Chalav Yisrael by Video Surveillance

Contrary to what many may have assumed, this issue, and allied issues of non direct eye-ball supervision, have pervaded in various guises in Halacha.

Some examples include:

  1. Testimony of the appearance of the new moon through a reflection (Rosh Hashono 24a. the Rambam 2:5 Kiddush Hachodesh and Acharonim)
  2. Sound waves for promulgation of Brachos or Megila reading (Igros Moshe (vol 2 and 4, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Minchas Shlomo 1:9), Minchas Elozor and more.
  3. Amen to a Brocho (Rav Kook in Orach Mishpot 48)
  4. Gett via webcam (Beis Yitzchok Even HoEzer 2:13)
  5. Photographs and Aguna (Rav Yitzchok Elchonon Spector, Ein Yitzchok Even Hoezer Vol 1:31)
  6. “Digital witnesses” for Kiddushin (See Ketzos (241:1)
  7. Webcam based Chalitza to release a lady from marrying the brother of a dead husband (Shevus Ya’akov (Breish, 126)
  8. Brachos over Royalty via a TV (Chida 22 regarding through a glass view)
  9. Protection against Yichud

Consider though why one would do this in the context of Chalav Yisrael. Let’s assume, which it is according to some authorities (cf Chasam Sofer Yoreh Deah 107), a valid substitute for a human being watching the milking. Even Reb Moshe who is one of the two prime permissive positive rulings in respect of Milk from Companies, explicitly says that a Baal Nefesh, (someone who is extra punctilious) should be Machmir.

In Melbourne at least, and I assume throughout the world, it is mainly Chassidim who are careful and do consider themselves as Baalei Nefesh  not relying on the permissive rulings of the Chazon Ish and Reb Moshe Feinstein regarding government supervised milk. Those people, will follow their Poskim. Their poskim have shown in allied issues that they are often not prepared to rely on video surveillance as a halachic mechanism. Note: just as there is Chemical Halacha, Kashrus Chemistry, Shabbos Chemistry, there are also Kashrus stringencies. These are adopted by communal organisations so that there is a unified acceptable standard. On several occasions Rav Schachter of the OU disagreed with Rav Belsky ז’ל of the OU on matters of Psak, however, when it came to Paskening for the OU, something which a mega-community could rely on, they adopted the less inventive stance. This is sensible unless one wishes to branch off. Branching off may mean less supported Kashrus ends up not being accepted and then it creates situations where people are forced not to eat at houses where the non standard form of supervision or maverick schemes are adopted. A pirud, a limitation of joining one’s friends at the table ensues. This only benefits those non standardised more maverick supervisory bodies, many of which are also run as personal financial fiefdoms.

The only application I can think of is export. But those Hashgachos don’t export. Note, for example, if you go to Costco, you will find the plain Lay’s chips with an OU, but the barbecue do not have an OU. Instead the triangle K is the Hashgocho (this is also true of other products with Triangle K; be careful) . In general, the frum world does not trust the standards of the triangle K (and we don’t bring it in the house). It has a place. Where there is a need to find leniency so that people have access to food! This is similar to the law of Pas Palter, if you will.

Let us not forget that Chassidim ascribe a supernatural concern with ingestion of questionable milk and will be unlikely to consider compromise. The others simply rely on the Chazon Ish or Reb Moshe anyway!

I remain baffled by the motives behind the venture, its clientele, and the motive of those who seek such innovations when the prospective clientele are already the Baal Nefesh and won’t accept the Psak. Is this just grandstanding?

Peeled Eggs, Onion or Garlic overnight: Part 2

I had written a blog post on this in 2011. You can see it here.

Recently, the OU in their emails sent the following:

May I dice onions and place them in sealed packaging to avoid the sakana (danger) of eating peeled onions that were left overnight?
(A subscriber’s question)

The Gemara (Nida 17a) writes that there is a sakana to eat peeled onions that were left overnight, even if they were placed in sealed packaging. The only exception that the Gemara mentions is if part of the roots or the peel is left on the onion. Tosfos (Shabbos 141a s.v. Hani) writes that the sakana applies to diced onions as well. However, if there are other ingredients mixed in to the onions, Rishonim already discuss that one can be lenient. Igros Moshe (Y.D. III: 20) writes that industrial produced products are not subject to this sakana. So one may purchase frozen packages of diced onions.

as well, the OU wrote:

Q. Does the halacha of not eating onions which were peeled and left overnight apply to the following: red onions, white onions, scallions, shallots and leeks? (A subscriber’s question)
A. Rav Belsky, zt”l said the halacha applies to both red and white onions and shallots, but not to leeks and scallions.

I sent my article to the OU for their feedback. It was sent onto the Safra D’Dayna Rabbi Eli Gersten, who responded that:

You are correct that the topic of ru’ach ra’ah is certainly unclear.

I don’t have an explanation as to why earlier poskim (Shulchan Aruch, Maharshal, Rema…) where seemingly unconcerned about this type of ruach ra’ah and yet later generations again began to be choshesh.

Rabbi Yosef Grossman of the OU offered to send me an article from the Daf Hakashrus of 2005 on the topic, which I copy below. I am chuffed that my thoughts were somewhat aligned with Mori V’Rabbi R’ Hershel Schachter שליט׳א (though I didn’t know of him in 2005).

Garlic1

Garlic2

75th Holocaust Memorial Event

Melbourne was and probably still is a predominantly Polish refugee influenced community largely due to the 2nd largest group of Polish refugees coming to Australia. We are all the richer for that wide tapestry of different components which, I guess Warsaw alone represented. I don’t remember the number, but the sheer volume of different views and newspapers and groups therein was just astounding.

On the other hand we have had valuable refugees from the then Soviet Union who suffered also from the vicissitudes of the Holocaust and associated political atrocities committed there. Chabad, which is really a Lita (Litvishe) / White Russian movement that withstood the attempted erosion of Jewish identity in Russia was an early important element, but in more recent times many Russian Jews have enriched our community with their own contribution having escaped the so-called “Union” of Soviet Republics led by Stalin ימח שמו וזכרו.

Due to the hard work of Mordechai Oyberman and others Elwood Shule is commemorating the 75th memorial and I attach the flier and encourage those who are able to attend. Whilst it’s a pity that we haven’t fully united in commemoration (save for Tisha B’Av which consumes us with Jewish tragedy over the ages) I think it’s important that Jews of all “colours” make an effort to offer Tfilla, Kaddish and Kel Moleh Rachamim for the holy souls consumed by the sub-human element that comprises society.

Flier for 75 years from 22 June 1941 final eng

Rabbi Danny Mirvis confirmed. Mazel Tov

Picture from Kinus Torah at Chabad’s Yeshiva Gedola
A bold move by Mizrachi. Thank God he isn’t ‘a pseudo card carrying member of Open (sic) Orthodoxy’ or Maverick ARK. 

Hopefully this will see ‘Beit HaRoeh’ move en masse into the main Shule!
From Danny Lamm, the president of Mizrachi in Melbourne.

Dear Members,I was informed earlier today by Mizrachi’s auditors that members had voted overwhelmingly (97%) in support of the Mizrachi Committee’s decision to offer the position of Senior Rabbi of the Mizrachi Organisation to Rabbi Danny Mirvis for a term of 4 years with such appointment to take effect from Rosh Chodesh Ellul 5776 (4 September 2016). 

I have, of course, informed Rav Danny and Althea of the outcome which reflect’s the extraordinary support they have already received following the announcement of their proposed appointment. 

I am delighted to inform you that a formal induction ceremony will take place in late August and that Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis and Rebbetzin Valerie Mirvis will make a special visit to Melbourne to participate in this auspicious event.

How long till we get support for this from “progressive” Reform groups?

Sandra Lawson

Check this out from Times of Israel. [ Hat tip Magyar.]

You’d NEVER get an editorial from the Australian Jewish News on this. Might be a Magid legacy? Maybe newly honoured Jeffery Kamins would comment?

PHILADELPHIA (JTA) — Sandra Lawson didn’t expect to perform a public benediction at her local pub in this city’s Roxborough neighborhood.

But when her friend Jay, who was entering firefighter training, asked her for a blessing earlier this year, she stood with him in the middle of the room and put her rabbinical school training into action.

“Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, please bless Jay on his journey of being a firefighter,” she said, placing her hand on his shoulder. “Come back and have a beer with me.”

For Lawson, a bar is a natural place to create a Jewish ceremony. As a rabbi in training who herself is breaking barriers, Lawson is eager to take Jewish practice outside the traditional bounds of the synagogue.

Lawson, 45, lives at the intersection of several communities while being in a small demographic within the American Jewish world. As an African-American lesbian who converted to Judaism, eats vegan and is now studying to be a rabbi at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, Lawson believes American Jews need to rethink how their community looks and where it should congregate.

“Redefining or helping people understand what the Jewish community looks like today is something I want to do,” Lawson told JTA in a vegan cafe where she holds Friday night services.

‘People can deal with a female rabbi, a queer rabbi. But, “Oh, you’re black, too? That’s too much to deal with in one day”‘
“In the US, people can deal with a female rabbi, a queer rabbi,” she continued. “But, ‘Oh, you’re black, too? That’s too much to deal with in one day.’ When you put those identities together, it’s too much to handle.”

Lawson grew up in a military family and, while Christian, wasn’t raised religious. Her first exposure to Judaism came in an Old Testament course at St. Leo University in Florida while she was serving in the Army as a military police officer. Following military service, Lawson became a personal trainer in Atlanta, where one of her clients was Joshua Lesser, a Reconstructionist rabbi and local activist for racial justice. She began attending services at his Congregation Beth Haverim, a synagogue for the LGBT community, and converted in 2004.

Sandra Lawson with her wife, Susan Hurrey. Lawson is due to receive her rabbinic ordination in 2018. (Courtesy of Lawson/via JTA)
Sandra Lawson with her wife, Susan Hurrey. Lawson is due to receive her rabbinic ordination in 2018. (Courtesy of Lawson/via JTA)

She decided to become a rabbi after representing the Jewish community at a LGBT memorial service for Coretta Scott King, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s wife. She realized there that being an African-American Jew could allow her to strengthen connections among communities. She’s on track to graduate from rabbinical school in 2018.

“I was able to help make those connections and build some of those bridges by being someone who wants to be clergy and help build more trust around interfaith stuff,” Lawson said. She wants to get to a point where “when I Google ‘rabbi,’ I see someone other than a bearded white guy.”

(Indeed, when you Google “rabbi,” all you see initially are bearded white men.)

Lawson says “nobody’s been horrible to me,” but she has encountered different challenges to her identity, depending on where she is. At one synagogue, she was standing in a prayer shawl and kippah with a friend when a congregant approached her friend and asked him if she was Jewish.

‘Every community has their own idea of who is a Jew and what does a Jew look like’
“I don’t know anyone who goes to a synagogue, wears a kippah and a talit Saturday morning who is not Jewish,” she said. “Every community has their own idea of who is a Jew and what does a Jew look like. If you don’t fit that framework, they don’t think you’re Jewish.”

Studying last year in Israel, Lawson said she would encounter trouble when visiting the Western Wall. Attendants saw her haircut and told her on three separate occasions to go to the men’s section. Once she had to grab her breasts to show she was a woman.

Diane Tobin, founder of Be’chol Lashon, a group that advocates for Jews of color, says that in many cases, white Jews address race crudely because they lack the language skills to talk sensitively about it. Lawson, she says, “is the embodiment of a younger generation of Jews who have intersecting identities.”

Lawson wants to expand the Jewish conversation in part by taking it outside its traditional setting. She would rather lead services in a park, or address the concerns of Jews and non-Jews in inner cities, than be a full-time pulpit rabbi. Every month she runs a Friday night service at Arnold’s Way, a vegan cafe and health store near Philadelphia, which she begins with a song she wrote based on a verse from Psalms.

‘If you’re going to wait for people to come to your synagogue, your JCC, you’ll be waiting a long time’
Lawson also uses social media and live video feeds to spread Jewish content. On Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays, traditionally the days when the Torah is read, she will put out a stream of video content on Snapchat featuring Torah study interspersed with humorous images. On June 16, her thoughts about the weekly Torah portion came after images of her face overlaid with dog ears and her cheeks inflated.

“The model of the synagogue, where you have to pay large dues, pay to come to High Holidays, is not a model I want to duplicate,” she said. “We live in a different world now. If you’re going to wait for people to come to your synagogue, your JCC, you’ll be waiting a long time.”

Lawson’s personal Jewish practice also happens at unexpected places. Because her iPod has pop music interspersed with Jewish liturgy — like “Modeh Ani,” the prayer said upon waking up — she’ll sometimes find herself praying while working out. Because she also plays a zombie game on the device while she runs, things can become confusing. But she doesn’t let that faze her.

“I have the Bee Gees on my iPod, and the next thing is Modeh Ani,” she said. “I’m being chased by zombies and the Shema would come on. It’s Saturday morning, [I’m] wearing a Superman shirt, running, being chased by zombies, and I sing along.”

This is a much watch from Rabbi Lau

Watch it here https://vimeo.com/153439233

[hat tip MT]

Cassius Clay and the Tree Hugging New Israel Fund and leftist tree hugging Rabbis

Do we have any in Melbourne? Non Rabbis we certainly do. They are so so morally decrepit… Like the NEW Israel Fund which should be cremated according to Reform Judaism rights (where they removed all references to Zion from their prayer books because they were so ‘enlightened’ and PROGRESSIVE.

This article from the Algemeiner is nice

A Message to Michael Lerner:

Tolerance only works if it goes both ways.
At Muhammad Ali’s funeral, Rabbi Michael Lerner, founder of Tikkun Magazine and the Network of Spiritual Progressives, gave a stirring speech that was roundly applauded. I agree with almost everything he said. We must stop victimizing, generalizing and hating people who are different in color, creed and practice. We live in a world where power corrupts. Inequality and exploitation are everywhere and infiltrate every ideology, religion and creed. Racism, victimization, greed and violence pervade every society. Obviously, some more than others. Otherwise, no one would ever want to move to a different country for a better quality of life and greater freedom.
The message that Rabbi Lerner advocated was the message of every idealist. We must love our neighbors. Do unto others as we would be done by. Yet for some reason, despite technological, scientific and humanitarian progress, despite a reduction in poverty, an increase in food production, welfare systems, huge charitable enterprises and benevolence, we are still way, way off from achieving what we have been preaching. We still live in a world of either imperfect or evil regimes. But we still yearn for freedom, equality, friendship and benevolence. We like the good. But we are not all capable of pursuing it.
Muhammad Ali was a remarkable character, as well as a brilliant athlete. No one is perfect. Not even he. He picked up too many anti-white and anti-Zionist hate tropes from mentors Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan. But he fought for his people and for freedom. How ironic that he had a Jewish grandson and went to his bar mitzvah. But still, it is so important, and after Orlando even more so, to use every opportunity to speak out against racism and prejudice, and that was what Rabbi Lerner rightly did.
I was pleased that he went to the funeral. It was, in its way, a kiddush hashem (sanctifying of the name of God), even if he had absolutely no right to say he was representing American Jewry. It seems any rabbi who gets exposure claims that nowadays. But I am sorry he so overtly politicized his message by spouting left-wing Bernie nostra as if they would solve the problems of the world, let alone America.
Governments that want to create a utopia often have to concede that they either do not have the financial means or the population to achieve it. We all want it in theory, on our terms. Since the days of Plato and his Republic, we have dreamed and planned, but we are still a long way off. With our societies we have the idealists and the pragmatists, the capitalists and the socialists, and no one system is perfect or has ever been. But still we must dream, we should dream, and we need to be reminded of our dreams.
In all my days in the rabbinate, whenever I was stuck for a sermon I knew I could always fall back on preaching ideals, excoriating those who betray our ideals and standing against hypocrisy. And after every such sermon someone would always come up to me and say, “Rabbi, great sermon, you really gave it to them today.” Or words to that effect. It was always, “You told them.” It was never, “You told me.”
On the same day as Ali’s funeral, an American Muslim wrote in the New York Times about how his young daughter was picked on in a restaurant for wearing a headscarf. He ended by wondering why we hate people for their religion or race. Yes, of course, I agreed, because I wonder why so many Muslims and Christians still hate Jews for being Jews, or hate people of different sexual orientation. We are so good at seeing the mote in the eyes of others, but not the beam in our own. Or as the Talmud says (Bava Batra 15b), “Don’t tell me to do something about my toothpick when you have a whole plank of wood to deal with.”
So I ask myself, why in his speech did Lerner have to focus on Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and not Sunni-Shia internecine conflicts (which Ali felt equally strongly about), human rights in China and Russia, occupation in Tibet, Kashmir, or West Sahara, or Turkey’s treatment of Kurds, or North Korea? Why did he not excoriate the left-wing ideology that Chavez and Maduro have destroyed Venezuela with? Or indeed Cuba? Does he think there is no need for self-examination other than for Jews? Why no reciprocity? Did Israel start the wars? Do Israelis really not want peace desperately? Is there no other side to the argument?
We now live in a world of rights. Do not Jews have rights, too? Were Rabbi Lerner’s comments about Netanyahu just to pander to an audience that, at core, is now sadly so anti-Israel and antisemitic as to deny rights to Jews to defend themselves? He could have said that almost half of Israel opposes many of his policies and rhetoric. He spoke about how once Jew stood shoulder-to-shoulder with black civil rights leaders. He did not speak about why today antisemitism is so prevalent in black societies. Why Black Lives Matter has chosen to add Palestine to their agenda rather than any one of the other humanitarian causes with far greater casualties elsewhere in the world today. If Martin Luther King had been present, he would not have been so one-sided.
Of course, the Israeli Left, indeed any Left, has the right and should have the right to take whatever side it wants to. Of course, excess, corruption and inhumanity must be addressed. But one who excoriates Jews wherever they are, should have the honesty and morality to point out another point of view others political correctness and one-sidedness simply debases the debate. Why does no one mention the protests in Palestinian territory against the policies of their dogmatists and kleptocracy? When you pick on just one example, on just one argument, that is pure prejudice.
Not only, but look at how Lerner’s speech was reported — not as a critique of racism or prejudice wherever it comes from. Instead, look on the internet and see the headlines, “Rabbi Slams Israel in Muhammad Ali Funeral Speech.” Yes, just more fodder for the Jew-haters. He could have made all his major ethical points without having to pander to the tub-thumping anti-Israel, anti-Jewish amen chorus that has now taken over the Left (not to mention the Right) wherever it exists.
The same trope. Remove Israel and the Middle East will be peaceful. Sunni and Shia will love each other, as well as lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals. The Left has always had rose-colored spectacles. Remove the Kulaks, then the aristocrats, then the bourgeoisie, then the Jews and Russia will be paradise. Remove capitalists, and we will live in heaven. Remove religion, and we will get in with each other, make love, and we will all live happily ever after.
Life is not like that. I am glad Rabbi Lerner stands for what he stands for. We need contrarians and prophets. But my experience tells me that any dogma can be dangerous, and that any one sided argument is doomed.
All I seek is balance. By all means, criticize Netanyahu if you also criticize Abu Mazen. By all means, attack Israel if you also attack Hamas, Hezbollah and all the others who put war above human needs and human rights. Rabbi Lerner can and should demand rights. But I can demand mine, too.

Advertisements on the Jerusalem Post App

I have a daily habit of looking at the app (which is one of the more annoying ones as you are bombarded every which way … the Israelis know how to annoy you so 🙂

Last night and this morning, I come across advertisements for the rabidly anti Zionist Adam Bandt of the Australian Greens Party. What the Heck? Do I have to see his Partzuf (visage) on the Jerusalem Post? Does he really think even Jewish lefties are going to support this BDS supporter and his fanatical anti Israel party?

I have taken the opportunity to report the advertisement as inappropriate with a few clicks. Consider the same?

I imagine the Android app is similar (I don’t use Android. There is too much Mamzerus in the operating system, and yes, I know it’s cheaper and the S7 is a nice phone; but Steve Jobs, who wasn’t an Israel lover, did revolutionise the Computer World unless you still wear blinkers and are happy with the South East Asian Engineering version of the plagiarism.

Anyway, click the advertisement, and tell Google (more Yidden) to send these advertisements to Azazel.

In the meanwhile, I  encourage people to vote for Michael Danby in Melbourne Ports. My hip pocket may be better in the long run under Malcolm Turnbull, who is a wonderful friend of Israel and a competent person, but Michael needs to remain in Parliament as a strong voice, and for that reason alone, I feel it’s important to support him. Saul Same AM ( Avshalom Shmulewitz was his real name; an Elwood Shule Mispallel who came from a Shochet in Western Australia, but I digress) would agree, but for more partisan reasons.

Do offender Registries have Halachic import?

I came across this article and I started to think about it from an halachic perspective. Again, remember, this blog constitutes pitputim. These are just thoughts, and mostly not researched in the way I would an academic post or lehavdil some Chidush I thought I might discover in Torah.

One key to maintaining a safe Jewish society would appear to be to protection from “dangerous entities”. This stands behind even the most basic D’Orayso command of Lifnei Iver — placing a stumbling block. I’m not even going into Rodef, which is a “live danger”.

But what about a registry? Is a person to be noted formally forever after if they have committed disgraceful acts such as child molestation? The argument for, is cogent. We don’t (yet) know enough about the Gene vs Environment argument to be sure and when in doubt one errs in favour of potential victims. What about other acts? Do we start a register of wife bashers? What about husbands who have affairs beyond the pale of acceptable halacha? Do we exclude those who think they’ve been “wronged”. What about the classical Mechallel Shabbos B’farhesya (the public antagonistic shabbat desecrator). In days of yore, people knew who they were. There was a quasi register. Some considered them forbidden to perform various functions (e.g. the Priestly blessings — we don’t follow that today as per the cogent arguments of Centrist Gedolim like Mori V’Rabbi R’ Schachter), or their touching of Kosher wine (non Mevushal).

I don’t know the answer(s) to these questions and categories nor if there has been an halachic study in this regard. Certainly Chazal used to perform lashings (Makas Mardus) to punish offenders whose crime was not at the brazen level of a full prohibition requiring formal Malkus.

Despite many claiming that incarceration is not a Jewish Concept (Orey Miklat anyone?), I remember hearing a Shiur some 25 years ago from a Talmid Chacham who brought many Mekoros from Rishonim and Acharonim which suggested that it was used. Alas, my memory recalls little more than his suggestions. I did find this article, for what it’s worth. Happy to be enlightened.

One thing is without any doubt. Having performed a serious sin(s), the sinner is not “free” from their obligations to perform Mitzvos, even if they rationalise it in their head, and even if their presence in a Minyan may sicken other members of the Minyan (שמעתי ממו׳ור הרה׳ג ר׳ צבי שכטר)

Rabbi Riskin: the other side of the coin

[Hat tip NB]

This is from Rabbi Yoni Rosenzweig who was a Rosh Kollel in Mizrachi for a several years. I do not know him, and I think I only spoke to him once on Purim over a passuk in the Megilla at Rabbi Sprung’s house. I say I “think” because it was Purim and the memory is hazy 🙂

That being said, the interaction between my car and it’s bluetooth implementation and my phone, causes a shiur (I have about 2000 on my iPhone) to come on when I drive. On Friday, I heard part 2 of one from Rabbi Professor Sperber (who is known for his fantastic series on Minhagim). There were aspects that disturbed me. I will try to listen to Part 1 and 2 and blog about that in the future.

One thing I did come away with was that Professor Sperber’s description of his daughter’s Judaism, and what I know of Shira Chadasha in Melbourne are many many miles apart. Below, is what Rabbi Rosenzweig apparently wrote on Facebook in response to Rabbi Gordimer (I haven’t seen the original)

Rabbi Riskin gave an interview yesterday in which he posited that the Reform an Conservative movements are not enemies, but rather partners (see link in the comments). In response, Rabbi Gordimer wrote a scathing response (link below in the comments).

I must take issue with Rabbi Gordimer’s comments. I would like to start off by saying that as my family was also very close with The Rav, and also very much involved in YU, I have – despite my growing up here – always been privy to many stories regarding Rabbi Riskin, both positive and negative, and have been “kept in the loop” through those circles and connections.

But I never really knew Rabbi Riskin until I started working for him (and still work in one of his institutions). Throughout my work in Ohr Torah I have had many opportunities to sit with him, discuss both practical and theoretical issues, and hear his position on many a topic.

I can say two things without hesitation: (1) Rabbi Riskin and I disagree on a whole bunch of stuff. I can count on more than two hands the Halachic and philosophical positions he has taken which I disagree with. We have very different outlooks. (2) Rabbi Riskin is a completely authentic and genuine person. He doesn’t pander, doesn’t change his opinion in order to get as many “likes” as possible. That’s not his way. He really and genuinely believes in his positions, and thinks they will benefit the Jewish people.

Rabbi Gordimer’s insinuations otherwise are scandalous. To call Rabbi Riskin a “superstar Rabbi”, or to say he is just trying to be “politically correct” or to “gain popular appeal” – that’s just slander. If he wants to talk about the issues, he can do that, but to attack Rabbi Riskin’s character is off-the-wall, especially as it misses the mark completely.

Even to claim he is Open Orthodox is doubtful in my eyes. Look at the article Rabbi Riskin published in Techumin, regarding women receiving Aliyot to the Torah. He outright prohibits it. Is that the psak of an Open Orthodox Rabbi, trying to gain public appeal and score points with the liberal public? Or is that the position of someone who will tell you what he thinks is right, regardless of how it makes him look (and no doubt people looked to him to allow that as well)?

My father – who sat in The Rav’s shiur – once told me that no matter what, he believes anyone who was in The Rav’s shiur and was close with The Rav, is kept honest by that experience, because whenever he does anything, he sees The Rav’s face in front of him, and that keeps him from straying off the straight and narrow.

So I don’t worry about Rabbi Riskin, who has done so much for the Jewish people – even if you think his comment was mistaken this time around. I worry about that the people who slander him, that the flame of their self-righteousness shouldn’t blind them from seeing the forest from the trees.

Attention: the dormant Rabbinic Council of Victoria

The following is from Arutz Sheva from the respected Rabbi Gordimer re Rabbi Riskin’s creeping to the left.

[Hat tip DS]

Rabbi Gordimer is a member of the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America, and a member of the New York Bar. His writings on Jewish topics are published widely.

It is sometimes hard to believe what we are reading, as things are turned upside down in an effort to be politically correct and gain popular appeal. Orthodox Judaism has never sought to be politically correct – on the contrary, it has stood its guns no matter what direction the winds are blowing. Unfortunately, with the case of Modern Orthodox rabbis who have crossed the line into Open Orthodoxy, it has become almost commonplace to read the unbelievable, things that would never have been expressed were Rabbi Soloveitchik zt”l, the Torah luminary of American Modern Orthodoxy, still with us. Sometimes, shocking ideas are articulated in direct contravention of his views, with the excuse that “times have changed.” Since when has that wellworn excuse been used in Orthodoxy?

This, much as it hurts to write it, seems to be the case when it comes to rabbinic superstar, Rabbi Dr. Shlomo Riskin, who seems to be on a much publicized collision course with tradition. There was the “Rabbi Jesus Video” (which Rabbi Riskin later said did not represent his views, due to the video’s poor editing), his promoting the chanting of Megillath Ruth by a woman at the main minyan of a synagogue under his jurisdiction, and other ideas that fly in the face of Orthodox tradition. A once modern rabbinic icon who did much to bring people closer to Torah, Rabbi Riskin has in his later years adopted positions that fly in the face of normative Torah understanding. (Please also see the later portion of this linked article regarding Rabbi Riskin’s involvement with Christian ministries.)

Although one could have otherwise, perhaps favorably interpreted Rabbi Riskin’s hair-raising idea in his recent public pronouncement on Arutz Sheva that the Reform and Conservative movements are partners in Jewish outreach to have been intended to express the demarcation between acceptance of Reform and Conservative Jews themselves and unequivocal opposition to their leaders and their interpretations of Judaism, a view held by respected rabbinic authorities, that is clearly not what Rabbi Riskin said.  Rather, Rabbi Riskin stated:  “They’re not tearing Jews away but bringing them closer… That may have been true at the beginning of the Reform Movement, but it’s very different now – they’re trying to bring Jews closer. Not to the wholeness, the fullness of Orthodox Judaism that I love and that I know, but nevertheless they’re trying to bring Jews closer.” In other words, it is the leadership of the Reform and Conservative movements whom Rabbi Riskin praises!

This leadership is bringing Jews closer to what? Intermarriage?  Christmas trees and menorahs in the living room? A total departure from normative halakhic Judaism?

Let us look at that greatest danger to the continuity of the Jewish people, not the just as important continuity of its halakhic framework. On a factual level, not only are most Reform Jews (and non-Orthodox Jews in general) intermarried today, and not only does the head of the Reform movement extol intermarriage, but there has been serious discussion within the Reform movement to permit its rabbis to themselves be intermarried. The Reconstructionist movement has gone further, formally allowing its rabbis to be intermarried, and a large plurality of rabbis in the Conservative movement favor the performance of intermarriages. In fact, the Conservative movement’s USY youth group now permits its leadership to interdate

To endorse these movements as positive and as forces for bringing Jews closer to Judaism is downright wrong and even farcical. Although these groups may espouse some type of Jewish identity, they embody and encourage assimilation and the abandonment of Jewish tradition and commitment. And it is happening before our eyes.

Theologically, the Reform and Conservative (as well as the Reconstructionist) movements reject the Singular Divine Authorship of the Torah and the other Cardinal Principles of Faith, and they have disavowed the binding nature of halakha.

It is therefore not only incorrect to refer to these groups as partners in bringing Jews closer to Judaism, but it is dangerous, as such a statement empowers and validates groups which threaten the very integrity and future of authentic Judaism in every manner.

There is no need for elaboration, as the issue is not subtle or nuanced; endorsing the heterodox movements is tantamount to endorsing the dismantling and destruction of traditional Judaism.

Many of my friends were immensely impacted by Rabbi Riskin in a most positive way during his early tenure in the United States, as he energetically established Torah institutions of the highest caliber. My friends miss the old Rabbi Riskin. We all wish that he would return.

The views expressed in this article are solely the author’s opinion and do not represent any organizations. 

It’s raining women

No. they can’t tell you about mundane issues like “chicken” and Kashrus and Issurei D’Orayso.

Here is the new breed [Hat tip NB]

To me, these are the new “Chiropractors of Medicine”. They call themselves Dr as well and they are as well qualified but not as well paid as unskilled labourers in Melbourne.

What is it with titles, self-esteem, and the feeling that anything whatsoever will change that is outside millennium old Mesora.

Nothing will change. Like Reform and Conservative, either Geulah will be upon us, or they will be relegated to the politically charged Women of the Wall and the Bernie Sanders New Israel Fund types.

On Tuesday night, according to a report by Ynet, eight women received certificates of Orthodox Jewish ordination in Jerusalem and selected for themselves various equivalents to the commonly used “Rav” or “Rabbi” by males: some picked “Rav,” instantly making the title unisex; others went with “Rabba,” which would be the female conjugation of the male title, although the term is not in everyday use; some went with “Rabbi,” which in the genderless English grammar has been a common title for Reform and Conservative women clergy for decades.

One preferred to go with “Doctor,” possibly recalling the shamanist attributes for which some Jewish scholars were once renowned.

No one went with the prevalent “Rebbetzin,” presumably because to become Rebbetzin one doesn’t need to study, just marry well.

The ordination was given personally by Rabbi Daniel Landis, a YU graduate who is the head of the Pardes Institute, an open, co-ed and non-denominational Jewish learning community, based in Jerusalem and operating programs worldwide. Landis is also a senior member of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin’s Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation (CJCUC).

In his message to the freshly ordained Orthodox female rabbis, Landis explored the fact that his graduates are different from ordinary ordained Orthodox rabbis not merely because of their sex, but in their emphasis on Jewish studies, and on any studying at all for that matter:

“I very quickly abandoned the ambition to achieve only rabbinic expertise, and moved on to the more important initiative of promoting you as creative scholars, with integrity, sensitivity and courage, who have access to the members of their generation,” Landis said.

“Yes, but can they paskin on a chicken?” you might ask. It appears that ruling on the mundane needs of rank and file Orthodox Jews was not the top priority of this ordination, which is not a comment on the quality of scholarship of the graduates. They simply appear to put a different emphasis on their future roles in the Jewish community:

Rav Avital Campbell-Hochstein, one of the graduates, said at the ordination ceremony: “Receiving the ordination is not merely a score for knowledge. Ordination, or permission, like halkha itself, is focusing on human beings, on the image of God. Human beings must be seen and heard. The halakha and the Torah are sensitive to the slimmest signs of humanness.” And so, she continued, “in order for halakha, which is an emanation of the will of God, to be relevant and applicable, we must first and foremost be attentive. Human dignity is our driving force. Halakha can be a divider and it can be a meeting ground. It can be a wall and it can be a bridge. Choosing between those component depends on the human beings who use it, and who represent it.”

So, basically, no paskining on chickens for now. Instead, there was a lot of talk about advancing the status of women in halakha and in Orthodox society. You may have to rely on someone else for your kashrut decisions, but in areas of marriage, conversion, and burial, these ordained female rabbis will make sure, as Rav Naama Levitz-Applbaum put it, “that women will be counted, in the full meaning of the word, and to feel as full partners along the path.”

Perhaps as the number of ordained Orthodox female rabbis grows and as each ordination ceases to be viewed as a revolution and starts to be more commonplace (as has been the case in every profession women have entered over the past two centuries) we’ll start hearing about women Orthodox rabbis who are not so heavily invested in the feminist politics of their role but in caring for their congregations. At which point we should be able to assess this fledgling but growing movement not based on our political views but instead on the concrete scholarship and the halakhic contribution of these female rabbis. Because, let’s face it, Orthodox Jews need rabbis to interpret halakha for them. They have plenty of social workers doing everything else

Tree Huggers: You voting Green in Melbourne Ports?

Consider this:

Local Greens candidate Stephanie Hodgins-May has announced she will pull out of the only Melbourne Ports candidates’ debate, after having agreed to participate “because one of the co-hosts” was the Jewish community roof body, Zionism Victoria.

Michael Danby, Member for Melbourne Ports, said:
“This is shameful. The Greens Party mask is finally off. The Greens boycott of the Jewish community shows their deep and intractable antagonism towards the Australian Jewish community.

Zionism Victoria is a roof body organisation of cross-spectrum groups which support Israel, including pluralistic Australian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS), which operates across Australian universities, the international affiliate of the Israeli Labour Party, Ameinu Australia, and includes socialist Zionist youth movements like Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim Dror.

“The Greens Party candidate from Daylesford, an advisor to Greens Leader Di Natale, is unfit to represent Melbourne Ports. Nearly a third of the electorate is of Jewish heritage. Refusing to address this public forum on the bigoted grounds that she has is an insult to the local community.”

“Approximately 71% of Australian Jewish residents of Melbourne Ports have family in Israel”, Danby recounted. “If she doesn’t want to represent our local Jewish community, or even speak to them, she cannot be their local Member. Greens leader Richard Di Natale must sack her.”

“Her excuse that candidates shouldn’t address politically active groups makes no sense. She is a political candidate and political staffer for the Green Political Party. She wants to be a representative of a diverse Melbourne Ports community – candidates for such a position speak to all kinds of groups, whether or not they agree with them,” Danby said.

Green Party hypocrisy and bigotry is underlined by the activity in the neighbouring seat of Melbourne, where Green Member for Melbourne Adam Bandt will address a forum held by the Australian Palestinian Advocacy Network,” Danby said. “This is a purely political group that is not a community organisation, nor does it represent tens of thousands of local residents, unlike the Jewish group the Greens are boycotting in Melbourne Ports.”

Michael Danby said Party leader Richard Di Natale, who cloaks himself as more moderate than other Green Senators such as Lee Rhiannon, will replace Hodgins-May with someone who will speak freely to all groups in Melbourne Ports.

Centrist (Modern) Orthodoxy will die in Melbourne

Chabad are everywhere except where they aren’t. They work hard at it, and some are very good at it. They are entitled to the fruits of many years of work.

Those remaining Rabbis who aren’t Chabad, are almost exclusively left-wing. You can’t be modern if you aren’t left-wing. Consider that the Rabbinic Council of Victoria cannot make a statement about Open Orthodoxy (which is today’s incarnation of Conservative Judaism, except, in the words of Mori V’Rabbi Rav Hershel Schachter, “they can’t learn and perverted Yahadus”.)

The Rabbinic Council, led by (Chabad) Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick knew about the issue in Melbourne before it occurred, but have chosen silence. This is misguided as it won’t go away. If you are a Chabad Rabbi, then you don’t really care. You only care about the Jew, not the labels. You perform the tasks you believe will cause the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s return from on high to lead the Jews out of Golus. In my view that is why the Rabbinic Council is toothless. Shules are there because they include Jews who need to have their Klipos removed. I don’t include mavericks like M.G. Rabi in this; he has no community, only kashrus businesses.

Case 1: Rabbi Shamir Caplan (who is a lovely soft person) of Beit Aharon invites a “Maharat” whose title then morphs in other later advertising to “Rabbi”.

Case 2: Rabbi Ralph Genende of Caulfield Shule (who seems to have a penchant for quoting non Torah literature in his speeches) has decided to host the cutely misnamed Rabbi Ysoscher Katz from YCT. YCT is the left-wing break away from YU which has been considered beyond the pale by the Rabbinic Council of America.

Who in Melbourne cares? If it isn’t obvious, Shules in Melbourne will be led by young “I’m your friend style, Chabad Rabbis OR left wingers like Rabbis Caplan and Genende.

Rabbi Ralph Genende, second from the left at the well. Greens’ leader Di Natale is third from the right.

In truth, Jews actually need knowledgeable centrist Rabbis who live in this world, and don’t have an agenda and who give Shiurim on a range of topics. Rabbis need to become educators again, not feel good functionaries. I can see Melbourne in 10 years deprecating into an architectural abyss of a former era. I’d rather Moshiach came NOW!

I haven’t mentioned Mizrachi because they are in their own category. They consider themselves as the only real religious zionist shule. I think it is true that more B’nei Akiva graduates go on Aliya, than any other congregation, but I’ve never been comfortable with them “owning” Yom Haatzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim services. I feel these should be held in a different Shule each year. That is a more positive thing to do.

Who is there to talk to? The moribund Council of Orthodox Synagogues of Victoria (COSV)-The “lay body”? Don’t waste your time. There are lots of old furniture still running that group and the meetings are thoroughly uninspiring. If there wasn’t an Eruv, they would be dead, ironically.

The Council of European Orthodox Rabbis agrees with the Rabbinic Council of America on this issue, and the general issue of YCT, and rabbi Avi Weiss et al. I don’t imagine the congregants of Caulfield Shule give a tinker’s cuss. These days, you do whatever you can to “bring them in”. How do they measure success? Seat Payments or regular Shabbos attendance or …

Here is a view from the RCA

Rabbinical Council of America (RCA)

Oct 31, 2015 — Formally adopted by a direct vote of the RCA membership, the full text of “RCA Policy Concerning Women Rabbis” states:
Whereas, after much deliberation and discussion among its membership and after consultation with poskim, the Rabbinical Council of America unanimously passed the following convention resolution at its April 2010 convention:
The flowering of Torah study and teaching by God-fearing Orthodox women in recent decades stands as a significant achievement. The Rabbinical Council of America is gratified that our members have played a prominent role in facilitating these accomplishments.
We members of the Rabbinical Council of America see as our sacred and joyful duty the practice and transmission of Judaism in all of its extraordinary, multifaceted depth and richness – halakhah (Jewish law), hashkafah (Jewish thought), tradition and historical memory.
In light of the opportunity created by advanced women’s learning, the Rabbinical Council of America encourages a diversity of halakhically and communally appropriate professional opportunities for learned, committed women, in the service of our collective mission to preserve and transmit our heritage. Due to our aforesaid commitment to sacred continuity, however, we cannot accept either the ordination of women or the recognition of women as members of the Orthodox rabbinate, regardless of the title.
Young Orthodox women are now being reared, educated, and inspired by mothers, teachers and mentors who are themselves beneficiaries of advanced women’s Torah education. As members of the new generation rise to positions of influence and stature, we pray that they will contribute to an ever-broadening and ever-deepening wellspring of talmud Torah (Torah study), yir’at Shamayim (fear of Heaven), and dikduk b’mitzvot (scrupulous observance of commandments).
And whereas on May 7, 2013, the RCA announced:
In light of the recent announcement that Yeshivat Maharat will celebrate the “ordination as clergy” of its first three graduates, and in response to the institution’s claim that it “is changing the communal landscape by actualizing the potential of Orthodox women as rabbinic leaders,” the Rabbinical Council of America reasserts its position as articulated in its resolution of April 27, 2010… The RCA views this event as a violation of our mesorah (tradition) and regrets that the leadership of the school has chosen a path that contradicts the norms of our community.
Therefore, the Rabbinical Council of America
Resolves to educate and inform our community that RCA members with positions in Orthodox institutions may not
Ordain women into the Orthodox rabbinate, regardless of the title used; or
Hire or ratify the hiring of a woman into a rabbinic position at an Orthodox institution; or
Allow a title implying rabbinic ordination to be used by a teacher of Limudei Kodesh in an Orthodox institution; and,
Commits to an educational effort to publicize its policy by:
Republishing its policies on this matter; and,
Clearly communicating and disseminating these policies to its members and the community.
This resolution does not concern or address non-rabbinic positions such as Yoatzot Halacha, community scholars, Yeshiva University’s GPATS, and non-rabbinic school teachers. So long as no rabbinic or ordained title such as “Maharat” is used in these positions, and so long as there is no implication of ordination or a rabbinic status, this resolution is inapplicable.

Some have broader shoulders than the OU :-)

Q. Is video supervision of milk adequate to establish a Cholov Yisroel status or must a Yisroel be physically present?

A. This is a matter of dispute among contemporary Poskim. The rabbinic requirement of Cholov Yisroel (milk that was produced in the presence of a Yisroel) was enacted to ensure that kosher milk was not adulterated with milk from non-kosher animals. Those who allow the use of video cameras maintain that the Yisroel who oversees the milking does not have to be physically present. As proof, Halacha allows the Yisroel to verify that only kosher animals are in the milking barn.  After doing so, the Yisroel can stand guard outside the barn while the milking occurs.  Thus, we see that verification is sufficient even without physical presence.  In fact, video supervision is even better than standing outside the barn, as the Yisroel can view the inside of the barn with the video camera.

Other Poskim argue that the rabbinic requirement of Cholov Yisroel mandates that a Yisroel must be physically present.  Checking the barn and then standing outside is a form of physical presence, while video observation is not.  The OU follows the latter opinion, and OU Cholov Yisroel products are not supervised with video connections.

[But the OU Poskim’s pictures are still holy, of course והמבין יבין. And no, they aren’t of the ilk of [חדש אסור מן התורה]

A sane, traditional university and the BDS

This is from the Algemeiner. McGill is probably too fair for the New Israel Fund, and Israel’s bleeding left wing.

McGill University and How Western Civilization May Have Just Saved Itself — From Itself

McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Photo: wiki commons.
McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Photo: wiki commons.
Something quite remarkable happened a few days ago. It happened quietly, in a remote corner of some administrative building probably, but it ought to be loudly disseminated across the Western world. Not to be overly dramatic, but Western civilization just might have saved itself — from itself.

For universities are the heart of that civilization, and last week, a university’s student government suddenly remembered what the overall purpose of student governments is — which itself ought to remind universities of what their overall purpose is.

The Judicial Board at Montreal’s McGill University ruled last Tuesday that resolutions affirming the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel violate the Constitution and Equity Policy of its student government, the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU). That means that McGill, whose campus has in the past 18 months endured three consecutive BDS campaigns and votes, all of which ultimately failed, will finally be able to return full-time to its proper business.

The reasoning in the decision is so clear that it’s downright refreshing.

In its mandate documents, the Judicial Board notes that SSMU’s mission is to “facilitate communication and interaction between all students,” to refrain from discrimination on the basis of “race, national or ethnic origin … religion …,” and to create “an ‘anti-oppressive’ atmosphere where all of its membership feels included.”

But, then, can the SSMU “take an authoritative, direct, and unambiguous stance” against a particular nation, as the recent BDS resolution demands that it do against Israel?

Unambiguously, no.

A university may well have students from both sides of any given conflict, and “by picking a side … the government does not promote interactions … but rather champions one’s cause over another.” Student governments must represent their members, but “it would be absurd for the government to claim that it is representing Israeli members as favorably as other nationals despite it supporting boycotts … against Israel.” Indeed, by “adopting official positions against certain nations … SSMU would be placing members from those nations at a structural disadvantage within [the] community,” failing to protect the rights of those minorities from “the tyranny of the majority,” and in thus violating its “anti-oppression” mandate would be failing in “its obligations to its own members.”

Or to put it succinctly:

McGill is first and foremost a university, a place of knowledge and intellectual growth — a fact that is often forgotten….[Our student government] cannot be the venue for a proxy war.

Yes, one wants to respond, refreshed — and the same is true for any university and student government, whether or not they have a constitution explicitly spelling that out.

Obviously.

That all this is so obviously true — that anyone undertaking a neutral approach to designing student governments would concur — makes you wonder why (as the Judicial Board put it) it is so “often forgotten.”

I have several hypotheses, but will mention just one.

For any conflict, the scholar always recognizes that there are (at least) two sides. Any organization serving the scholarly mission of the university must always therefore ensure that all sides have equal opportunity to be heard.

The activist has no such constraint. The activist’s goal is to “win,” to change the status quo, to defeat the other side, to overturn it — to silence it.

I believe that activism is wonderful, and to be encouraged. I would even propose that activism as we today understand it has naturally grown out of scholarship: that as the enlightenment led to intellectual liberty it led to the recognition of the value of diversity in every sense — which in turn leads to the activism that admirably promotes that diversity.

But in our zeal for activism, we have forgotten that when a student government takes a side in a conflict, when it decides that there are not two sides after all, it thereby abandons its role in the scholarly mission of the institution for the activism. And as the Judicial Board noted, where a student government’s objective should be to protect and promote the interests of minorities, including minority opinions, against the tyranny of the majority, when the government chooses one side it becomes the tyrannical majority instead.

That is the moment when the activism begotten by scholarship overthrows the scholarship — the moment when the university launches its own destruction.

Indeed, the last time this was put so clearly was perhaps all the way back in 1967, when the University of Chicago’s Kalven Committee produced its famous “Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action.”

It is worth some extended quotes:

A university has a great and unique role to play in fostering the development of social and political values in a society. The role is defined by the distinctive mission of the university … the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge.

The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or … student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic…. To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community … It is not a club, it is not a trade association, it is not a lobby.

…[It] is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives. It cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy; if it takes collective action, therefore, it does so at the price of censuring any minority who do not agree with the view adopted. In brief, it is a community which cannot resort to majority vote to reach positions on public issues.

The neutrality of the university as an institution arises … out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints …

Of course, one wants to say. Intellectual inquiry requires intellectual liberty, and the freedom of speech. Don’t we all agree on that? Doesn’t every single fair-minded lover of knowledge, not seized by the hysteria of his own personal political agenda, agree with that?

But the “instrument” of that speech is the individual faculty member or student, and the groups they may form to promote their viewpoints. Let them have at it, with maximal freedom of inquiry and speech ringing throughout the institution.

But that most noble goal of intellectual liberty and diversity can be achieved only when the organs of the institution itself — the university, the faculty governing body, graduate student unions, the student government — are above the fray. To maximize the freedom of inquiry and speech of their members, they must not be hijacked for the political agendas even of the majority of their members.

In our zeal for activism, for the clarity of one side (at the expense of the other), we have somehow failed to observe what could not be more obvious: that the BDS movement as it is manifest on our campuses is an attack on the fundamental goals and values of the university as a whole.

This is not about defending Israel. Criticize Israel all you want.

It is about defending the university.

McGill’s Judicial Board has done us all an immense service. Socrates, Hume, Mill — and ultimately all the many minority and disenfranchised voices themselves that have in recent years finally been getting their turn to be heard — should thank you.

Hard Cheese, Shavuos and the wait

The Shach and others discuss the criteria for waiting between cheese and a meat meal. Many have a Minhag on Shavuos to start with milchiks and then (some even bench after washing) and then have a Fleishig meal. Some only eat Milchigs (and yes, we don’t have Bsar Shlomim so wine fulfills Simchas Yom Tov. In addition it’s also a question of personal proclivity: you wouldn’t pasken that someone who dislikes meat should eat it on Yom Tov any more than you would ask someone who is lactose intolerant to suffer stomache aches with milchiks … Some Acharonim take the ‘meat’ ads general but not compulsory component to Simchas Yom Tov)

Without getting into the issue of gevinas akum (about which Rav Soloveitchik has a Chiddush) this year in Melbourne the new fancy Italian Cheeses have hit the stores. 

Generally, ‘Hard Cheese’ like Parmesan is considered strict and 6 hours is the norm. Cheese with holes via worms also present problems.

If one has milchig then Fleishig it is important to change table cloths, use different bread etc

But what of the cheeses that have arrived on our shores from Italy. I admit to a glutton-like penchant for quality cheese (the smellier the better) washed down with nice Red wine. Oh such Gashmiyus Golus.

Parmigiano Reggiano
The OU through its expert Rav Gordimer has a short summary for how long cheeses take to make. six months (although some are lenient if the cheese is melted and used sparingly) are

Bleu: 2-4.5 months

Brie: 3-6 weeks

Camembert (French-made): 3-5 weeks

Cheddar: 2 months to 2 years or longer 

Colby: 1-3 months

Edam: 3 months

Emental (Swiss Cheese-Switzerland): 6-14 months

Feta (from cow milk): brined 2-3 months

Feta (from goat or sheep milk): brined 3-6 months

Gouda: 3 months

Gruyere: 7 weeks-3 months

Monterey: 2 months

Mozzarella: 30 Days 

Muenster: 5-7 weeks

Parmesan: 10-24 months or more

Provolone: 3-12 months

Romano: 5-12 months

Swiss Cheese/American-Made: 3-4 months

See also HERE

Can I humbly suggest that before Shavuos check any Quality cheese you may have purchased with a knowledgeable Posek lest during the short winter you find yourself having benefit from meat and milk!

If you use Chalav Yisroel don’t be afraid to ask Tempo.

Leifer again, sigh

[Hat tip NB]

Adass Yisroel “unaware” of Leifer funding

by Henry Benjamin

A member of Melbourne’s Adass Yisroel community has told J-Wire that no-one is aware of anyone within the community funding Malka Leifer who lives in Israel but is wanted by authorities in Australia to face 74 charges of child sexual abuse.

The offences took place when Leifer was employed by the Adass Yisroel school as its principal . She fled Melbourne in 2008 when allegations were surfacing and has avoided extradition on ten occasions to Australia failing to appear in court on psychiatric grounds.

Melbourne’s “The Herald Sun” has reported that it “can reveal a bank account linked to Mrs Leifer is being topped up by Adass community members here”.

The report stated that “deposits are being made over the counter at a bank in Elsternwick”. Elsternwick borders the suburb of Ripponlea, home to the Adass community.

Leifer has been ordered to undergo psychiatric assessment in Israel…a process which could take up to ten years. The court has ordered assessments to be produced every six months.

Malka Leifer
Shlomo Abelesz, featured in the recent SBS documentary on Melbourne’s Adass community Untold Story – Strictly Jewish.

He told J-Wire: “No-one I have spoken to within Adass is aware of this and we are as shocked as the rest of the community. If someone is doing it privately, it is possible. We would be surprised if it is true.”

Ablest said that if it were true someone, somewhere “had broken privacy laws”. He added: “I haven’t heard of one person within Adass who has heard of this account. Mrs Leifer was not very popular. There would be very people who would be wanting to support her within Adass. The story sounds to me like fabrication and until I see proof of it I would say it’s a beat-up. Everyone is disgusted with her. No-one in any official position in Adass has ever heard of this account.”

It’s interesting to see secular privacy laws of the country allegedly being mentioned. Torah Law may say something else. Check with your own Rabbi.

It’s a boy!

With thanks to  השם יתברך על כל החסדים שהנחילנו we are thrilled to announce the safe birth of our grandson, to Moshe and Leah Rivka Chaiton on שבת קודש

May all those needing a רפואה שלמה be זוכה לקבלת התורה בבריאות הנפש והגוף כהרף עין, כימים ההם בזמן הזה

המצפה לגאולה,

יום ירושלים עיר הקודש והמקדש,  ת׳ו

א. יצחק הכהן בלבין ומשפחתו

Prayers for Malka Leifer

If you haven’t read ‘she’s free to go’ in Israel until she gets better.

I’m waiting for the Adass Israel community to call for a day of prayer, so that Leifer, accused of 72 accounts of pedophilia gets better sooner so that her continued existence in this sick mental state subsides and the daily profanation of God’s name doesn’t continue to recur.

Does anybody want to take betting odds that this prayer day won’t occur and that it didn’t occur on the last prayer-filled event last week at the Hungarian Ultra Orthodox Haredi establishment in Melbourne? 

I will bet her name wasn’t even mentioned in a prayer for a Refuah Shelema.

Let justice take its path.

If she God forbids, lures a victim, now that she is free to roam, I’d be applying to have her institutionalised in an asylum with appropriate mental care.

The Incredible Journey of a Jewish Traveller by Israel Cohen

[Hat tip to RYDBZ]

This is an incredible log of a world-wide journey, published in 1925. Even the City of Melbourne was visited and described in Chapter 7, and I present that section below (not perfectly converted from PDF to text).

Israel Cohen

CHAPTER VII
MEMORIES OF MELBOURNE

THE journey from Adelaide to Melbourne,
accomplished overnight in a comfortable train,
was the shortest I made since I left Port Said,
as it took only eighteen hours. Melbourne impressed me as a beautiful city, clean and spacious, with
wide, regular streets, tall imposing buildings, including
something like a sky—scraper, and a handsome tree—lined
thoroughfare—St. Kilda’s Avenue-—which can challenge
comparison with some of the finest boulevards in the
capitals of Europe. It has a. Jewish community of 6000
souls, who are all intensely proud of the city in which
they live, and who never ceased asking me what I thought
of it. Their lines have fallen in pleasant places, for
most of those who arrived there as immigrants with only a few shillings in their pockets, though with untold

energy, succeeded within a comparatively short time in
attaining a high degree of prosperity. One of the largest
departmental stores was pointed out to me as belonging
to a Russian Jew who, twenty years ago, went about
hawking with a pack on his back. The devotion of
the Jews to the British Crown is sincere and ever-present,
and struck me as much more demonstrative in character
than that of their co—religionists in the mother country.

‘So fond were they of singing the National Anthem at
the gatherings in which I appeared that I was almost
inclined to think that they regarded me not so much
as an Emissary of the Zionist Executive as an Envoy of
His Majesty.

On the day of my arrival a reception in my honour
was given by the committee of the “Hatechia,” a Zionist
Society consisting mostly of Russian Jews. As I entered
the room the entire company greeted me with “ God
save the King,” to pianoforte accompaniment, and after
the introductions were over, and we had taken our seats
at a festively decked table, the chairman asked us to
fill our glasses, rose to propose “ The Health of the
King,” and within two minutes the National Anthem
was again rendered with great gusto to the tinkling of
the piano. Many speeches, brimful of enthusiasm, were
then delivered, and the concluding event was the singing
of the National Anthem for the third time. That demonstration should have sufficed to convince even the most
sceptical of the Morning Post scribes that Zionism has
nothing to do with Bolshevism. There was, indeed,
hardly any public function in my honour that did not
either open or close with a similar patriotic manifestation.
One evening I went to a ball organized by some youthful
Zionists, and as soon as I appeared on the platform overlooking the dancing-floor, the orchestra suddenly stopped
in the middle of a lively jazz measure, and after a
moment’s solemn preparation vigorously struck up the
ever-popular anthem.

The reception on the day of my arrival was rendered
memorable by another feature. It was .a gargantuan
plaited loaf that lay on the table. before me, similar to
that which I had seen in Perth on the eve of my departure. It had been specially baked, I was told, not only
in my honour, but for my personal consumption ; but
when I explained that I could not very well take the
loaf back to my hotel, and that in any case it would
become quite stale before I had eaten even half, it was
proposed that it should be raffled among the members
of the society for the benefit of the Palestine Fund.
This suggestion, however, was not proceeded with, as
one of the members bought it by private treaty for a
party that he was giving the next day in celebration of
his daughter’s marriage. The bridal couple thought that their union was rendered particularly auspicious
by the acquisition of the loaf of the Zionist Emissary.

Among various messages that reached me soon after
the local newspapers published their first interview
with me was a letter from a gentleman who stated that
he was very keenly interested in my mission, and had
indeed been looking forward for some time to my coming.
He mentioned that he was the brother of a rather distinguished personality in London, and asked if he could
call to see me. I at once responded cordially and affirmatively, congratulating myself upon the valuable assistance
which I felt sure he would offer, and still more upon the
introduction that I expected to receive to the distinguished
London personality, who had hitherto held quite aloof
from any Jewish cause. The brother of the great man
came to see me at once, but at the first glance at his
shabby coat and bristly chin I felt that I had been
building castles in the air, and we had not been engaged
in conversation many minutes before all the castles came
toppling down into fragments. For my visitor, after
inquiring after‘ the welfare of his famous relative and
perceiving that I acknowledged his importance, suddenly
remarked: “ I’m rather stumped just now. Can you
lend me a dollar ? I’ll let you have it back when we meet
again.” I had little faith in the possibility of any such
repayment, nor was I disposed to risk a second meeting,
as I feared it might be abused by further exploitation,
so I gave the brother of the distinguished personality
half a crown, and he left me with the assurance that he
would never’ forget me——a sentiment that I sincerely
though tacitly reciprocated. When I related the incident
later in the day to a friend, he told me that my experience
was not unique, that there were several “ ex-remittance
men ” belonging to good families of the old country,
who ‘were always on the look-out for visitors whom they
could impress and impose upon ; and he congratulated
me upon having got off so cheaply.

But if I had to place a trifle on the debit side of my sojourn in Melbourne, I was rather lucky‘ to be able to
build up -on the -credit side a record of munificence far
surpassing anything done by any other community in
the whole of my travels. I owed a good measure of my‘

success to the help and advice of Mr. M. Zeltner, the

President of the Victoria Zionist Organization, who was
himself characteristic of the self-made man, for, born
over half a century ago in Cracow, he had arrived in
Melbourne with nothing but his wits and his grit, and
gradually established his fortune as a.- merchant in rubber,
and his fame as a public-spirited philanthropist. He
presided at the first two public meetings that I addressed,
and lent his house on a Sunday afternoon for a private
gathering, the total yield of the three occasions being
‘nearly £14,000, which Mr. Zeltner headed with the first
£1000.

The “most important meeting was that over which
General Sir John Monash presided. The General had
hitherto not identified himself with Zionism, although,
since his return from war-stricken Europe as the brilliant
Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Forces, he had
begun to take a more keen and active interest in Jewish
affairs. The fame that he, not a professional soldier
before the war, had deservedly won on the battlefield
by his genius for strategy and gift for leadership, seemed
to be resented by the military clique, whose jealousy
prevented the according of such an official welcome on
his h0me—coming as a victor acclaimed in the Allied
capitals was entitled to expect. Sir John had now put
away his uniform and sword and resumed his practice
as a civil engineer, and only a day after my arrival he
was appointed by the Federal Government as Director
of the great Morwell electricity scheme. He was exceedingly busy at the time,” and as the meeting over which

I wished him to preside was to take place on a Monday
evening. and I could not approach him until the previous
Friday afternoon, I was prepared for a rebuff. But Sir
John was the soul of kindness. He welcomed me in his office in his bluff and hearty manner, and little persuasion
was needed either from me or from a mutual friend,
Mr. B. H. Altson, an ardent Zionist, who accompanied
me, to secure his assent to our request. He had a previous
engagement, an important meeting of the Court of
Governors of the University, but he agreed to waive it
for the sake of Zion. He inquired about the latest
developments in Palestine, and told me with pride that
a famous kinsman of his had once been interested in
the Jewish colonization of the country.

“ Who was that ? ” I asked curiously.

“ The ‘historian of our people, Graetz,” was the reply.

There was little time left to make arrangements for
the meeting, especially as it was the week-end, and
some of my friends were rather nervous about the result.
But thanks to prominent advertisements in the press,
headed “ The King’s Message to Palestine,” and above
all, to the attraction of Sir John Monash, whose popularity
with the public was not affected by military pique, the
Assembly Hall was crowded with a representative
audience of about I000, whilst late comers had to be
turned away. As soon as Sir John arrived in the waiting-
room behind the platform he remarked: “ I mustn’t
forget to give you this,” and, taking a half-crown out of
his waistcoat-pocket, he said : “ This is from my cook.
She is a profound believer in the restoration of the Jews
to Palestine, and she insisted on my giving you her
mite to the funds”

The meeting was marked by scenes of enthusiasm,
particular applause greeting the reference in my speech
to the part played by the Australians in the redemption
of the Holy Land. I had been told that at the time
when volunteers were being raised in the Commonwealth
for transportation to the battlefields of Europe there was
a popular song with the catching refrain : “ Australia
will be there ! ” which was sung and whistled throughout
the Continent. I utilized the refrain in drawing a picture
of the future glories of Palestine, for, speaking of the new settlements that would gradually arise to cover
the waste places of the ancient country and of the proposal to create among them a colony bearing the name
of the Commonwealth, I exclaimed tha “ once again
would it be said: ‘ Australia will be there!’ ” The
patriotic allusion brought the house down. My appeal
for‘ funds, conducted by the method I had inaugurated
in Perth, was successful. The first response was for
£1000, then followed a few donations of £500 each (one
being from Sir John, though he asked that the announcement should be anonymous), and scores of others for
decreasing amounts, until a total of £6000 was reached
within an hour, making a grand total of £20,000 after
only six days’ work. The Victoria collection was shortly
increased to £26,000, thanks to private canvassing and
to visits paid to Geelong and Ballarat.

Another distinguished Jew whom I met was the Hon.
Justice Isaacs, a member of the Commonwealth Supreme
Court, whose decisions in some leading cases, I was told,
had evoked encomiums from legal authorities in England.
He was another example of the Jew who had risen to
the highest position by sheer merit and force of character.
The son of a poor Russo-Jewish tailor, he had started
life as a school teacher, but in his leisure hours he studied
law and then decided to devote himself to the legal
profession.

I met him———a dour-visaged sexagenarian of medium
height with small grey moustache and fresh complexion
——at the house of Mr. Altson. The aspect of Zionism
in which the judge was most interested, or rather about
which he was most concerned, was the question of
Jewish nationality. He could not understand nationality
apart from a state or territory from which such nationality was derived, and he therefore asked how the Jews,
having no such qualification, could claim nationality.
I replied that his definition was faulty, that it was
formulated without regard to actual conditions, and
that he confused nationality with citizenship.

” Take the case of Eastern Galicia,” I said. “ There
you have a country whose fate the Peace Conference
has not yet decided, and which is inhabited by three
distinct nationalities-the Ukrainians, the Poles and
the Jews. The Ukrainians and the Poles are striving
for the mastery, but both recognize that the Jews form
quite a different nationality. Whatever be the fate of

Eastern Galicia, the Jews will be citizens of the State ‘

to which it will be assigned, but they will still belong
to the Jewish nationality.”

The judge thought for a moment, and then said
gravely: “ I think that nationality is an unfortunate
term.”

He told me that he was making a serious study of
Hebrew grammar, which he had neglected since
boyhood, and wished to know something about the
adaptability of Hebrew to the needs of modern speech,
asking for the equivalents of various modern terms.
The acquisition of languages was his hobby, and among
the various European tongues that he had mastered were
Russian and modern Greek. I” was anxious that he
should make a. profounder study of Zionism than he
had hitherto done, and was glad to learn that he in-
tended. visiting Palestine on his way to England, whither
he was shortly sailing for a year’s holiday. I gave him
a letter of introduction to Sir Herbert Samuel, but when
I reached Jerusalem several months later, I learned that
Justice Isaacs had spent only a day in Palestine, which
scarcely sufficed for the correction of pre-conceived
ideas, still less for the gathering of new impressions.

Among the novel experiences that fell to my lot was
to occupy the pulpit in two synagogues, first, at the
more fashionable shrine in St. Kilda, whose minister
was my old fellow—student, the Rev. Jacob Danglow,
and, secondly (after a few weeks spent in New Zealand),
at the East Melbourne Synagogue. The addresses
served a practical as well as a moral purpose, for they
were delivered during the Sabbath morning service before congregations which included many people who
had not attended my public meetings, and the result
was of no small benefit to the Fund. The experience
recalled memories of my Jews’ College days, when I
occupied more than one London pulpit ; and apparently
I acquitted myself of the preacher’s role ‘with some
measure of satisfaction as I was discreetly approached
on behalf of the committee of another synagogue and
offered the vacant position of minister with alluring
emoluments. Memories of my College days were also
revived when I visited Mr. Danglow’s study and saw
on the wall the framed illuminated address that had
been presented to him by the Jews’ College Union
Society on the occasion of his departure from England
some sixteen years before, and which had been drafted
and signed by me as President of the Society.

I had, indeed, no lack of variety of experiences. They
were in no case exciting, though occasionally exasperating.
For I had to supplement my public appeals by personal
canvassing, and I seldom found anybody willing to
promise a donation without some preliminary skirmish.
Doubts were sometimes expressed whether the Zionist
scheme would succeed ; questions were asked about the
measure of financial support given by prominent English
Jews ; priority was claimed for local calls and charities;
attempts were made to postpone a decision. But I
grappled bravely with every case, developing the patience
of a Job and the ingenuity of a counsel for the defence.
One man wished to be assured that there would be a
Hebrew revival in Palestine; his next-door neighbour
demanded that English should be predominant; both
were ultimately satisfied and contributed. Another
person was anxious lest England should relinquish the

‘Mandate and leave Palestine to her fate; and a fourth
had the vision of a powerful Jewish Commonwealth fifty
years hence making war upon Great Britain-—as though
we Jews have not had enough with the wars of others.

Some doubted whether Jews could make successful colonizers, but when I showed them some of the photographs I had taken in Palestine—of the beautiful avenue
of palms in Rishon-le-Zion, the picturesque suburb of
Tel Aviv, the keen intelligent faces of the Haluzim,
the splendid figure of a mounted Shomer—their doubts
were dispelled.

There was, in truth, little reason in Victoria for doubt
on the score. of Jewish fitness for husbandry, as a colony
of Jewish farmers had actually been created in that
State only a hundred miles from Melbourne. It was
the fruit-growing colony- of Shepparton, comprising a
hundred Jews, mostly of Russian origin, some of whom
had lived in Palestine several years before the war.
The establishment of the settlement was due to the
initiative and generosity of one or two public-spirited
Melbourne Jews, and had proved thoroughly successful.
I received a telegram from the little community inviting
me to visit them, but unfortunately my arrangements
rendered the journey impossible. The Jews of Shepparton, however, bore no grudge. They at once convened
a local meeting, delivered speeches on the restoration
of Palestine, and raised a goodly sum for the benefit of
the Fund.

A little scepticism was also expressed at a meeting
that I addressed under the auspices of the Melbourne
University, and over which the Principal presided. I
spoke mainly upon the subject of the Jerusalem University, though I also dealt with the general aspects of
the Restoration. But a professor of history, who proposed
the vote of thanks for my address, tried to show that
the Zionist ideal was impracticable on the ground that
his reading of history had taught him that the Jews
had always lived in discord with one another, and could
not govern themselves. I. acknowledged his thanks but
repudiated his history. I pointed out that the Jewish
communities and colonies already established in Palestine
were .a model of peace and concord ; and that the Jews
were not only able to govern themselves, as they had proved through the councils of the colonies in that
country, but were also able to govern some of the people
in Australia, as would be shown when Sir Matthew
Nathan shortly arrived to assume office as Governor of
Queensland. The burst of applause evoked by this local
illustration signalized the discomfiture of the professor
and the ‘explosion of his thesis.

Before leaving Melbourne, I had a brief interview
with the Commonwealth “Premier, the Right I-Ion.
W. M. Hughes, to whom I bore a letter of introduction
from Sir Alfred Mond. The Federal Parliament was
sitting at the time, and as the interview was to take
place in the Premier’s official room, I arrived a little
earlier so as to hear some of the speeches. The Chamber,
which is modelled in general after the House of Commons,
is, of course, much smaller and less dignified, and the
apparently constant restlessness of the members deprived
the proceedings of any inspiration. I was fortunate enough to come in time to hear “ Billy ” Hughes, as he
is invariably styled, address the House on the Estimates.
He has an unprepossessing figure, being short, round-
shouldered, and with a beak-like nose; his. lips snapped
open like a vice, emitting a rasping, raucous voice, and
then snapped together again; he gyrated first on one
foot and then on the other ; and all the time he held
in his hand a short ear-trumpet to- catch the interruptions
that flew about. But the instrument-did not compensate
entirely for his deafness, and he made some curious slips
in his retorts, which evoked peals of laughter. “ Billy.”
however, was not disconcerted, and despite all his physical
deficiencies he easily dominated the entire assembly
with his arresting eye and air of authority.

As soon as his speech was over he left the Chamber

[for his private room, into which I was presently ushered.

After reading the letter of Sir Alfred Mond, he remarked
that the latter had been very helpful to him in England,
and then asked if he could be of any assistance to me.
I said that I should have liked him to preside at a public meeting, but as he had been away most of the time that
I was in Melbourne, and I had to leave for Sydney the next day, that desire was doomed to disappointment.

He inquired about the progress in Palestine, and especially
about the attitude of the Arabs, and then sharply asked :

“You haven’t come here to recruit emigrants for Palestine ? ”

“ Oh, no, sir,” I assured him. ‘

“Because we can’t spare any,” he added grimly.

He expressed his good wishes for the continuance of my tour, and I withdrew.

It is well worth downloading and reading all 378 pages of this book. Enjoy.

Two Michaels: Danby and Kroger and the Jewish News

Michael of the Liberal Party is a political Machiavellian. He is good at it, however, his criticism of Michael Danby the long-term Jewish, Zionist member for Melbourne Ports is misplaced. Allow me to dispel in brief terms some of Kroger’s points. I don’t have time for an informal dismemberment.

  1. If a politician can get preferences from an irrelevant party, viz, the Greens, then you take those preferences. They put you into power, and allow you to hold to your agenda. If the Greens do not like what Danby has said or achieved in his years in parliament, then they will not redirect their votes. Clearly, Mr Kroger, it’s a question of degrees of distaste. The Greens distaste of the Liberal party is known and is almost uniform. That being said, Mr Kroger knows how to obtain Green preferences in other seats for the Liberals in order to block Labor. Without being party political, Kroger’s comments are simply jaundiced.
  2. It concerns me greatly that Mrs Bishop and the Australian Government has anything to do, whatsoever, with the regime of the Ayatollahs in Iran. This is indefensible. Talk is cheap. Actions speak. Iran can trigger a bomb when it wishes, how it wishes, and will do so irrespective of whether Julie Bishop kowtows to the Obama left-wing Government of the USA or whether dons a Shaytel at a Jewish event in the “same” way that she placed a head covering on for the Ayatollah.
  3. In extolling the Jewish credentials of David Southwick, let me just say that I am impressed by the almost weekly attendance at Elwood Shule of Michael Danby, where a sadly dying congregation offers him zero political leverage and succour. Michael has nothing politically to be gained by going to a Shule with barely 20 people each Shabbos. David’s perennially capacious grin seems to appear at events only, especially  in the Jewish News. David know how to stamp himself.
  4. There were major errors (and I’m using a diplomatic term) in David Southwark’s CV. Claims of certain employment were fallacious and easily known to be. I knew it and remained silent. Thankfully he corrected these.
  5. Jews are known in the Talmud as רחמנים, merciful. Accordingly, there are a number of Jewish people who tend to vote Green, among a bevy of anti-Semites who do so as well. Those Jewish people, and many are intelligent, know the Greens will not win Melbourne Ports, but Michael Kroger seems to assume that they are uncomfortable with Michael Danby receiving their preference. The last time I knew, prophecy ended with Ezra and Nehemia. I’m not aware of prophet Kroger, nor do I contend he has better inside knowledge of the mind-set of Jewish Green voters than anyone.
  6. It is true that extremism is something that Jews tend to veer away from, on both sides. Whether it’s Daniel Andrews and his mindless cavorting with the Unions on matters as grave as the control of our legendary fire fighters, or the undiplomatic, and unstatesman-like rhetoric of Donald Trump in the US elections. In this vein, the past Howard Governments’ record in the UN cannot automatically be assumed to be in the same breath as the Julie Bishop visits to Iran. One would not get an answer on the record, but I would not have expected John Howard, a true friend of Israel, to send even mild Alex Downer to dine with ayatollahs who engrave “Death to Israel” on their missiles, today.
  7. I do contend that Malcolm Turnbull is a true friend of Israel. I am not convinced by Bill Shorten. In respect of policies: the Superannuation Policy of Shorten will affect me more than the Turnbull policy. We’ve seen over the last few days, that all three parties, including the extreme Greens, cannot fully explain their policy unless the relevant minister is doing so.
  8. The Greens have a bigger Jewish thorn in their ranks than Bernie Sanders. Her name is Lee Brown, Halachically Jewish on both sides, she now goes by the name of Senator Lee Rhiannon. There is little worse than a self-deprecating Jew who tries to be less Jewish than one who is not.
  9. We do have our strange Australian Jewish News editor, Zeddy Lawrence, who in keeping with his mantra? of “mixing it all up” refuses to apologise for promoting in a large photo and article, a “Jewish” wedding, which wasn’t, and which was conducted by a non-Jewish Celebrant! Be under no illusion. Lawrence received letters about this תואבה and in his usual open “democratic” style, where he serves us boring predictable left-wing letters from Henry Herzog every two weeks, Zeddy refused to publish letters critical of that editorial disgrace. He tries to sell papers. That’s his job. He needs though to be a little more responsible.
  10. In summary, those  who cannot put aside their personal party preferred preference and make your Vote 1, for Michael Danby, are guilty of commission and omission. Michael appears as just about the only sane voice in the moving, social and written media as a strong, effective and unadulterated supporter of the State of Israel.
  11. We may get to a point, where, like France, we become an irrelevancy in Australia. This will simply herald the continued ingathering of the exiles to the Holy Land.
  12. On right vs left, other examples abound: those who simply label “Avigdor Lieberman” as right-wing, and rub their hands, are being simplistic, and fail to account for real politick. Israel has not done well under the left-wing Obama regime. It never was going to. It would do worse under Bernie Sanders, and will do no better under Hillary Clinton. That was obvious as soon as B.H. Obama was elected. I doubt whether Trump will be any better.
  13. In Australia, I think Turnbull is well ahead of Shorten both in ability, intellect, experience, believability and integrity. Shorten is a nice and likeable fellow, but hasn’t got the broader touch. He’s almost an incarnation of a political Eddie McGuire, the Broadie boy. In Melbourne Ports however, there is only Michael Danby. Do not waver.
  14. Michael Kroger’s comments are a distraction down Machiavellian roads.
From left: My father ע’ה, Vice President of Elwood Shule, Fred Antman, President Elwood Shule, Michael and Amira Danby
From left: My father ע’ה, former Vice President of Elwood Shule, Fred Antman, former President Elwood Shule, Michael and Amira Danby

The USA and Israel. Full of it

I noticed this article by David Horowitz in the Times. I don’t understand why people don’t call a spade a spade. America likes to antagonise Israel’s “right” (sic) as anti peace. It’s the same in Melbourne with the left wing of the New (sic) Israel Fund, “Ameinu”, Habonim or Hashomer HaTzair.

Israel’s right isn’t anti peace. Who doesn’t want peace? It will not, however, kowtow to one approach, Obama politics.

Iran? Of course there is nothing to talk about. Fact: they are anti-Semitic. Fact: they deny Israel’s right to exist. Fact: they don’t give a damn about “Palestinians”. Fact: they emblazoned “destruction of Israel” on their missiles. We are in fact the Indigenous people of Israel.

Barack Hussein Obama knows he can’t do anything to Iran unless they step over an “imaginary line”. If that line is crossed, and it may be crossed, then Hilary will adopt Kissinger-like zero-result diplomacy, Trump may well make decisions that cause Americans on the ground to die (as opposed to Obama’s Pareve drone attacks which do nothing except knock off a head which grows again on another body) and Bernie Sanders will always be the darling Jewish talking head of the darlings.

It never ceases to amaze me that the left-wing (who THINK they are the owners of any and all peace proposals) condemn the democratic process. Are they denying Netanyahu and Lieberman to join? This is the Israeli democratic system.

The left wing is full of it. They always have been. Look at Russia and our countryman who invented their “philosophy” of life. If the world was serious, and the world is not serious, then it would allow equal time for prayer according to their sacred democracy and equal rights on the temple mount. I won’t go there for Halachic reasons, but the secular Israeli parliament has legislated that Jews must stay mute. sacré bleu!

Avigdor Liberman and Naftoli Bennet call their spades. People seem to not like spades.

Maybe they prefer the editor of Melbourne’s Australian Jewish News who disgracefully allowed a big feature of an INTER-marriage (read non Jewish marriage) also performed by a נכרי  “celebrant” and chose not to publish letters decrying this תואבה. Don’t get me wrong. People have free choice. They can do as they like. Why doesn’t the aJn tell us what Jewish means in the J  “celebrating” an marriage of assimilation ר’ל . What a disgraceful piece of Jewish journalism. I may as well read the Age.

By the way, Communist/Socialist Lee Brown (Rhiannon) of the Greens (and God help any sane person who votes for that party) is actually halachically Jewish.

[As an aside: I admit to recently finding out that my father’s cousin ע׳ה, with whom he played in the streets of Rawa Mazowiecka before the war decided that the answer to Jewish Persecution was to become a Communist. He became a high-ranking officer and always was surrounded by body guards. His father and brothers were frum, but he “knew” the answer. After the war, he still tried to bribe my father ע’ה to stay in Poland and become a communist as that was the future! Why go to Australia he said. He gave my father an expensive gold coin which my father promptly returned to him. My father ע׳ה didn’t fall for Hitler. He wasn’t going to fall for gold. I never knew of him (except for a reference once my father made in passing) and my father ע’ה didn’t know what happened to him. As השגחה פרטית would have it, his granddaughter was courting an Australian Jew she met in the USA, and she came to a wedding of a friend in Australia. To cut a long story short, I invited her to our house so she could meet her Jewish family. I showed her pictures of her lineage. I told her she was my cousin etc. Her mother advised me via email (they left Poland) that her father (my father’s cousin) regretted his courtship with the left. After the war, teaching himself, he was admitted to a Bachelor of Economics. He finished that and completed a Masters of Economics. He then did a PhD in Economics. Then he discovered what it means to be a Jew, even if you tried to hide it. He was not permitted to submit his thesis for some five years because he was Jewish by none other than his Socialist friends. Yes, after the war. Finally his thesis was defended and he became Dr Balbin. All this time, I thought I was the “first” Dr Balbin (big deal). I was wrong. He then went on and did something beyond a doctorate. I don’t know the details of the Polish University system. Whatever it was, he achieved it. After that, he was ignored.

Disillusioned, he travelled to Vietnam during that war, and helped out on a humanitarian mission, literally giving away the clothes he had, to those who didn’t. He returned with no suitcase. I was told by his daughter, that he knew of his relatives in Melbourne, and he tried to ring them from Vietnam. Unfortunately, that didn’t succeed in those days. He returned to Poland a broken and disillusioned man, but one who now understood the farce of contemporary  Communism and Socialism. He passed away. His wife outlived him, and when she was on her death-bed with cancer, her treating doctor, a famous professor, made an anti-semitic remark. She had no strength, but suddenly found it. Yelling loudly she screamed that “this doctor will never ever go near me again. He is an anti-Semite. I would rather die today than be treated by that toad”.

A few days later she was dead.

Some of my family were “annoyed” I had rediscovered this small branch. I stay in touch. Here is a picture. My father ע’ה is pictured on the bottom left, and the Polish, now American, granddaughter is on the top right. My Aunt and Uncle are also pictured.

IMG_2467

Open your eyes people. The USA Government has a love/hate relationship with us. It does not have true love. It’s what’s known in הלכה as אהבה שתלויה בדבר …. In this case, the דבר, is the דבר אחר.

Most American Jews are so assimilated they don’t know their Krutzmich (scratch me) from the light of a Menorah. I don’t hold out that they will give a Patch (pronounced putch in Yiddish) to the Democrats, but they damn well should. The only reason Israel doesn’t go to the Jewish (on both sides, yes really) Vladimir Putin, is because he hasn’t got the money to give them billions in military aid and Berel Lazar isn’t that important to him. Remember, though, Russia were the first to recognise the State of Israel: there is Jewish blood running thick in the veins of Russia.

The only reason the USA supports us is because of the messianic lobby and real politick and the so-called disappearing Jewish “lobby”.

Do you delude yourself like Horowitz that anyone really cares? They don’t. The slither, ממש, that is ארץ אבותינו doesn’t mean anything to them in real terms.

אבינו מלכינו אין לנו מלך אלא אתה

David’s article follows. Why does he bother?

According to unnamed senior politicians referenced by Israel’s Channel 10 news on Friday night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bid to stabilize his coalition by bringing in Yisrael Beytenu, with Avigdor Liberman taking over the Defense Ministry, is likely to have the opposite effect. The government may well collapse, and we could be heading to “new elections in the next six months,” these anonymous top polls predicted.

This is Israeli politics, where every new hour can make a mockery of what you thought you knew the hour before, so it would be wise not to get carried away by such anonymous predictions. But, it’s easy to understand the assessment. The brutal ousting of capable, temperate and loyal Moshe Ya’alon, in favor of the inexpert, intemperate and disloyal Liberman, has caused dismay across the spectrum, and not only in opposition circles.

The Jewish Home coalition party has manufactured a crisis over it, demanding an overhaul of the process by which the key security cabinet is provided with information in times of war and conflict, vowing otherwise to block Liberman’s appointment.

Kulanu’s Environmental Protection Minister Avi Gabbay has followed Ya’alon’s lead in resigning from government in protest at one cynical political maneuver too many; like Ya’alon a week before, Gabbay on Friday slammed the door on his way out with a warning that, under this increasingly extremist coalition, Israel is heading down the path to destruction.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Liberman announce their coalition agreement, May 25, 2016 (Yonatan Sindel/FLASH90)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Liberman announce their coalition agreement, May 25, 2016 (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Kulanu, a party crucial to Netanyahu’s Knesset majority, is plainly discomfited by the unfolding events, and is trying to persuade Zionist Union’s Isaac Herzog to enter the government — ludicrously, since Herzog was so badly burned by his last effort to negotiate terms for a unity deal with Netanyahu that his party leadership is under unprecedented threat.

In Netanyahu’s own Likud ranks, the wave of criticism rolls on. MK Benny Begin immediately pronounced himself horrified by the Ya’alon-for-Liberman trade. On Saturday, deputy minister Ayoub Kara declared that ex-corporal Liberman, who never served in an IDF combat role, is simply not fit to succeed ex-chief of staff Ya’alon.

Herzog has claimed that he held talks with Netanyahu, at great risk to his own political career, because Israel currently has a rare opportunity to make headway toward regional peace, but that the prime minister, in jilting him for blunt, bleak, settler Liberman, “ran away” from the compromises and domestic political battles seizing such an opportunity would have entailed.

And even the United States has weighed in, with the State Department articulating concerns over Israel’s direction. Asked about incoming defense minister Liberman hours after the new coalition deal was signed on Wednesday, spokesman Mark Toner stressed that the administration would, of course, “work with this government as we have with every Israeli government that preceded it, with the goal of strengthening our cooperation.”

But he allowed himself a little foray into what might be considered internal Israeli politics. Said Toner: “We’ve also seen reports from Israel describing it as the most right-wing coalition in Israel’s history. And we also know that many of its ministers have said they opposed a two-state solution. This raises legitimate questions about the direction it may be headed in, and what kind of policies it may adopt, but ultimately we’re going to judge this government based on its actions.”

I have written two columns in recent days criticizing the ouster of Ya’alon and his imminent replacement by Liberman, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Netanyahu gambit does come to be regarded as a turning point when it comes to the electorate’s opinion of the prime minister.

But I’m struck, nonetheless, by the criticism from Washington — issued even though Liberman pledged at the coalition signing ceremony that he was “committed to a balanced policy that will bring stability to the region and to our country”; he even switched to English to pledge his commitment to “peace and to a final status agreement, and to understanding between us and our neighbors.”

What’s perhaps most telling about the response from Washington is that it was so very different to the administration’s response, one day earlier, to dramatic political developments in Iran — where, coincidentally, a hard-liner was being elevated in somewhat different circumstances to a yet more powerful position.

On Tuesday, a day before Netanyahu and Liberman signed their deal, Iran’s Assembly of Experts chose Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati as its new chairman. The Assembly oversees the actions of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and come the day, will select Khamenei’s successor. That makes Jannati one of the most powerful figures in Iran, arguably the most powerful.

Ahmad Jannati, widely described as the most radical of Iran’s senior clerics, is not a nice man. He opposes any notion of Iranian political reform. He backs the execution of political dissidents. He insists that Iran’s women cover up beneath the hijab. Needless to say, he loathes Israel. And he loathes the United States.

Here’s Jannati in 2007: “At the end of the day, we are an anti-American regime. America is our enemy, and we are the enemies of America. The hostility between us is not a personal matter. It is a matter of principle.”

In 2008: “You cried: ‘Death to the Shah,’ and indeed, he died. You cried: ‘Death to Israel,’ and it is now on its deathbed. You cry: ‘Death to America,’ and before long, Allah [he’s not my God] willing, the prayer for the dead will be recited over it.”

And in 2014: “‘Death to America’ [is] the first option on our table… This is the slogan of our entire people without exception. This is our number one slogan.”

In this photo released by the official website of the office of the Iranian Presidency, hard-line Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati speaks during an inaugural meeting of the Assembly of Experts in Tehran, May 24, 2016. Jannati was chosen on Tuesday as speaker of the Assembly of Experts, a clerical body that is mainly tasked with selecting the country’s supreme leader. The official IRNA news agency said 89-year-old Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati won 51 votes in the 88-seat Assembly and would serve as speaker for the next two years. (Iranian Presidency Office via AP)
In this photo released by the official website of the office of the Iranian Presidency, hard-line Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati speaks during an inaugural meeting of the Assembly of Experts in Tehran, May 24, 2016. (Iranian Presidency Office via AP)

Given that the United States last year led the diplomatic process that culminated in an agreement to rein in (but not dismantle) Iran’s rogue nuclear program; given that President Barack Obama has been urging Iran to “move toward a more constructive relationship with the world community”; given that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and a regional troublemaker; given that Iran continues to develop its ballistic missile program… you might be forgiven for thinking that the selection of the radically hostile Jannati would raise “legitimate questions about the direction” in which Iran may be headed, “and what kind of policies it may adopt.”

And indeed, a day before he was asked about Liberman, the State Department’s Mark Toner was questioned at his daily press briefing about Jannati. Did he express his dismay at the selection of an official viciously hostile to the US and Israel to so prestigious a role? Did he communicate America’s concern about the grim message that the choice of Jannati represented? He did not.

Here’s the full exchange:

Question: “You’ll have seen, I’m sure, the reports that Ahmad Jannati, a 90-year-old anti-Western cleric, has been chosen as the head of Iran’s new Assembly of Experts, which is in charge of selecting the new or whomever will be the next supreme leader. Is this a good thing? Is this a bad thing? And does this suggest that Iran may be moving toward a more pro-Western, more open-toward-the-West stance?”

Question: “Or do you have faith in Iran’s internal democratic procedures?” (Laughter.)

Mark Toner: “Let me see if I have anything pithy to say about that.”

Question: “And do you regard Iran as an ally in the fight against terrorism?” (Laughter.)

Toner: “You’re talking about – yeah, no. Have at it, guys. (Laughter.) We follow domestic events in Iran closely, as you know, but we don’t have any comment at this point on the outcome of the leadership elections of the Assembly of Experts.”

Raising questions about Israel’s direction, after Liberman, promising a commitment to peacemaking, joins the coalition. But staying silent about Iran’s direction, after Jannati, a man who declaredly seeks the destruction of the United States, is elected to head the Assembly of Experts.

Have at it, guys.

 

Happy Lag L’aomer, or Lag B’aomer?

I seem to have unanswered questions on the 33rd day of the Omer. The Gemora in Yevamos tells us that on this day the Talmidim of Rabbi Akiva ceased to die. I haven’t yet understood why that should be a happy day. Why? Well, if they started dying again the next day (assuming the Ashkenazi tradition) then who would be “happy” that there was a day of remission to the extent that it has morphed to. Note: this is, to my knowledge, the only source in Torah Sh’Baal Peh (Gemora) describing this day. Someone sent me a page of the Chidushei Agados of the Maharal on this Gemora. I have it at home, but can’t recall ever looking that up. The Maharal has a really nice explanation. He says that on this day the decree was lifted. Yes, it’s true that those for whom the decree had already been decided continued dying until presumably Shavuos, but I still had problems with this answer. Firstly, assuming that it is the reason, I would have thought that it would have been really hard to “get happy” knowing people would continue dying? Secondly, all but a handful died. It was a potential disaster for Torah She’Baal Peh.

Tradition has it amongst some that this is also the Yohr Tzeit/Hillula of the Rashbi. The Rashbi, is considered to be the author of the Zohar (or if you follow some views, most of the Zohar, but let’s not go there). The Zohar is Toras HaNistar, the hidden Torah, or perhaps the more esoteric metaphysically modelled face of Torah. The Zohar wasn’t and isn’t anathema to Misnagdim or Litvaks (most), but is of course anathema to the DarDaim (of which Rav Yosef Kapach was prominent) who believe to this day that it’s not part of Torah. Either way, the issue of it being associated with Toras HaNistar is agreed, and yet, the Ari Zal, for example, never wrote that on this day Rashbi passed away.

The Aruch Hashulchan and others note that this is the day that the Rashbi emerged from the Cave he had been hidden in for 13 years. That was a day of Simcha because with his emergence, so did the emergence of the Zohar, and the continuation of the chain of Torah SheBaal Peh.

Even assuming it wasn’t his Yohr Tzeit, I understand happiness at his emergence. (The Chasam Sofer mentions that on this day the Manna in the desert started to fall). I also understand that being morose for long periods without a break isn’t the best thing, especially today where the importance of positive thinking and talking is stressed even by secular psychologists. The glass is always “Half Full”. I’m not getting into that topic because like anything, if one over-does this approach in educating their children, I feel it shields them from reality, although I do accept that it should be, especially today, the de jure approach to education.

The Eidot HaMizrach have a different understanding. Yes, according to that Gemora in Yevamos 62B, the students stopped to die. They therefore cut off all Sefira mourning on midday of the next day (although this year being Erev Shabbos is likely more lenient — note, I’m writing this blog without looking things up, which is a bad thing, so remember that! Do your own checking up on what I claim 🙂 That approach makes sense to me, and always did. It’s also not as if the Beis Yosef as a father of Eidot HaMizrach wasn’t a Mekubal. He definitely was. Whether the Rambam was is an issue of contention. I have a book by Professor Menachem Kellner on this general topic, and I know (but haven’t seen) that the Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote a piece proving that the Rambam had access to the Zohar. Again, I digress.

Another question is why we don’t call it Lag Laomer, consonant with the way we count every night. A Rav pointed to a letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe where he says that we say Lag Baomer is because the numerical value of Lag Baomer is the same as Moshe, and just as Moshe Rabennu revealed the Torah Shebiksav, and Torah Shebaal Peh (Halocho LeMoshe MiSinai) the Rashbi was permitted to reveal the secrets of the Zohar, and the Rashbi was a spark (Nitzutz) of Moshe Rabennu, if you will.

Artists rendering of the Remo

In Shiur today, I made another observation. Tonight, Lag BaOmer, is the Yohr Tzeit of the great Remoh (רמ’’א) who is known to have written 33 Seforim (but it is contentious that he died at the age of 33 as well). The Remoh’s name was MOSHE and he was the greatest Posek Rishon for Ashkenazi Jewry through his glosses on the Tur in Darkei Moshe, but more importantly his glosses on the Shulchan Aruch proper, adding the Ashkenazi view where he disagreed with Rav Yosef Karo. Nu, I suggested that his name was Moshe, and it is fitting that also in PSAK, that perhaps a Nitzutz of Moshe who had the same name, passed on high on this day.

My father ע’’ה in the Remoh's Kloiz in Kracow
My father ע’’ה in the Remoh’s Kloiz in Kracow

Food for thought. Happy for anyone to shred what I have written to ribbons as I have not opened a few Seforim which might help me and make this a better post.

If you haven’t noticed. These are Pitputim. No more.

Congratulations to Rabbi Danny Mirvis and his family

Danny Lamm has not taken long before his committee (how many Lamms are on that committee, and people complain about Yeshiva!) has offered the position of Senior Rabbi to Rabbi Mirvis.

He ticks the boxes.

  1. He is a Religious Zionist from a Hesder Yeshiva
  2. He isn’t a Chabadnik (yes, I don’t believe Mizrachi would ever appoint a Chabadnik)
  3. He was educated in the more politically moderate Yeshivat Har Etzion
  4. He and his wife are charming and seem to be well-liked
  5. He will likely complete a four-year stint before returning to Israel (preferably the stint will be a lot less due to Geulah being in place)
  6. I have only shared a few lines of conversation with him, and heard him speak twice. He does his homework and is a likeable person. I do not know how he traverses the philosophies of Rav Amital vs Rav Lichtenstein, the former apparently having more of an influence on his outlook. Rav Amital and Rav Lichtenstein had enormous respect for each other but were very different, with Rav Amital having his own strong disagreements with R’ Tzvi Yehuda Kook on Rav Kook’s approach and the approach needed today.
  7. Perhaps most tellingly 🙂 when I introduced myself he said “Oh, Jackie Bassin’s Zayda”. I was expecting, “Oh, Adina Waller’s brother”. I learned from that, that he obviously had exposure to our grandson, and appreciated him, and that this was perhaps more my Yichus than being my sister’s brother :-). If he’d known my father and not mentioned that I was his son, I might have had some misgivings. Rabbi Sprung knew my father and often asked him what his secret was. Sadly, Rabbi Mirvis won’t, but happily he will see some of my parents’ great grandchildren one on one.
  8. He will give a more meaningful approach to Judaism than the more tree hugging, Tikun Olam, we embrace everything style of leadership or the “I do it different and I will shock you style from ARK”, and will respect Kashrus and support established authorities and ignore the communal maverick.

Prior to that, the name “Mirvis” only registered with me in respect of his Uncle Johnny. Johnny who is no doubt also a Rabbi, was in fifth year of Hesder at Yeshivat Kerem B’Yavneh, when I joined Kerem B’Yavneh. I didn’t have much to do with him, partly because of my reclusive nature, and partly because he concentrated on the English and American Bochurim, for whom he was given a particular mashpia style role. I only knew of his father when he was appointed Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth, although I need to declare that I am not a Monarchist, and consider both Philip and Elizabeth anti semites. The latter would visit a toilet in Ghana before stepping into Israel, and the former cantankerous oddity only goes to visit his mother’s grave, in a private capacity. Charles is hardly pro-Jewish either. Let me repeat what I have stated in other posts. If one claims to be against anti-Semitism and can’t call Israel the JEWISH State, they are an anti-Semite in my eyes, irrespective of where one sets borders.

Good luck. It’s not an easy community. You will be pushed around (older generation) by pseudo-Mevinim, but the youth will rally around you, and in that way, you will be successful. Now, if you can get the grandfathers and great grandfathers out of “Beit Haroeh” and hand it over to Ohr David, that would be a great start. Beit Haroeh has passed its used by date long ago and its time they grew up and moved into the Main Shule.

I also hope they let you influence Yavneh in respect to its Torah learning programs, and not write you out of that equation as they did with previous Rabbis.

From an interview at Har Etzion:

After numerous years as Director of the Yeshivat Har Etzion Center for Torah Leadership (CTL), Danny Mirvis is stepping down ahead of moving to Australia to assume a new position at the Mizrachi community in Melbourne. Dublin-born and London-raised, Danny has held numerous positions in the Yeshiva including Madrich of MTA, Racaz of the Overseas Program and most recently, Director of CTL. We asked him some questions about his time with CTL and plans for the future.

How has CTL changed over the years?

CTL started off as an exciting dream with many great ideas. Over the years, those ideas have been developed and organized to create three focused areas of activity:

1) Partner Projects – Supporting a broad range of educational and social initiatives of alumni from Yeshivat Har Etzion and Migdal Oz, including a focus on women’s learning.

2) Torah Leadership – Developing the connection with alumni actively involved in the Rabbinate and Chinuch across the world through ongoing contact, regular conferences and supporting different Torah publications.

3) Future Leaders – Identifying and investing in students and alumni with significant leadership potential, through leadership programs and CTL’s Winter Fellowships.

What have been the highlights of your time with CTL?

Rabbi Doniel Schreiber, the Dean and Founder of CTL, is a man of tremendous passion and vision. To work together with him and see how that vision has become a reality has been a privilege and pleasure.

For me, CTL’s proudest achievements have been the partner projects we identified and supported in their early stages, which have gone on to blossom and thrive on their own two feet. To give just a few examples, Garinei Ayala is now three times the size it was when they first came to our office to ask for assistance. The Shiurim in Givat Shmuel and Katamon are now self-sufficient and continue to grow and attract large crowds. The late night Beit Midrash at Penn turned to us for assistance at its inception and has gone on to become a fully-fledged part of Penn’s learning program.

How do you see CTL developing in the future?

CTL’s primary area of focus – the alumni of Yeshivat Har Etzion and Migdal Oz – is a talented, dynamic and growing group. It is through these alumni that CTL aims and hopes to make a positive impact and genuine contribution to the world around us. As our alumni progress and grow in number, new opportunities will develop for CTL to expand its programs and activities.

The same can be said for our alumni in Chinuch and the Rabbinate. I see great potential for CTL to increase its interaction with this group as it continues to grow in influence and number.

You have held numerous positions in the Yeshiva. How does it feel that your next position will be on the other side of the world?

Though I have held numerous positions in the Yeshiva, they have all shared the sense of mission of working towards the Yeshiva’s goals of being immersed in Torah and engaged with the world.

Mizrachi in Melbourne is a wonderful community with strong ties to the Yeshiva, a genuine appreciation for Torah and a deep love of Israel. Though it could not be much further away geographically from the Yeshiva, I see my role there as a continuation of the same mission.

What will you be able to take with you from your experiences with CTL to assist you with your future role?

First of all, thanks to CTL, I will belong to a global network of Rabbinic alumni from Yeshivat Har Etzion, which I will be able to draw on for ideas and advice.

I also hope to employ CTL’s educational and organizational philosophy in my new position. At CTL, we have not aimed to build our target audience around our programs and activities, but to build our programs and activities around our target audience. This is something I hope to continue in the future.”

PS. I had promised to show him my Shas, printed in Dublin on linen paper. He was astounded that such a thing existed. I suggested his father would know. It even has Chiddushim of the Satmar Rebbe at the back, and yes, there are still pages stuck together in my Shas, I never used it for Daf HaYomi 🙂

Missing the point about Jews, Judaism and Zionism

We are used to worrying about the BDS boycott, and various academic boycotts and the like. There has been no talk of boycotts in my University. If the National Tertiary Education Union went down those stairs and/or the University, there would be mayhem.

What attracted my attention today is a statement we hear over and over, in various guises and contexts. The statement is attributed in the Jerusalem to former Chief Rabbi Sacks, a brilliant speaker and writer. He is alleged to have said

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Sacks said that some politicians in the British Labour Party had courted the Muslim vote and had adopted anti-Israel attitudes which have morphed into anti-Semitism.

I could not DISagree more. Where is the clear thinking. Anti-Israel attitudes expressed in the context of ‘we must solve the problem of Palestinian Arabs’ is nothing more than anti-Semitism. This is not anti-Zionism. The logic is exceedingly simple. There is no body, none, that will agree that Jews deserve a homeland, and that homeland is Israel. This narrative is elided too often. Some will quibble over the definition of borders and security provisions and so forth. They are issues that should be discussed. However, since 1948 and before that, there is still no recognition that Jews need a homeland. In this I include the entire spectrum of Jews in Israel except for the hand full of lunatics led by Moshe Ber Beck, the Iranian nuzzler. He is welcome to live there, and be happy. They are not religious Jews. They have seen that all their sycophantic activities amount to nothing but Bitul Torah while protesting and travel.

No, Rabbi Sacks. Nothing has “morphed“. This is classic fallacy filled British diplomacy . The anti-Semitic Ken Livingstone types of this world should be dethroned, but to allow the semblance of thought that Jews are not entitled to their homeland, as above, and call this entitlement Zionism, is bizarre, I find it difficult to comprehend. Nay, this is an attack on Judaism 101. We assert our right to live in peaceful boundaries. Those who seek to deny this right, whether emanating from explicit charter, whispering, obfuscation or diplobabble (the French Connection) are anti-Semites.

As Rav Kook so eloquently put it:

“It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself.”

This redemption is what we aspire to.

[ Only an ignorant would interpret this to mean Rav Kook’s Judaism in Exile was not infused with Torah. ]

 

What exactly is the problem?

The Jerusalem Post, a middle to right wing paper, commented on some recent statistics in Israel. One that drew my attention was (emphasis is mine)

This year’s report also revealed a trend reversal in that transfers between educational streams show a move away from religiosity.

Among the Jewish population, the report noted, recent years have seen net migration from more religious to less religious school systems.

As such, more students have moved from haredi schools to state-religious and state- secular schools, and from state-religious schools to state-secular schools than in the opposite direction.

The largest number of transfers was from state-religious schools to state-secular schools, where in 2014/15, 14,700 pupils transferred.

The researchers called this “remarkable” since the national-religious population constitutes the smallest sector at 14-15% of the population.

We first note that the Jerusalem Post as opposed to any study that I am aware of concludes that this is a move away from religiosity. While that may be true, it is by no means a foregone conclusion.

  1. Have they measured, for example, whether the hours saved (presumably) at the State School, are being used “more productively” through daily shiurim at yeshivas and the like?
  2. Have they looked at the reasons given for the school moves?
    • A Charedi person may be just as frum, but may simply not be able to be burden costs
    • They have not discussed National Religious Charedi. There are many in this category and different approaches.
    • Have they defined religiosity
    • Is full observance in a State School a move away? Perhaps the longer term trend is that many of these students will influence more students to move toward “religiosity”?
  3. Looking at it with a pessimistic slant, one may wish to consider whether
    • Parents being left of center in religious observance are more likely to have children who move further to the left  than parents who have one or more “off the derech” children (I dislike the terminology and I do not know why we give it a classification category. Such categories can slur, and may become entrenched as something to feel more comfortable with. Let us not forget that the Torah itself did not like using negative language: animals that may not be consumed are called “not pure” as opposed to “trayf “.
    • How many teachers who practice orthodoxy are there in the State School system
    • How good is teacher training, especially in respect of pastoral care among State Religious teachers? Do they understand their pupils? It is far easier to simply teach in a State School in respect of the qualitative aspects of religion given a purely cultural/historical approach is most likely.
  4. The Rambam preached the middle ground. Life has taught me that very few start and stay on the middle ground. Indeed moving further in observance and understanding of Yahadus when younger, is not a negative trait. It would seem that as people age, and I do not remove myself from any such consideration, their level of Jewish observance moves left. To lead a life in the middle ground may well mean an early foundational right of middle experience. I specifically do not include those who learn for a living, do not publish, are not gifted intellectually, and are a burden to those who work for a living.
  5. Having not seen the statistical study and only read the Jerusalem Posts reporting on it, some of my comments may portray ignorance.

 

Whatever the case, what I took out of this, ostensibly, is that we need to increase in Torah Observance and Learning. In terms of observance, we must seek to minimise any negative proclivities. Those who have habituated a Chilul Hashem seen by the eyes of their children, are the greatest destroyers of  Yahadus, and the continued promoters of a perverted Judaism of the worst shameful order.

Challenges

There are a number in Melbourne. I won’t elaborate but 

חיה ביילא בת לאה בתיה 

Is one which hits home personally and she should get back to full health quickly.

I was at a Simcha tonight, and all I heard was ‘it’s terrible what’s going on in Melbourne lately’

Then somebody sent me THIS CHILLUL HASHEM

If I was there I would take the parents and teachers and air drop them into Gaza. That’s obviously their home. Disgraceful low lives.

Chabad Principal Rabbi Smukler attends and dances at Yom Ha’aztmaut service

The yearly prayer event which coincides with Ma’ariv is something I have attended for more years than I care to share. I do not recall but I believe I was unable to attend last year. In some years I was lecturing at the time, but I have attended almost every year.

I learned in a Hesder Yeshivah of note; the first Hesder Yeshiva in Israel. The Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Chaim Yaakov Goldvicht had the written and personal approval of the Chazon Ish. We dressed in our better finery and had a special dinner celebration of thanks. I lost my two Israeli room mates to War. I think about them often: Chovav Landau and Ze’ev Roitman HY’D. Chovav Landau’s wife was pregnant with their only child at the time. They were both in their fourth year of the five year program when I met them. I was closer to Ze’ev than Chovav. Ze’ev had lost his father to Yellow Fever, because a Doctor in Rechovot, had not changed needles after injecting an Arab patient. I felt his tragedy acutely. They both had machine guns locked in our room, and both perished when their tank was hit during the first Lebanon war.

The text of Ma’ariv in our Yeshiva was not the one adopted by the Kibbutz HaDati Movement (there was one next door) nor was it the text of newly published Koren Yom Haatzmaut Machzor. It was standard  Ma’ariv.

The Yeshivah formally followed the ruling that full hallel be said in the morning but without a blessing. There was no Tachanun.  This was not a statement of ‘less’ religious zionism. Rather, it represented delicate rulings related to liturgy and halacha.

As I recall, Ma’ariv had no additions. There was no Shofar etc I’m happy to be corrected. I do not know what current practice is followed. The Yeshivah did not affiliate with Bnei Akiva formally because of a concern for mixed gender functions. In my day Bnei Akiva in Jerusalem was gender separated.

Halachically, what one says before Ma’ariv and after the concluding Aleinu prayer is of lesser importance. When said in a Shule proper, there is also halachic  import.

That being said, I was to learn, later in life that the famed Rav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik, otherwise known warmly as ‘the Rav’ was implacably opposed to additions to liturgy. This extended to the Holocaust and Kinos. He famously stormed out of RIETS when some ignored his ruling on Yom Haatzmaut.

Chabad’s Yeshivah and Beth Rivka Schools follow their choice. Chabad make no liturgical change and do say Tachanun. Whilst certainly not religious Zionist, they are not noted for the extreme anti Zionist rulings of the Adass Israel Congregation where Tachanun is especially said on Yom Ha’atzmaut even in the presence of a Bris Milah lest someone conclude that Adass saw any religious importance  in the State of Israel’s Independence Day.

For decades, Chabad’s boys school principal would not attend the Chabad dominated Rabbinical Council of Victoria’s gazetted service at Mizrachi. Thee council is, I believe dominated by Chabad Rabbis. This is not surprising in Melbourne where the survival and resurgence of Judaism is due in major part to Chabad.

I have been opposed to the service only being held at Mizrachi as I do not consider Mizrachi to be the ‘owner’ of this style of service. I am certain, that, for example, Caulfield Shule would gladly offer their Synagogue.

Chabad now has only one Principal: the controversial Rabbi Yehoshua Smukler.

It was then interesting for me to note Rabbi Smukler’s  front row appearance at Mizrachi last night, including his dancing circomvolution around the Bima. I concede that this may not have constituted halachic dancing (during Sefiras Haomer). He didn’t clap like Rabbi Cowen of Mizrachi’s Elsternwick Shule (Rabbi Cowen is considered a Chabad Chassid) nor did he sit on the Mizrachi wall like Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick, who spoke as President of the Rabbinical Council of Victoria (and who is also a Chabad Chasid) and R Leor Broh (also a Chabad Chasid) of Mizrachi’s Beit Haroeh Shule (populated by once young marrieds, now grandfathers :-).

To be complete, unlike a general Yom Tov or a Chabad Yom Tov such as Yud Tes Kislev, I didn’t notice any Chabad Rabbi in attendance wearing their longer black Kappote).

We live in very interesting times.

May the State of Israel metamorphose into the Eretz Yisrael of our redemption, speedily, in our days, with the continued grace of God.

An Eruv in Crown Heights?

There is an existing Eruv supervised by Rabbi Unsdorfer which covers North Crown Heights. This doesn’t include Chabad. While there have been Eruvin in Chabad (in Liadi and Lubavitch itself) times have changed, and the last Lubavitcher Rebbe זי’’ע stated clearly that he was against Eruvin today and an example is Melbourne. Let me qualify that. One cannot be against Kosher Eruvin in the sense that they think an Eruv is an unnecessary concept. That is a view likely held by Reform or “reconstructionist/new age” Jews. I would like to think that those who are less practicing but when they do practice, do so, according to traditional Orthodox Judaism also have no issue with the concept of a Kosher Eruv and would consider supporting such.

I was privy to details of the first (unkosher) Eruv constructed in Melbourne many years ago through the office of the then Mizrachi Organisation’s Rabbi (not the venerable Rav Abaranok ז’ל), and heard the tapes of Rabbi Groner ז’ל discussing the issue forcefully with Rabbi M.D. Tendler and read booklets from Rabbi M. Krasnjanski and Rabbi Yosef Bechoffer and more.

Melbourne now has a world-class Kosher Eruv, which is, I believe, under the supervision of Rav Gavriel Tzinner (who has mashgichim here through the Council of Orthodox Judaism of Victoria) and visits these shores from time to time. It is trusted by those who avail themselves of its facility, and this includes the ultra orthodox, generally secessionist, Adass Israel Congregation.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe did not issue Halachic decisions as a rule, but did do so from time to time if he felt it was important to identify and/or stress a Chabad custom, or if he deemed the matter to be of a level of importance to the extent that he did so.

On the issue of Eruvin, as I understand it, the Lubavitcher Rebbe preferred to build a quiet unannounced but strictly Kosher Eruv for the purposes of minimising the possibility of someone carrying by accident. I understand that he was concerned that, in our day, a proliferation of Eruvin would imply that ordinary Jews would forget there was a prohibition to carry. Indeed, on several occasions I have witnessed Jews, especially from Israel where there are Eruvin all over the place, not even be aware that one should not carry on Shabbos, as a matter of Torah law.

Since the Lubavitcher Rebbe passed away, as I saw in videos and written material, and as affirmed in the book by Rabbi Eliezrie which I happened to finish one week prior to this post, the LR specified that issues in “the future” for Chabad Chassidim (which undoubtedly included the possibility that he would not live to see the redemption before he passed away)  should be decided by Vaad Rabbonei Lubavitch or Mercaz etc depending on the type of issue. I do not recall reading or hearing the notion that one decides based on opening a random page of his Torah, a practice which many Rabbis forbid or do not encourage, including some Chabad-ordained Rabbis, since even the Goral HaGro (and yes there is also a Gemora גיטין דף סח)  was only used with Tanach.

I therefore close with my opinion that those who are now starting a public campaign to raise money for a more expansive Eruv in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, should only be doing so if they are not Chabad Chassidim, or they have express permission from the aforementioned Beis Din of Lubavitch.

I am not here to discuss the merits of an Eruv. In days gone by Eruvin were critical. They allowed one to bring home the pot of choolent, which was warming in the baker’s oven (I presume the baker had a fleshig section or the heavy pots never had enough to overflow 😦 ) for lunch after davening. It is a halakhic requirement to have something warm on Shabbos, and from there, Choolent, Chamin and the like emerged (in my opinion). As an aside, PLEASE don’t use the term Pareve Choolent. There is no such thing. Call it Potato Stew or slow cooked Potato or whatever. A choolent without meat, was unfortunately something which the poor suffered who couldn’t even get bones to put in their choolent.

Back to the issue. My view on the online appeal for money to support a wider Eruv in Crown Heights are:

  1. It should not be supported publicly by Rabbonei Lubavitch
  2. It should not be used by Chasidim of Chabad
  3. It should be constructed by a Rabbi of world-renowned expertise in Eruvin
  4. Others should follow their own Posek, and if their Posek allows it, by all means, use it
  5. Those who are not of Chabad persuasion who want to be personally stringent should only do so for themselves. They should not impose the stringency on their family. If they wish to change their mind and use the Eruv later on, they will need Hatoras Nedorim (annulment of vows, given the views of the Rambam on Reshus HoRabbim D’Orayso, which is also a Chumra of Briskers and I believe the Rav was also reluctant to use Eruvin)

In summary, it would have been better, given the relative paltry sum required from the vantage point of a Gvir, to have done this without fanfare, if one followed the late and great Lubavitcher Rebbe. Indeed, who knows if an Eruv was built in secret. It’s not in any book I’ve read (and I have read four relatively good ones on Chabad in the last year, especially when compared with the poor book by Heilman et al which was taken apart by Rabbi Rapoport of England)

Disclaimer: I aspire to be an ordinary Jew. I am not a card-carrying member of any group, although  I would be most inclined to follow Rav Soloveitchik if he were בעולם דידן. One can only surmise if the Lubavitcher Rebbe would have a different opinion. Those who try to second guess him, should give up now. There is no ability to do that. Like the Rav, the Lubavitcher Rebbe was a super genius.

Interesting article—Working does not contradict Torah

[Hat tip Kracower]

Yehuda Meshi Zahav

ZAKA chairman Yehuda Meshi Zahav describes sparingly and with restraint the things he and thousands of his volunteers at ZAKA do. ZAKA is a haredi (ultra-Orthodox Jewish) organization that rescues, identifies, and traces Jewish disaster victims in Israel and all over the world under sometimes virtually impossible conditions. Such a mission requires love of one’s fellow man, great empathy, faith, and a belief that good will come of it. It requires Zahav, a man with impeccable curly white payess (sidecurls).

Two months ago, following a four-year struggle, ZAKA won recognition as an official UN consultant and observer. The eventual decision was taken unanimously by a special UN committee composed of representatives of 19 countries, including Iran, Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, Turkey, China, Russia, Pakistan, Uruguay, Burundi, Greece, the US, and Israel.

“Globes”: Did Iran and Pakistan also vote in favor?

Zahav: “There was no opposition, not even one country. We sent our representative, who met with every one of the committee members. The Iranians asked us if the report that ZAKA treats Jews first and Arabs later at terrorist events was true. We said that they hadn’t read it correctly. We treat the victim first, and then the murderer, regardless of nationality. They realized this, and voted in favor.”

About-face: From extremist haredi operations officer to national hero

Once upon a time, Zahav was the operations officer of the Eda Haredit extremist haredi group. He led demonstrations against Sabbath desecration, burnt Israeli flags, fasted and wore mourning clothes on Israel Independence Day, illegally removed dead bodies from the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute to prevent autopsies from being performed and put mice into the pathologists’ rooms, and sneaked onto archeological sites in order to prevent archeological excavations. Since then, however, Zahav has been honored by being asked to light a torch on Mt. Herzl while calling aloud in a clear voice, “For the glory of the state of Israel.” His grandfather, Rabbi Yosef Sheinberger, the mythological leader of the Eda Haredit and a fanatical opponent of the founding of Israel, refused to speak with Zahav for the last four years of his life. For Sheinberger, what Zahav did was a desecration of God’s name.

The change in Zahav began on July 6, 1989, when a terrorist blew up a bus on the 405 route from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It happened on a road in front of the Telz-Stone yeshiva (Jewish religious seminary) in Neva Ilan. Zahav and his friends wanted to see what was happening, “and then, when the dismembered bodies were laid out before my eyes, when the sirens were echoing among the smoky fragments of the bus, when the bloodstained clothes were scattered over the area, when entire families were broken and erased in an instant, I realized that the quarrels between us were meaningless. The type of skullcap you wear and the kind of clothes you wear pale in comparison with the real war we’re faced with. The Arab enemy doesn’t distinguish between the blood of a haredi, a secular person, and someone who’s modern Orthodox. We’re all connected. There’s no right or left. Everyone’s pain is the same. That was the moment when I crossed the lines and abandoned the ideology of haredi Judaism,” he later said, just before lighting the torch in honor of the ZAKA volunteers in 2003.

“Since then,” he says today, “I have been repenting. I put my efforts in the right place.” That also includes severe criticism of the leaders of the community he is identified with. “I didn’t see the haredi leaders with the bereaved families,” he said during one of the IDF campaigns in the Gaza Strip. “There were 20,000 people at the funeral, but I didn’t see black clothes there. There might have been haredim here or there, but when we want to, we can fill any place with black clothes.”

….

To read the full article click globes.

Published by Globes [online], Israel business news – www.globes-online.com – on April 27, 2016

© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2016

Did you know about Perlasca, Hungarian Jewry and the Holocaust?

The following is a great guest post from Meir Deutsch (c).

Wallenberg Perlasca

Many thanks for sharing.

 

Women singing at public events or commemorations

The following is from the Jerusalem Post.

“A row has broken out after Bar-Ilan University earlier this week banned women from singing during its Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony on Wednesday night.

Female students were told they would be allowed to read passages of text for the ceremony and play musical instruments.

Rabbi Shlomo Shefer, Bar- Ilan’s campus rabbi who is responsible for the ceremony, told Channel 10, which first reported the story, the decision was made because women singing in ceremonies on campus was not the customary practice at the university. Jewish law, in general, prohibits men from listening to women sing in person, although some rabbinic authorities are more lenient on this issue.
The university faced criticism from several quarters, including the national-religious organization Ne’emanei Torah V’Avodah (NTA), which said that singing at national ceremonies is an Israeli custom and stringencies in Jewish law should not be imposed on the general, non-religious public.

“Even if within Jewish law there are different opinions regarding women singing at public events, there are enough opinions [in Jewish law] that do not prohibit this at public ceremonies, for religious ceremonies and other events,” the organization said.

“NTA holds that women can and should appear on stage at public events. Those who have a stricter approach are free not to attend these events, but they cannot impose their strictures on the general public.”

Separately, NTA also criticized the Israel Association of Students for inviting singer Eyal Golan to perform at its annual Student Day celebrations.

Golan was accused, in 2014, of having sexual relations with underage girls, although the police investigation against him was closed due to lack of evidence. During the investigation, the singer had told the police that there was a difference between sleeping with a girl of 17 compared to a girl of 16, saying the latter was a criminal act and the former was not.

“It is difficult to accept the indifference in which performers who are caught up in moral controversy are invited to such events,” said NTA.”

My view (Note very carefully that I am not stating any more than an opinion. Halachic rulings should only be given by Rabbis of recognised high calibre unless they are an “open and shut” case as per Shulchan Aruch, which this is not, as per the parameters in Responsa on similar questions e.g. Women singing Zmiros in the Sridei Eish 2:8 especially near the end of that responsa, and reciting Krias Shma in front of a female who is not wearing a head covering these days as per the Aruch Hashulchan (Orach Chaim 75:7) cf. Mishna Berura (Orach Chaim 75:10) who disagrees.

Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein ז’ל, the Aruch HaShulchan
  1. It is proper for a University of this type to have a Rabbi to whom it refers Halachic questions and advice.
  2. It is proper for such a Rabbi to proffer his opinion on such matters, as well as providing these to students who consult him.
  3. On weighty halachic issues, I would expect any Rabbi, unless he is a recognised Posek and/or who writes Responsa which leave them open to peer review, to confer with Poskim of note who already have no halachic issue with attending this type of University establishment
  4. I think I have been at Bar Ilan once; I do not know the University except for some academic Computer Science issues (e.g. its responsa project) and some academics who publish Judaism-oriented articles.
  5. The issue of women singing (many consider this a Rabbinic prohibition) together with men at a formal ceremony, as in a remembrance ceremony or the singing of an anthem, is one which is not new. Although one may be sitting or standing relatively close to a female and hear her particular voice clearly despite a group setting (מגילה כא, ב), I would be inclined to respond as follows (assuming the questioner was free to make their own decision 🙂 ):
    1. If this issue is one which you personally feel is halachically problematic, do not attend.
    2. If your own Posek has advised you that you may attend or may not attend, then follow his Psak Din.
    3. I would consult with a renowned Posek and suggest to that Posek that, perhaps based on the Aruch Hashulchan and those who quote his interpretation, it can be argued that it is highly unlikely that anyone who is already attending Bar Ilan, and today might be sexually aroused from this group form of singing, might be permissible.
      Either way, I would suggest though that they look straight ahead or up at the sky while singing, or close their eyes (looking and “staring” are two different things halachically). In my opinion, any permissive ruling should be accompanied by a qualifier to remind the person of the fact that there is always a prohibition of a male listening to a female singing. [I was privy to a permissive ruling for my band, Schnapps, from Rav Moshe Feinstein ז’’ל. Schnapps offered a male singer only for many years, but over the last few years (in my opinion this changed when certain Rabbis did not, and some still do not, leave a Simcha when a female was singing) now offers either a younger new male singer or a male and female combination).]
    4. I would offer to discuss parameters that are inviolable according to Orthodox opinion (I exclude Open Orthodoxy and Shira Chadasha from such, as they are not considered Orthodox by Orthodoxy.)
    5. An interesting sub-question that came to mind is the case of a male who had a homosexual disposition and קול באישה ערווה. I’m reminded of one of my teachers of Halacha, Rav Yosef Efrati שליט’’א  many years ago who would answer such questions when asked publicly (on Thursday evenings when he gave his packed Halacha Shiur at Yeshivat Kerem B’Yavneh) with: “Nu, Is this a question להלכה ולמעשה?” I don’t doubt that it is a question for some, however, my inclination is that it would be not advised to advertise such a disposition, despite the reality that those in this category are more vocal, and ask for acceptance. On the issue of acceptance, there should be no barrier placed which causes them to feel disenfranchised to the extent that they feel uncomfortable in a largely heterosexual Shule.

What would I do personally? I come across this each year at Yom Hashoa events where the partisan song and the Israel national anthem are sung (according to a Psak I received many years ago, I replace להיות עם חפשי with להיות עם תורה). I do not leave the Hall. I sing these, and usually concentrate on the lyrics, looking straight ahead. On the other hand, if a female sings alone, which is much rarer these days, I look to leave the hall earlier (there is a printed program) as if I need a bathroom break, and return some time after. I have found myself in the company of Orthodox Rabbis who attend such events and do not enjoy bothering people in the row that I sit if I don’t get an aisle seat. I attend because my father ע׳ה, a survivor, attended and my children attended with him together with my mother, עמו׳ש, who is also a survivor. I won’t digress into a discussion of forms of commemoration and Halacha, though, there are substantive views on this from Mori, VeRabbi, Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik ז’’ל.

I want to repeat: please do not under any circumstance treat this blog post as anymore than Pitputim. In practice, if you have such a question, please consult your Posek.

This story from Colombia is beautifully written and a “must read”

[Hat tip BA]

Read the article here

Amazing is a word that comes to mind.

That being said, the theological conundrum of “what quality of  Neshama does a Ger Tzedek have/acquire”, is a deep question that involves the likely diametrically held views of the Kabalistic Zohar vs the  Rational Rambam (according to many) and their takes on various Talmudic/Aggadic texts. A wonderful article by Rabbi Chanan Balk should be read if you are interested in that topic as well.

Two excellent articles, in summary, that are well worth your time reading in full.

[ I note that Reuven Hammer, a favoured rabbi of conservative/masorti types, recently made waves about equality of neshamos in a different context. In that, he opposed the Zohar and Baal Hatanya and others, and used the alternative view given that it aligns with Western sensibilities of “equality at all costs”—a concept which has been the (warning the hyper-link points to a conservative response) catalyst of many non Orthodox groups.]

from jewishness.co.il

D’var Torah Parshas Acharei

The following is (c) Reuven Brauner, Ra’anana, Israel. Thanks Bobby 🙂

ACHREI MOS

“What are the Se’irim?”

(ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים אשר הם זנים אחריהם, חוקת עולם תהיה זאת להם לדרתם. (וקרא יז:ז

And they shall no longer offer their sacrifices to the “Se’irim” (goats) to which they have turned; this shall be an eternal ordinance for all generations (Levit. 17:7).

God commands Moses to tell Aaron, his sons and all of Israel about the prohibition of bringing sacrifices outside the Camp and newly dedicated Tabernacle. There shall only be one place where this form of Divine worship will be permitted, and from now, all external altars shall be strictly forbidden. This section ends with the verse cited above with the directive that the people will no longer sacrifice to the “Se’irim”, literally goats, but understood to mean demons (שדים – see Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Sforno, Malbim, and others) who lived in the wilderness and frightened the people. Most of the classic commentaries do not define this word in its plain meaning but in the sense that either the people imagined that these demons as goat-like or from the root שער (,(סער a storm, which agitates the atmosphere, that is, the people would shudder and tremble in fear when they saw these devils.

Some of our commentaries indicate that maybe the Israelites in Egypt still wrongfully believed that there was a god of good and a god of evil which each needed to be appeased with sacrifices. Now that there was a single Tabernacle, sacrifices to multiple gods was not only no longer relevant, but an affront to the worship of the One God.

Possible evidence to the root meaning of the word שעיר may come from an interesting source. We have found that some translations of the Bible translate Sa’ir (שעיר) as satyr rather than the more common term, goat. Satyr and Sa’ir are possibly closely related etymologically.

The satyr was a Greek and Roman mythological half-man, half-goat creature or some sort of beast with goat-like (hairy?) features, living in the forests or deserts and characterized with a particularly virile sexual prowess. They also played flutes, maybe to allure unsuspecting victims with their music. These hedonistic, wine-drinking demons instilled great dread amongst the people and, in fear, the people would have naturally offered sacrifices to ward off these creatures and protect themselves from their lewd deeds.

Today we may say that these were not external sprites at all, but simply the mental symbolization of the internal sex drive which overpowered people and “compelled” them to commit unspeakable crimes of lust and passion.

Regardless, the lesson is clear that the Torah is teaching that demons, whatever their nature, source or appearance can be controlled by the single, omnipotent God, the source of everything, and the focus of all our thoughts, prayers and worship. Once the Tabernacle was constructed, the people needed to know that there was no further room to contemplate alternative gods or demons which had to be mollified. The person who acknowledges the One God has the one and only address for all his needs and desires, and the only true source for his salvation, healing and happiness.

20 Nissan 5776

For further information about goat symbolism, I found the following interesting site:

Click here

Strident words on the limits of inclusion

The following is from Rav David Rosen, Dean of the Zomet Institute.

The Torah spoke of four sons: One who is wise, one who is evil, one who is simple, and one who does not know how to ask. What does the evil one say? What is this service to you – to you and not to him. And since he removed himself from the community he has rejected the essence. Dull his teeth… If he had been there, he would not have been redeemed.” [From the Haggada of Pesach].

Family Inclusion

Homiletic experts from all the generations have delved into and analyzed the four sons: the essence of their questions, the suitability of the replies we give, and mainly the fact that they have all been invited to the same place – our Seder table. Speakers of the last generation have added a fifth chair, meant for a son who doesn’t even make it to the Seder. Not only doesn’t he know how to ask the questions, in fact he has no interest in asking, and he might well block his ears so as not to hear anything. And even so, our speakers tell us, and rightly so – we maintain a warm corner in our hearts for him. “For as I speak of him, I will yet remember him. Therefore my insides pine for him, I will have pity on him…” [Yirmiyahu 31:19]. Women speakers of the last generations, who are working hard to translate the Torah into a feminized format, will also present a group of four daughters, in an effort to maintain equality. (What do you call the bad daughter? Evil? A shrew?)

Sermons will be made, and I will make my own attempt to add my words to the issue which is called “inclusion” – that is, everything can be included, everything is treated in the same way. This word, which comes from the realm of psychology, is today used to denote acceptance of and compassion for the “other” – whether he or she is different, strange, and even a bit eccentric – just a s they are, without any hint of rejection, without preaching to them, and without trying to make them change their behavior or their outlook. I can partially identify with this concept, but with one important limitation: The “other” must be aware that he or she is different and that his behavior is wrong as far as I am concerned. In this case, there is indeed room for friendship, a partnership, a combination, and a conversation. From my point of view I do not flatter him but act in accordance with the definition: “inclusion.”

Let us return to the Seder table and to family containment. Many religious and Torah-true families find it difficult to accept sons and daughters who have strayed from the path, and who have removed the yoke of the mitzvot (partially or completely). However, the Seder table calls out to all of them and “includes” them, placing special emphasis on the “evil one” who sits on the sidelines. We must have only praise for the communities of the east, who during many generations have developed the techniques of “including” those who stray from the path of Torah – people who come to the synagogue on Shabbat and then continue as on a weekday, but they still define themselves as “traditional.” Reform Jews, on the other hand, who parted in anger from the Ashkenazi communities, do not exist in the eastern communities, and they are certainly not “included” in the communities of Ashkenaz.

Community Inclusion?

I have in front of me a document with the title “Halacha and Inclusion,” by the “rabbis of Beit Hillel and their wives,” which was distributed in the synagogues on Shabbat Hagadol. (Since containment in Hebrew is “hachala,” the Hebrew title is a play on words: ” Hachala V’Halacha.”) The rabbis of this modern-Orthodox enterprise produced a “position paper in the spirit of halacha,” as they put it, which calls for opening the hearts and the gates of the communities to people with a homosexual orientation. If I understand correctly, this would even include same-sex “marriages” of either men or women. Well, the son might ask, but in this case the father totally rejects such “inclusion” using the building tool in his hand, as Shammai once did under other circumstances!

I am not opposed to some simple elements included in the document about the need and the positive effect of outreach to sinners and not to reject them, and about the positive halachic attitude towards those who sin because of an innate urge, and about such things as “spiritual rape,” and more. 

However, I have sharp criticism about subjects that do not appear and as a result about the inclusion approach, which has evidently led to instability of the 14 rabbis (including some I know personally, and whom I do not understand) and the 7 women who signed the “ruling,” as it is called. (I note in passing that the title “ruling” on a halachic position which is mainly based on a world outlook reminds me very much of the rulings of the “Conservative Rabbinical Court.”)
Just what is missing in this document? As is noted in the Haggada, we should “remove from the community” all those who pride themselves in sporting a peacock’s tail in order to make their sins into a banner for all to see . We cannot “include” one who is proud of his or her sin and is a member of a sinful organization. The goal of such a declared organization is to draw other people into the circle of sin, and to provide legitimization of a forbidden pathway. Anybody who is part of such an ostentatious group cannot be accepted, and they should not be “included” in any of our communities (the family or the Seder table is different, and this should be discussed separately). This absolute diagnosis is totally missing from the above “ruling,” and it is clear from publicized material that the purpose of the document is to show appreciation for the progressive approach of Beit Hillel, which knows how to “include” everybody!

Here is the main point in summary: It is not possible to “include” institutionalized single-sex “families” within a community (and it is unclear whether this applies to a family grouping around a Seder table). “Chessed hu – It is a sinful act” [Vayikra 20:17]. “Tevel hu – it is an abomination” [18:23]. And it is also “hevel” – a vain approach. 

I wonder: Will these people react in the same way to men who marry Gentile women? Perhaps the answer is yes, who can know the spiritual depths of Beit Hillel? I want to note for the authors of this “ruling” that even among the abominations of Egypt, they never stooped to “writing a Ketuva for men” [Chulin 92b].

(Written after the end of Shabbat Hagadol.)

Pesach and the Jewish Calendar

Guest Post from R’ Meir Deutsch (c) [lightly edited by me]

© מאיר דויטש ניסן ה’תשע”ו
את חג המצות תשמור […] למועד חודש האביב
The Hebrew calendar is based on a combination of the lunar and solar calendars, as written in Bereshit:

“יהי מאורות ברקיע השמיים להבדיל בין היום ובין הלילה, והיו לאותות ולמועדים ולימים ושנים.” 

Our calendar is based on the Babylonian one. The names of the months are very similar, and the Babylonian calendar has also a leap year with ADARO SHENI. The Hebrew Calendar, according to Rav Ada (lived in the third century in Pumbedita) has a cycle of 19 years to merge the lunar and solar years. In his calendar we have:

365 days

5 hours

55 minutes

25 seconds.

The length of a year as known today is: 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds, a difference of just 6 minutes and 39 seconds.

For order’s sake, I want to mention, that according to Shmuel  in Eruvin 56a the solar year is 365 days and 6 hours.

ואין בין תקופה לתקופה אלא תשעים ואחד יום ושבע שעות ומחצה.

In HALACHA Shmuel’s calendar was adopted. According to his calendar the ברכת החמה is fixed. Shmuel’s calendar is based on the Julian calendar. As the HALACHA is based on Shmuel’s calendar, the calendar of Rav Ada is not mentioned in the Talmud, but most of the calculations are based on his calendar.         

Today we are in the Jewish year 5776 = ה’תשע”ו, and it is a leap year. When do we add another Adar to our calendar to match the two calendars? According to the formula of the Hebrew calendar the leap years in the 19 year circle are גו”ח אדז”ט, meaning that the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th and 19th years are leap years.

What do our sages say in that matter? The Talmud in Sanhedrin 12a says:

“תנו רבנן: אין מעברין את השנה לא בשביעית, ולא במוצאי שביעית.”

Don’t we have a problem this year with that? Last year we had a Shmitta year, if so, how come that the current year is a leap year? This problem can be solved by the Yerushalmi:

מסכת פאה פרק ה הלכה א: “ר’ יונתן ברי’ דר’ יצחק בר אחא שמע לה מן הדא אין מעברין את השנה לא בשביעית ולא במוצאי שביעית ואם עברוה הר”ז מעוברת.”

We mentioned earlier which years are leap years according to the formula. Does this formula match the learning of out sages?

Let us have a look at Sanhedrin 11b:

“ת”ר על שלושה דברים מעברין את השנה: על האביב, ועל פירות האילן, ועל התקופה”.

Why do we have to make a year a leap year?

We are ordered to celebrate Passover. We have a date on which we should celebrate it, but we have a condition for fixing the date – the season. The Torah, in Shmot (23, 16) says:

“את חג המצות תשמור […] למועד חודש האביב”

And in Devarim (16, 1) we find written:

“שמור את חודש האביב ועשית פסח לה’ א-לוהיך”

The dates are; for the Pesach sacrifice the 14th of the month (Nissan), and Chag Hamatzot the following day. These dates are according the lunar calendar, but the condition that it should be in the [first] month of spring is determined by the solar calendar. The Rambam writes on this matter:

(רמב”ם הלכות קידוש החודש פרק ד הלכה א): “ולולא הוספת החדש הזה היה הפסח בא פעמים בימות החמה ופעמים בימות הגשמים.”

We have four seasons, Autumn/fall, winter, spring and summer, we call them:

תקופת תשרי, תקופת טבת, תקופת ניסן ותקופת תמוז.

As we are dealing with seasons, they are fixed by the solar calendar.

Tkufat Nissan – 21st March (length of day and night equal)

Tkufat Tamuz – 21st June (the longest day)

Tkufat Tishrei   – 23rd September (length of day and night equal)

Tkufat Tevet – 21st December (the shortest day).

Rashi in Mesechet Rosh Hashana 21a explains the saying of Rav Huna:

“ואביב הוא יום תקופת ניסן, שניסן של חמה נכנס בו, שניסן קרוי אביב על שם בישול התבואה, ובישול התבואה אינו אלא לחשבונה של חמה, שהקיץ והחורף אחר חשבון החמה הם, […] ואילו היה תקופת ניסן ביום חמשה עשר – לא היינו צריכין לעבר את השנה, אלא נעבר אדר ונדחה את ניסן יום אחד, ותפול התקופה ביום ארבעה עשר, אבל כשהיא באה ביום ששה עשר בניסן – לא די לן בעיבורו של אדר, וצריכה השנה להתעבר […].”

And the Rambam writes on this matter:

(רמב”ם הלכות קידוש החודש פרק ד הלכה ב)

“על שלשה סימנין מעברין את השנה, על התקופה ועל האביב ועל פירות האילן, כיצד? בית דין מחשבין ויודעין אם תהיה תקופת ניסן בששה עשר בניסן או אחר זמן זה מעברין אותה השנה, ויעשו אותו ניסן אדר שני כדי שיהיה הפסח בזמן האביב [שהוא 30 יום הראשונים של תקופת ניסן], ועל סימן זה סומכין ומעברין ואין חוששין לסימן אחר.” 

Tkufat Nisan starts on 21st March must start by the 14th of Nisan. If it starts on the 15th we add one day to Adar, and if it starts on the 16th or later we make it a leap year and add the second Adar, otherwise Passover will not be celebrated in the spring, which is the first month of Tkufat Nisan.

Let us take for example this year – 5776. If we did not add the second Adar, the 14th of Nisan, would fall on the 24th of March, which is within the first month of Tkufat Nisan, and Passover would be celebrated in the month of spring. Did we have to add, according to Rashi, the Rambam or the Talmud, the second Adar to the calendar this year? Do we celebrate Passover this year in the first month of spring? 

חג מצות שמח.

Meir Gershon Rabi fired from Ben Pekuah Meats

Screen Shot 2016-04-15 at 11.29.13 AM Screen Shot 2016-04-15 at 11.29.24 AM

The “strength” of Obama

Check this out. Gandhi would have been proud.

Rabbi Dr Nathan Lopes-Cardozo on the Hagodo

I’m amazed at Dr Cardozo’s  latest piece. You can read it. I found it facile. I will summarise my reaction

  1. We are the people of the book. It is called the Torah. It can’t be “read” away. It is immutable.
  2. There purposely has always been an oral component, handed down at Sinai. We don’t need Plato for the insight of reading and understanding.
  3. The text is called HAGODO which means “telling/saying”. In other words, the point is dialogue. The text is the starting point. Not having a locus to commence from leads to the neo style evenings which turn Pesach into yet another commemoration of the Holocaust, something Rav Soloveitchik railed against vociferously. The left will of course humanise the story of Jews and turn it into “the evening of social justice” where we commemorate Darfur, Slavery, and what have you. Sorry. This is about Yetzias Mitzrayim which is indelibly woven both rationally and Kabbalistically  with Matan Torah. Matan Torah is what it’s all about. The former, Pesach, is the journey.
  4. Reading doesn’t require verbalising. The Hagodo does as he notes, but doesn’t amplify
  5. Rebbi Yehuda Hanosi wasn’t concerned with pharmakon! He was concerned that the oral discussions not be lost. Learning Gemora is the quintessential exercise in trying to piece together any contradictory mesoras that were transmitted
  6. I’m not at all clear what Dr Cardozo’s message means in the context of an audience that doesn’t understand the basics of what was written, and to expand that into dialogue. As I alluded to above, this is not ab nihilo. The Baal Hagodo gave us a starting point. If one isn’t even at the level of the starting point, then the starting point becomes exactly what should be taught this year, so that new insights are introduced in the following year. The beginning is most definitely reading and more reading and more reading. We most definitely do start from a point. It is called Mesora.
So much for Plato

 

Cutting corners for “honoured” guests. Who are they?

I came across a rather astonishing Pischei Tshuva from the 1800’s by Rav Avraham Eisenstadt of Bialystok in Yoreh Deah Chapter 69:13 in the Pischei Teshuva. The issue at hand is preparing meat for guests at the last-minute some compromises in the preparation of the kashrus process of the meat may be required to make sure that the guests are looked after and not hungry and waiting. The Pischei Tshuva quotes Rav Yaakov Reisher  in his Soles LeMincha, circa late 1600’s who in turn quotes the Toras Ho-oshom from (I believe) the Tosfos Yom Tov of the same era who define the type of people one is meant to honour as guests (and take short cuts in the context of that chapter in Yoreh Deah for the purposes of Kashrus preparation). I quote:

In places where it mentions “for the honour of guests” these are people of Torah knowledge, and people of repute who are known for their good deeds, or a poor person from the “good ones”, or rich people who are fit to afford them honour because they don’t indulge in evil, but not the “lower types”, or the misers and devourers, who go from place to seek food. And they are not called guests unless they are guests of one’s house, as opposed to friends who are invited [for a meal].

I don’t know about you, but I found this rather astounding and I wonder how far the limits extend. Is it just the definition of those who one is permitted to cut corners בדיעבד for or does this extend to other areas of הלכה?

The Israeli court system is to blame for Malka Leifer?

Watch this. I do not understand how the Israeli secular court system has done anything wrong except uphold the law of Israel. In this case it has conflicting evidence of Leifer’s alleged mental condition and is now seeking a court-based independent assessment before extradition. Is that not proper? Will the psychiatrist be considered biased if he/she concludes that Leifer is some sort of unfit mental maniac?

Video below from the ABC. It took a long time till victims came forward, and it takes a long bow to allege that Israel is dragging its feet on this and to say so on television. The case is proceeding as it should, and my expectation is that she will be found to be fit and extradited for trial. If it wasn’t a  Jew who made this claim about the Israeli Court System, some might call the comments anti-semitic. There are processes, and they must be followed. Prime Ministers and Presidents are put in prison in Israel.

It takes time.

The law isn’t the fastest runner on the block and these are weighty issues.

People need to choose their words more carefully.

 

Our own Taliban להבדיל

From Yeshiva World News:

An erev Pesach entertainment event in Jerusalem’s Arena Stadium that was to include Mordechai Ben-David has been canceled. According to a Kikar Shabbos News report, the cancellation follows the intervention of the “Vaad Mishmeres Kodesh & Chinuch”.

The entertainment event “Kumzing – By the Minagnim Orchestra” – was for men only, sponsored in part by the Jerusalem Municipality and was scheduled for Monday evening, 10 Nissan. The chairman of the vaad, Rabbi Mordechai Blau, announced on Sunday, 24 Adar-II that the committee opposes the event which if held, will be going on against the wishes of gedolei yisrael shlita.

Kikar reports as a result of the vaad’s announcement, the event is being canceled.

Rabbi Blau says that the Vaad takes issue with these shows since “gedolei yisrael oppose them”.

No names of any Gedolei Yisroel were named.

Unless there is something disgusting about this concern that I’m not aware of, the biggest enemy we face in our midst are not so much the Rabbonim Muvhakim, but rather the Askant, the Askonim (machars/political apparatchiks), who want to control lives whether it’s in keeping with Torah or indeed their Rav HaMuvhak.

I’m reminded by the admission of Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank who related a discussion with Rav Chaim Sonnenfeld.  I will leave out the juicy bits but you can read them here

About six weeks ago, I spoke with Rav Chaim Sonnenfeld, and at one point, I asked him if it is right that he signs himself as the Rav of the Ashkenazim in our Holy City… He answered me that the truth is, he does not sign so, but they made for him a stamp and wrote this on it.

I love this picture (edited by me to look clearer, I don’t know where I got it from), because it represents the truth. Not the world of falsehood that has enveloped our enclaves and askonim. Rav Kook (in the spodik) sitting next to Rav Sonnenfeld. The two behaved properly to each other, even though Rav Sonnenfeld was older and more prone to manipulation by the Hungarian political incursion into Yerusholyaim described by Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank.

Screen Shot 2015-10-19 at 7.49.23 PM

Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo: lurching to the left

Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo is a man of fine intellect, however, I believe that like many from the left in Judaism, he does not start from clean Halacha, but rather from his understanding of what a Halacha may mean and then form conclusions. From there he issues moral statements which can be seen as the domain of “open orthodoxy” or “conservadox Jews” and then attempts to refashion a Halacha that he envisions.

Let’s look at his latest blog post where he writes about Shechita.

This is also true on a very practical level. There is little doubt that one of the functions of the kashrut laws is to protect the animal from pain even during the slaughtering.

Where does Rabbi Cardozo obtain his view expressing “little doubt”. There is not a hint that the purpose of Shechita relates to a quick humane death. It is easy to disprove Rabbi Cardozo’s thesis. The Simla Chadasha, “the bible” for Hilchos Shechita, makes it clear that a Shochet who has rather dull knife, as long as he isn’t applying “push pressure” or
“ripping style pressure” but uses the (dull) Shechita only in knife back and forth fashion, provided the knife is without notches, the Shechita is Kosher! In theory a Shechita could take  2 hours. Does that sound humane? In reality, of course, that doesn’t happen. Shochtim pride themselves on the ultra sharpness and lack of imperfection in their knives. What it does tell us though, in theory, is that Halacha isn’t guided by Rabbi Cardozo’s reason for Shechita.

To be fair, Rabbi Cardozo has repeated an oft used reason that Shechita should be sanctioned by Governments. As Jews though. we do not know the reason for Shechita let alone “one of the functions” of Shechita. One can certainly interpret Shechita in this way, but the issue of “reasons” for Halacha is a matter dealt with and beautifully expounded by the Maharal, who he brings his own view and contrasts it with the diametric views of the Rambam and Ramban. If my memory serves me correctly this centres around the Mishna in Brachos regarding someone who says may God have mercy on this nest.

My opinion on reasons for Mitzvos, is that they are the “sprinkles on the ice cream”. I heard this phraseology from Rabbi Nachman Wilhelm. One can focus and enjoy the sprinkles. The sprinkles, be they chocolate, vanilla or other source, may enhance one’s experience with the ice cream. Despite this, the sprinkles are not the reason the ice cream exists, or is there. They are adornments. One person’s sprinkles are not those of another. The appreciation of the reasoning behind a Mitzvah is subjective. Objectively, though. Halacha has only one reason: רצון עליון … it is the will of Hashem. One may, and should seek meaning and understanding for Mitzvos, but these are not the start, let alone “one of the functions” of a Mitzvah unless explicitly stated (for example, Kibud Am Va’eim tells us one outcome of doing the Mitzvah, and even then we don’t know if that’s the entire story). Reasons are an addendum, they will also inspire many. They will suit some but not others. שבעים פנים בתורה informs us that one may look at a religious concept from a variety of stances. Those stances, however, are not a single truth. They are one of a multitude of ways to understand.

This is accomplished by the many strict laws of shechita in accordance with Halacha. Attacks on this method, by several European countries or political parties, are nothing but expressions of anti-Semitism camouflaged by so-called animal rights arguments. In fact, we see constant and severe violations of these rights in their own abattoirs, where animals are horribly mistreated and sometimes mercilessly killed. In short, this is flagrant hypocrisy.

Rabbi Cardozo is correct here. Anyone who has witnessed Governments that insist on stunning animals at the abattoir knows that there is nothing humane about stunning. Indeed, even the practice of shooting an animal 3-6 seconds after Shechita is rather inane. The animal is dead. It is simply bleeding out the דם הנפש and דם התמצית, after death.

Still, we cannot deny that in our own slaughterhouses, where proper shechita is done, there have been serious violations of another law –- tza’ar baalei chayim (the Torah’s prohibition against inflicting unnecessary pain on animals).

Which “our” is Rabbi Cardozo talking about. I’m not aware of Tzaar Baalei Chayim in Melbourne, Australia. If Rabbi Cardozo wants to point the figure at some Batei Shechita, then Rabbi Cardozo ought to go there and report what he sees to the Rav Hamachshir. I do not know a reputable Rav Hamachshir who would suddenl permit Tzaar Baalei Chayim if they were made aware of it.

How are these animals handled just before the shechita takes place? Are they treated with mercy when they are put on their backs so as to make the shechita easier?

What does “treated with mercy” mean? We are asked not to cause unnecessary pain and cruelty, but I don’t know how one can be merciful when one is about to shecht an animal. The word mercy seems so misplaced. Does Rabbi Cardozo want them to be given a valium shot before they are shechted, in the same way that humans are given various similar drugs prior to surgery? I’m serious here. They will be very calm if they are given such an injection. Does that make the trip to the shechita spot merciful?

(This can easily be accomplished with the known Weinberg Pen, or by other methods.)

Excuse me Rabbi Cardozo, but even Temple Grandin (Grandin is a prominent and widely cited proponent for the humane treatment of livestock for slaughter) states that the Weinberg Pen induces more cortisol in an animal prior to slaughter. On which literature, therefore,  is Rabbi Cardozo basing his comment on?

Grandin states

Stress levels for inverted slaughter with devices known as the Weinberg pen (which are less stressful than shackling and hoisting) have yielded the highest average stress ratings ever published (almost 300% higher than cattle killed in upright pens).

It seems to me that the positioning of the animal and the method of containment prior to Shechita are not the focus of Halacha unless they could induce anything but a quick and clean shechita which does not cause broken bones and the like (e.g. a particular method will likely make the Cow Trayf). It isn’t in the interest of Shechita establishments to have such occurrences. They want to maximise the Kashrus. By all means, if Rabbi Cardozo has a better suggestion than Grandin, he should advise. Here in Melbourne, my understanding is that the cow enters a confined area, its head is raised, shechted, slumps to the ground and then the humanitarian rules of Government state they must be shot in the head (even though they are dead!). This is done by a gentile from a higher vantage point as the Shochet moves to the next animal.

Shechita is slaughter. Those who don’t like it should consider being vegans or vegetarians (except on Shabbos). Rav Kook is rumoured to only have eaten chicken on Shabbos but refrained from meat during the week . Slaughter will never be pristine or pretty. Cortisol levels of any animal that is confined in any way will rise. You can’t give them a Gin and Tonic and expect them to walk into a pen for slaughter with a smile on their face when they would rather be wandering in a paddock.

What if chickens or other fowl are kept under the most unacceptable conditions, such as in overcrowded containers? Are these animals and chickens still kosher, even if the shechita was 100% accurate?

This is a rather dubious halachic statement. One could ask whether the people who manufacture such are transgressing Tzaar B’alei Chaim, but unless Rabbi Cardoso has moved to the conservative camp, everyone knows, that this has no bearing on the kashrus of an animal.

I asked  Mori V’Rabbi Rav Schachter in respect of battery versus free range eggs. He replied that it was permitted to use battery eggs and that this did not qualify halachically as Tzaar. I note though in the same breath that Rav Schachter doesn’t eat the meat of young animals (veal) and I believe Rav Moshe also had issues with such. It doesn’t make them non kosher though!

Since when is the actual shechita more important than the laws of tza’ar baalei chayim?

Since when is Rabbi Cardozo able to decide which halacha is more important? Open up Shulchan Aruch and one will find that the laws of Shechita and the consumption of blood occupy many complex chapters. Does Rabbi Cardozo decide relative importance? It’s not a trade-off. Tzaar B’aalei Chaim is forbidden as is Trayf. It is ingenuous to pitch the two against each other in any way. They are in fact Halachically independent. Neither need be connected in any way to the other.

It seems self-righteous and duplicitous on the part of very religious Jews to insist on glatt kosher shechita, with all its stringencies, when the animals are badly treated prior to shechita, in defiance of Halacha’s requirements.

Glatt is a stringency about the level of perfection of the animal. It is not a necessity. It has absolutely no connection to bad treatment unless that bad treatment would cause it to be non Glatt (unlikely). This is a straw man argument if I’ve ever seen one. Is Rabbi Cardozo going to suggest that those who are happy with non Glatt ultra frum in respect of Tzaar Baalei Chaim?

Are they not as treif (non-kosher) as any other animal that is not slaughtered according to Halacha?

Rabbi Cardozo needs to bring sources not sentiment. The word Treyf is technically defined. The parameters of Tzaar B’aalei Chaim are also listed. They are independent. If Rabbi Cardozo is wanting to link the two, then I suggest he perhaps extrapolates and insists that all Bar Mitzvas where people will drive to Shule on Shabbos be abolished and now be held on Mondays and Thursdays. I hope he isn’t riding on the more populist issues of vegetarianism or veganism. I have a few past students who call me a murderer because I eat meat. They mean it, with vehemence.

Can we hide behind the laws of shechita and then look the other way when the laws of tza’ar baalei chayim are violated? Is that any less hypocritical?

What evidence is there of hiding behind the laws of Shechita! If anything, Rabbi Cardozo is bemoaning the apparent need of people to have meat each day which induces pressures on businesses to have production lines that work quicker. Shechita is a set of confined laws. Tzara Ba’alei Chaim its also a set of confined laws which do not necessarily have anything to do with Shechita. The reality is that there is nothing nice about visiting an abattoir and watching cows shechted for human consumption. It’s not any nicer when they are killed by shooting in the head. Underlying all of Rabbi Cardozo’s writing, is, I believe, this revulsion.

Since the massive growth of the meat industry, in which thousands and thousands of animals are slaughtered daily, it has become more and more difficult, if not impossible, to treat animals humanely, as Jewish law requires.

If this is the case, Rabbi Cardozo, please publish a responsa where you list those abattoirs that you believe use questionable methods. I’m not suggesting you become the Rebbe of PETA, but do to it למען קידוש שמו. Or, set up your own Shechita which is efficient and doesn’t contravene your understanding of Tzaar Baalei Chaim (something you have curiously not elaborated on, from an halachic angle)

The laws of shechita and tzaar ba’alei chayim were meant for Jewish communities who would eat meat occasionally, not for the huge industry we have today where these laws can no longer be properly applied. That being the case, wouldn’t it be appropriate and advisable for religious Jews to become vegetarians?

Where do we see that Shechita was for communities who ate meat occasionally. Did the Torah not foresee advances in animal husbandry and paleo diets? Finally we come to the underlying thesis. Nobody is forced to eat meat! By all means, become vegetarian. Unless you have evidence of Tzaar Ba’alei Chaim according to Halacha, then I’d suggest that casting aspersions on meat eaters is not becoming and furthermore puts them all in the class of sinners. This is a most egregious allegation.

In all honesty, how many of our “glatt kosher” kitchens, including my own, are still truthfully kosher? A haunting question, from which we cannot hide!

Rabbi Cardozo:  don’t hide. Glatt has nothing to do with the issue, and you know it. If you want to start a movement for vegetarianism or veganism because you believe that the scale of slaughter and egg production is unsustainable in a halachically acceptable way, please go ahead. If you want to reduce meat consumption, again, go ahead. There is no problem with that Halachically. Even on Yom Tov, the meat should be fit for Korbanos, so wine is probably what you are left with for Simchas Yom Tov. In the meanwhile, I’d prefer if you didn’t have the quill to suggest that the Rabbi’s I rely on for my meat are transgressing the rules of Tzaar Ba’alei Chaim, when the law of the land is being followed meticulously!

Visit a non Kosher abattoir and see if you feel much better there. It’s not about Glatt. I doubt you’d feel comfortable seeing animals killed, period, for human consumption. That’s fine with me. But … please don’t dress this up in Halachic garb. If you do, without anymore than “feelings” then your blog post will be accused of being a conservative or reform view of Judaism, something which is shallow from an Orthodox intellectual perspective.

J-Street: the fifth column

They have concerns when a “settler leader” is appointed to a diplomatic post? Why? Why not have concerns when someone who is so left-wing that they have little connection with the Jewish dynamic of Israel is appointed to a position?

J-Street talk about two State solutions. The problem with them is that their starting point is not that any such discussion should be based on Israel as the State for JEWS. Would they accept talks that spoke of a State for Palestinians which was Judenrein? The answer is yes, they would. Their hypocrisy knowns no bounds and is consistent with the rhetoric of the left wing Reform movement which shares many practices with traditional Judaism, but is a tangential religion. I’d say that Shiites and Sunnis have more in common than Reform/J-Street and traditional orthodox Judaism. We are different though: we don’t kill each other over differences.

J-Street state:

 In the last year several Israeli officials in the US have “sent the message that Israel’s government is far more serious about legitimizing and entrenching settlements than they are about the two-state solution.”

Why can’t they be? Mahmoud Abbas is more serious about legitimising and entrenching hatred, incitement and terrorism than he is about a two state solution. He might want a two state solution, but every Palestinian leader knows that he or she will end up with their head blown to smithereens by their own if they ever signed an agreement with Israel, even if it was based on the indefensible 1967 borders.

As the Jerusalem Post noted:

The organization cited the appointment of Danny Danon as Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Ron Dermer’s decision to send out gift packages filled with settlement products to officials and Tzipi Hotovely’s call for Israeli diplomats to tell the world that “this country is all ours. We didn’t come here to apologize for that” as examples.

Clearly J-Street have not read the EU declaration on its labelling policy. There is nothing illegal about the products. They simply must be labelled because they don’t fall under the EU’s definition of Israel and the free trade agreement.

J-Street are so left-wing, I do not know how they could cope with the following truisms of David Ben Gurion which are as true then as they are now, let alone Isaac Herzog’s doctrine of walled separation.

If your Ivrit isn’t good, it is well worth watching this with someone who can translate. One can guess what Ben Gurion would have thought of J-Street and their unwelcome incursions into Israeli diplomatic appointments. J-Street forget that they do not vote for the Prime Minister of Israel of his coalition. If they want to grand stand, they do harm. If they want to influence, then I’d suggest discussing issues with Israel directly is an approach that is more positive.

J-Street quote a Conservative “Rabbi” as support against Trump when he says

Donald Trump’s words weren’t the worst part of his appearance before the world’s largest annual Jewish gathering, the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, DC. The standing ovations from many in the Verizon Center when he attacked the President of the United States were.

The last time I looked one was permitted to express disdain for the policies of a President. Isn’t it time any group who feel badly done by are not attacked by J-Street for doing so? Goodness only knows, J-Street would be doing so if Donald Trump became president. The move to the right by the USA is entirely linked to the extreme move to the left and the inactive diplomacy of Obama. He is widely seen as ineffective. This is also borne out by the fact that all of a sudden Saudi Arabia has formed a large coalition of Arab countries file under its direction, and declared Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. This would never have happened if Obama had been seen as pro-active, as opposed to a fence-sitter and drone-user. Obama has been trumped (sic) in Syria by Putin and Iran, and his strategies are most difficult to fathom. His one achievement has been to “stay out of trouble”. It is as if he is spooked by leadership. Leadership means that there are times when you must lead and not stand back and talk ad nausea.

J-Street were emboldened by Obama. They would not be emboldened by Hillary Clinton but would love the Jew who avoid his Jewishness, Bernie Sanders. Sanders would be an unmitigated socialist disaster for the USA and Israel.

Why all the brouhaha about Mikvaos in Israel for Reform

The laws of a Mikva are of the most complex that exist. They are riddled with minutiae and disagreement among even later day Rabbis. Reform has never shown an interest in archaic Rabbinic tradition, their arguments, Talmudic or otherwise; it’s about a ritual. As such, I don’t see why a Hot Pool of any type can’t be used for Reform conversions (I am unaware of them ever ruling that the minutiae of “old archaic” Rabbinic tradition should be upheld). It would be much cheaper.

Reform Judaism’s governing bodies dropped the requirement for immersion more than a century ago. The Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 stated: “We recognize in the Mosaic legislation a system of training the Jewish people for its mission during its [ancient] national life in Palestine, and today we accept as binding only the moral laws, and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject all such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization.” Thus did the Reform rabbinic authorities renounce – without banning – any and all requirements for ritual, including those involving mikveh. In 1977 Rabbi Walter Jacob commented that “the custom has fallen into disuse….Ritual immersion has completely ceased to be practiced for niddah [separation of spouses during menstruation] and is followed only by a small percentage within the Orthodox community” [Contemporary American Reform Responsa].

If they want to revive it, , perhaps in keeping with Reform philosophy, it’s time to invent an up to date,  modern “equivalent”.
If for some reason they would like a specific set of pools for this purpose, then let it be a user-pays situation.

Reform Jews are using mikvaot today in a wide variety of alternative ways: to mark lifecycle events or a change of personal status, to celebrate joy or sanctify grief. Immersions before a bat or bar mitzvah, to mark divorce or the death of a loved one, to celebrate graduation or a trip to Israel, as gratitude after recovery from a serious illness are increasingly common. And while mikveh is traditionally practiced in privacy, some liberal mikvaot are hosting groups, including women marking the onset of menopause and men taking their sons before the High Holidays.

See here for more

Sarah Hatsman, Reform Clergy, introduces new hand washing procedures with the Mikvah, and mindfulness.

 

 

The Mikvah is used by Orthodox women monthly. It is most likely that it is only used for a Reform Conversion and perhaps? before a wedding. On that basis, the State should withdraw funding from all Mikvaos and make admission based on a user pays affiliation to the type of Mikva.

Would the State fund Baptism Pools as well?

The same if true of Conservative (Masorti). There are plenty of US donors who would pay for these customised pools and rules.

Separation of Religion and State needs to occur in Israel. The Chief Rabbinate no longer is respected and has managed to descend a level each time there are new appointees.

Which Mikveh does the transexual, or fluid sexual go to?

The majority of people are aligned with traditional orthodoxy and will always be and have little to do with Reform  or Conservatives. These are mainly American phenomena that has been imported in small quantities into Israel.

Finally note the inequality. Male Orthodox Jews do not have the same requirements of a Mikva as a female. As such, according to many authorities they may be ritually cleaned in a swimming pool or a 4-5 minute shower. Certainly, it doesn’t have the “feel” and “preparation” of going to a Male Mikva, however, there is much that needs to be improved in the lack of Tznius in Male Mikvaos, which unfortunately isn’t being addressed by anyone it would seem.

Nobody complains about that. Perhaps feminists should argue they should have the easier rules as per men?

PS. The “diplobabble from some Shas MPs makes me cringe”.

The worst candidate isn’t Donald Trump, it’s Bernie Sanders

I once spoke to someone who described himself eventually as an antisemitic Jew. That is, someone who wasn’t happy that he’d been born with all the baggage of being Jewish. This is common among lefties: socialist and communist.

Bernie Sanders is a real leftie. His Jewishness is just an accident of circumstance. Here is what he would have said if AIPAC had allowed him to appear remotely (the Jewish man had no time for AIPAC)

Still, Sanders stressed that he understands the stumbling blocks Israel faces in its efforts towards peace saying:  “Peace requires the unconditional recognition by all people of Israel’s right to exist… and an end to attacks of all kinds against Israel. Peace will require that organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah renounce their efforts to undermine the security of Israel. It will require the entire world to recognize Israel.”

Note. Unlike other candidates who call for Israel to be the JEWISH homeland, Bernie Sanders does not state that. He only talks of its right to exist. Exist as what? Another Muslim majority country?

He calls on Hamas and Hezbollah to RENOUNCE their efforts. I don’t know how you renounce an effort unless you can’t say the word disarm. Who is attacking Hamas? Answer: only those who Hamas attacks. Hezbollah are terrorists. Bernie has made them a legitimate player.

Bernie sounds like a very moral and ethical man. Problem is he doesn’t accept that we are the chosen people. Chosen for what? Lots of things. One of them is our need to defend our identity and faith, neither of which Bernie seems to have.

You could have replaced the word Israel with Plutonia. I don’t believe it makes any difference to Bernie

Shimon Peres (Perski) and his Purim advice to Belgium’s Prime Minister

[Hat tip to a magyar gyártó a paplant és a korábbi elnök]

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
My heartfelt sympathies to you and the Belgian people for the acts of protest carried out in Brussels this week. This really is a wake-up call for us all.
You and I must really speak about how to deal with the atrocities and protests, including the attacks on Brussels, by these misunderstood activists.
Mister Prime Minister, I have a great deal of experience in dealing successfully with terrorism and this is why I wish to come to your assistance.
The first thing you must realize is that one can only make peace with one’s enemies. With one’s friends there is no need to make peace. There is no military solution to the problems of terrorism, and this is why you must seek a diplomatic solution. “No Justice, No Peace,” as they say.
You must invite the leaders of this activist organization to the Belgian Parliament and perhaps tour the EU district. You must learn to feel their pain and understand their needs. You must offer to turn parts of Flanders over to them so that stateless Muslims can have their own state. I have no doubt the Muslim world will applaud your efforts.
You must meet the demands of the protesters in full. In addition, you must offer them Internet services and five-star tourist hotels in exchange for their promising to abandon violence. After all, that is how we in Israel, under my leadership, turned Yasir Arafat into a peace partner!
You see, military force serves no role any more. It is passé. It is archaic. Today, economic interests dominate the world and the Islamist activists of the earth will surely make peace in exchange for some profits from participating in global trade.
The fact is, you have been insufficiently sensitive in understanding the needs of Muslims. You took fundamentalist rhetoric at face value, whereas we in Israel know all this talk is empty and these people simply want peace.
Sure, Muslim fundamentalists praise Hitler and celebrate atrocities, but what is it that they REALLY want? How about sitting down with them in an effort to understand them?
You have been trying to rule over others and failed to be sensitive to their needs and aspirations. You must put your own house in order and eliminate inequality and injustice inside Wallonia, and then the terrorists will no longer target you.
The key is to build a new order in which everyone is so busy with important matters like developing tourism and making investments in high technology that they simply have no time to pursue violence.
Moreover, if you strike at the perpetrators of terrorist attacks, you will simply extend and enlarge the cycle of violence. Your bombs will no doubt injure some innocent children and civilians alongside any terrorist activists you strike, and that will simply enrage the rest of the world and lead the victims to seek revenge.
And if you refuse to negotiate with them, their leaders will be toppled and really violent fanatics will take their place. In that case, you will have lost the window of opportunity to make peace. Begin by declaring a unilateral ceasefire!
Mister Prime Minister, blessed is the peacemaker. All we are saying is give peace a chance. You will be cheered and awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of your statesmanship. Do not allow yourself to be drawn into the gutter of violence. Violence never achieves anything. History is no lesson. History is the dead past. End the cycle of violence. Show restraint. Forgo the juvenile impulse to avenge.
Mister Prime Minister, the proof is in the pudding. My own peace policies have eliminated war and bloodshed and terror from the Middle East. We no longer have terrorists to deal with in the Levant, only potential peace partners. If you follow in my footsteps, you can achieve the same lofty results.
Peacefully yours,

Shimon Peres
Peacemaker-at-Large

Purim Pilpul

[Guest post from MD (c) lightly edited by me]

פורים                                    © מאיר דויטש

Here are just some of my thoughts which I am sharing with you.

It is Purim

It came to pass in the days of Achashverosh, who is Achashverosh…?

It is clear that he is Achashverosh, why does the Megila have to certify it?

Is it to point out that he is the one reigning from Hodu to Kush, and not the Ahasverosh mentioned in the book of Daniel (9,   1) who ? reigned only over Paras and Maday?

Why do we read   “וכלים מכלים שונים” in the melody of Eicha?

The Temple’s utensils were taken to Babylon, not Persia. Yes, I know that Persia conquered Babylon and the utensils (see:Ezra ch.one) were with Koresh, but he returned them. Can we see a hint in the Rashi (Esther 1, 7) who says there:   שונים – משונים זה מזה וכן ודתיהם שונות, ורבותינו דרשו מה שדרשו.   Rashi has his own opinion, but says that not all accept it. He does it again also at Esther ch.2 5 & 9

“מרדכי בן יאיר בן שמעי בן קיש … אשר הוגלה עם הגולה ”

Who was carried away to exile? Was it Mordechai or Kish? From the exile till the reign of Achashverosh we have about 110 years, therefore we can assume that it was Kish who was exiled from Judea. If it wasn’t Mordechai, than the story in Megila (13b) is surprising.

The story there is

“אמר רבי יוחנן: בגתן ותרש שני תרסיים הוו, והיו מספרין בלשון תרסי ואומרים: מיום שבאת זו לא ראינו שינה בעינינו, בא ונטיל ארס בספל כדי שימות. והן לא היו יודעין כי מרדכי מיושבי לשכת הגזית היה והיה יודע שבעים לשון. אמר לו: והלוא אין משמרתי ומשמרתך שוה? אמר לו: אני אשמור משמרתי ומשמרתך. והיינו דכתיב “ויבקש הדבר וימצא” שלא נמצאו במשמרתן” (מגילה יג ע”ב). זה לשון הגמרא (ראה גם אבן עזרא האומר: “ויש אומרים כי הוא היה מסנהדרין” – אבן עזרא עצמו אינו אומר כי מרדכי היה מהסנהדרין אבל מצטט דעות אחרים שחושבים שהיה). השאלה היא: אם סבא רבה של מרדכי הוגלה מיהודה, הכיצד יכול להיות שמרדכי עצמו היה מיושבי לשכת הגזית?

Was Mordechai ever in Jerusalem?

Did he go with Zerubavel from Persia to Jerusalem?

Was he the Mordechai Balshan mentioned in the book of Ezra?

While in Jerusalem did he join the judges of the Sanhedrin and learn the 70 languages?

Did he return from Jerusalem to Shushan?

Why would a member of the Sanhedrin, just back home from exile, leave his post and return to Persia?

The Jewish historian,    Josephus Flavius) =   יוסף בן מתתיהו)  describes that incident as follows:

” […] קשרו בגתן ותיאודוסיטס קשר על המלך. לברנבזוס, עבדו של אחד משני הסריסים האלה, יהודי לפי גזעו, נודעה המזימה והוא הגידה לדודה של אשת המלך, ומרדכי גילה את הקושרים למלך על ידי אסתר” (קדמוניות היהודים – אברהם שליט – ספר אחד עשר ע’ 20).

What was the period in time from the sending by Haman of the declaration to dispose of the Jews to the time he was executed?

•On Nissan he cast the dice

•13 Nissan he dispatches the notices (SEFARIM)

•23 Sivan the King’s scribes are writing Mordechai’s notices

The total time is less than two months and ten days.

According to Even Ezra, Haman was taken to the gallows already in Nissan.

Why did Mordechai write to the Jews of the Empire that they have permission to kill their opponents on the 13th of Adar, nearly nine months later?

Didn’t he learn from Haman not to wait such a long time as things change

Let us take note. An order issued by the King cannot be changed, neither the ones distributed by Haman nor those by Mordechai. Now if the two decrees are in force, on 13th Adar the Persian can kill Jews – written by Haman. On the same day, 13th Adar the Jews can kill Persians – written by Mordechai Now, what happens on that day? Persians may kill Jews and Jews may kill Persians. What do the Jews do? They gather in groups to defend themselves and kill Persians and   “איש לא עמד בפניהם” ופחדם נפל על כל העמים”.

If Mordechai had chosen another day, the Jews would not be permitted on 13th Adar to fight back, and the Persians, who were allowed to kill Jews on that day, could do it without any opposition.

Now we have Haman’s 10 sons. If we look at Megilat Esther ch. 9, we see that ten sons were killed, by the King’s permission, on the 13th of Adar, together with the other Persians. If so, why did Esther ask the King the following day to have them hanged?

Did she want to display them to be displayed in public?

Nothing is written about Zeresh, therefore everyone can speculate.

In TARGUM RISHON on Megilat Esther it says

וזרש ברחה עם שבעים בנים שנשארו להמן, שהיו סובבים על השערים ומתפרנסים.

Seventy children!

So many children!

Were they all Zeresh’s?

Others think that:

She became a servant in Esther’s house;

She went to the gallows together with Haman;

She committed suicide by hanging herself.

L’Chayim! Let us drink AD DLO YADA.

Purim Sameach.

 

More on Open Orthodoxy and Shira Chadasha

I have a number of Rabbi Shmuel Goldin’s books and I have thoroughly enjoyed them. 

In an op-ed in January in the Jerusalem post he convincingly buttresses the views of the Rabbinical Council of America in a rebuttal of a pro open orthodox opinion by Baruch Stein. I have been meaning to reproduce Rabbi Goldin’s piece for some time.

Absent, as well, is any acknowledgment of the complexities involved; complexities notably evident in the complete positions of the same authorities whom Stein chooses to selectively quote.

Consider an astounding pattern that has appeared over and over again in recent Jewish experience. Individuals or groups advocate radical change in Jewish tradition and then have the temerity to deride those who simply refuse to accept their unilateral “suggestions.”

Until now, this phenomenon has primarily been evidenced in interdenominational debates. Today, however, it is clearly occurring within the Orthodox community, as adherents of “open orthodoxy” move to unilaterally challenge the boundaries of Jewish practice and then publicly attack those unwilling to follow their lead as out of touch, misguided and obstinate.

Baruch Stein’s recent op-ed in the pages of this paper is a classic example of this disingenuous pattern of attack. Through an amalgam of disconnected quotes, statements, inaccurate comparisons and half-truths, Stein proceeds to make a case against the Rabbinical Council of America, Agudath Israel and others for failing to fall in line with the drive toward modernization of Jewish practice. Quoting a series of clearly partisan sources, including Rabbi Asher Lopatin, president of Chovevei Torah, the flagship seminary of the Open Orthodox community; Rabba Meesh Hammer-Kossoy, one of the “newly ordained women”; Meira-Welt Maarek, a graduate of the Susi Bradfield Institute for Halachic Leadership; and Shlomo Riskin, Chief Rabbi of Efrat, Stein makes the case that the RCA’s rejection of the ordination of women and other halachic changes “is extra-halachic,” lacks a textual frame of reference and is, in fact, “PR stunt by the rightwing membership of the RCA in order to further deepen the dividing lines among orthodoxy.”

Absent in Stein’s piece is the admission that many of these changes are based upon minority opinions within the halachic world and that the majority of Modern Orthodox decisors in America reject these changes at this time. Absent is any recognition of the real possibility that the “divisions” in the Orthodox community today are deliberately being created by the very groups pushing the envelope of change, with full cognizance that their advocated policies will not be accepted by many. Absent is the honest acknowledgment of the use of these familiar tactics: create unilateral change and then attack those who fail to fall in line.

Absent, as well, is any acknowledgment of the complexities involved; complexities notably evident in the complete positions of the same authorities whom Stein chooses to selectively quote.
Rabbi Riskin, for example, cited by Stein as an advocate for change in women’s role in orthodoxy, himself opposes the full ordination of women as rabbis. In a recent letter to members of the RCA leadership, Rabbi Riskin wrote: “We do not wish our women [graduates] to use the title of Rabbi or Rabbah, especially because the Synagogue is largely devoted to Communal Prayer and Communal Torah Reading, two areas in which women may not serve in the capacity of ba’alot tefillah [leaders of the prayer service] and ba’alot keriyah [Torah readers]; neither may they be Assistant or Associate Rabbis, who may be called upon as the sole religious leader in the absence of the official Synagogue Rabbi.”
Would Stein maintain that Rabbi Riskin is caving in to the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) world because of his opposition to full women rabbis? Even more egregious is Stein’s conflation of legitimate opposition to unilateral halachic change with the apparent acceptance of all sorts of horrible excesses, including, and I quote: unwanted marriages, systematic corporal punishment in schools, vigilante attacks on those suspected of listening to radio and reading secular magazines, the unwillingness to participate in the halachic imperative of self-defense, the abuse of halachic converts, the abuse of government programs intended to help the underprivileged, and more.
In Stein’s world black and white world, if you’re against women rabbis, you are guilty of all the above, because of “misguided rejections of modern unknowns.”
In a recent column in another forum, I bemoaned the looming split (some would say the already irrevocable split) in the Modern Orthodox world. What makes this split even more devastating, I argued, is that it didn’t/doesn’t have to be.
Much positive movement is already taking place in the Modern Orthodox community in the areas deemed critical by proponents of change today.
Increased Jewish education and the creation of appropriate leadership roles for women; resolutions concerning ethics within the Jewish community; studies of the conversion process and advocacy on behalf of halachic converts; discussions of greater inclusion into the Orthodox community and more are all unfolding in many forums and settings.
Halachic change can be prodded, but it must eventually occur through evolution and consensus, so that our Judaism will be recognizable as the Judaism of our grandparents and our children’s Judaism will be recognizable as our own. The mandate of every Jewish generation is to fashion a critical balance: a Judaism that enfranchises as many of the generation as possible, yet remains true to the traditions of our people. That balance can only be struck through honest, thoughtful discussion and debate – not through simplistic and unwarranted accusation and attack.
In the final analysis, there is something that Stein and I can agree upon: he claims that now is the time for the RCA “to take a stand.” I agree. The parameters of that “stand,” however, will be determined both by halachic guidelines and by the approach of those around us. If the proponents of “change” are willing to work together in mapping the path of modern orthodoxy towards the future, guided by Halacha and halachic process, they will find many willing partners within the RCA. If their expectation is, however, that change can be determined by minority opinion and summarily mandated and forced upon orthodoxy, they will indeed find that the RCA “will take a stand.” In the judgment of history, the resultant split within the Orthodox community will be on their ledger, not ours.
The author has served as rabbi of Congregation Ahavath Torah in Englewood, New Jersey, for over three decades. He is past president of the Rabbinical Council of America and currently chairman of its review committee on conversions. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post and numerous other publications.