The forthcoming debate over an updated Tal Law – that defined the parameters for service by Haredim and others in the Israel Defense Forces – is liable to become heated and nasty. Mutual accusations will be hurled, with one group asserting that a demand for mandatory service is part of an ill-disguised war against Torah and the other side seeking an equal sharing of the defense burdens that fall on most other Israelis. The debate will feature arguments that are both somewhat compelling and somewhat misleading: that Torah study is the defining mitzvah in Jewish life, comparable to no other; that the IDF has a manpower surplus, not a manpower shortage; that it is unfair that some young men risk their lives for the safety of the Jewish people, while others sit in the comfortable confines of the Beit HaMidrash – and are supported (through government funds) by the families of those who are serving; that military service is often a prerequisite to entering the Israeli workforce and will resolve many of the financial struggles that beset Israel’s Haredim;  and that Haredi opt-outs from the military are a small percentage of the total number of Israeli youth not serving in the military, a number buttressed in recent years by hundreds, if not thousands, of secular Israelis (often from the Tel Aviv suburbs) who receive medical and/or psychological deferments from physicians all-too-willing to sign them.

    The proponents, both secular and religious, will struggle to distinguish between Israeli citizens who are Haredim whose service is compulsory, and Israeli citizens who are Arabs who – as Israeli citizens – should be just as required to defend their country but whose widespread service in the IDF would be problematic, to say the least.

    Undoubtedly, the dispute will become embroiled in coalition politics of the most sordid kind. Although the current government no longer needs the votes of the religious parties to survive, future governments surely will and the horse-trading involving prospective support will be typical and distasteful politics. The Torah itself will be unnecessarily dragged through the mud. While certainly Torah protects those who study and uphold it, it does not exempt the sick from seeking medical assistance, the hungry from eating food or the destitute from finding gainful employment. The Torah still demands that we live in reality – after all, the Torah is the book of the Source of ultimate reality –  and therefore not make national defense the only realm (if, indeed, it is the only realm) in which mystical considerations dominate our decision-making.

    Nonetheless, understood properly, this controversy affords a wonderful opportunity to re-define the terms of the debate in a way that can revolutionize Jewish life and restore the crown of glory as of old.

There have been many dramatic transformations that have occurred in the Jewish world since the re-establishment of the State of Israel. Obviously, the highlight is the regained Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel for the first time in nineteen centuries and the reborn capacity and willingness of the Jewish people to provide for our own self-defense. But something else changed in the Jewish psyche – if not in the Jewish people itself: the renaissance of the scholar-warrior, what Rav Eliezer Shenvald, the distinguished Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshivat Hesder Meir-Harel in Modiin, and Colonel in the IDF, called tzva’iyut and yeshivatiyut – the fusion of the military and the yeshiva. In the exile, we grew accustomed – even to think it natural and proper – that, in the language of the Talmud (Masechet Avoda Zara 17b)  “either the book (safra) or the sword (saifa),” but never both, and certainly not together.

     Not only is that wrong, but it is detrimental to the Jewish people.

     It was not always like that – in fact, it was never like that. The giants of our nation went to battle. Avraham went to war, Moshe himself went to war, David famously went to war. None of this was considered out-of-character or a concession to the times, but rather a natural part of serving Hashem. The Netziv wrote in his commentary to Shir Hashirim (4:2) that “your teeth are like the counted flock that has come up from the wash,” i.e., your teeth, that consumes anything before them, are the warriors who triumph in battle, who are pure, carefully- groomed, all righteous, meticulous even of their observance of simple mitzvot. It is the righteous who are supposed to lead the Jewish people into battle.

     Many justify prioritization of Torah study over military service by referencing Rabbi Elazar’s statement (cited by Rabbi Abahu) in Masechet Nedarim 32a that Avraham was punished and his descendants enslaved in Egypt because “he conscripted the Torah scholars” who lived with him when he went to battle against the four kings to rescue his nephew Lot. Besides the facts that this point is not cited as normative halacha by the Rambam or Shulchan Aruch, we generally avoid deriving normative halacha from Agadic statements, and there are other interpretations of that Gemara (Shitah Mekubetzet understands Avraham’s mistake as not rewarding them for their service), this opinion is even cited in the Gemara as a solitary view with which others disagreed. The Ralbag explained the verse as praising Avraham for taking with him into battle “chanichav yelidei beito,” those raised in his home and educated by him, saying that it is appropriate to take into battle only those “who were trained in Avraham’s ways and values since their youth.”

    In a similar context, Radak (Yehoshua 5:14) rejected the criticism of Yehoshua for abandoning his Torah study on the eve of battle as a “far-fetched exposition, for wartime is not a time for Torah study.” Indeed, Yaakov on his deathbed praised his sons Yehuda, Yissachar, Dan, Binyamin and Yosef for the martial abilities, however we wish to interpret his sublime words.

     Furthermore, Chazal underscored that King David’s fighters – Benayahu ben Yehoyada, Adino HaEtzni, and others – were the Sanhedrin, they were the Torah Sages of the generation. As the Gemara notes (Moed Katan 16b) in asserting that King David himself was called Adino HaEtzni, that he was adin, in Torah study he was supple and flexible like a worm, but in battle he was an etz, hardened like a spear.

    What happened to us, to the concept of the scholar-warrior, to the notion of the man of Torah leading the Jewish nation into battle?  In short, the exile robbed us of that, and over the centuries we made – perforce – a virtue out of passivity, pacifism, and even surrender. We artificially created a division of labor in Jewish life between students and soldiers.

    Who better to teach us this point than Yehoshua, depicted in the Torah (Shmot 33:11)  as one “who never left Moshe’s tent,” the tent of study. Really? He never left Moshe’s tent, he was only engaged in the study of Torah? What about Moshe’s command to Yehoshua (Shmot 17:9), “choose men for us and go out to battle with Amalek”? The answer is that the battle itself is part of Torah.

      Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook wrote that “the Torah personality is the fighter who conquers the land of Israel, it is all the same matter.” Only the greatest in Torah study can fully conquer the land of Israel. Indeed, there are two defining statements about Yehoshua, Moshe’s successor: “Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua” (Avot 1:1), and the prophecy of Eldad and Medad in the wilderness, “Moshe will die and Yehoshua will bring Israel into the land” (Sanhedrin 17a). The two statements are inseparable; that was Yehoshua. That was the essence of his Divine service, and that was normal. It was dedication to Torah and divine service that is comprehensive and not bifurcated. Such a personality, and such an endeavor, is not Bitul Torah (the nullification of Torah) but rather Kiyum HaTorah, the very fulfillment of the Torah. Who is more suited to conquering the land of Israel and investing it with holiness than people who love Torah, Divine service and the Jewish people!

    “If the Jewish people had not sinned, we would only have been given the five books of the Torah and the book of Yehoshua, which contains the disposition of the land of Israel” (Nedarim 22b). The books of the prophets admonish us and keep us on the right path. If we were worthy, we would simply obey the Torah – and only require the book of Yehoshua for its description of the allocation of land to each tribe. But why would that be necessary beyond that generation? Once the land was apportioned, then even the book of Yehoshua should be finished. So why is it eternal?

   The answer is that if we had not sinned, we would need only the Torah that tells us how to live and the book of Yehoshua that teaches us how to allocate the land – how to permeate it with holiness, how to implement the Torah and G-d’s will in it. All we would need would be the Torah for a healthy soul and the land of Israel for a healthy body. We would live a holy and holistic existence.

   The exile took such a toll on us that we have had a hard time re-acclimating ourselves to the normalcy of Torah, with many still idealizing the division of responsibilities and incapable of merging the safra and the saifa, the book and the sword. Many persist in re-defining all the giants of Jewish life to make them conform to their pre-conceptions, to render them uni-dimensional figures that ultimately diminish their greatness – whether it is Avraham, Moshe, Yehoshua, David, Yehuda Hamaccabee, Rabbi Akiva and many others. They denude them of their military exploits and ensconce them in the House of Study, as if there is necessarily a conflict between the two or that the two are mutually exclusive. They once might have been – during the exile – but no longer. Today, the halls of the Hesder Yeshivot are populated with Roshei Yeshiva who were Captains, Majors and Colonels in the military – and who better to guide the Torah Jew through the maze of modern life than the contemporary scholar-warrior.

    Rav Shlomo Aviner once identified three cardinal mitzvot that are fulfilled through military service in the IDF: saving Jewish lives, conquest of the land of Israel, and Kiddush Hashem, the sanctification of G-d’s name that is engendered when the nations of the world see that Jewish blood is not cheap. There is another Kiddush Hashem as well – when all Jews see that the Torah can be the foundation of a modern state and that the Torah Jew can serve G-d in every sphere of life. Those mitzvot are certainly vital to an individual Jew’s self-definition as they are to the existence of a Jewish State.

     For sure, a free society can willingly choose to exempt certain Torah scholars from military service as it exempts others for frivolous reasons. But the ideal of the scholar-warrior should be nurtured and cherished as the one best capable of ensuring Israel’s defense and its sacred standing. And it forever deprives the secular Israeli of his persistent complaint, whether sincere or contrived, that “ultra-Orthodox” Jews are parasites who contribute nothing to society and live off the blood and sweat of others. We can hold the book and sword together and achieve greatness in both; can they?

      Fortunate is the generation that has witnessed the renaissance of the Jewish spirit that is a harbinger of the Messiah who himself will personify both virtues – “meditating in the Torah and observing Mitzvot like his ancestor David and fighting G-d’s wars” (Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 11:4) – so that we will all behold the glory of Torah and merit complete redemption, speedily and in our days.

]]> http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/05/30/the-book-and-the-sword/feed/ 0 Rabbi http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/05/25/truth-conquers/ http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/05/25/truth-conquers/#comments Fri, 25 May 2012 17:57:31 +0000 Rabbi http://rabbipruzansky.com/?p=1380 Continue reading →]]> The reality of warfare is such that numbers usually prevail. The Powell Doctrine in force for 20 years in the US military calls for, among other things, the use of overwhelming force to force the enemy to capitulate quickly. In truth, that same doctrine has governed for millennia.

Yet, the Torah generally posits the opposite approach. If we are worthy, then we are attacked by our enemies, then “five of us will pursue 100 of them (a ratio of 20-1), whereas 100 of us can pursue 10,000 of them (a ratio of 100-1)” (Vayikra 26:8), five times as much. Conversely, if we are unworthy, wretched sinners, then later in the Torah (Devarim 32:30) we are told to look with astonishment “how can one of them chase 1000 of us, and two of them chase a myriad of us,” ratios of 1000-1 and 5000-1, respectively? Why does it change?  Why do the numbers change so dramatically from what we can do to our enemies and what they can do to us?

As the period of the omer draws to an end, what haven’t we heard about the sin of the disciples of Rabbi Akiva, “who did not accord each mutual respect” and perished during this season. They didn’t have mutual respect, they demeaned each other, and they saw themselves as separate and apart – despite all the commonalities and despite their joint interests. And this has been a hardy perennial in Jewish life, usually with devastating consequences.

In February, I attended a book launch at the Begin Center in Jerusalem for a new book (published by Geffen) written by Israel’s former Defense and Foreign Affairs Minister Moshe Arens entitled “Flags over the Warsaw Ghetto: The Untold Story of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.” Arens is still very spry and sharp at almost 87 years of age, and he wrote the book to correct what he saw as an historical injustice. The famous story of the revolt has always been told from the perspective of the ZOB (the Jewish Fighting Organization) under the leadership of Mordechai Anielewicz – but there was another group – the ZZB (Jewish Military Organization), led by Pavel Frenkel, that fought equally bravely but whose exploits have been suppressed. Most people have heard of Mordechai Anielewicz, after whom the kibbutz, Yad Mordechai, was named. Few have heard of Pavel Frenkel. Why not ?

The sad truth is that the ZOB were Socialist Zionists who refused to cooperate with the ZZB, who were Revisionists, followers of Ze’ev Jabotinsky. The Zionists fought with the Bundists (anti-Zionist Socialists) and the Jewish Communists – but they refused to fight together with the Betarniks. Each group fought alone, and almost none of the Revisionists survived, so their story was almost unknown. How sad is that? Even the Nazi enemy could not bring the ZOB leadership to set aside their political differences and join forces or even coordinate with the ZZW. (Anielewicz, who came relatively late to the ZOB leadership, is not blamed for this. In fact, Arens dedicated the book to both Mordechai Anielewicz and Pavel Frenkel, both of whom “fought for the honor of the Jewish people.”)

It’s even worse than that, as before the war, the Jews of Warsaw elected a Community Council that was split equally into three factions – the Socialists, the Bundists and Agudat Yisrael. But because they were split evenly, they could not agree on a coalition or even a policy – and Warsaw Jews were left without any leadership, hopelessly divided, as war came to them in 1939. And even worse – almost all of the leadership of the six or seven Jewish organizations in Warsaw fled the city in the first week of September 1939, leaving the remaining Jews to be guided by second and third tier officials who were largely unknown to the community.

This had devastating results, as the political “leadership,” such as it was, could not formulate a coherent response to the Nazi demand in the summer of 1942 that they surrender 60,000 “unproductive” Jews for resettlement. Calls for a rebellion were silenced, as the leadership maintained they would save more lives through cooperation. The Judenrat cooperated, forcibly gathered the requested number of Jews, but the Nazis kept upping the ante. The aktion began on Tish’a B’Av and ended on Yom Kippur in 1942. By that time, not 60,000 but approximately 270,000 Warsaw Jews had been deported to their deaths at Treblinka. The Jewish police who had carried out the orders, and their families, were last group deported. The nominal “leader,” Adam Czerniakow, who had been an engineer, committed suicide in July when it became clear the Nazis had lied to him and he had been played for a fool. Less than 60,000 Jews remained in the Warsaw Ghetto by the time the uprising began. More than 80% had already been murdered – and even then, the Revisionists were rebuffed and forced to fight alone.

All the groups showed great bravery and courage against impossible odds. The early and intense battles were fought in the areas where the Betar forces were most active – a point confirmed by the daily Nazi battlefield reports (introduced as evidence at the Nuremberg trials) that even mentions Betar by name. But the fighter could only repel the Nazis temporarily. Nazi casualties were remarkably low – perhaps a dozen killed and more than 70 wounded. That was largely due to the limitations of the weaponry of the resistance – rifles were scarce, the larger quantity of pistols they had were almost useless in long range fighting, and the Molotov cocktails and grenades momentarily delayed the German assault until they brought in their heavier weapons, including flamethrowers that burned buildings and destroyed bunkers and water that flooded the sewers where many hid. Most Jews were killed or deported to their deaths; there were few survivors, and even fewer among the Revisionist combatants.

What galled Moshe Arens, and gave the book its title, was that in 1949, when Israel was admitted to the UN, Moshe Sharett unfurled a blue-and-white flag that had flown over the Warsaw Ghetto, a symbol of the uprising. That flag enraged the Nazis and inspired the Jews – and some Poles who saw it at a distance outside the ghetto. But that flag flown from the top of the building at 17 Muranowska was the Betar flag – the ZOB could not fly the Zionist flag because it would antagonize their allies, the Bund – and it was unacknowledged, as if it was the flag of the Zionist Socialists whom Sharett was representing.

After the war, the narrative that gained credence was the Zionist Socialist one that almost completely ignored the presence of another force – and for two “good” reasons: the survivors who first published were all from the ZOB, and the animosity that existed between the Zionist Socialists and the followers of Ze’ev Jabotinsky was just as intense in the late 1940s during the struggle for independence as it was in pre-war Europe, if not more so. Barely 18 months after the Uprising was suppressed, the Hagana in Israel began the Hunting Season against the Revisionists, informing on them and turning them over for arrest to the British. The bad blood continued, even in the face of new enemies.

Thankfully, the dysfunction that existed in Warsaw did not exist everywhere – in Vilna, for example, all Jews worked and fought together. And it would not have made a difference ultimately. So why write such a depressing book ? Arens said “veritas vincit” – truth conquers. But I think there is a broader reason, looking forward, not looking backward. It is about “not demonstrating mutual respect.”

The Torah promises that “five of us will pursue 100 of them and 100 of us can pursue 10,000 of them” – when we are worthy. Why? Because a small group that is united and dedicated can defeat much larger groups that are divided and demoralized. Conversely, when we are at loggerheads, then even one of them can pursue 1000 of us – because there is no “thousand.” Each small segment of the “thousand” has its own agenda, small, little groups that are easily vanquished. Rashi cites the Midrash that says, in reference to the disparate ratios, “there is no comparison to what a united multitude can do to what a united minority can do.” The increased effectiveness is exponential, not proportional.

“Love your neighbor as yourself” means that just like we love ourselves with our flaws, so too we have to love other Jews with their flaws. We can disagree, fight and argue, and try to correct each other’s waywardness – but only from love, love that comes only from the fact that we are fellow Jews.

Recognizing the blemishes of the past illuminates for us the struggles of the future. A united community is its own value; a united community with the right values – united by the Torah – is a catalyst for divine blessings of security, prosperity and speedy redemption.

On December 14, 2003, George W. Bush announced to the nation the capture of the brutal Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. He said, in pertinent part (and note the language in bold): “The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the Dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.”

Now contrast that with Barack Obama’s statement upon the killing of Osama bin Laden, announced on May 1, 2011: “And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as I continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. Imet repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.”
If writing two autobiographies before actually accomplishing anything doesn’t do it, Obama here crosses the line that separates puffery from pathology. He did everything but claim to have personally hunted down bin Laden and killed him with his own hands, while simultaneously piloting the helicopter, smoking a cigarette and draining a three-point jump shot.

Certainly, some will speculate as to the mindset of a braggart who is clearly oblivious to how he sounds, assuming he doesn’t himself believe his own hype. Perhaps it stems from his disrupted childhood, growing up with a permanently-absent father and a frequently-absent mother that necessitates this self-flattery. Perhaps it is an unconscious recognition of the dearth of his personal resume, notwithstanding (or maybe the proximate cause of) his election to the presidency. One of my colleagues long ago pointed out Obama’s stubborn resistance to using a railing while descending steps, as if he is immune from mishaps – as if he can’t possibly fall. (Apparently he did stumble once, video suppressed.)

And there’s this, President Obama’s statement last week endorsing homosexual marriage: “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Forget the fact that he’s changed his position several times – pro-same sex marriage in the 1990’s, anti- in the 2000’s, pro- again in the 2010’s – without being seriously questioned about his changes (why was he against it? Why was he for it? What moral compass guides him? Is it crass politics – one wag called it less “evolution” on Obama’s part and more “intelligent design,” an attempt to revive his flagging base. What is it?) Forget the fact that he should have to explain why he would be opposed to two adult brothers marrying, two sisters, a brother and sister, a parent and a child, or why he would oppose polygamy or polyandry – assuming, of course, that the people were all in love and wanted to build a strong family. Forget all that, and ponder this: how is it possible to squeeze four first-person pronouns in one sentence, even conceding his lack of eloquence without a teleprompter?!

Chazal spoke quite harshly about arrogance, in every person but certainly in a leader for whom it invariably leads to failures. “A haughty heart is an abomination of G-d” (Mishlei 16:5). Self-aggrandizement is a sign of weakness and insecurity, not strength. It is unbecoming, and, as is well known, “pride precedes destruction and arrogance comes before failure” (Mishlei 16:18). Rav Hirsch explains that haughty people become overconfident; perhaps they genuinely believe they can control the tides and cool the planet. How will Obama react to defeat – further tear apart the country? Complain bitterly about race and bias? Tie up the country in litigation? He has been remarkably lacking in class, almost unheard of in presidential politics.

The haughty are compared to idolaters and sexual predators (Sotah 4b) and find it difficult to praise others (Zohar). “One coin in a bottle rattles; the bottle filled with coins makes no sound” (Bava Metzia 85b). One whose true virtues are minimal cannot but speak of them at length; a person of genuine greatness sees no need to refer to himself or his achievements. They speak for themselves.
It was Pat Riley who characterized arrogance as “the disease of me,” marked by chronic feelings of under-appreciation and a concomitant focus on the self, and a resentment of the competence and success of others. Bad midot are worse than bad policies, and although only a fool looks to any politician to provide examples of good midot, politicians can have an extraordinary effect on the public culture, for good and for bad. Man’s finest virtue, Rav Moshe ibn Ezra stated, is that of which he is unaware.

Leadership often carries with its feelings of superiority, especially when the leader makes decisions that affect millions of people. It is an occupational hazard. The better ones conceal it under a veneer of humility and graciousness. It makes them personally tolerable, even if their policies are repugnant and risible. Someone should inform the President of this basic truth.

      The injunction “Be holy,” for all its inscrutability, demands one thing of us that is in very short supply today, and at the heart of the moral malaise in society, the meanderings of our youth and to some extent all of us, and much of the discontent we feel: the obligation to create and nurture an inner world, an Olam Hapenimi, where the soul is really expressed and our values are located – the point of connection between the human being and G-d. For much of society today, Jewish and non-Jewish, the inner world is dormant, or worse, dead, and we have to revive it.

     What does it mean to lack an inner world? Take the Secret Service scandal, for instance. The problem was not their desire to expand the definition of “Service,” but their lack of understanding of “Secret,” the first word of their agency. This, and the rest of the shenanigans across the country, is a product of what Dan Henninger (WSJ) labeled our “Age of Indiscretion.” People are indiscreet not only in the sense that they don’t cover their tracks well, but rather that many people today choose to live their lives on public display. Many feel no need to cover their tracks, because their self-esteem is dependent on their public lives – on people reading about them and hearing about them, and knowing their every inconsequential thought and action.

    This refers not only to celebrities but to all of us and our children. It is easy to blame the technology, and undoubtedly technology has enabled greater access to private places than ever before. But technology is a tool – it’s morally neutral – and the limits and effects of the technology are choices that we make. Personally, I think that Facebook and its offshoots are some of the most harmful phenomena in our world today, not that my disapproval will cause them to lose a nickel off their impending IPO. Facebook and friends breed indiscretion, induces bad behavior, propagates superficial and artificial relationships – and, worst of all, they rob people of their inner world, their inner sanctum of thoughts, feelings, emotions – of the capacity to think, to be private, to look before you leap, to be a real person, and especially to connect to G-d.

     Do we wonder why davening is so difficult – for all of us, but especially for young people? Because we have no inner worlds. Kavana (concentration, focus, intention) is all about an inner world, and without cultivating an inner world, Kavana is impossible. Without an inner world, davening becomes all about “saying words,” and “saying words” will have a diminishing impact on people over time, especially saying the same words again and again. That is why people get easily distracted in prayer, seek comfort in inane conversation, and simply congregate in the halls. There are no “actions” in prayer, nothing to post about or tweet about; it is function of our inner world, and so it is rapidly being lost. Too often, our outside shakes, while our inside is inert.

      In another realm, what is tzniut, in a modern term, but discretion – judgment, reticence, the yearning to keep private what is private. Tzniut recognizes the dignity of every person; it is the veneer that shields our inner world, our holy of holies, from the prying world. So tzniut can nurture a real relationship of real people – i.e., people who relate and interact appropriately, not through texts and emails, but through actual conversation, not with flamboyance or braggadocio, but with humility. The extent to which people choose to communicate indirectly, through technology, and thereby avoid human contact, is astonishing, and debilitating to the nurturing of real human relationships.

      And what a disease is a lack of tzniut – indiscretion – whether it is found in adults who act like children and broadcast it, or in young people who know no limits and bare their deepest secrets (and more) to a world of strangers, or, for that matter, in a president who can’t stop using the word “I” in boasting about his accomplishments but never in acknowledging his failures. President Obama in that sense is quite representative of his generation. President Bush the First had an aversion to using the first-person pronoun, having been whacked at his home dinner table as a child every time he started a sentence with “I.” President Reagan recognized that there is no limit to what can be accomplished as long as no attention is paid to who gets the credit. And perhaps the best example of the ethos of a prior generation was President Kennedy who, after accepting full responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, stated that “success has many fathers, and failure is an orphan.” These days, success has only one author, and failure is a team effort, of just the previous guy’s fault.

      It is the presidency as reality TV, where only appearances count.

      Rashi continues that “wherever you find boundaries against indecency, you find holiness.” I.e., wherever you find boundaries, period, you will find holiness, maturity, and responsibility. And wherever there are no boundaries, human beings can descend to great depths.

     The Rambam wrote (Shoresh 4, Sefer HaMitzvot) that “Be holy” is not one of the 613 commandments, because we don’t count the “commandments that subsume the entire Torah.”  “Be holy” is not something to do, but something to be. It is that something that defines our lives as individuals, separates us from the nations, and is the hallmark of our people – to build an inner world that can connect directly to G-d. It is that uniqueness that can fortify our lives and give it depth and substance, as assuredly as it will render us worthy of the rebuilt Holy Temple, speedily and in our days.

 1)      Every person has one special someone.  Actually, everyone has many more than just one person with whom he/she can marry and establish a loving, happy and enduring relationship. The mentality that in a world of more than seven billion people there is only one person wandering about that is meant for me – my twin, my soul mate – who, if found, will provide me eternal happiness and who, if not found, will doom me to despair and misfortune for the rest of my life, is a dangerous illusion. There is a gigantic field of hundreds, and maybe even more, of appropriate and worthwhile mates. A successful marriage depends less on the identity of the person chosen and more on one’s ability to conduct himself/herself in that marriage on a daily basis. Therefore, the task before you is not to decide “is this the one?” but rather to choose a person with whom you feel you can build a home together that is filled with love. This transforms the quest of choosing a spouse into something that is much more logical and attainable.

2)      When it is the right time, it will happen. This statement is somewhat true but also conditional – the condition being that you don’t interfere with what should happen. From G-d’s perspective, He has long desired to see many of his sons and daughters standing joyously under the chupa. He is even prepared to assist in this process. But the problem is that there are those who with their own hands sabotage the process. How? Through their patterns of analysis, their manner of searching for a spouse and their conduct while dating. The central question becomes: is what stands between you and the chupa receiving more and more advice, and more and more recommendations – or is a change in approach and a removal of [self-imposed] obstacles most desirable? If the latter, then a proper match is already available and waiting.

3)      I simply haven’t met the right one. How do you know? Maybe you have and you told her/him “no!” Maybe the right one is in your vicinity – even a meter away – but you ignore her because you are focused – obsessed – on some fashion model who is unattainable [or on an ideal that is a fantasy] and therefore you are uncertain if the person you are with is the right one. Maybe you are looking in one direction, and he/she is standing in the complete opposite direction?

4)      Without you, I am half a person; without you, I am nothing. A single is not a “half-person.” A single person is not a broken vessel or a worthless wretch. A single is a complete personality, productive and generous. Sometimes people forget that singles have lives outside of dating, and that they have other objectives in life aside from finding a spouse. Thus, aside from the questions that sound general and interesting but actually imply something else, like “Nu, what’s new with you?” and the encouraging but ultimately tormenting words “soon, by you,” it is permissible to ask a single “how’s work?”or “how do you like your new car?” or “how about meeting for coffee tomorrow night?” or say “that new blouse is stunning!”

Before you are a “single,” you are a human being. If everything in life hinges on dating, then perhaps it is time for some soul-searching. There are other substantive things in life – study, work, family, service of Hashem, hobbies, etc. And G-d-willing a relationship will also be part of that life.

5)      Men disqualify women based on superficialities like appearance. But this is true not only of men but also of women. It doesn’t happen all the time but it does occur too frequently. What does this say about us – the culture of the “pose” and the “show” in which we live? What does it say about us that visions of fashion models dance in our heads, drawn from the mass media, movies and advertisements, which clutter our heads and complicate our choices and the process of choosing? These are good questions for which each person must find an individualized answer. (Note: be careful what pictures you post on Facebook. You have no idea how many potential dates are lost because of this.)

6)      When it is “the one,” then you will know. It is clear that you have watched too many romantic dramas, but… real life does not work like that. Most couples arrive at this most momentous decision in their lives when something in their heart trembles, when everything does not seem perfect. Moreover, if everything seems perfect, check again. Maybe you have been blinded and are overlooking something important. In relation to other significant choices in life (where to attend school, where to work, etc.) the matters are complicated and there are pros and cons for each side. One has to have confidence and faith in the person with whom you wish to take the next step – but one who expects to hear a “divine echo,” or to feel butterflies in the stomach, or the sensation of burning love in his/her fingertips, will keep waiting and waiting.

7)      Meeting on the Internet is for the pathetic and the desperate. Friend, you are passé. Even if there might have been something to this in the past, those days are long gone. Today, it is possible to find on the relationship web sites many pious and exceptional individuals who understand that it is mistaken to categorically reject any option that Hashem has afforded us in order to achieve our destiny. Of course, one has to exercise caution before an actual meeting takes place, but it would be a shame to discount any avenue to the sacred goal.

Those are the myths. Perhaps the most provocative aspect of the above is Rav Lavi’s apparent rejection of the concept of “bashert” – the idea that Hashem has designated a particular person for us to marry and our task is merely to identify that person. But that does make the task any simpler? I think not. If anything, it complicates it, adding to the difficulties of getting to know a complete stranger and deeming them “marriageable” the esoteric question of “is this the one Hashem has ordained for me?” That type of pressure is liable to discomfit too many people and invalidate too many otherwise fine relationships.

Many years ago, I heard Rav Ahron Soloveichik zt”l explain that bashert (in the Talmud’s language, bat ploni l’ploni) guarantees only one thing: Hashem arranges that you encounter that person. Bashert does not guarantee that you will marry that person, or that the marriage will be a happy and fulfilling one; those depend on our free choice and good midot. And even what we do after that initial encounter – pursue that person or ignore him/her; look for the good or obsess over flaws – also depends on our bechira. As such, it is probably best to remove the bashert issue from our calculations, as it obfuscates instead of clarifies. It should remain in the realm of divine secrets to which we have no access, and which plays no role in our deliberations.

A debunking of many, if not all, of the aforementioned myths will lead to a healthier dating process and more satisfying marriages – and create Jewish homes that bring glory to the Torah and our Creator.

    An Iranian nuclear capability, if achieved, would dramatically transform Israel’s military strategy. It would provide a security umbrella to evil elements such as Hezbollah and Hamas, as Israel would have to increase its threshold of acceptable missile attacks lest a “disproportionate” response provoke an Iranian nuclear strike. A land invasion of terrorist strongholds would become more difficult to contemplate or execute successfully. Iran, governed by an apocalyptic leadership that (at least verbally) prizes martyrdom, is not subject to the same balance of terror that enforced stability between the US and the USSR, who were both, at least, rational actors that expected mutual survival. Assuming the same rational conduct from Iran – knowing of their eschatological tendencies – is to project our values onto them, always a fatal error in statecraft and diplomacy.

    The effect of an Iranian nuclear capability on the United States is not as often discussed but would devastate American interests throughout the world. Iran as the sole Muslim nuclear power in the region (Pakistan’s bomb targets India, and vice versa) would quickly become the regional hegemon. The US would either be forced to extend a nuclear umbrella to America’s regional allies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and others, or tolerate – i.e., spearhead – the nuclear ambitions of those states.  The Middle East would live – as long as it did live – on the brink of Armageddon.

     In another scenario, Iran would impose its will on those other states before, or in the absence of, an American nuclear umbrella, and would dominate the flow, distribution and price of oil. The hegemony of Iran in the region would choke the free flow of oil, oil prices would rise precipitously, and the world (and the US) economy would deteriorate.

    An Iranian bomb would allow a freer hand to Iran’s terrorist rogues throughout the world, including within the United States. The tepid reaction of the US authorities to Iran’s attempted assassination of a Saudi diplomat in Washington DC last year is case-in-point. If a non-nuclear Iran evaded punishment for hostile actions within America, how much easier would it be for Iran to export its evil to these shores and escape real consequences? The mere threat of a nuclear response would suppress any real action. And Iran’s tendency to work through surrogates – non-state actors – leaves open the real possibility of nuclear strikes throughout the world – actual or threatened – without Iranian fingerprints on them. An Iranian EMP attack – a nuclear weapon detonated 20,000 feet above American soil – would destroy the infrastructure of modern American life and, within a short time, kill millions of people.

   As the balance of power in the Middle East shifts away from Israel and US allies to Iran, America’s influence in the region will diminish. Erstwhile American allies will strike diplomatic deals with Iran, and Israel itself will be forced to engage in riskier unilateral acts against its neighbors in order to guarantee its survival. The Arabian Peninsula will fall under Iranian dominance, Iraq and Jordan will reach out to the new sovereigns, and Egypt, Syria and Lebanon will join forces to forge a radical Islamic front. American forces in the region will be subjected to greater threats and attacks, will soon no longer be welcome and will be brought home. American influence will wane, until it disappears completely – like that of the British and the French. Feckless Europe will shift into the Iranian orbit, and the US will find itself isolated and alone in the world. In certain administrations, it might even make its peace with Iran and pay it an appropriate tribute – financially and diplomatically – in order to ensure momentary tranquility. Russia and China would likely join forces with Iran to impose its economic will on the globe. Anti-American neighbors like Venezuela and Cuba – Iranian allies – could find themselves in possession of Iranian nuclear devices that further threaten to erode American power and security.

    In short, the notion that an Iranian nuclear weapon is just an Israeli problem is a convenient fiction used by those who are anti-Israel, anti-American, or who are incapable of defending American interests or projecting American power throughout the world.

    The Obama administration has been duplicitous, coy or clever in its dealings with this issue. One contention is that its pro-Muslim sympathies engender words that soothe the American and Israeli publics but no actual deeds that will reverse the current trends and force a permanent halt to the Iranian nuclear program. The repeated cliché favored by Hillary Clinton, a remarkably unsuccessful Secretary of State, that “there is still time for diplomacy to work” is true but not very helpful or comforting; there is always “time,” until the very moment when there is “no time.” Unfortunately the gap between “time” and “no time” is seconds, not days, weeks or months. Technically, until the system is on-line and producing radioactivity, weapons, etc., there is “time.” But that window of “time” will close in an instant, and despite its assertions, it is not impossible that an Obama administration  will come to terms with an Iranian bomb and then boast about how it kept the US out of war.

Disturbing rumors persist – that the US Administration is more interested in preventing an Israeli pre-emptive attack than in thwarting an Iranian bomb; that it purposely leaked Israeli negotiations with Azerbaijan over airfields and flyover rights that would greatly reduce the risks and flight time of any Israeli air strike against the Iranian facilities; that it has denied – like the Bush Administration before it – Israeli access to American weaponry and bases that could facilitate such a strike.

Much, naturally, remains obscure. Hope springs eternal that the Obama administration’s overt hostility to Israel’s statecraft is a clever attempt to lure the enemy into a false sense of confidence, to deflect its attentions from the real source of military activity that will permanently obstruct Iran’s nuclear ambitions and effect a change in that malevolent regime. Perhaps the Azerbaijan leak was a feint, a deception? Perhaps Israel will operate jointly with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait – sworn enemies of Iran – in black operations that will shield the Arab countries from the public “shame” of working with Jews against fellow Muslims? Perhaps the current American government has a broader and more traditional view of American power in the world and is waiting for the right moment to act from its current bases in the Middle East?

One can only hope.

But we should not assume that only Israel will be impacted by a nuclear Iran. The influence will be felt in Israel, in the United States and across the world, and the world itself will no longer be the same. The question remains whether the Obama administration is up to the task, and whether the American people understand and internalize the dangers – before it is too late.

News flash: I couldn’t care less. Clearly, the LA Times’ hiding behind newsworthiness is typical hypocrisy; the LA Times has been holding on to a video speech of Barack Obama from 2003 praising his friend, Arab anti-Israel activist Prof. Rashid Khalidi, and containing – allegedly –Obama’s inflammatory statements about Israel, but such is not deemed newsworthy by the LA Times. But that is an ancillary issue.

While respect for human remains should be universal, I would not lose any sleep over the scorn heaped on the charred body parts of suicide bombers. You can only “desecrate” something that has sanctity. Suicide bombers have forfeited the right to be treated like human beings. They are not human beings as we currently understand the term. They have no respect for their own bodies, and therefore should not expect others to show respect to their bodies. In fact, as they happily use their bodies as weapons, their body parts are essentially no different than other weapons of war – guns, rifles, knives, tomahawks, etc. – that victorious soldiers have removed from the remains of the vanquished from time immemorial.

If it would help deter the scourge of the suicide bombers, as such rumors persist, I would wrap their remains in pig skin, pork rinds or any other Muslim taboo. They deserve no respect at all.

What troubles even more is the reflexive criticism of the military that accompanies such laments, especially by those who have never experienced the horrors of war or been placed in the unnatural position of being permitted (even ordered) to kill or be killed. That license itself portends a different set of values that are not necessarily comprehensible to civilians or readily translatable into civilian values. Hence the preoccupation since World War II with the “rights” of the enemy – even an evil enemy – and its use as a double standard club against Israel, among other nations. It is bizarre, and stems from a reluctance and failure to define today’s enemy – radical Islam – as evil incarnate but rather perceive it as just another group with a grievance that has to be assuaged, in a conflict in which guilt is found on all sides, and which morality is relative if its exists at all.

One longs not only for the moral clarity of World War II but also the ease with which the enemy was defined as evil and treated as evil. On Yom HaShoah past, we screened Steven Spielberg’s 1998 Oscar-winning documentary “The Last Days” about five survivors of the Holocaust. One interviewee was a Dr. Paul Parks, a black US Army physician who was among the liberators of Dachau. He described how he sat down to interrogate a Nazi Colonel, who rather than answer his questions decided to spit in his face. Terrible decision.

Dr. Parks calmly pulled out his pistol and shot the Nazi Colonel in the head. Dead.

He didn’t seem to have any regrets about it, either.
The Wall Street Journal last year featured an article by the military historian Warren Kozak, who related how his own father’s unit in World War II captured a group of Nazis during the Battle of the Bulge, and unable to hold them or certainly release them, just killed them all. No one thought of war crimes, prosecutions, trials or arcane Conventions; there was simply no other option.

That is wartime. And at least the Nazis were soldiers under traditional definitions, fighting for a (depraved) country in an army on the battlefield – unlike the modern Muslim suicide bomber who does not wear a uniform and attacks mainly civilians, and who is himself a civilian up to the very moment he kills himself and others.

The squeamishness that now attaches to the morals of war has succeeded in doing nothing but inhibiting the successful conduct of such wars, and given the enemy inestimable power over the morale of the fighting forces of the good and the virtuous. Israel especially suffers from this phenomenon, and the recent treatment of Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner, caught on camera smashing his rifle into the face of a Jew-hating foreign “activist” who had – off camera, of course, because the enemy controls the camera –just broken two of Eisner’s fingers -  is a sorry case in point. The enemy realizes the power of its images, and its capacity to undermine the effectiveness of its adversary by abusing Western doctrines. But they themselves have no such inhibitions. They will chop off the heads of innocent civilians – Daniel Pearl, for one – and triumphantly wave the bloody head aloft, and then moan about the treatment the body parts of their suicide bombers receive?

Give me a break.

Granted that military discipline is important and can even encompass such notions as the treatment of enemy remains. But violations of such should be handled internally, and a gentle reprimand would seem to suffice in the recent Afghani kerfuffle – rather than the artificial concoction of a cause célèbre. We should care more for the innocent victims of the murderers than for the murderers themselves, for whom we should care not at all. That is moral.

Of course, the impression lingers that “we are not like our enemies,” implying that our morality is superior (it is, even if in any other context such a declaration would be repudiated), or that we hold ourselves to a greater moral standard, or that these indecencies give the enemy a pretext to kill. All true, but not at all relevant, especially the latter. The enemy consists of people who have perpetual and unassuageable grievances. Everything and nothing are “pretexts” to murder. If it’s not this, it’s something else. If it’s not something else, then it is nothing at all.

The greatest evil is not identifying true evil and calling it by its name.  No one gave a second thought to how Nazis were treated during World War II, and for good reason. They had forfeited the right to be treated as human beings by abandoning human form and character. The mistake the West continues to make – and at its peril – is failing to classify the radical Islamic evil as we did the Nazi evil. They are somewhat different but almost identical in what is most important: their contemptuous attitudes towards life, civilization, justice and human rights.

We should treat them accordingly, and leave our soldiers – American and Israeli – alone to fight this devil to victory.

    Exhibit One was President Obama’s whining about the possibility that the US Supreme Court will overturn his signature takeover of the health care industry in the United States. “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

There are serial untruths in this statement. First, Obama cannot be “confident” at all, or he would not have made such a bizarre, heavy-handed and false declaration. While many have dismissed this brazen attempt at influencing the Court’s decision (make that, Justice Kennedy’s opinion) as nothing of the sort, it has actually been tried before, successfully, and under quite similar circumstances. The New Deal also sought to assert government control over much of the economy, even going so far as having the federal government order kosher butchers to sell only chickens of defined quality to their customers, the famous Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) in which the Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional the National Industrial Recovery Act, the linchpin of FDR’s New Deal. Justice Brandeis to FDR aides: “This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we’re not going to let this government centralize everything.” That argument should strike a familiar chord today.

With his signature achievement tottering by this and other reversals, FDR after his re-election proposed to pack the Court by adding more justices to the Court, up to a maximum of 15, all of whom would be sympathetic to his causes. What thwarted FDR’s plans was not only the fierce objections of the Democratic Congress, but a change in the vote of one justice – Owen Roberts – and then the retirement of another, allowing FDR to replenish the Court with his ideological compatriots. The line of the day was “A switch in time saves nine,” i.e., the switch in one man’s vote saved the Supreme Court as a bench of nine, and that new Court began embracing extensive government regulation of the private sector.

Second untruth: the “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law…” Granted, Obama was only an adjunct professor of Constitutional Law and never published anything of note, but even he must know that the Supreme Court has overturned legislation in excess of 150 times since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Indeed, one of the primary functions of the Supreme Court is to review the constitutionality of both state and federal legislation. “Unprecedented”? “Extraordinary”? Hardly.

Third: “overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

This legislation that purports to give the federal government control over 1/6 of the economy was passed with a bare majority – several votes in the House, and one vote in the Senate – and rushed through with back-room procedural maneuvering because by the time the House voted, the votes in the Senate were lacking. Indeed, there has never been such controversial legislation enacted with smaller majorities.

Add to that the obvious and strange definition of “a democratically elected Congress,” only so Obama could characterize the Supreme Court as “unelected.” Well, yes, the Justices are intentionally unelected so as to free themselves from political pressures. Can Obama’s tactic work? Can Justice Kennedy be swayed? Apparently, he has changed his vote in the past from the initial conference when he voted one way to the final decision – when his changed vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) saved Roe v. Wade by one – his – vote.

It might happen. And if it does happen, the relationship of the American citizen to his government will fundamentally change. If the government can order people to purchase a private product – health insurance – on the dubious grounds that it is thereby regulating commerce for the good of the public than the government can not only order restaurants to feed the hungry but order the average citizen to help subsidize those restaurants by eating out at least once a week.

The analogy to car insurance fails because only those who drive require auto insurance. The apt analogy would requiring every person – drivers and non-drivers – to pay an automobile insurance fee in order to cover the costs to society of those who drive without insurance.

Was Obama’s challenge to the Court an example of an unguarded thought that passed through the lips without due diligence or a calculated tactic to try to influence the Court after receiving preliminary notice from insiders that he had lost the initial conference vote 5-4? We shall see.

Exhibit Two was the taunt of Democratic operative and veteran liberal Hillary Rosen to Ann Romney that this gallant mother of five “has actually never worked a day in her life.” Ouch. There are few paying jobs that compete with motherhood in the “hard work” department. Even male troglodytes know that. And Rosen followed that arrow with the mealy-mouthed retraction to those (including Mrs. Romney) who were “offended.” In other words, the sentiments remain – it’s the offense caused (not to mention the political fallout) that mandates the apology. A genuine apology would follow the lines of “that was a dumb remark which somehow escaped my lips. I do not believe it, I do not know why I said it, and I am embarrassed for having said it. Obviously, Ann Romney has worked very hard every day of her life, as do all mothers, and their accomplishments in raising well-grounded and decent children is the greatest and most important job in the world. I apologize for stating that “motherhood” is not work.”

Look for the campaign and the Dems to ditch her as soon as it is feasible.

As above, the Baalei Musar even going back to the Talmud noted the slipperiness of words, and how unchecked and unguarded thoughts can cause untold damage. The Sages maintained that we could control our thoughts, and not just our words and our actions. It just takes work and commitment, and practice. Therein lies one of the true measures of perfection.