jews among ordinary Catholics depends very much on the degree to which it is taught in Catholic schools and that varies from country to country. In the United States and some other Western countries, it has penetrated to a decent extent, but in places like Poland and Latin America, many Catholics still believe the old theology.

Despite this change and despite the extreme pro-Israel sentiment among many Protestant Christians many Jews remain fearful of Christians, believing they must have a larger agenda. Is this fear warranted?

Its a very interesting question. The attitude toward Israel in Christian circles today has very little connection with what Christians believe or dont believe about Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion.

Very liberal Protestant circles, for example, tend to be deeply hostile toward Israel even though many liberal Protestant churches dont blame Jews theologically for what they did to Jesus.

Meanwhile, evangelical or fundamentalist Protestants are generally very pro-Israel. And that has to do with their belief that G-d blessed anyone who would be good to Jews. Thats the blessing to Avraham: vnivrechu vecha kol mishpechos haadamah.

Some Jews [argue] that these Christians favor Israel because its a step toward the second coming of Jesus. Some of them believe that, but there are broader reasons for their support. Now, if you asked them behind closed doors, Do you think a Jew who doesnt believe in Jesus will be saved? many of them will say, No. And yet, at the same time, they are pro-Israel and genuinely friendly toward Jews.

So the theology here is kind of mixed up. Its not straightforward anymore.

Your field is Medieval Jewish History, but if I may ask a question about Modern Jewish History: Right now, its possible to get a PhD in this subject and be an ignoramus when it comes to sephardic history and frum history. You can know next to nothing, for example, about the Breslover Rebbe, the Chidushe HaRim, the Netziv, Rav Akiva Eiger, and numerous others. Is that a problem?

Let me say a number of things. Outside of Yeshiva University, I think what you say is absolutely correct and its unfortunate. Its possible to get a PhD and even be a professor of Modern Jewish History without knowing what a properly educated Jew should know. Thats certainly true.

In Yeshiva, the situation is [better]. At YU, there are a number of ways that pretty much force students to know more about these subjects. We offer a course, for example, on the rabbinic culture in Vilna. And the reading list for PhD students in Modern Jewish History now includes readings that require knowledge of elements of rabbinic and chassidic history.

I dont dismiss what youre saying even for Yeshiva theres an element of truth in it but there is also a great deal of truth in the affirmation that its no longer as true as it once was.

How about sephardic Jewish history? It seems that one can graduate knowing nothing about the history of Jews of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Morocco. Are these Jews ignored because their numbers in modern times were tiny compared to the ashkenazic populations of Europe and the United States?

Well, at Revel, we now have a full-time professor whose field is the sephardic world under Christendom in the early modern period. He teaches the early modern Sephardic disapora, including Latin America and what he calls the Sephardic Atlantic. So we cover that extremely well now.

Sephardic history in the 19th and 20th centuries is not covered very well thats true. But we did have a professor, Daniel Tsadik, who for the last five years or so taught courses on the history of Jews in Islamic lands. Unfortunately for us, he decided to move back to Israel this year, and at this point he wont be immediately replaced. I hope he will be able to be replaced in the foreseeable future.

Read the rest here:

Rav Ahron Soloveichik, Medieval Christianity, And Academic Ignorance An Interview with Eminent Historian Dr. David Berger - The Jewish Press -...

Category: Sephardic | Comments Off on Rav Ahron Soloveichik, Medieval Christianity, And Academic Ignorance An Interview with Eminent Historian Dr. David Berger – The Jewish Press -…
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

A wild crisis has been thrust upon the Rabbanut the Israeli Chief Rabbinate and the Rabbanut is fighting back.

ITIM Jewish Advocacy Center, along with the Rackman Center for the Advancement of Womens Status and the Kolech Center for Womens Leadership recently filed a petition with the Israeli Supreme Court on behalf of women who seek to take Rabbanut semicha exams. These feminist and pluralistic organizations claim that since the Israeli government recognizes semicha as a degree which entitles musmachim to employment advantages, it is discriminatory to exclude women.

The Court is set to hear the case shortly, but in the interim, Israeli Attorney General Amichai Mandelblit advised the Court that the Israeli government will implement a parallel semicha exam track for women, since the Rabbanuts system would not be practicable for this.

Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef responded to the legal petition with firm opposition, explaining that the ordination of women contravenes the Torah, and threatened that should the State require the Rabbanut to ordain women, the Rabbanut will be compelled to terminate its semicha system altogether.

Torah interests in Eretz Yisroel are in serious trouble. In order to appreciate the issues and have any sense of true insight, we must take a step back and look at the Halacha, the history, the personalities involved and the agenda behind this womens semicha campaign.

Our mesorah is clear: women do not receive semicha. Although this should suffice, due to challenges to this mesorah over the years, the issue has been addressed numerous times on various levels.

(Before proceeding, it is very important to understand that while Torah practice is built on the concept of mesorah and we abide by it unconditionally, mesorah is actually representative of halachic substructures that have not been formally codified, as well as on underlying hashkafic principles. Countless minhagei beis ha-knesses, for example, reflect solid halachic axioms, but were not formally explicated as such. Misunderstood age-old observances which one might think are optional or are mere custom are so often reflective of profound halachic foundations and dare not be tampered with.)

Perhaps surprisingly, the first contemporary teshuvah on the matter of semicha for women was authored by R. Saul Lieberman, who held the position of Professor of Talmud at Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS the Conservative rabbinical school). Lieberman was personally Orthodox, and he regrettably chose to teach at JTS for reasons of financial security and an alleged desire to expose students there to authentic Torah. When JTS floated the idea of ordaining women in 1979, Lieberman expressed fierce opposition, and, mustering an impressive array of mekoros, explained that even though the real semicha from Moshe Rabbeinu to Yehoshua ended in the time of Chazal, contemporary semicha is indeed modeled after the original semicha, whose essence was authorization for the recipient to serve as a dayan, a rabbinic judge. Since the Torah only qualifies males for this role, ordaining women, even today, would render semicha an empty jest.

Rav Hershel Schachter quoted his rebbi, Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik, as ruling that imitating the innovations of deviant movements is Yehareig Val Yaavor, based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin (74a-b) that beshas ha-shmad, any gesture displaying adoption of the ways of those whose mission is antithetical to Torah is gravely forbidden. This would include the ordination of women and anything else that mimics the reforms introduced by the heterodox Jewish movements, such as mixed seating for worship and feminist changes to Torah observance, for these movements are an inimical threat to Torah. (This is in addition to the inherent issurim of many of these practices.) Rav Schachter further wrote in a 2011 article that the concept of women rabbis is a violation of tznius.

These reasons, as well as other considerations, such as serarah (religious authority) and the gender roles assigned by the Torah, were compiled in 2017 by a group of RIETS roshei yeshiva, along with Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz (former Av Beis Din of the Chicago Rabbinical Council), as part of a rabbinic panel convened by the Orthodox Union to issue a formal ruling on the issue of female clergy. The panel unequivocally concluded that the ordination of women is forbidden.

The Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, Igud HaRabbonim and Conference of European Rabbis all issued bans on female clergy as well, while the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) issued three separate resolutions against female clergy. The Lieberman and OU rabbinic panel writings on the subject are the most extensive, since the challenge arose in actuality at JTS and in the sphere of Modern Orthodox synagogues, but by all counts, the ruling against the ordination of women is one of very broad and solid rabbinic consensus.

The backdrop of this all is the Open Orthodox female clergy initiative. In 2008, R. Avi Weiss ordained Sara Hurwitz as a Maharat (a term he invented Manhigah Halachatit Ruchanit Toranit Halachic, Spiritual, Torah Leader), and thereupon opened Yeshivat Maharat, where he would ordain dozens of women over the decade and beyond, appointing Hurwitz as the institutions dean. Although Yeshivat Maharat initially refrained from conferring rabbinic titles upon its graduates due to pressure from the RCA, it changed its policy a few years thereafter and began to issue each graduate a semicha klaf, with her choice of rabbinic title as Rav or Rabba if so desired. Each klaf was signed by Prof. Daniel Sperber of Bar-Ilan University. (Sperber is the author of Minhagei Yisroel many are unaware that this sefer is the product of a radical person who has forsaken the mesorah.)

Another Open Orthodox semicha program that ordains men and women it is a co-ed program is Beit Midrash Harel, in Yerushalayim. Maharat and Harel leadership greatly overlaps, as the two schools share the same mission and outlook.

The threat posed by these institutions to normative Orthodox Judaism is quite real. Not only do these schools confer semicha upon women, in violation of all poskim, but many of their leaders and graduates espouse ideologies which are at odds with the Torah in various other ways, such as support for toeivah marriage, acceptance of Biblical Criticism/denial of Torah Mi-Sinai, changing geirus requirements, and creating feminized rituals. The disparity between this and the mesorah is vast and crystal clear.

However, there lies an in-between institution which has taken center stage in the current challenge to the Rabbanut. This institution is the Susi Bradfield Womens Institute of Halakhic Leadership(WIHL) at Ohr Torah Stone (OTS), located in the West Bank city of Efrat and founded by R. Shlomo Riskin. WIHL trains women in the exact same subjects as men learn for Rabbanut semicha exams, and then administers such exams to the women, certifying them as spiritual leaders and Morot Horaah (Halachic Decisors).

A senior OTS administrator, celebrating the Mandelblit decision regarding the womens semicha exam initiative, fraudulently compared this development to the Torah narrative of Bnos Tzelofchod featured in last weeks parsha, claiming that the righteous daughters of Tzelofchod sought the recognition of womens rights. Even a cheder child who reads the narrative of Bnos Tzelofchod realizes that the plain meaning of the text and its only meaning is that Tzelofhchods daughters sought for their fathers land to remain within the family, and they would have been fully content for the land to remain in the hands of their brothers, had there been any brothers. Rashi (Bamidbar 27:4) cites the Sifri, which specifies this point. For someone to turn this holy text into a feminist agenda is grotesque.

This same OTS leader made it clear that he was not advocating for women in the rabbinate. While this is important, others at OTS and WIHL seem to have quite a different opinion.

As noted, WIHL (as well as OTS) was founded by R. Shlomo Riskin. The director of WIHL is Rabbanit Devorah Evron, and R. Shmuel Klitsner is its chairman. It just so happens that Riskin, Evron and Klitsner are members of the Yeshivat Maharat advisory board (!). Thus, whatever WIHL leadership says about the non-rabbinic ambitions of its program must be viewed in light of its leaderships affiliation with Yeshivat Maharat, which champions full-blown semicha and rabbinic titles for women.

In 2016, Religious Zionist Israeli Rabbis Shlomo Aviner and Boruch Efrati strongly condemned the WIHL program, alleging that it was breaching the psak against ordaining women as rabbis. In response to Rav Aviners condemnation,WIHL claimedthat it is not in the business of ordaining female rabbis,explaining that the role of a rabbi is to serve as synagogue leader, by conductingservices and reading from the Torah; in contrast, WIHL graduates are not referred to as rabbi and do not ritually lead synagogue services. This attempt by WIHL to rebut Rabbi Aviner was based on an artificial and misleading distinction, as the title rabbi in Yahadus does not signify leading services and reading from the Torah! On the contrary, the title rabbi is much more identified with the notion of being a spiritual leader and halachic authority precisely that which WIHL certifies as spiritual leaders and Morot Horaah.

A brief glance at the WIHL program demonstrates beyond question that its curriculum is one of rabbinic training (Hilkhot Niddah, Shabbatand the Jewish Holidays, Kashrut, Aveilut, Gerut, KiddushinandGittin). The training undergone by WIHL students is indistinguishable from that of a male semicha program.

Rav Aviner further quoted a direct statement from WIHL leadership that it was training women to become dayanot rabbinical judges, which is in violation of the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpot 7:4). In fact, prior to Rav Aviners condemnation and the subsequent revamping of the WIHL webpage, the WIHL webpage revealed the following:

Dayanut:Ten-year advanced training program launched in 2013 for women who have completed theheter horaahprogram, equipping them with the knowledge base to serve asjudges forconversion and divorce. For the first time since Devorah served as a judge, Jewish history will once again see women trained for the task, and their very presence will restore and ensure the preservation of womens rights in areas of personal status.

And, at the 2016 WIHL graduation ceremony, the Rosh Bet Midrash at WIHL publiclystated about the occasion, in the presence of R. Riskin (who did not protest these words):

The inclusion of women in therabbinicworld is able to provide an opening for inquiry and understanding. The inclusion of women in positions ofrabbinic leadership progressively creates a space for identification and personal connection

Moreover, in a 2017 interview with Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Rabbi Riskin stated that WIHL graduates teach and direct Jewish law,just like a rabbi.

To claim that WIHL is not a rabbinic program is a hard sell, to put it mildly, as per the words and actions of WIHLs own leadership.

Back to the current situation: It is exceedingly difficult to contend that the Mandelblit directive and the likely Israeli Supreme Court decision mandating the administration of semicha exams for women will not result in a scenario of Orthodox, Rabbanut-accepted female rabbis throughout the Israeli landscape.

Even if these women, who would be accredited by the Israeli government for having passed semicha bechinos, will not be granted official rabbinic titles, it shall soon become clear that this is an artificial formality, which will be quickly negated for these women will be taking the same semicha exams as males and will be treated by many people as rabbis for all practical purposes. Once this happens, the same feminist/pluralistic organizations which petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court will then push further, arguing that it is unfair for women who have rabbinic training and who have passed rabbinic exams to not be full-fledged members of the Rabbanut, and perhaps be entitled to serve as Chief Rabbis, and so forth.

Yael Rockman of Kolech Center for Womens Leadership, one of the organizations petitioning the Israeli Supreme Court, could not have been clearer about these intentions: In the long run, of course we want to have women in positions of Rabbi of Tel Aviv, Rabbinic Judge, and even Chief Rabbi of Israel. But were not there yet. One step at a time.

Yeshivat Maharats Israeli representatives, along with Beit Midrash Harel and a host of small fringe-Orthodox institutions with a similar outlook, will take advantage of the opportunity to push for this, and there are undoubtedly voices at WIHL that are sympathetic to this agenda as well. Should they succeed, the official Israeli rabbinic establishment will be destroyed, and the impact may be seismic.

This past Motzoei Shabbos, The Jerusalem Post featured an editorial entitled Its time for Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef to step up or step down, in which it wrote that (t)he government needs to present Yosef with a choice either help or get out of the way. The article castigated Rav Yosef for his blunt statements against the Reform movement, and it accused him of ignorance of what is happening in the Orthodox world when it comes to womens Torah learning.

The notion that a major rov and posek should be silenced and fired for articulating Torah values should make us shudder.

Rav Yosef and the Rabbanut need to stand strong, and they need our support. Not with money, but with our tefillos and our hishtadlus. Let it be clear that the Israeli rabbinic establishment faces an existential threat, no less than the Orthodox communities of Germany faced in the time of Rabbiner Samson Raphael Hirsch, whose firm, no-compromise-whatsoever policy, led to Austritt (Orthodox secession from the official rabbinic/communal establishment) as the saving formula for his kehillah kedoshoh and for posterity.

May Hakadosh Boruch Hu enable Torah-true Jewry to withstand this onslaught and emerge with even greater vigor.

More:

The Women's Semicha Exam Subversion Scheme in Eretz Yisroel - Yated.com

Category: Sephardic | Comments Off on The Women’s Semicha Exam Subversion Scheme in Eretz Yisroel – Yated.com
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

Photo Credit: @_investigate_ Twitter

{Reposted from the BESA website}

The memory of the Holocaust has been under assault for decades from all sides: the extreme right, the extreme left, and parts of the Islamic world. A common tactic is to assert that the Holocaust was not unique, contrary to the Jewish claim.

Looking at the question on a purely empirical basis, the Holocaust was unambiguously a unique event. While some elements are comparable to other genocides, its combined characteristics are not. Several criteria collectively make the Holocaust an unprecedented event: the totality of the targeting (all Jews everywhere), its priority (all branches of the German state were involved in the effort), its industrial character, and its impracticality (instead of exploiting Jews for labor purposes, they were killed.)

Leading Holocaust philosopher Emil L. Fackenheim noted that the Armenian genocide was confined to the Turkish Empire. And even within that empire, not all Armenians there were targetedfor instance, those living in Jerusalem were spared. Geographical confinement also applies to the genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Sudan.

As Fackenheim pointed out, the Nazis, by contrast, set out to exterminate every last Jew on the face of the earth. He said that while the Holocaust does belong to the species genocide, the planned and largely executed borderless extermination of the Jews during the Holocaust is without precedent and, thus far at least, without sequel. It is thus entirely appropriate to call it unique.

Another Jewish philosopher, David Patterson, extended Fackenheims view. Patterson wrote that when comparing the Shoah to other genocides,

I would go even further and insist that the Holocaust is not reducible to a case of genocide, any more than it is reducible to any other historical or political phenomenon, in the strict sense, although it certainly includes those elements. The Nazis set out to annihilate more than a people. they set out to annihilate a fundamental principle; to obliterate millennia of Jewish teaching and testimony; to destroy the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; to eradicate a way of understanding God, world, and humanity embodied by the Jews in particular.

In Germany, the debate on the uniqueness of the Holocaust became an adjunct to the recent Achille Mbembe affair. This public intellectual from Cameroon had been invited to give the keynote address at the German Triennale music festival this August. It then became known that he is an anti-Israel inciter and has been involved in antisemitic acts. A public debate followed that continued despite the cancelation of the festival because of the coronavirus pandemic.

One of a variety of claims against Mbembe was that he compared the Holocaust to apartheid, contending that the only difference between them is scale. Alan Posener, an editor ofDie Welt, responded that that claim is fundamentally false: The Holocaust was not a much bigger form of apartheid, and what is more important apartheid was not a smaller version of the Holocaust. It was not a quantitatively different process but one which was qualitatively dissimilar.

There is an important secondary element to the Mbembe affair relating to the national memory. Unfortunately, the issue of Germanys national memory was brought to the fore mainly by people who were doing everything they could to whitewash Mbembes antisemitism.

The memory of colonialism was the centerpiece of an open letter signed in May by more than 700 African scholars and artists. The letter was addressed to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. It said: We, African intellectuals, thinkers, authors and artists condemn without reservation the lying antisemitic accusation of extreme right, hostile to foreigners and right-wing conservative groups in Germany against Professor Achille Mbembe.

The letters first paragraph contained two lies. The first was that Mbembe has never made antisemitic statements, an easily disproven claim. The second was that the accusations against Mbembe came from the extreme right. In fact, the exposure of Mbembes antisemitism originated mostly in mainstream sources. The letter ended with the brazen demand that the German antisemitism commissioner, Felix Klein, be fired. Klein had told the truth about Mbembes antisemitism even before additional facts about his hate-mongering had come to the fore.

A prominent German whitewasher of Mbembe, Professor Aleida Assman, said in an interview inDie Welt: Critics see in Mbembe a preacher of hate. I see him on the side of empathy. This is eminently false. While Mbembe promotes empathy and repairing the world, he makes no secret of despising Israel and extends it no empathy whatsoever.

In aDeutschland Kulturradio interview on the Mbembe case, Assman admitted that she had a hard time understanding Mbembe due to his abstract philosophical tone, which sometimes turns poetic. She added that she is most interested in Mbembes reflections on repairing post-colonial relationships. Another scholar who came out in support of Mbembe, philosopher Susan Neiman, whose expertise is on memory culture in a global perspective, said, when asked what her takeaway was from Mbembes work, that she didnt know.

Frankfurt ethnology professor Hans Peter Hahn argued that the two experts offhand admission that they havent a clue about Mbembes theories reflects the fact that German intellectuals allow themselves to speak about and for African authors without having read them.

Philosopher Ingo Elbe has observed that the battle against Israel is being fought vicariously through attacks on German memory culture and its supposed provincialism. As Elbe expresses it, the post-colonial concept of memory has given rise to the false assertion that the emphasis on the uniqueness of the Holocaust creates an indifference to others suffering. He adds that victim rivalry must be combatted, and that the claim that Holocaust remembrance unfairly diminishes other memories downplays Black and Muslim antisemitism. It also overlooks specifically Jewish experiences that are sacrificed to a strategy of anti-racist counter-hegemony.

Another attack on the uniqueness of the Holocaust is taking place in international academia. Leading Israeli genocide scholar Israel W. Charny observes: In the academic world an alternative has developed to the classic sloppy denials of the Holocaust. Several scholars now propagate the explicitly false thesis that the Jews were not targeted as victims because they were Jews. What is claimed instead is that they were a minority who were persecuted by the Nazis along with other minorities.

Charny added,

This kind of specious intellectual juggling has led to outright false statements in several articles in the respectableJournal of Genocide Research(JGR). The German case of Holocaust dilution or minimization is not only a German phenomenon. In one article it is claimed that the specifically anti-Jewish Wannsee Conference was not at all motivated by hatred of the Jews, but represented a policy toward European minorities as a whole, despite the fact that it was this conference that cemented the plans for the Final Solution.

Charny concludes, The distorted attitude that the Holocaust is one of many genocides the German Nazi regime committed is a minimization of the basic significance of the Holocaust that a shocking number of bona fide genocide scholars have been promoting.

There has been an explosion of Holocaust minimization in the past decade. It manifests itself in many ways, including Holocaust inversion (i.e., claiming that Israel acts like the Nazis), denial, deflection, whitewashing, de-judaization, equivalence, and trivialization, as well as other distortions that have emerged in recent years. As long as there are no broad post-Holocaust studies programs anywhere, these abuses of the memory of the Holocaust will have to be tackled one after the other.

View PDF

Originally posted here:

Attacks on the Uniqueness of the Holocaust - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on Attacks on the Uniqueness of the Holocaust – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

We are living in a peculiarly paradoxical age. A time when it has never been easier to have access to free speech, and yet, simultaneously, a time when it has never been easier to be abused, sidelined, and cancelled for speaking ones mind.

British historian Niall Ferguson has diagnosed todays paradox by identifying the rise of the emocracy a culture where feelings matter more than reason. Ostensibly democratic, but lacking purposeful dialogue, discourse, and debate, the modern public sphere has come to be shaped by three phenomena that are fast eroding the bases of civil conversations, mass engagement, and the intellectual playground of ideas.

The first of these phenomena is the rapid intrusion of political correctness into the main forums of discussion, chiefly the portals of social media. Originally meant to increase sensitivity and create awareness about unconscious bias, political correctness has now devolved into a toxic brand of ideological convenience where offence and outrage reign supreme. Take for example, the case of J K Rowling, who was recently ripped to shreds by the guardians of online morality for voicing controversial statements about sexual identity and menstruation. There is little doubt that Rowlings observations were ignorant and insensitive, but instead of catalysing a broader conversation around biological sex is it a binary or a continuum? the residents of the emocracy went all guns blazing in shaming Rowling publicly, and, of course, promising to dissociate from their previously unbridled Harry Potter fandom.

The biggest problem with political correctness and its concomitant brand of moral policing is that it engenders an attitude where individuals start taking offence on behalf of groups. Not only does this practice go against the basic notions of classical liberalism where personal identity trumps groupthink it also encourages a deeply patronising behaviour that is rooted in the misconception that those who choose to be offended have attained a normative zenith from where they can be appropriate adjudicators of what constitutes right and wrong, what can be excused as clumsy and what must be expunged as atrocious.

The second ingredient of the emocracy is the polarisation of society into distinct silos and compartments. In the Indian context, this would mean being branded as either a sickular or a bhakt, something that manifests itself in its crudest version on the comments section of virtual platforms like Facebook and Twitter. In the real world, if you happen to be a distinguished political spokesman like Sanjay Jha, you get removed from the Indian National Congress simply for suggesting a framework to revitalise the party, for any form of dissent is out of bounds.

The underpinning of polarisation revolves around the false choice of us versus them the misplaced view that people can be categorised into good and bad and that there is no need to actively invite opinions from the other side. This paves the way for social interactions in which confirmation bias dictates what is said or not said, as the insistence on stamping out diametrically opposite views leads to the silent murder of the freedom of speech.

Todays polarised polity has forgotten that the freedom to speak is a freedom we uphold not only when we hear echoes of our own stances, but also (more importantly) when we listen to that which we find unacceptable, repellant, or both.

Clamping down on inappropriate content be it in the realm of politics, arts, or other forms of civic participation ensures a double violation, as enunciated in John Stuart Mills iconic essay, On Liberty. Not only do we trample upon the hard-earned right of the speaker to say what they want, but we also deprive a potential audience from being exposed to the concerned content.

Such exposure is crucial to provoke us into asking why we know what we know. But in an emocracy, any challenge to our calibrated knowledge is received with indignation and seen as a licence to unleash ad hominem insults that appeal solely to emotions instead of furthering the intellect.

The third, and perhaps most pernicious, constituent of the emocracy is the inexorable trend of cancel culture, wherein individuals and institutions are removed and isolated from civil society because they have been pronounced as inexcusable transgressors of the contemporary zeitgeist. Evident in the statue activism across the world to the resignation of company chiefs on account of misguided opinions shared decades ago to the call for modern thinkers (like Steven Pinker) and renowned philosophers (like Alexis de Tocqueville) to be airbrushed from the annals of intellectual activity, cancel culture is everywhere.

But even as we proceed to cancel people by precluding any reasonable appreciation of complexity, subtlety, and historicity, we fail to ask the most pertinent question: What happens to those that get cancelled?

In the case of historical figures like Winston Churchill or George Washington, their ambivalent legacies are reduced to monolithic impressions that see them either as unparalleled patriots (for those blindly supporting them) or glorified racists (for the cancel brigade), without arriving at the middle ground of a comprehensive analysis. In the case of individuals living amidst us, cancelling them merely amplifies their position as outliers, exacerbating self-loathing (among the disgruntled), apathetic indifference (among the defiant) and the impossibility of rehabilitation (among those who breed genuinely dangerous ideas, such as the denial of the holocaust or homosexuality).

By cancelling others for things they had done years, decades, and sometimes centuries ago, an emocracy retroactively imposes moral standards that have themselves evolved across time. Such an imposition pays no heed to context, argumentation, or the possibility of alteration.

The slippery slope of cancel culture means that once we set off on it, there is potentially no stopping.

Should we also proceed to cancel Immanuel Kant because he may have disparagingly used the n-word in his polemics? Should we also cancel Mahatma Gandhi because some of his utterances display racial insensitivity, in the early part of his South Africa stint?

Since the overwhelming assumption is that everyone is accountable for everything at everytime, should we, eventually, cancel each other because all of us have, at some time or another, said or done something problematic?

It is undeniable that there are people who deserve to be called out for misusing their privilege or position, but where is the threshold that separates sloppiness from malice and ignorance from evil? Where is the nuance that locates the intricate axis of the moral spectrum instead of falling prey to a sanctimonious, know-it-all reductionism?

Transforming or reversing ones ideas, beliefs, and opinions across time does not make one a hypocrite, it simply makes one human.

That is precisely the message that some of the worlds leading intellectuals including Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie, and Margaret Atwood sought to impart in an open letter published in Harpers Magazine on July 7, which denounced a vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the stifling of debate on the basis of a blinding moral certainty.

Feelings and emotions, as vital as they are to our identities, cannot be the be all and end all of the public sphere.

(Priyam Marik is a freelance journalist writing on politics, culture, and sport. He is also a published poet who can be found sampling new cuisines, debating and cheering for FC Barcelona when he's not writing)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the authors own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.

Visit link:

The rise of emocracy, and the death of debate - Deccan Herald

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on The rise of emocracy, and the death of debate – Deccan Herald
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

It is a fundamental principle of Judaism that events in our lives not only on a global or national level but on a personal level as well do not occur randomly. We believe that God is both timeless and transcendent; He takes an active part in the shaping of history and guides the world through its every moment. The Talmud succinctly expresses this concept when it says: No one so much as cuts his finger in the world below, unless it is ordained in the world above.We are now in the midst of the Three Weeks Bein Hamtzarim as we commemorate the dreadful events which resulted in the destruction of both the first and second Temples, along with numerous other tragedies, such as the Inquisition. Yet these misfortunes did not occur haphazardly, in a vacuum. As we recite annually in the prayers of Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot, Because of our sins, we were exiled from our land. These sins are cataloged in numerous talmudic tractates, and they include the neglect of Jewish education, the lack of respect for elders and scholars, and, of course sinat chinam, baseless animosity toward our fellow Jews.All the accumulated flaws in our collective behavior combined to create Tisha Beav, the Black Fast that is considered the low point of our calendar year.I want to suggest that the underlying causes of the destruction can be summarized in just one little word: Eicha. This is the title of the book known as Lamentations in English that we read in its entirety on the night of 9 Av. Fittingly, it is the only one of the five megilot that is read exclusively at night, as we turn down the lights and sit mournfully in semi-darkness. But the question eicha? is not reserved for Tisha Beav alone; it reverberates throughout history.It appears when an overwrought Moses laments to the people: Eicha how can I alone bear your struggles? (Deuteronomy 1:12). Moses was never one to shirk from work or challenge, but he recognizes that, in the final analysis, it is ultimately the nation that must carry the burden, and not the individual. While we are fond of saying great leaders make great nations, Moses, in his unparalleled wisdom, knew the truth is quite the opposite: A great people will invariably cause great leaders to arise.We failed as a people when we allowed our national institutions to become self-serving, engaging in constant corruption and endless even brutal competition and conflict with one faction against the other. We failed when we neglected to call out the evil-doers and demand a high moral standard from our leaders; when we practiced rigidity rather than flexibility in the law and, of course, when we awash in our seemingly endless good fortune showed cynical disdain for the other. Only when a nation as a whole fails so miserably, says Moses, can a disaster as great as Tisha Beav occur.Later, the prophet Isaiah wails (1:21), Eicha how has this faithful city [Jerusalem] become as a prostitute! Lusting after the practices of the nations, desperate to be loved, a harlot sells out her principles to the lover who offers the highest bid. A prostitute has no intrinsic identity; she is a body (politic) for hire, her passions directed solely by those who pay her fee. Isaiah bemoans that in spurning our true benefactor, our eternal soul-mate, Israel compromised its relationship with God, leading to our destruction.HE IMPLIES that as a nation, we must remain loyal to who we are; we must not allow our desire to find acceptance in the world at large cloud our historic vision and pervert our unique character. To be a leader as Abraham the Ivri epitomized you must sometimes stand on the other side of the divide, determined to represent a truth and a mission to which the entire world may object. Finally, Jeremiah, the prophet of the destruction, cries out in Eichas opening verse: Eicha how did Jerusalem become so alone, so like a widow? Just as a woman who has lost her husband feels abandoned, deserted, defenseless, we left ourselves vulnerable to the insidious neighbors surrounding us. With the demise of our relationship with God and our unwillingness to repent and so rekindle that sacred union we became prey to our enemies. They sensed that we no longer had our partner to guard and protect us, and so we were decimated.There is an expectation on the part of the nations that we will be a light, a guide to a more perfect world. That often creates a double- or even triple-standard, but like it or not, that is the creed we live by. If we have skewed all the graphs and survived throughout the ages against all odds, it is precisely due to our adherence to a higher (read: holier), calling.This year will undoubtedly be known as the Year of Corona. But it should also be called the Year of the Protest. Even under the ominous cloud of the virus, there have been massive demonstrations in Israel and worldwide, railing against all forms of hardship and injustice, real or presumed.This, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. The right to protest, along with the right to speak ones mind and hold ones own opinion, no matter how unpopular, is a fundamental right of all people.Yet along with blaming others for our problems, we also have to look inward, at our own behavior. Using the same letters of Eicha (Genesis Rabba 4:10), God calls out to Adam, and to humankind in every generation: Ayeka, where are you?!That first Adam replied, And I hid. But we know that we cannot escape or hide; we must look in the mirror and confront our actions, recognize our failings, and commit to correcting the national sins that resulted in our dispersion and degradation.The Talmud (Taanit 29a) records that on the eve of the Temples destruction, young priests ascended to the roof with the keys to the Temple in their hands. Master of the Universe, they cried, we did not merit to be faithful keepers of Your house, and so we are handing you back the keys. They threw the keys up in the air, and a heavenly hand reached out and took them.It is only when we realize that we hold the keys to our own destiny and the ability to right the wrongs of our society that the dark countenance of the Black Fast will turn into a great and shining light. The writer is director of the Jewish Outreach Center of Raanana.jocmtv@netvision.net.il

See the rest here:

Eicha - the question that reverberates throughout history - The Jerusalem Post

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on Eicha – the question that reverberates throughout history – The Jerusalem Post
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

Why Learn About the Holy Temple?

Ezekiel said: Master of the World, why are You telling meto go and tell Israel the form of the House . . . They are nowin exile in the land of our enemies. Is there anything they can do [about it]?Let them be until they return from exile. Then, I will go and inform them.

Gd answered: Should the construction of My House beignored because My children are in exile?

The study of the Torah's [design of the Holy Temple]can be equated to its construction. Go tell them to study the form of theTemple. As a reward for their study and their occupation with it, I willconsider it as if they actually built it.

Implicit in the wording used in this passage is that thestudy of the laws of the Holy Temple has ramifications that extend far beyondthe ordinary sphere of intellectual activity. Rather, through this study, aperson fulfills his obligation to build the Temple.

Thus, the Rebbe teaches us, it is especially appropriateto learn these laws during the Three Weeks, when we mourn the destruction ofthe Holy Temple and our subsequent exile.

Over the course of more than a millennium, theHoly Temple appeared in several iterations. Several key elements run through them all, but there are also significantdifferences.

As outlined in the Book of Exodus, Gds firsthome was the Tabernacle(Mishkan), which was built in the desert and continued to function (in variousforms) until the days of Solomon.

The best place to learn about this Temple isin the Book of Exodus, where we read both about Gds instructions regardingits construction and how it was actually built.

What Was theMishkan? Learn the FourMishkan-Related Torah Portions

For more than 800 years, two successive HolyTemples stood in Jerusalem. The architecture of the SecondTemple is discussed extensively in the Talmud and then again in Maimonidescode.

Study the Talmud's Description of the Second Holy Temple (Video)ReadMaimonides Depiction of the Second TempleLearn MaimonidesText With Rabbi Gordon (Video)Read theRebbes Insights on Maimonides Depictions9 Holy TempleFacts

For nearly 2,000 years, there has been no HolyTemple in Jerusalem. Yet, it is an axiom of Jewish belief that the Temple will berebuilt in Jerusalem. Known as the Third Temple, it will be built according tothe prophecies of Ezekiel.

ExploreEzekiels Vision for the Yet-to-Be Built Temple 4 UniqueCharacteristics of Ezekiels TempleNow take theHoly Temple quiz

See more here:

Learn About the Holy Temple in Depth - Texts and Classes Describing the Holy Temple - Chabad.org

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on Learn About the Holy Temple in Depth – Texts and Classes Describing the Holy Temple – Chabad.org
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

Inviting people to laugh with you while you are laughing at yourself is a good thing to do, Carl Reiner said. You may be a fool, but youre the fool in charge.

Carl Reiner was a comedy genius. We remember him for The Dick Van Dyke Show, Sid Caesars Your Show of Shows, and of course as straight man to Mel Brooks in The 2000 Year Old Man.

His passing reminds us of an era when perhaps 80 percent of leading comics were Jewish. The passing of a style of humor we might call earthy, clever, slapstick, and/or Jewish.

So what makes a joke Jewish? It must express a Jewish sensibility, and usually calls upon, according to Joseph Telushkin, those values and issues that matter to Jews: anti-Semitism, financial success, verbal aggression, assimilation, professional success, anxieties, creative logic and argumentation, family relationships, to name a few. Some Italian, Irish, Swedish, Welsh, and Russian collections of humor have Jewish flavors. We dont have a monopoly. A good laugh is a good laugh in any culture.

Five years ago, when my wife, Celia, and I joined the synagogue in Sag Harbor, Temple Adas Israel, we formed a Jewish Humor Group that met regularly to tell jokes and to share potluck suppers and camaraderie. We had trouble defining what constitutes Jewish humor, but we had a helluva great time telling jokes. I became the fool in charge, and we laughed at ourselves and one anothers jokes. We formed lasting friendship bonds that transcend todays Zoom.

You can enjoy Jewish humor without defining it. Here are plenty of examples:

A man from Israel visits New York in 1950, a time when not many Israelis could afford to travel. He meets a New Yorker who says, I havent met any Israelis. Tell me, how are things in Israel? The Israeli says, Good!

The New Yorker thinks this answer is too short. He says to the Israeli, Can you tell me more? Add a few details? You know, elaborate? The Israeli says, Certainly! He pauses to think a moment. Then he says, Not good!

Ive told this joke many times both to Jewish people and to non-Jewish people. The Jews think its funny. Others dont get it. Im not sure why, but I think it has something to do with Talmudic thinking. You know, On the one hand, but on the other hand. The Talmud often presents both sides, or even more than two sides, to any argument. Remember that three Jews will often have four opinions? (Why four? One of them is schizophrenic.)

Here are two poems by our friend the late great poet Harvey Shapiro that are unmistakably Jewish:

New York Notes

1

Caught on a side street

in heavy traffic, I said

to the cabbie, I should

have walked. He replied

I should have been a doctor.

2

When can I get on the 11:33

I ask the guy in the information booth

at the Atlantic Avenue Station.

When they open the doors, he says.

I am home among my people.

The Old Jew

Who would have thought

his taste for pickled herring

would outlast his taste for women.

Another example: Two guys are walking their dogs in Central Park. One has a German shepherd. The other a Chihuahua. The German shepherd owner says, Lets have lunch at Tavern on the Green.

The Chihuahua owner says, Hey. Its not like in France. They dont allow dogs in restaurants here.

The German shepherd owner says, Yes they do! Just watch me get in with my dog. Say what I say, and do what I do, and well both get in with our dogs.

So the German shepherd owner goes up to the matre d and says, Id like to have lunch here.

Sorry, sir. No dogs allowed.

But thats a seeing-eye dog.

So the matre d says, Welcome. Please come right in!

The Chihuahua owner follows the same script. And the matre d says, Sir. Do you realize that you have a seeing-eye Chihuahua?

And the Chihuahua owner shouts, What? They gave me a Chihuahua?

Or,

Behind every successful man stands a surprised mother-in-law.

I have all the money Ill ever need, if I die by 4 p.m. tomorrow.

How about this? Woman on a plane to Hawaii says to the passenger next to her, How do you pronounce the place were going to, HaWaii or HaVayi?

The passenger says, HaVayi!

The woman says Thank you.

The passenger says, Youre Velcome!

A priest, a minister, and a rabbi walk into a bar, and the bartender says, What is this? A joke? (This is a meta-joke, a joke about jokes.)

A priest, a minister, and a rabbit walk into a bar. The rabbit says, Wait a minute, I think Im a typographical error.

A grandmother takes her grandson to kindergarten for the first time. She says, Bubbeleh. Were going to school, Bubbeleh. Its your first day, Bubbeleh. Youre going to love it, Bubbeleh. Youll meet new friends, Bubbeleh. Heres your sandwich, Bubbeleh. Lets get dressed, Bubbeleh. Come on, Bubbeleh. Lets not be late, Bubbeleh.

She picks him up at school at the end of the day. She says, Well, Bubbeleh. Did you like school? What did you learn today?

The kid says, I learned my name is not Bubbeleh!

More:

The food here at the hotel is terrible and such small portions!

I had a dream. I was having dinner with my father and mother. I made a terrible Freudian slip. I meant to say, Please pass the salt. And instead, in the dream, I said, You horrible parents. You ruined my entire childhood.

A fetus is a fetus until it gets out of medical school.

You should always be yourself, unless youre a jerk. In that case, you should be someone else.

An American is riding in a taxi in Israel. The driver is a Russian immigrant. The American says, How were conditions in Russia?

The driver says, I cant complain.

You mean to say that even with all the food shortages there?

The driver says, I cant complain. But the American goes on, Even with all the history of anti-Semitism and persecution there?

I cant complain.

The American, frustrated, finally says, Well, why come to Israel?

The driver says, Here, I can complain!

We value those strong and unique friendship bonds formed in our Jewish Humor Group. Why do we value jokes and friends today, more than ever? Why does Jewish humor matter in our strange science-fiction-like era of quarantine, social isolation, elbow-bumps, lockdown, face masks, and Zoom relationships?

I can answer from personal experience, speaking as the fool in charge. Laughter! Camaraderie! Sharing good comedy of any origin or flavor with good friends!

Yes, Jewish humor matters. Did I mention the health benefits of laughter?

Stephen Rosen, a physicist and regular Star contributor, is co-founder, with his wife, Celia Paul, of the Jewish Humor Group at Temple Adas Israel in Sag Harbor, which will have an open mike Jewish Joke Fest free to everyone on July 23at 7 p.m. on Zoom.

Continued here:

Guestwords: Let There Be Laughter - East Hampton Star

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on Guestwords: Let There Be Laughter – East Hampton Star
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

Jews are a resilient people. Weve had no choice, having lived through exile, persecution, pogroms and Holocaust millennia of unrelenting anti-Semitism.

And that resiliency, that ability to withstand, persevere, even thrive, is an invaluable trait in these treacherous times when we are separated from loved ones, fearful of illness, and so many people are suffering from profound economic hardship and systemic racial injustice.

It is times like this that call to mind a quote I turn to when feeling weak or uncertain:

When you have no choice, at least be brave. Unknown

Yes, these are difficult days. Not the summer we had yearned for. So many of us had hoped that by staying at home, strictly observing sheltering in place directives, we would flatten the curve and beat this thing. For many of us, it felt patriotic. We werent the first responders risking our lives in hospitals. We werent essential workers, driving buses or stocking supermarket shelves, but in our small way, we were doing our part. We were helping, too.

But sadly, bowing to political and growing economic pressure, politicians caved, and the country opened too fast. Infection rates are spiking all over the place.

Also rising are the depression rates of my friends. Have all our modest personal efforts to fight the pandemic been for naught?

One girlfriend admitted she has been breaking down into tears two or three times a day. She thought she was finally going to start seeing her grandson, but realizes that isnt going to happen anytime soon. Shes carrying on with her work, sitting through Zoom meeting after Zoom meeting, but still, shes sad, frightened and lonely.

Another friend had planned on hosting a small dinner party for her husbands 70th birthday all of us gathering outside, social distancing while celebrating the occasion. But now shes decided not to risk it. She too is feeling the pain of life only partially lived, isolated from friends and community.

We are social creatures, and Covid-19 isnt just destroying lives and the economy. Its robbing us of our energy and joy. And thats where the need for resiliency comes in.

I never was a cheerleader, but it seems more important than ever that we all dig deep within and find things that bring us pleasure and strength to get through these bleak days.

If you carry your own lantern, you will endure the dark. Hasidic saying

Rabbi Deborah Waxman, president of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and Jewish Reconstructionist Communities, wrote this in her in her article Keeping the Faith: Resilience in the Jewish Tradition on eJewishPhilanthropy.com:

The Talmud teaches that we should say 100 blessings a day. We could see this mandate as legalistic and oppressive, or we could see it as an invitation to engage in ongoing gratitude practice, to raise up the interconnectivity and abundance that undergird our daily lives even when our days are filled with challenge and loss.

I come from a family of fighters literally. My father boxed professionally for a short time. He said he wasnt very good. His explanation short arms caused by smoking cigars at an early age. But cigars or no cigars, my father really was a fighter. He had to drop out of school in sixth grade to help support his large family during the Depression. Still, he was the best-read person I ever knew. He could quote Shakespeare and Plato and debate the fine points of law with his two attorney sons. When illness robbed him of his eyesight, he still worked. He struggled, but he worked. My God, the man was the definition of the word resilience.

Once, when I suffered a bitter professional disappointment and said something about quitting, my father told me, Galatzes dont quit. He said those words to me on his deathbed. What a legacy! It wasnt pressure. It was pure inspiration. To this day, when Im dispirited and want to throw in the towel, I draw on his strength and resilience, get back in the ring and carry on the good fight whatever the cause, whatever the task.

And in these days of delayed plans and dreams, heres a final quote one I know my eternally optimistic father would have approved of:

Lets go to the circus tomorrow, if God willing were alive; and if not, lets go Tuesday. From Leo Rostens Treasury of Jewish Quotations

Here is the original post:

We've got what it takes to endure these difficult days J. - The Jewish News of Northern California

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on We’ve got what it takes to endure these difficult days J. – The Jewish News of Northern California
Tags: