Rabbi Johanan said in the name of Rabbi Joseph ben Zimra that anyone who bears evil tales (lashon hara) will be visited by skin disease (tzaraat), as it is said in oever slanders his neighbor in secret, him will I destroy (azmit)." The Gemara read azmit to allude to tzaraat, and cited how Leviticus25: says "in perpetuity" (la-zemitut). And Resh Lakish interpreted the words of "This shall be the law of the person with skin disease (metzora, מְּצֹרָע)," to mean, "This shall be the law for him who brings up an evil name (motzi shem ra)." (Babylonian Talmud Arachin 15b.)
Similarly, Rabbi Haninah taught that skin disease came only from slander. The Rabbis found a proof for this from the case of Miriam, arguing that because she uttered slander against Moses, plagues attacked her. And the Rabbis read it to support this when it says in connection with skin disease, "remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam." (Deuteronomy Rabbah 6:8.) read Number 12 for the full story here.
Rabbi Samuel bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Johanan that skin disease results from seven things: slander, the shedding of blood, vain oath, incest, arrogance, robbery, and envy. The Gemara cited scriptural bases for each of the associations: For slander, for bloodshed, 2 Samuel for a vain oath, for incest,Genesis for arrogance, 2 Chronicles for robbery, (as a Tanna taught that those who collect money that does not belong to them will see a priest come and scatter their money around the street); and for envy,(Babylonian Talmud Arakhin 16a.)
Similarly, a midrash taught that skin disease resulted from 10 sins: (1) idol-worship, (2) unchastity, (3) bloodshed, (4) the profanation of the Divine Name, (5) blasphemy of the Divine Name, (6) robbing the public, (7) usurping a dignity to which one has no right, (8) overweening pride, (9) evil speech, and (10) an evil eye.
Do we really think skin disease comes from these? Well, we know our insides can affect our health but they were obviously very concerned about slander and gossip and used this portion to warn against it.
a memo from Aipac said
Parashat Metzora, with its emphasis on lashon hara, brings to mind a famous parable told about a Jew who slandered a town's rabbi. After a time, the man felt pangs of remorse for his actions and begged the rabbi for forgiveness.
"Of course I'll forgive you," the rabbi told him. "But before I do you must do one thing for me."
"Anything," the man promised.
"Go to the center of town with a pillow, and rip open the pillow and spread the feathers into the wind. When you're done, come back to me."
The man, puzzled, did what the rabbi asked and split open a feather pillow in the center of town. When he finished, he returned to the rabbi for his forgiveness.
"One more thing," said the rabbi. "Now go and collect all the feathers."
"That's impossible!" said the man. "I can't possibly collect all the feathers."
Asked the rabbi, "And what about my reputation? How will you return that to me?"
This parable speaks to us this week as we consider how Justice Richard Goldstone has retracted the central claims of his controversial report that falsely accused Israel of targeting civilians during its Cast Lead military campaign. While the slander from the Goldstone Report-like the scattering of the feathers-cannot be undone, the United Nations can and should renounce the report and take no further action as a result of its inaccurate findings.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Will J Street apologize as Goldstone did?
ldjewishdaily.com/goldstone-alone.php
Goldstone Wasn't Alone
J Street, New Israel Fund Helped Spread his Calumny Against the Jewish State
There is a famous Chasidic story that compares tale-bearing and slander to a feather pillow that has been torn open and scattered to the wind: once you release the feathers it is impossible to gather them back again.
So with Goldstone's famous report. Despite the fact that Goldstone now confirms that Israel did not target Gaza civilians as a matter of policy, the damage he has done has been scattered to the four corners of the earth and cannot be undone.
Among the repercussions of the Goldstone Report:
Its conclusions have been endorsed by such institutions as the UN General Assembly, the European Parliament, Human Rights Watch and countless respectable journalists and bloggers, thereby entering the collective consciousness.
It made Israeli politicians and army officers fearful of travelling abroad lest they be arrested in connection to war crimes.
It may have led to a rise in anti-Semitic attacks against Jews around the world.
It increased calls for boycotts against the state of Israel.
It led to Israel's increased delegitimization every time it attempted to defend itself: witness the Gaza flotilla incident.
The worst part is that Goldstone was not alone. In fact, money and activists from within the Jewish community, notably J Street and the New Israel Fund, were instrumental in his campaign of slander against the Jewish State.
Will they issue a mea culpa as well?
Goldstone Wasn't Alone
J Street, New Israel Fund Helped Spread his Calumny Against the Jewish State
There is a famous Chasidic story that compares tale-bearing and slander to a feather pillow that has been torn open and scattered to the wind: once you release the feathers it is impossible to gather them back again.
So with Goldstone's famous report. Despite the fact that Goldstone now confirms that Israel did not target Gaza civilians as a matter of policy, the damage he has done has been scattered to the four corners of the earth and cannot be undone.
Among the repercussions of the Goldstone Report:
Its conclusions have been endorsed by such institutions as the UN General Assembly, the European Parliament, Human Rights Watch and countless respectable journalists and bloggers, thereby entering the collective consciousness.
It made Israeli politicians and army officers fearful of travelling abroad lest they be arrested in connection to war crimes.
It may have led to a rise in anti-Semitic attacks against Jews around the world.
It increased calls for boycotts against the state of Israel.
It led to Israel's increased delegitimization every time it attempted to defend itself: witness the Gaza flotilla incident.
The worst part is that Goldstone was not alone. In fact, money and activists from within the Jewish community, notably J Street and the New Israel Fund, were instrumental in his campaign of slander against the Jewish State.
Will they issue a mea culpa as well?
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Goldstone changes his mind!
com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html
Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes
By Richard Goldstone, Friday, April , 8:42 PM
We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.
The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza” while “the de facto authorities (i.e., Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”
Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.
The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.
For example, the most serious attack the Goldstone Report focused on was the killing of some 29 members of the al-Simouni family in their home. The shelling of the home was apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack. While the length of this investigation is frustrating, it appears that an appropriate process is underway, and I am confident that if the officer is found to have been negligent, Israel will respond accordingly. The purpose of these investigations, as I have always said, is to ensure accountability for improper actions, not to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, commanders making difficult battlefield decisions.
While I welcome Israel’s investigations into allegations, I share the concerns reflected in the McGowan Davis report that few of Israel’s inquiries have been concluded and believe that the proceedings should have been held in a public forum. Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.
Israel’s lack of cooperation with our investigation meant that we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants. The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas (although Hamas may have reason to inflate the number of its combatants).
As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.
Some have charged that the process we followed did not live up to judicial standards. To be clear: Our mission was in no way a judicial or even quasi-judicial proceeding. We did not investigate criminal conduct on the part of any individual in Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. We made our recommendations based on the record before us, which unfortunately did not include any evidence provided by the Israeli government. Indeed, our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing.
Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.
In the end, asking Hamas to investigate may have been a mistaken enterprise. So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.
I continue to believe in the cause of establishing and applying international law to protracted and deadly conflicts. Our report has led to numerous “lessons learned” and policy changes, including the adoption of new Israel Defense Forces procedures for protecting civilians in cases of urban warfare and limiting the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas. The Palestinian Authority established an independent inquiry into our allegations of human rights abuses — assassinations, torture and illegal detentions — perpetrated by Fatah in the West Bank, especially against members of Hamas. Most of those allegations were confirmed by this inquiry. Regrettably, there has been no effort by Hamas in Gaza to investigate the allegations of its war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.
Simply put, the laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies. Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict. Only if all parties to armed conflicts are held to these standards will we be able to protect civilians who, through no choice of their own, are caught up in war.
The writer, a retired justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former chief prosecutor of the U.N. International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, chaired the U.N. fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict.
Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes
By Richard Goldstone, Friday, April , 8:42 PM
We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.
The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza” while “the de facto authorities (i.e., Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”
Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.
The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.
For example, the most serious attack the Goldstone Report focused on was the killing of some 29 members of the al-Simouni family in their home. The shelling of the home was apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack. While the length of this investigation is frustrating, it appears that an appropriate process is underway, and I am confident that if the officer is found to have been negligent, Israel will respond accordingly. The purpose of these investigations, as I have always said, is to ensure accountability for improper actions, not to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, commanders making difficult battlefield decisions.
While I welcome Israel’s investigations into allegations, I share the concerns reflected in the McGowan Davis report that few of Israel’s inquiries have been concluded and believe that the proceedings should have been held in a public forum. Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.
Israel’s lack of cooperation with our investigation meant that we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants. The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas (although Hamas may have reason to inflate the number of its combatants).
As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.
Some have charged that the process we followed did not live up to judicial standards. To be clear: Our mission was in no way a judicial or even quasi-judicial proceeding. We did not investigate criminal conduct on the part of any individual in Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. We made our recommendations based on the record before us, which unfortunately did not include any evidence provided by the Israeli government. Indeed, our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing.
Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.
In the end, asking Hamas to investigate may have been a mistaken enterprise. So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.
I continue to believe in the cause of establishing and applying international law to protracted and deadly conflicts. Our report has led to numerous “lessons learned” and policy changes, including the adoption of new Israel Defense Forces procedures for protecting civilians in cases of urban warfare and limiting the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas. The Palestinian Authority established an independent inquiry into our allegations of human rights abuses — assassinations, torture and illegal detentions — perpetrated by Fatah in the West Bank, especially against members of Hamas. Most of those allegations were confirmed by this inquiry. Regrettably, there has been no effort by Hamas in Gaza to investigate the allegations of its war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.
Simply put, the laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies. Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict. Only if all parties to armed conflicts are held to these standards will we be able to protect civilians who, through no choice of their own, are caught up in war.
The writer, a retired justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former chief prosecutor of the U.N. International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, chaired the U.N. fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Jewish dollars supporting anti-Israel efforts
Jewish World Review April 1, 2011 / 26 Adar II, 5771
Jewry's Jewish problem
By Caroline B. Glick
Across the US, Jewish communities are failing to prevent anti-Zionist Jews from hijacking communal funds and facilities to finance anti-Israel activities
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Over the past year or so, American Jewish opponents of Israel like writer and activist Peter Beinart have sought to intimidate and demoralize Israelis by telling us that American Jews either no longer support us or will stop supporting us if we don't give in to all the Arabs' demands.
But statistical evidence exposes these threats as utter lies. According to mountainous survey evidence, the American Jewish community writ large remains deeply supportive of Israel. Two surveys released last year by the American Jewish Committee and Brandeis University's Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies showed that three quarters of American Jews care deeply about Israel and that Israel is an important part of their Jewish identity. The Brandeis survey notably showed that young American Jews are no less likely to support Israel than they were in the past.
In fact, American Jews under 30 are more hawkish about the Palestinian conflict with Israel than Jews between the ages of 31-40 are. According to the Brandeis survey, 51 percent of American Jews oppose a future division of Jerusalem while a mere 29 percent would support it. Younger Jews are more opposed to the capital's partition than older Jews are.
It is notable that the Brandeis survey found that political views do not impact American Jews' support for Israel. This is striking because among Americans at large, polls show Republicans are significantly stronger supporters of Israel than Democrats. But not among Jews. "Liberals felt no less connected than conservatives and were no less likely to regard Israel as important to their Jewish identities. These observations hold true for both younger and older respondents," the Brandeis survey report explained.
FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
Across the board, American Jews blame the Palestinians for the absence of peace and believe there is little chance that there will be peace between Israel and the Palestinians in the foreseeable future. 75 percent agreed with the statement, "The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel."
94 percent said the Palestinians should be required to accept the Jewish state's right to exist.
In light of these overwhelming levels of support, it is disconcerting to see that across the US, Jewish communities are failing to prevent anti-Zionist Jews from hijacking communal funds and facilities to finance anti-Israel activities.
Consider a few recent examples.
• In Orange County, California, intra-communal rancor is growing over the local Jewish Federation's financial and organizational support for University of California at Irvine's Olive Tree Initiative.
The Federation subsidizes Olive Tree Initiative-organized tours of Israel for Jewish students. As Tammi Benjamin from UC Santa Cruz explained in a letter last December to local Federation CEO Shalom Elcott and local Hillel director Jordan Fruchtman, while OTI claims to be interested in fostering good relations between Jewish and Arab students, it actually just propagandizes against Israel. The speakers who addressed students participating in the two-week trip were overwhelmingly anti-Israel. Almost all the Palestinian speakers expressed hatred for Israel. Many of the Israeli speakers represented groups that call for economic warfare against Israel and defame Israel as a racist state. Half of the supposedly neutral representatives of international organizations who spoke to the group are notorious for their opposition to Israel.
Rather than end the practice of using Jewish communal funds to propagandize Jewish students to hate the Jewish state that most American Jews support and see as important to their Jewish identity, the Federation and Hillel have dug in their heels This week the Los Angeles Jewish Journal reported that over the past two months, allegedly acting on instructions from the Federation, two local synagogues cancelled an event sponsored by the local branch of the Zionist Organization of America at which JewishWorldReview.com's Rabbi Dov Fischer was to present information about OTI's anti-Israel activities.
Speaking to the paper Fischer, of Irvine, California, said, "The amazing thing is how there has been a clamp-down by The Federation to prevent any speech or dissent in the community against The Federation's program. The idea that two different temples in the community, who have all kinds of speakers, canceled this program is profoundly shocking."
• Meanwhile on the East Coast, both the Washington and New York Jewish communities are embroiled in a feud over Federation funding for anti-Israel Jewish groups. In Washington, a group of pro-Israel activist operating as the Committee Opposed to Propaganda Masquerading as Art has begun a campaign to end Federation funding for anti-Israel activities.
In a letter to Federation President Susie Gelman and Federation board members from March 6, COPMA's Chairman Robert Samet argued, "It is critical that the Federation establish guidelines for withholding funding from partner agencies that engage in political propaganda and activism denigrating Israel and undermining its legitimacy as a strong, secure and independent Jewish state."
COPMA's specific concern is Federation Funding for the District of Columbia's Jewish Community Center's professional theater group Theater J. As the letter explained, "Theater J, a partner agency of the Federation and a recipient of its funding and support, has turned an arts program at the DCJCC…into a platform for political activism that expresses hostility and antipathy towards the State of Israel and little regard for its security."
In 2009 Theater J staged the virulently anti-Semitic post-modern passion play "Seven Jewish Children" by Caryl Churchill. The play accuses the entire Jewish population of Israel of mass murders that were never committed.
Unfortunately, as COPMA notes, this is par for the course. In the past Theater J's Artistic Director Ari Roth organized buses to bring community members to Shepherdstown, West Virginia to watch a production of the virulently anti-Israel propaganda play "My Name is Rachel Corrie."
This year, under Roth's leadership, Theater J presented "Return to Haifa," a play that COPMA argues, "distorts the history and origins of Israel and makes the historically accurate death of a Jewish child in the Holocaust…comparable to the fabricated and utterly fantastical story of an Arab child allegedly abandoned by his fleeing parents in Haifa in 1948, ostensibly as a result of their terror over advancing Israelis."
In response to COPMA's letter, Roth told the Forward that it "is not a prerogative of the donor," to intervene in artistic content and claimed that attempts to limit the theater's activities amount to censorship or blacklisting.
Carol Greenwald, COPMA's treasurer rejects Roth's arguments. In her words, "The issue is not artistic freedom to create whatever the artist chooses; the issue is the appropriateness of a Jewish communal institution using Jewish communal funding to showcase defamation of the Jewish people."
The Forward quoted Andrew Apostolou, a local Jewish Community Relations Council member as quite sensibly saying, "There are things a Jewish community shouldn't be doing, like serving a bacon cheeseburger on Yom Kippur. Putting on an anti-Semitic play is one of these things."
• COPMA is not alone in its concerns. In New York, a group of activists formed a new organization called JCC Watch to force the New York Jewish Federation to end financial support to the Manhattan JCC due to its partnership with organizations that support economic warfare against Israel through calls for economic boycotts, divestment and sanctions. Like COPMA, JCC Watch asks that the local Federation adopt guidelines to prevent Federation funds from being transferred to groups and programming that showcase calls for economic and political warfare against Israel.
So far, Washington's Federation has not responded to COPMA's letter. Interviewed by the Forward, the Washington Federation's CEO defended giving supporters of anti-Israel sanctions the stage as part of Federation-sponsored panels on the grounds of "welcoming multiple voices." And in an op-ed in New York Jewish Week last month, New York Federation's CEO defended the JCC's partnership with groups that engage in economic and political warfare against Israel.
What is going on here? According to the AJC and Brandeis surveys, less than ten percent of American Jews tend to accept the Arab line against Israel. Given the wall to wall support for Israel among American Jews, why do American Jewish organizational leaders refuse to do what their members want them to do? Why are they taking Jewish communal funds to finance activities and causes that are offensive to the Jewish community? Why are they pretending that the call to end communal funding for anti-Israel activities is a call for an abrogation of free speech?
To get a sense of how unprecedented this is, it is useful to consider the American Jewish community's response to Jews for Jesus. While Reform and Orthodox rabbis agree on almost nothing relating to Jewish laws and practices, since the emergence of Jews for Jesus in the 1970s, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbis have been unified in their rejection of the Christian missionary group's protestations of being Jewish.
Everyone understands that while Jews have a perfect right to change their religion, they have no right to force the Jewish community to accept Christians as Jews. That is they have no right to change the definition of Judaism to include people who worship Jesus. So-called Messianic Jews falsely call themselves Jews to undermine the community from within. But no Federation feels compelled to invite a representative of so-called Messianic Jews to proselytize on stage as part of a panel discussion in order to "welcome multiple voices." Hillel organizations have rightly refused space and funding to Messianic Jewish groups.
But today, American Jews find themselves helpless when a marginal group of anti-Zionist Jews demands —like the Messianic Jews of their day—communal funding and space for their anti-Israel activities.
The anti-Zionist groups make the same arguments as the Messianic Jews. They call themselves pro-Israel even as they engage in activities aimed at harming, defaming, weakening and delegitimizing the Jewish state. They claim that refusing them communal funds constitutes a violation of their free speech rights.
Yet while communal leaders did not hesitate to call the so-called Messianic Jews' bluff, they cannot find the way to expunge anti-Israel groups from their umbrella organizations. The explanation for this behavior apparently is apparently social. Federation leaders don't mind disappointing evangelical Christians. But most of their friends are leftist. Consequently, the perceived social cost of taking action against groups like Theater J, J Street, B'Tselem, Breaking the Silence and Jewish Voices for Peace is too high for many American Jewish leaders to bear.
Happily, a handful of committed community members throughout the country are standing up and demanding that their communal leaders act in the interests of the communities they serve. It can only be hoped that the overwhelming majority of American Jews who clearly wish to support Israel will join these activists' call and demand that all Jewish Federations stop allowing anti-Israel groups to feed from the communal trough. If they do they will find that much to their surprise, the social costs of actions will be far smaller than they expected. After all, Israel's supporters are the majority.
Jewry's Jewish problem
By Caroline B. Glick
Across the US, Jewish communities are failing to prevent anti-Zionist Jews from hijacking communal funds and facilities to finance anti-Israel activities
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Over the past year or so, American Jewish opponents of Israel like writer and activist Peter Beinart have sought to intimidate and demoralize Israelis by telling us that American Jews either no longer support us or will stop supporting us if we don't give in to all the Arabs' demands.
But statistical evidence exposes these threats as utter lies. According to mountainous survey evidence, the American Jewish community writ large remains deeply supportive of Israel. Two surveys released last year by the American Jewish Committee and Brandeis University's Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies showed that three quarters of American Jews care deeply about Israel and that Israel is an important part of their Jewish identity. The Brandeis survey notably showed that young American Jews are no less likely to support Israel than they were in the past.
In fact, American Jews under 30 are more hawkish about the Palestinian conflict with Israel than Jews between the ages of 31-40 are. According to the Brandeis survey, 51 percent of American Jews oppose a future division of Jerusalem while a mere 29 percent would support it. Younger Jews are more opposed to the capital's partition than older Jews are.
It is notable that the Brandeis survey found that political views do not impact American Jews' support for Israel. This is striking because among Americans at large, polls show Republicans are significantly stronger supporters of Israel than Democrats. But not among Jews. "Liberals felt no less connected than conservatives and were no less likely to regard Israel as important to their Jewish identities. These observations hold true for both younger and older respondents," the Brandeis survey report explained.
FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
Across the board, American Jews blame the Palestinians for the absence of peace and believe there is little chance that there will be peace between Israel and the Palestinians in the foreseeable future. 75 percent agreed with the statement, "The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel."
94 percent said the Palestinians should be required to accept the Jewish state's right to exist.
In light of these overwhelming levels of support, it is disconcerting to see that across the US, Jewish communities are failing to prevent anti-Zionist Jews from hijacking communal funds and facilities to finance anti-Israel activities.
Consider a few recent examples.
• In Orange County, California, intra-communal rancor is growing over the local Jewish Federation's financial and organizational support for University of California at Irvine's Olive Tree Initiative.
The Federation subsidizes Olive Tree Initiative-organized tours of Israel for Jewish students. As Tammi Benjamin from UC Santa Cruz explained in a letter last December to local Federation CEO Shalom Elcott and local Hillel director Jordan Fruchtman, while OTI claims to be interested in fostering good relations between Jewish and Arab students, it actually just propagandizes against Israel. The speakers who addressed students participating in the two-week trip were overwhelmingly anti-Israel. Almost all the Palestinian speakers expressed hatred for Israel. Many of the Israeli speakers represented groups that call for economic warfare against Israel and defame Israel as a racist state. Half of the supposedly neutral representatives of international organizations who spoke to the group are notorious for their opposition to Israel.
Rather than end the practice of using Jewish communal funds to propagandize Jewish students to hate the Jewish state that most American Jews support and see as important to their Jewish identity, the Federation and Hillel have dug in their heels This week the Los Angeles Jewish Journal reported that over the past two months, allegedly acting on instructions from the Federation, two local synagogues cancelled an event sponsored by the local branch of the Zionist Organization of America at which JewishWorldReview.com's Rabbi Dov Fischer was to present information about OTI's anti-Israel activities.
Speaking to the paper Fischer, of Irvine, California, said, "The amazing thing is how there has been a clamp-down by The Federation to prevent any speech or dissent in the community against The Federation's program. The idea that two different temples in the community, who have all kinds of speakers, canceled this program is profoundly shocking."
• Meanwhile on the East Coast, both the Washington and New York Jewish communities are embroiled in a feud over Federation funding for anti-Israel Jewish groups. In Washington, a group of pro-Israel activist operating as the Committee Opposed to Propaganda Masquerading as Art has begun a campaign to end Federation funding for anti-Israel activities.
In a letter to Federation President Susie Gelman and Federation board members from March 6, COPMA's Chairman Robert Samet argued, "It is critical that the Federation establish guidelines for withholding funding from partner agencies that engage in political propaganda and activism denigrating Israel and undermining its legitimacy as a strong, secure and independent Jewish state."
COPMA's specific concern is Federation Funding for the District of Columbia's Jewish Community Center's professional theater group Theater J. As the letter explained, "Theater J, a partner agency of the Federation and a recipient of its funding and support, has turned an arts program at the DCJCC…into a platform for political activism that expresses hostility and antipathy towards the State of Israel and little regard for its security."
In 2009 Theater J staged the virulently anti-Semitic post-modern passion play "Seven Jewish Children" by Caryl Churchill. The play accuses the entire Jewish population of Israel of mass murders that were never committed.
Unfortunately, as COPMA notes, this is par for the course. In the past Theater J's Artistic Director Ari Roth organized buses to bring community members to Shepherdstown, West Virginia to watch a production of the virulently anti-Israel propaganda play "My Name is Rachel Corrie."
This year, under Roth's leadership, Theater J presented "Return to Haifa," a play that COPMA argues, "distorts the history and origins of Israel and makes the historically accurate death of a Jewish child in the Holocaust…comparable to the fabricated and utterly fantastical story of an Arab child allegedly abandoned by his fleeing parents in Haifa in 1948, ostensibly as a result of their terror over advancing Israelis."
In response to COPMA's letter, Roth told the Forward that it "is not a prerogative of the donor," to intervene in artistic content and claimed that attempts to limit the theater's activities amount to censorship or blacklisting.
Carol Greenwald, COPMA's treasurer rejects Roth's arguments. In her words, "The issue is not artistic freedom to create whatever the artist chooses; the issue is the appropriateness of a Jewish communal institution using Jewish communal funding to showcase defamation of the Jewish people."
The Forward quoted Andrew Apostolou, a local Jewish Community Relations Council member as quite sensibly saying, "There are things a Jewish community shouldn't be doing, like serving a bacon cheeseburger on Yom Kippur. Putting on an anti-Semitic play is one of these things."
• COPMA is not alone in its concerns. In New York, a group of activists formed a new organization called JCC Watch to force the New York Jewish Federation to end financial support to the Manhattan JCC due to its partnership with organizations that support economic warfare against Israel through calls for economic boycotts, divestment and sanctions. Like COPMA, JCC Watch asks that the local Federation adopt guidelines to prevent Federation funds from being transferred to groups and programming that showcase calls for economic and political warfare against Israel.
So far, Washington's Federation has not responded to COPMA's letter. Interviewed by the Forward, the Washington Federation's CEO defended giving supporters of anti-Israel sanctions the stage as part of Federation-sponsored panels on the grounds of "welcoming multiple voices." And in an op-ed in New York Jewish Week last month, New York Federation's CEO defended the JCC's partnership with groups that engage in economic and political warfare against Israel.
What is going on here? According to the AJC and Brandeis surveys, less than ten percent of American Jews tend to accept the Arab line against Israel. Given the wall to wall support for Israel among American Jews, why do American Jewish organizational leaders refuse to do what their members want them to do? Why are they taking Jewish communal funds to finance activities and causes that are offensive to the Jewish community? Why are they pretending that the call to end communal funding for anti-Israel activities is a call for an abrogation of free speech?
To get a sense of how unprecedented this is, it is useful to consider the American Jewish community's response to Jews for Jesus. While Reform and Orthodox rabbis agree on almost nothing relating to Jewish laws and practices, since the emergence of Jews for Jesus in the 1970s, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbis have been unified in their rejection of the Christian missionary group's protestations of being Jewish.
Everyone understands that while Jews have a perfect right to change their religion, they have no right to force the Jewish community to accept Christians as Jews. That is they have no right to change the definition of Judaism to include people who worship Jesus. So-called Messianic Jews falsely call themselves Jews to undermine the community from within. But no Federation feels compelled to invite a representative of so-called Messianic Jews to proselytize on stage as part of a panel discussion in order to "welcome multiple voices." Hillel organizations have rightly refused space and funding to Messianic Jewish groups.
But today, American Jews find themselves helpless when a marginal group of anti-Zionist Jews demands —like the Messianic Jews of their day—communal funding and space for their anti-Israel activities.
The anti-Zionist groups make the same arguments as the Messianic Jews. They call themselves pro-Israel even as they engage in activities aimed at harming, defaming, weakening and delegitimizing the Jewish state. They claim that refusing them communal funds constitutes a violation of their free speech rights.
Yet while communal leaders did not hesitate to call the so-called Messianic Jews' bluff, they cannot find the way to expunge anti-Israel groups from their umbrella organizations. The explanation for this behavior apparently is apparently social. Federation leaders don't mind disappointing evangelical Christians. But most of their friends are leftist. Consequently, the perceived social cost of taking action against groups like Theater J, J Street, B'Tselem, Breaking the Silence and Jewish Voices for Peace is too high for many American Jewish leaders to bear.
Happily, a handful of committed community members throughout the country are standing up and demanding that their communal leaders act in the interests of the communities they serve. It can only be hoped that the overwhelming majority of American Jews who clearly wish to support Israel will join these activists' call and demand that all Jewish Federations stop allowing anti-Israel groups to feed from the communal trough. If they do they will find that much to their surprise, the social costs of actions will be far smaller than they expected. After all, Israel's supporters are the majority.
The laws of conversion
Conversion According to Halakhah
(YD 268)
Question:
What exactly is "conversion according to halakhah"? Does conversion for the sake of marriage invalidate the conversion? Must a potential convert undertake to observe all of the mitzvot? Who is authorized to accept converts?
Responsum:
1. The Motive for Conversion
The Talmud (Yevamot 24b) declares in the name of Rabbi Nehemiah that those who convert in order to marry a Jew (Jewess) or for the sake of some material preferment are not considered bona fide converts. Following this statement, the Talmud adds in the name of Rav (leading Babylonian Amora of the First Generation) that the halakhah is in accordance with he who says that they are indeed bona fide converts.
Inquiry into the motive for a Gentile request to be converted goes unmentioned in the Talmud in its description of two actual cases of conversion (Shabbat 31a; Menahot 44a). While Maimonides writes that such investigation should be made, nevertheless, if it was not made and the Gentile performed the requisite rituals, he (she) is considered a full-fledged convert, even if it becomes known that an ulterior motive was involved (Hilkhot Issurey Biah 13).
Indeed, in one of Maimonides' responsa, which deals with an actual case in which his legal opinion was solicited, he takes a similar opinion. According to the Mishnah (Yevamot 2:8), he who is suspected of having sexual relations with a slave-woman may not free her and convert her in order to marry her. Nevertheless, Maimonides writes: "Let him liberate her (and convert her) and we help him to do so in a spirit of gentility" (Pe'er HaDor No.211). The overwhelming majority of halakhists through the ages follow the latter opinion of Maimonides, and decide that conversion prompted by the desire to marry a Jew (Jewess) does not invalidate a conversion. Such, for example, is the decision of Rabbenu Yeruham (14th century) in his code Adam Vehava.
In the light of the foregoing, it is therefore halakhically permissible to accept a Gentile for conversion, even if the conversion is motivated by the desire to marry into the Jewish community.
2. Accepting the Yoke of the Commandments
Firstly, one notes, in this context, that the phrase "accepting the yoke of the commandments" does not appear in the Talmudic sources, though, to be sure, there is a statement that might be considered as such. In a Baraita (Yevamot 47 a-b) we read: "We inform the candidate for conversion of some of the easier and some of the more severe commandments, but we do not enlarge on this matter and do not go into detail". Maimonides (Hilkhot Issurey Biah 13:2) writes in a similar vein and goes on to add: "We do not go into detail". In the same chapter in his Code (13:7), Maimonides writes that if for any reason this phase of conversion was omitted, the fact does not invalidate the conversion.
The Shulhan Arukh (Yore Deah sec. 268) repeats Maimonides almost verbatim but adds that ab initio "accepting the yoke of the commandments" is indispensable but if the convert nevertheless married a Jewess without doing so, his conversion is not invalidated.
One raises the following very practical question in the light of present day circumstances, and especially in the light of what the Talmud says on the subject. What if the court (Bet Din), that convened to accept a candidate for conversion, is aware that after conversion the person involved will not observe some or most of the commandments, may he (she) be accepted? Does not the Talmud (Bekhorot 30b) declare: "A Gentile who comes to accept the Torah (conversion) except for one item (in the Torah), we do not accept him"? This passage received a telling interpretation by one of the leading halakhists of the early part of this century - Rabbi Haim Ozer Grodzensky (Responsa Ahiezer pt. 3, no. 26). The passage, he writes, means to say that if the candidate for conversion expressly stipulates that his conversion is on condition that he be exempt from fulfilling one or another mitzvah, then he is not accepted. But if he makes no such stipulation, and merely intends not to observe a mitzvah because of its inconvenience, this does not render him invalid for conversion.
The late Sephardic Chief Rabbi Uzziel (Mishpetei Uzziel no. 58) interprets the aforesaid Talmudic passage in a similar vein. He adds: "It may well be that he will have children who will be more positive in fulfilling the commandments".
In our time, it is the accepted practice for a candidate for conversion to participate in a formal conversion course. In addition, it is recommended that he begin to attend synagogue on Shabbat and festivals and that he attend weddings, circumcisions and other life-cycle events.
3. The Ritual of Conversion
On this score, there is no difference of opinion in the literature of the halakhah. A male convert must undergo circumcision, followed by ritual immersion (Tevilah). A female convert requires ritual immersion.
4. Who is Authorized to Accept Converts?
The Talmud declares (Yevamot 46b) that conversion requires the presence of three people. Whether three are required for every phase of conversion or only for some is a matter of dispute among the halakhists. In any event, it appears undeniable from what Rashi writes (Kiddushin 62a) that any three Jews may validly testify to the convert's ritual immersion and inform him of the commandments. Mordecai Ben Hillel (noted halakhist of the 13th century) indicates why this is so: "Just as the sages ordained that even non-experts may sit as a court in cases of loans, so as not to shut the door in the face of those in need of a loan, so too they ordained in regard to a convert." That is to say, three Jews who know the laws of conversion may validly accept converts.
Summary
The foregoing gives rise to three conclusions:
1. Conversion for the purpose of marriage is valid.
2. A candidate for conversion is not invalidated where there is suspicion that he (she) will not observe all the commandments.
3. Even though the halakhah does not require three halakhic scholars to oversee the process of conversion, nevertheless it has been the practice for centuries for rabbis to oversee the process of conversion and accept converts into the fold. This practice should be followed today.
Rabbi Tuvia Friedman
Approved Unanimously 5749
(YD 268)
Question:
What exactly is "conversion according to halakhah"? Does conversion for the sake of marriage invalidate the conversion? Must a potential convert undertake to observe all of the mitzvot? Who is authorized to accept converts?
Responsum:
1. The Motive for Conversion
The Talmud (Yevamot 24b) declares in the name of Rabbi Nehemiah that those who convert in order to marry a Jew (Jewess) or for the sake of some material preferment are not considered bona fide converts. Following this statement, the Talmud adds in the name of Rav (leading Babylonian Amora of the First Generation) that the halakhah is in accordance with he who says that they are indeed bona fide converts.
Inquiry into the motive for a Gentile request to be converted goes unmentioned in the Talmud in its description of two actual cases of conversion (Shabbat 31a; Menahot 44a). While Maimonides writes that such investigation should be made, nevertheless, if it was not made and the Gentile performed the requisite rituals, he (she) is considered a full-fledged convert, even if it becomes known that an ulterior motive was involved (Hilkhot Issurey Biah 13).
Indeed, in one of Maimonides' responsa, which deals with an actual case in which his legal opinion was solicited, he takes a similar opinion. According to the Mishnah (Yevamot 2:8), he who is suspected of having sexual relations with a slave-woman may not free her and convert her in order to marry her. Nevertheless, Maimonides writes: "Let him liberate her (and convert her) and we help him to do so in a spirit of gentility" (Pe'er HaDor No.211). The overwhelming majority of halakhists through the ages follow the latter opinion of Maimonides, and decide that conversion prompted by the desire to marry a Jew (Jewess) does not invalidate a conversion. Such, for example, is the decision of Rabbenu Yeruham (14th century) in his code Adam Vehava.
In the light of the foregoing, it is therefore halakhically permissible to accept a Gentile for conversion, even if the conversion is motivated by the desire to marry into the Jewish community.
2. Accepting the Yoke of the Commandments
Firstly, one notes, in this context, that the phrase "accepting the yoke of the commandments" does not appear in the Talmudic sources, though, to be sure, there is a statement that might be considered as such. In a Baraita (Yevamot 47 a-b) we read: "We inform the candidate for conversion of some of the easier and some of the more severe commandments, but we do not enlarge on this matter and do not go into detail". Maimonides (Hilkhot Issurey Biah 13:2) writes in a similar vein and goes on to add: "We do not go into detail". In the same chapter in his Code (13:7), Maimonides writes that if for any reason this phase of conversion was omitted, the fact does not invalidate the conversion.
The Shulhan Arukh (Yore Deah sec. 268) repeats Maimonides almost verbatim but adds that ab initio "accepting the yoke of the commandments" is indispensable but if the convert nevertheless married a Jewess without doing so, his conversion is not invalidated.
One raises the following very practical question in the light of present day circumstances, and especially in the light of what the Talmud says on the subject. What if the court (Bet Din), that convened to accept a candidate for conversion, is aware that after conversion the person involved will not observe some or most of the commandments, may he (she) be accepted? Does not the Talmud (Bekhorot 30b) declare: "A Gentile who comes to accept the Torah (conversion) except for one item (in the Torah), we do not accept him"? This passage received a telling interpretation by one of the leading halakhists of the early part of this century - Rabbi Haim Ozer Grodzensky (Responsa Ahiezer pt. 3, no. 26). The passage, he writes, means to say that if the candidate for conversion expressly stipulates that his conversion is on condition that he be exempt from fulfilling one or another mitzvah, then he is not accepted. But if he makes no such stipulation, and merely intends not to observe a mitzvah because of its inconvenience, this does not render him invalid for conversion.
The late Sephardic Chief Rabbi Uzziel (Mishpetei Uzziel no. 58) interprets the aforesaid Talmudic passage in a similar vein. He adds: "It may well be that he will have children who will be more positive in fulfilling the commandments".
In our time, it is the accepted practice for a candidate for conversion to participate in a formal conversion course. In addition, it is recommended that he begin to attend synagogue on Shabbat and festivals and that he attend weddings, circumcisions and other life-cycle events.
3. The Ritual of Conversion
On this score, there is no difference of opinion in the literature of the halakhah. A male convert must undergo circumcision, followed by ritual immersion (Tevilah). A female convert requires ritual immersion.
4. Who is Authorized to Accept Converts?
The Talmud declares (Yevamot 46b) that conversion requires the presence of three people. Whether three are required for every phase of conversion or only for some is a matter of dispute among the halakhists. In any event, it appears undeniable from what Rashi writes (Kiddushin 62a) that any three Jews may validly testify to the convert's ritual immersion and inform him of the commandments. Mordecai Ben Hillel (noted halakhist of the 13th century) indicates why this is so: "Just as the sages ordained that even non-experts may sit as a court in cases of loans, so as not to shut the door in the face of those in need of a loan, so too they ordained in regard to a convert." That is to say, three Jews who know the laws of conversion may validly accept converts.
Summary
The foregoing gives rise to three conclusions:
1. Conversion for the purpose of marriage is valid.
2. A candidate for conversion is not invalidated where there is suspicion that he (she) will not observe all the commandments.
3. Even though the halakhah does not require three halakhic scholars to oversee the process of conversion, nevertheless it has been the practice for centuries for rabbis to oversee the process of conversion and accept converts into the fold. This practice should be followed today.
Rabbi Tuvia Friedman
Approved Unanimously 5749
why Israeli Conservative rabbis allow Legumes on pesah
Eating Kitniyot (Legumes) on Pesach
(OH 453:1)
Question:
In light of the ingathering of the exiles, would it be possible to eliminate the Ashkenazic custom of not eating legumes on Pesach?
Responsum:
1) In our opinion it is permitted (and perhaps even obligatory) to eliminate this custom. It is in direct contradiction to an explicit decision in the Babylonian Talmud (Pesachim 114b) and is also in contradiction to the opinion of all the sages of the Mishnah and Talmud except one (R.Yochanan ben Nuri, Pesahim 35a and parallels). It also contradicts the theory and the practice of the Amoraim both in Babylonia and in Israel (Pesahim 114b and other sources), the Geonim (Sheiltot, Halakhot Pesukot, Halakhot Gedolot, etc.) and of most of the early medieval authorities in all countries (altogether more than 50 Rishonim!).
2) This custom is mentioned for the first time in France and Provence in the beginning of the thirteenth century by R. Asher of Lunel, R. Samuel of Falaise, and R. Peretz of Corbeil - from there it spread to various countries and the list of prohibited foods continued to expand. Nevertheless, the reason for the custom was unknown and as a result many sages invented at least eleven different explanations for the custom. As a result, R. Samuel of Falaise, one of the first to mention it, referred to it as a "mistaken custom" and R. Yerucham called it a "foolish custom".
3) Therefore, the main halakhic question in this case is whether it is permissible to do away with a mistaken or foolish custom. Many rabbinic authorities have ruled that it is permitted (and perhaps even obligatory) to do away with this type of "foolish custom" (R. Abin in Yerushalmi Pesahim, Maimonides, the Rosh, the Ribash, and many others). Furthermore, there are many good reasons to do away with this "foolish custom": a) It detracts from the joy of the holiday by limiting the number of permitted foods; b) It causes exorbitant price rises, which result in "major financial loss" and, as is well known, "the Torah takes pity on the people of Israel's money"; c) It emphasizes the insignificant (legumes) and ignores the significant (hametz, which is forbidden from the five kinds of grain); d) It causes people to scoff at the commandments in general and at the prohibition of hametz in particular - if this custom has no purpose and is observed, then there is no reason to observe other commandments; e) Finally, it causes unnecessary divisions between Israel's different ethnic groups. On the other hand, there is only one reason to observe this custom: the desire to preserve an old custom. Obviously, this desire does not override all that was mentioned above. Therefore, both Ashkenazim and Sephardim are permitted to eat legumes and rice on Pesah without fear of transgressing any prohibition.
4) Undoubtedly, there will be Ashkenazim who will want to stick to the "custom of their ancestors" even though they know that it is permitted to eat legumes on Pesah. To them we recommend that they observe only the original custom of not eating rice and legumes but that they use oil from legumes and all the other foods "forbidden" over the years, such as peas, beans, garlic, mustard, sunflower seeds, peanuts etc. Thus they will be able to eat hundreds of products, which bear the label "Kosher for Pesah for those who eat legumes." This will make their lives easier and will add joy and pleasure to their observance of Pesah.
Rabbi David Golinkin
Approved Unanimously 5749
(OH 453:1)
Question:
In light of the ingathering of the exiles, would it be possible to eliminate the Ashkenazic custom of not eating legumes on Pesach?
Responsum:
1) In our opinion it is permitted (and perhaps even obligatory) to eliminate this custom. It is in direct contradiction to an explicit decision in the Babylonian Talmud (Pesachim 114b) and is also in contradiction to the opinion of all the sages of the Mishnah and Talmud except one (R.Yochanan ben Nuri, Pesahim 35a and parallels). It also contradicts the theory and the practice of the Amoraim both in Babylonia and in Israel (Pesahim 114b and other sources), the Geonim (Sheiltot, Halakhot Pesukot, Halakhot Gedolot, etc.) and of most of the early medieval authorities in all countries (altogether more than 50 Rishonim!).
2) This custom is mentioned for the first time in France and Provence in the beginning of the thirteenth century by R. Asher of Lunel, R. Samuel of Falaise, and R. Peretz of Corbeil - from there it spread to various countries and the list of prohibited foods continued to expand. Nevertheless, the reason for the custom was unknown and as a result many sages invented at least eleven different explanations for the custom. As a result, R. Samuel of Falaise, one of the first to mention it, referred to it as a "mistaken custom" and R. Yerucham called it a "foolish custom".
3) Therefore, the main halakhic question in this case is whether it is permissible to do away with a mistaken or foolish custom. Many rabbinic authorities have ruled that it is permitted (and perhaps even obligatory) to do away with this type of "foolish custom" (R. Abin in Yerushalmi Pesahim, Maimonides, the Rosh, the Ribash, and many others). Furthermore, there are many good reasons to do away with this "foolish custom": a) It detracts from the joy of the holiday by limiting the number of permitted foods; b) It causes exorbitant price rises, which result in "major financial loss" and, as is well known, "the Torah takes pity on the people of Israel's money"; c) It emphasizes the insignificant (legumes) and ignores the significant (hametz, which is forbidden from the five kinds of grain); d) It causes people to scoff at the commandments in general and at the prohibition of hametz in particular - if this custom has no purpose and is observed, then there is no reason to observe other commandments; e) Finally, it causes unnecessary divisions between Israel's different ethnic groups. On the other hand, there is only one reason to observe this custom: the desire to preserve an old custom. Obviously, this desire does not override all that was mentioned above. Therefore, both Ashkenazim and Sephardim are permitted to eat legumes and rice on Pesah without fear of transgressing any prohibition.
4) Undoubtedly, there will be Ashkenazim who will want to stick to the "custom of their ancestors" even though they know that it is permitted to eat legumes on Pesah. To them we recommend that they observe only the original custom of not eating rice and legumes but that they use oil from legumes and all the other foods "forbidden" over the years, such as peas, beans, garlic, mustard, sunflower seeds, peanuts etc. Thus they will be able to eat hundreds of products, which bear the label "Kosher for Pesah for those who eat legumes." This will make their lives easier and will add joy and pleasure to their observance of Pesah.
Rabbi David Golinkin
Approved Unanimously 5749
The unnecessary mehitza
The Mehitzah in the Synagogue
(not in the Shulhan Arukh)
Question:
What are the sources for a mehitzah/women's gallery in the synagogue? In most of our Movement's congregations it is the custom to pray without a mehitzah/womens' gallery. Is this custom halakhically justified?
Responsum:
There is no mention of any separation in the Temple in Jerusalem throughout the period of the First Temple or most of the period of the Second Temple. Towards the end of the Second Temple period the Sages directed that a women's gallery be constructed in the Women's Court to keep the sexes separated during the somewhat light-headed celebration of the water festival during Succot. During the balance of the year men and women mingled freely in the Women's Court. (It appears that this was so named because it marked the limit of approach by women who were not bringing sacrifices, to the inner courts of the Temple). There is no literary or archaeological basis for assuming the existence of a synagogue separation during the period of the Mishnah and the Talmud. The first mention is towards the end of the period of the Geonim (around the eleventh century). From then on, such separation is occasionally mentioned in passing. Not until the end of the nineteenth century do we have a halakhic source requiring separation in the synagogue.
Many Orthodox rabbis maintain that the women's gallery in the synagogue has the status of pentateuchal law (meed'oraita). This is not borne out by the Talmudic sources. The Mishnah, Tosefta, and Babylonian Talmud clearly state that the erection of the temporary separating balcony towards the end of the Second Temple period was a rabbinic enactment (tikun gadol) enacted by the Sages. In any case the existence of a temporary separation in the Temple tells us absolutely nothing about the pattern in the ancient synagogue; the synagogue differs in hundreds of details from the Temple. While the medieval commentators mention separation in the synagogue as a fact, not one demands it or forbids mixed seating. The iron-clad institutionalizing of separate seating came about only towards the end of the nineteenth century as an Orthodox strategem directed against the non-Orthodox trends. There is considerable evidence of mixed prayer in the Bible and in the Apocrypha. With reference to the Second Temple period many sources indicate that mixing was the norm in the Women's Court.
Some argue that the reason no physical divider has been found in any ancient synagogue is that women simply did not attend. However, many sources do testify to the regular attendance of women in the synagogue during the period of the Talmud. The archaeological evidence also supports the literary evidence we have collected. Since the beginning of this century, over one hundred ancient synagogues have been unearthed in Eretz Yisrael, the Golan and Trans-Jordan and another ten in the diaspora. Evidence of a gallery has been found in only five of the Palestinian synagogues and in none of the diaspora synagogues. Furthermore, there is no archaeological proof whatsoever that the five galleries discovered were used by women.
Thus, the separate women's' section apparently is a minhag (custom) that developed during the period of the Geonim. May one change a custom, which is perhaps a thousand years old? Many argue that one must always follow customs that were handed down. However, in our history great numbers of customs have been changed: organically by the people and formally by their Rabbis. The mores and habits of society in general are major factors affecting halakhah and minhag. It happens that in our society mixed seating is the norm. Therefore we can use the halakhic principle of ha-idana (=now) to justify this change in custom. This principle has been used by poskim hundreds of times since Talmudic times. In addition, we can utilize the halakhic concept of regilut (=habit), which was used by medieval poskim such as the Ra'aviyah and the Levush and even by proponents of the mehitzah such as R. Moshe Feinstein. This concept states that men are not sexually aroused by things they are accustomed to seeing and doing. Therefore, since men and women today are accustomed to sitting together at all times, mixed seating no longer has any effect on a man's ability to concentrate on his prayers. Of course there are still some congregations where mixed seating would be disturbing to the participants. It is entirely proper for them to continue with separate seating. But this is not true of our Movement's constituency for whom mixed seating is routine. For us, mixed seating is halakhically and instinctively correct.
Rabbi David Golinkin
Approved Unanimously 5747
(not in the Shulhan Arukh)
Question:
What are the sources for a mehitzah/women's gallery in the synagogue? In most of our Movement's congregations it is the custom to pray without a mehitzah/womens' gallery. Is this custom halakhically justified?
Responsum:
There is no mention of any separation in the Temple in Jerusalem throughout the period of the First Temple or most of the period of the Second Temple. Towards the end of the Second Temple period the Sages directed that a women's gallery be constructed in the Women's Court to keep the sexes separated during the somewhat light-headed celebration of the water festival during Succot. During the balance of the year men and women mingled freely in the Women's Court. (It appears that this was so named because it marked the limit of approach by women who were not bringing sacrifices, to the inner courts of the Temple). There is no literary or archaeological basis for assuming the existence of a synagogue separation during the period of the Mishnah and the Talmud. The first mention is towards the end of the period of the Geonim (around the eleventh century). From then on, such separation is occasionally mentioned in passing. Not until the end of the nineteenth century do we have a halakhic source requiring separation in the synagogue.
Many Orthodox rabbis maintain that the women's gallery in the synagogue has the status of pentateuchal law (meed'oraita). This is not borne out by the Talmudic sources. The Mishnah, Tosefta, and Babylonian Talmud clearly state that the erection of the temporary separating balcony towards the end of the Second Temple period was a rabbinic enactment (tikun gadol) enacted by the Sages. In any case the existence of a temporary separation in the Temple tells us absolutely nothing about the pattern in the ancient synagogue; the synagogue differs in hundreds of details from the Temple. While the medieval commentators mention separation in the synagogue as a fact, not one demands it or forbids mixed seating. The iron-clad institutionalizing of separate seating came about only towards the end of the nineteenth century as an Orthodox strategem directed against the non-Orthodox trends. There is considerable evidence of mixed prayer in the Bible and in the Apocrypha. With reference to the Second Temple period many sources indicate that mixing was the norm in the Women's Court.
Some argue that the reason no physical divider has been found in any ancient synagogue is that women simply did not attend. However, many sources do testify to the regular attendance of women in the synagogue during the period of the Talmud. The archaeological evidence also supports the literary evidence we have collected. Since the beginning of this century, over one hundred ancient synagogues have been unearthed in Eretz Yisrael, the Golan and Trans-Jordan and another ten in the diaspora. Evidence of a gallery has been found in only five of the Palestinian synagogues and in none of the diaspora synagogues. Furthermore, there is no archaeological proof whatsoever that the five galleries discovered were used by women.
Thus, the separate women's' section apparently is a minhag (custom) that developed during the period of the Geonim. May one change a custom, which is perhaps a thousand years old? Many argue that one must always follow customs that were handed down. However, in our history great numbers of customs have been changed: organically by the people and formally by their Rabbis. The mores and habits of society in general are major factors affecting halakhah and minhag. It happens that in our society mixed seating is the norm. Therefore we can use the halakhic principle of ha-idana (=now) to justify this change in custom. This principle has been used by poskim hundreds of times since Talmudic times. In addition, we can utilize the halakhic concept of regilut (=habit), which was used by medieval poskim such as the Ra'aviyah and the Levush and even by proponents of the mehitzah such as R. Moshe Feinstein. This concept states that men are not sexually aroused by things they are accustomed to seeing and doing. Therefore, since men and women today are accustomed to sitting together at all times, mixed seating no longer has any effect on a man's ability to concentrate on his prayers. Of course there are still some congregations where mixed seating would be disturbing to the participants. It is entirely proper for them to continue with separate seating. But this is not true of our Movement's constituency for whom mixed seating is routine. For us, mixed seating is halakhically and instinctively correct.
Rabbi David Golinkin
Approved Unanimously 5747
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
