Author Archives: Rabbi

Esav’s Hatred

Posted on November 22, 2013 | 5 comments

      To say we live in strange times is an understatement when we consider that, just a month ago, anyone who suggested that Israel’s leading allies in the struggle against Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be France and Saudi Arabia would have been a candidate for institutionalization. The French are not exactly renowned for their war-mongering, and the Saudi’s hatred of Israel and Jews is religiously-based and implacable (Jews are still not allowed to visit Saudi Arabia under normal circumstances.) But the French, the Saudis and the Israelis – each for different reasons – do not want to live in a world where mullahs can go nuclear.

     This odd twist confirms the statement attributed to John Foster Dulles, himself noted for his hostility to Israel, that “The United States of America does not have friends; it has interests.” Or, as others have said it: “Nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests.” Part of the current situation arises from the recognition – despite the Obama administration rhetoric – that America has retreated from its dominant role in world leadership, and that vacuum has been filled by others – especially by Russia’s Putin, whom Israel’s PM Netanyahu visited this week.

But as the world changes, there is one remaining constant, itself mindboggling.

There is no more enigmatic or consequential story in the Torah than Yaakov’s encounter and struggle with the angel of Esav. Yaakov was left alone and a “man” wrestled with him until dawn. Yet, when the two brothers finally met, Esav was docile – embracing, kissing and crying on his brother Yaakov, as one would expect from long-separated siblings. Nonetheless, our Sages debated the extent of Esav’s sincerity. Rashi (Breisheet 33:4) cites all the opinions: that Esav was genuinely touched; that Esav was faking it and meant ill; and a third opinion, as well, that it was both: “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai stated: it is a well known halacha (law) that Esav hates Yaakov, but at this moment he was overwhelmed with compassion and kissed him with all his heart.” But what kind of law is that? How can an emotion be based on a law? And, if it is indeed so, why should it be any different here? How are we to ever know when our brother Esav means well or not?

A halacha is an immutable law. It defines a reality that cannot be changed or undone – but needs analysis. If Esav is synonymous with the major powers in the world, then this “halacha” is an historical verity, and should not at all be a surprise to us, even today. Less than seventy years after the Holocaust, the reservoir of world guilt has been completely depleted. It is still dangerous to be a Jew – in Israel, where a sleeping soldier can be stabbed to death on a public bus by a teenager who undoubtedly will be released from prison in a few short years; in Europe, in South America. Hardly a week goes by in which a Jew is not attacked in some part of the world for being or looking Jewish. A non-Jewish Swedish reporter recently donned a kipa to determine if these reports were true; he wrote that he spent that day in fear for his life.

The propriety of mila and shechita are being widely debated where they have not already been banned – and all under the cover of a higher morality. Iran boasts about developing the capability to eradicate Israel off the map – as King David wrote long ago (Tehillim 83:5) “Come, let us cut them off from being a nation and the name of Israel will be no more.” Too many others are indifferent or supportive, worried only about whether or not it will affect them.

The American President, convinced of his rhetorical abilities and showing none of the infirmity of his growing domestic unpopularity, is ready to have a signing ceremony that depends on the trustworthiness of the Iranians. Obama’s most recent offer to Iran was, essentially, “if you like your nuclear weapons program, you can keep your nuclear weapons program – as long as you say you won’t.” If and when it fails, and the Iranian bomb looms over Israel and the Middle East, he can always add: “I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.” After all, that line is already in the teleprompter.

Rav Moshe Bleicher, former Rosh Yeshiva in Shavei Hevroin, wrote that Esav’s power is the antithesis of that of Yaakov, and indeed more popular than Yaakov’s. Both Esav and Yaakov believe in tikkun olam, perfecting the world – something everybody loves. Esav, the “man of the field,” knows how to develop the world. He is extremely talented in that sphere. He forms governments – stable governments – develops economies, and cultivates resources. The Talmud (Masechet Avoda Zara 2b) says of Rome (Esav) that it builds the infrastructure that makes life better and promotes the common good – bridges, markets, bathhouses, civilization, science, entertainment, and health care. Over the centuries, Esav also fashioned values that now animate Western society, and that sound very good as well – equality, rights, free expression and others. Compared to what Esav the nation brings to the world, what does Yaakov the nation offer? A few good sermons? Conscience? Comedians? Nobel Prizes?

It is no wonder that Yaakov feared their confrontation – and at the very moment when his life in exile was over (so he thought) and his existence as a nation in its own land was beginning anew. It is very hard to compete with Esav. We have lost more Jews to the words of Esav than to his sword. To many Jews, the fields of Esav are much more alluring than the tents of Yaakov, and always have been.

That is why “it is a well known halacha (law) that Esav hates Yaakov.” Esav is a counterforce to the children of Yaakov. When we stray and stumble, when we come too close to aping the world of Esav, then his hatred overflows for no discernible reason and forces us to look at ourselves. And his hatred is inexplicable, as is the world’s obsession with Israel, as is its focus on Israel’s imagined sins and its utter disregard for real massacres occurring elsewhere. In fact, there are places in the world today where Jews are hated and the haters do not even know why – places where Jews are hated and the haters have never even met a Jew.

When the brothers met after their long separation, Esav still hated Yaakov, but he had compassion when he realized that Yaakov was no threat to him. The world was his. While Esav was conquering surrounding tribes and building his empire, Yaakov was rearing children and raising sheep. Yaakov was limping, wounded, weak and submissive; there was no need for Esav’s enmity. It would take time for Yaakov’s family – his nation – to grow and develop, to internalize his ideals and to represent the G-d’s will in the world in a way that impresses people with our morality and goodness. That is when the battle will again be joined. That still hasn’t happened, and it won’t, if week after week, the world is shocked (or, by now, probably amused) by the sordid revelations in the tabloids about some sort of misconduct in the Jewish world.

That is not the reality of Jewish life, but that is a growing perception, and only we can change the perception.

Esav develops the earth – his “fields” –  but only Yaakov and his sons can unite the heavens and the earth – to exalt the world so that it can become the repository of G-d’s truth and His presence. That is the ongoing struggle of Yaakov – to transform ourselves, our families, our homes, and our lives in points of holiness for the betterment of all mankind.

 

5 Comments

Posted in Chumash, Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

Open and Closed

Posted on November 15, 2013 | 6 comments

     The British novelist Terry Pratchett once said that “the trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.” In a nutshell, that is the problem with the movement self-entitled “Open Orthodoxy.” Too many people are coming along and dropping into the Open Orthodoxy box ideas, values and practices that are more “open” than they are “Orthodox.” After all, Orthodoxy is not an intellectual, moral or behavioral free-for-all. It is a system of beliefs and practices that guide our lives and with which we seek to shape the world around us. Orthodoxy naturally clashes with a society that is more amenable to “anything goes” than the absolutes of commandments that reflect the will of G-d.

     This has been an ongoing controversy in the Jewish world for several years running, addressed here quite a while ago, and has heated up again in the last few weeks. The new president of YCT , Rabbi Asher Lopatin, penned a piece in Haaretz, of all places, essentially blaming the ultra-Orthodox for the continuing castigation of his institution. This was followed by a response by a sizable group of decidedly not ultra-Orthodox rabbis (including myself) which underscored that the opposition to YCT, and especially the excesses of some of its ordainees, comes in large part from the mainstream of the Orthodox world –meaning that almost the entire orthodox world as currently constituted finds its program flawed and wanting.

The defense from an academic – again in the secular Jewish media – came swiftly, as well as a bizarre attack on the traditional rabbinate by a fringe group that invoked the Holocaust as well as all the modern buzzwords of abuse but never addressed an iota of the substance. Even the academic  defense was inaccurate, attributing the “Statement on Open Orthodoxy” to a rogue group of RCA members – “none of them, it should be noted, an officer of the RCA.” In fact, one signatory is a present officer, several are past officers and present members of the Executive Committee, and at least two are past presidents. It is a widely representative group and assembled ad hoc and on short notice. In any event, this group was assailed for disassembling the “Big Tent” of Orthodoxy and compared to the troglodytes of right-wingers in the 1930’s who ostracized the members of the fledgling RCA.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

There are two unresolved problems. The first is that no one I know is interested in ostracism, tiny tents, witch-hunts or quarrels. Indeed, both Rabbi Lopatin and his predecessor, Rabbi Avi Weiss, are extremely charming, genuine people, with sterling personal qualities who both have accomplished much for the Jewish people. Most people I know are reluctant to deal with this openly because of the respect both men have garnered over the years, notwithstanding the controversial positions they have taken. But this is business, not personal.

Added to this brew is the contretemps over the rejection by the Israeli rabbinate of some of Rabbi Weiss’ letters vouching for the Jewish credentials of Americans wishing to marry in Israel – an admittedly strong step – and we have the makings of a real brouhaha. But it is a brouhaha that is inevitable when we realize that the Torah must stand for something, and that something has to be defined, embraced and loved.

The second problem is internal. On some level it is unfair to attack an institution for statements or acts of its alumni, and the same is true for rabbinical institutions. RIETS, for example, has had a number of its ordainees openly leave Orthodoxy in the past, teach at non-Orthodox seminaries, or otherwise espouse heretical views. But RIETS at least has a tradition that is nearly a century old. Its musmachim have included notable Torah figures and Rabbis who shaped the Torah world. The YCT sample size is much smaller, and therefore disproportionately representative of the institution.

When some YCT graduates deny the divine origin of the Torah, assert that our forefathers never existed and therefore the entire narrative of the Jewish people is false, or insinuate that there was no divine revelation at Sinai, they have done more than force a band of rabbis to constrict the size of the tent; they have departed from Orthodoxy and lost the right to present themselves as Orthodox rabbis.

Similarly, when some YCT graduates remove parts of the davening that they find offensive, when they celebrate the nuptials of two homosexuals, when they invite non-Orthodox female clergy to lead the prayers, when they host or join interfaith prayer services, or, indeed, when they demean and distort the traditional role for women in Jewish with untold ramifications, they are bound to attract the opposition of the traditional, mainstream Orthodox rabbinate. Indeed, as our statement enunciated: “But if Open Orthodoxy’s leaders feel some distance developing between themselves and mainstream Orthodoxy, they should not be blaming others. They might consider how they themselves have plunged ahead, again and again, across the border that divides Orthodoxy from neo-Conservatism. Why are they surprised to find themselves on the wrong side of a dividing line?”

Similarly, no one rejoices in the rejection of Rabbi Weiss’ letters, neither personally or professionally. I genuinely feel for him and his congregants who are affected by this, and I hope an appropriate resolution is found. But there is a point at which the Orthodox world will take note of certain spiritual choices made, and say, “Enough; this is beyond Orthodoxy.” It should be no surprise that the ordination of women will strike the Israeli Rabbinate as the hallmark of the non-Orthodox clergy, as will the hosting in shul of church choirs, as will having a woman lead Kabbalat Shabbat, as will the embrace of halachic leniencies that are far outside the consensus of Orthodox practice. Surely, his new demand for the recognition by the Israeli rabbinate of the conversions conducted by non-Orthodox rabbis is not generally associated with the leanings of an Orthodox rabbi.

Can an Orthodox rabbi really endorse granting Israeli citizenship as a Jew to a “convert” who does not accept the mitzvot, did not go to Mikveh, has no intention of leading a Jewish life? Or, as is Reform practice, can it be expected that Rabbis who cherish unity in Jewish life will nonetheless acquiesce to ascribing Jewish status to the child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother? In one fascinating exchange earlier this week, the white knight of the modern Orthodox rabbinate (I say that half in jest), Rav David Stav shlit”a, the head of Tzohar and erstwhile candidate for Chief Rabbi, retorted to a Reform rabbi: “The problem of assimilation among American Jews isn’t just an American problem… Chelsea Clinton married a Jewish man. I don’t dispute your right to think what you want, [but] do you want me to recognize Chelsea Clinton’s child as a Jew? You want me to recognize the rabbi who married them as a rabbi? He added that we sometimes have to pay a steep price in terms of public relations and even love of Torah by not-yet observant Jews, but “we are willing to pay this heavy price because of our responsibility to the people of Israel, and our desire to keep the people of Israel united – even though in the short term, it leads to enmity toward the Torah and its sages.”

Undoubtedly, YCT has a number of fine musmachim, as did JTS in an earlier incarnation of neo-Conservatism, and they must surely recoil at the intemperance of some of the classmates. They have a critical role to play before the reputation of their alma mater is cemented in the public eye as neo-Conservative, if indeed it is not too late already. With the demise of the Conservative movement, there is that niche to be filled – but wouldn’t the ultimate consequences be the same?

There is a limit to which the Torah world can embrace modern notions. Pluralism, egalitarianism, and moral relativity make fine contributions to the Western world, and are an improvement on paganism and ritual sacrifice. But just because they define Western society does not make them Jewish, or even desirable.

If you take the “-dox” (belief) out of Orthodox, then you are left with Ortho-, and we might as well be selling specialty shoes. We are defined by what we believe and what we do, by our fidelity to the Mesorah, our respect for our Sages and our willingness to conform our desires to G-d’s will rather than the converse. A wise person once said that “even an open mind has to close at a certain point or nothing stays in.” The boundaries of “Open Orthodoxy” have to be delineated not in platitudes, clichés and slogans – but in deeds, thought, values and Torah commitment.

In that process they will find the Orthodox world a reliable ally – or a steadfast opponent.

6 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Machshava/Jewish Thought

One Year Later

Posted on November 8, 2013 | 6 comments

     Exactly one year ago, I published an essay entitled “The Decline and Fall of the American Empire.” Not in my most fevered imagination did I anticipate the response; yet, this essay to date has been read by hundreds of thousands of people across the world, re-printed numerous times by sundry publications, and even translated into several languages, including Polish, Chinese and Russian. Each week, almost a thousand people are reading it still, and someone must have re-released it this week, because both traffic and media interest have increased substantially.

It was written the day after the election, a lugubrious moment to be sure, but with a sad recognition that the trends in American society have not been positive for quite some time, and the damage being done to the United States by this administration may be impossible to reverse. Globally, America is in retreat, an unreliable ally to its natural partners, and a focus of derision by its enemies. Today’s deal with Iran – removing most sanctions in exchange for, basically, promises of better behavior, is not only a betrayal of Israel but effectively a renunciation of Obama’s promises that “Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon” under his watch. And when they do – unless more responsible parties like Israel and (ironically) some of the Arab states act in concert to avert that international threat – Obama will issue a half-apology, blame others while articulating how upset and angry he feels, and act like he is powerless to thwart the ambitions of evil people.

Allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic and others have little confidence in his leadership. On the world stage, he is perceived as small, inconsequential, not taken seriously. Israel, to its peril, relies on his promises.

In the past year, especially in the last few weeks, an expression has been coined to depict the Obama presidency. He is the “bystander president.” Things happen around him, he takes little interest in day-to-day matters, is slow to react, and is always the last to know when anything goes awry. By his own admission, he learned about the crises (scandals) of Benghazi, IRS, NSA, the failed implementation of Obamacare, etc., through the “media.” He seems to get out of the White House a lot, giving speeches, but is never apprised of what is going on in the world until the time has come for him to feign anger and send “his people” into inaction.

Domestically, as predicted in many places, there is a growing realization among his supporters and the political sycophants who genuflected before him and are now scrambling for their political lives that Obamacare is an economic, medical and personal catastrophe. The problems of health coverage in America have now been exacerbated into crises of health care. With doctors dropping out of insurance plans, Medicare and Medicaid, and insurance companies fleeing the private market, real people are suffering – and for the first time, those real people (including erstwhile Obama supporters) are front and center telling their tales of woe. And the stories of the travails of real people have a greater impact on observers than abstractions about the free market.

But what is being attempted here with Obamacare is just a continuation of the original problem: the ongoing distribution of free stuff to those who want it from those who work for it. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of human nature and economics could have predicted that young people would not pay a lot of money for something they generally don’t need, that more people would seek the free health care of Medicaid, and that mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions enables even more people to wait to pay for coverage until they need it. As always, ideologues are so wedded to their opinions – especially messianic ideologues convinced that only their doctrines are moral, life-saving and indispensable – that they construe reasonable criticism and questioning as heresy.

To cite, again, Margaret Thatcher, “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” That has started.

In any event, perhaps the most gratifying result of last year’s essay was the hundreds of emails and letters (yes, letters, as in real mail!) that I have received. Most were not posted as comments to the blog. To be sure, there was some criticism as well (that’s life) but most of the criticism was invective devoid of any substantive refutation of anything I had written. I include here a small and random sampling of those friendly and supportive comments, not (only!) because it is self-serving but, more importantly, because it is good for readers to know that they are not alone. The article struck a chord because there are many, many Americans – and American Jews – troubled by America’s present course. And there are many good people working actively behind the scenes to reverse the political tide and the moral trends, through persuasion and outreach, including some I have met in person and others with whom I have spoken on the telephone.

Ultimate success is not guaranteed, but to all those who wrote, I thank you for your kind words, your passion and patriotism, your love of country and faith, and your resolve to hold firm and fast to the values that bind us to our Creator and to each other.

Here’s a sample:

“The America I knew as a child isn’t the America I read about today.”

“I can imagine you are taking a lot of flak for your “End of the American Empire” piece. I just want you to know that I found your analysis to be right on the mark and your conclusions downright courageous.”

“I wanted to thank you for this article. IT IS THE ONLY thing that has helped me cope in the past few days.”

“I commend your bravery in writing such an article.”

“Thank you for your insightful comments on the election. Over the last several years it’s become apparent to me that my values and beliefs are becoming irrelevant and passe. I can’t open a newspaper, click on a tv station, click on an interesting website without being bombarded with messages that stand contrary to 95% of what I believe in.”

“I am a Christian and I can tell you that everything you said is true as far as I am concerned. I think many Christians would agree with you. I wish we had an “Israel” to do Aliyah. PS: I am in my 70’s and I thank G-D that He allowed me to be born and live in the United States before it voted itself into perdition.”

 “Many thanks for using your gifts to articulate what so many are still unfortunately fumbling around with and have yet to wrap their thoughts around.”

"A friend from Florida just sent me a copy of your sermon, address, letter, of November 7. It is the clearest, most concise description of where we were, where we are, where we are going, and why. Our world has changed and I fear for my grandchildren.”

“Very well said! There are not many Jews who feel the way you do. Well, I am one of them!”

“I was forwarded your email and wanted to thank you for your thoughtful, insightful essay.  I agree with every word, and also mourn the loss of the America I have grown up in and which is now gone. It is impossible to move forward with no hope, and with the fear of what life in this country will be for my children. To compound matters, my husband is a bleeding heart liberal.”
 “I just wanted to thank you for your cogent and prescient outline of our country's future on its chosen path. As a small business owner, I cannot bring myself to jump into the wagon with the freeloaders. However, I will do everything in my power to not pull the wagon. I already pay my "fair share." Further attempts to steal from my business -- which I built -- to give to those who did not, and will not, exert the effort to avail themselves of the blessings of liberty will be met with resolute resistance. I will scale back my business to earn what I need to survive and no more. People will lose their jobs, benefits will be cut and I will pay far less in taxes. You want a charitable donation for a worthy cause? Call Obama. I no longer care.”
 “I'm in complete agreement with your article however, I have one question: How and why would a majority of Jewish people who voted, vote for Obama or any Democrat at this point? He has turned his back on Israel and I fear that this small but courageous nation will not be able to survive much longer.”


“Though sad to read, you hit the nail on the head. This is what is happening to the greatest country in the history of the world. My heart is very sad.” 

“I just received your analysis, via e-mail, of the changing of America. Thank you so much for that dissertation.  It's flying thru the internet.”
“I know it won't change our downward spiral but, at least it's out in the open for all to now understand.  Beautifully written and directly to the point.”
“I wish to congratulate you on your courage to speak unpopular truths, dear rabbi”
“Mr Husband and I -- as well as our like-minded friends to whom I forwarded the article -- were in awe of your articulation of the situation as it exists, as well as your understanding of the dismal direction to which our country is headed. I pray that you don't allow anyone to silence you. So many of us are as outraged as you are.”

“Read and Weep, if we think this is untrue we are kidding ourselves…”

“My pastor is regularly criticized for his bold statements and he recently added this quote to his signature: “We must not mind insulting men, if by respecting them we insult God.” 

“Your voice is clear, and understandable. MORE need to hear your message!!!!

 The last two comments were from this past week. And the work goes on.
 Again, thank you all!

6 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

Caving In

Posted on November 1, 2013 | 8 comments

   Israel has an admirable and enviable record of defending its borders against all threats and potential threats, of helping its citizens across the world who are missing or endangered, and of contributing mightily to global welfare through its development of technology and pharmaceuticals that have transformed the lives of individuals. The State especially fills Jews with pride over its material accomplishments in less than seven decades of existence, and the Torah revolution that it has overseen during that same time span. The incorporation of the ideas, values and precepts of the Torah in the governance and management of a modern state is something for which religious Jews yearned for centuries.

    How can one not feel pride?

And then there are weeks like this.

The second stage of the release from prison of Arab murderers of Jews occurred earlier this week. It remains as strategically inexplicable and as morally repugnant as it was when the first release took place several months ago (https://rabbipruzansky.com/2013/08/01/battered-country-syndrome). The idea is bizarre that a nation has to bribe its feeble and anemic enemy to come to negotiate the surrender of its own territory. That there are people who would actually celebrate freedom for savages who shot, stabbed, hacked and exploded Jews to death puts paid to the notion that peace is ever possible with that particular enemy. Peace is feasible with the civilized and the sane, not those who exult in their friends and neighbors who have chopped off the heads of Jews.

The anguish that is caused to the families of the victims of Arab terror having to watch their loved ones’ killers feted, lionized, lifted on shoulders and proudly hailed as “heroes” (indeed, in that pathologically ill society that has never produced a single benefit to mankind, they are what passes for “heroes”) is unspeakable. Certainly, it was judicious for Israel to execute the Nazi fiend Adolph Eichmann in 1962; had he been sentenced to life imprisonment, he too would have freed at some point as a result of some combination of Jewish guilt and world pressure. And, clearly, the only way to prevent future outrages is for Israel to enact the death penalty for any terrorist who causes the death of another person. The same death penalty he applied to his victims should be applied to him as well – and that pertains also to those who dispatch suicide bombers. They aspire to be martyrs? Oblige them.

In a normal – not a battered – nation, politicians could not survive such scandalous behavior. The tripe that American pressure – mean old John Kerry – coerced Israel to succumb to terror once again is unbecoming serious people. Israel’s continued self-humiliation – freeing murderers, apologizing to Turkey after it dispatched its own group of thugs to harm Israel, negotiating its own demise – all in order to induce some meaningful American action against Iran reeks of weakness, not strength, not to mention the worst of wishful thinking.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the political mice began scurrying this week, trying to circle their wagons and protect their political futures. How? By making the story not the release of the brutes but the alleged prevarication of Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett, who allegedly supported the release before he publicly opposed it. Bennett denies this account vehemently, and I believe him. There is a political interest in having the weak look strong, and if everyone in the Cabinet supported it, there is safety in numbers. Israelis would assume that unanimity means there is some unknown but obviously shrewd reason why Israel is doing what no other nation would do. (The US doesn’t even release Jonathan Pollard after 30 years – and not even in the wake of the exposure of its own spying on its allies – including Israel – for decades.)

Bennett blew that cover, and the main accusation against him – one that he should wear with pride – is that he is not a team player. What is wrong is wrong, period. Everyone knows that the forces of terror won this week, and that such pusillanimity only encourages more terror. The price one pays for killing Jews just went down, again. Even Pollard, from the depths of his prison cell, has long opposed his own freedom if it is earned at the expense of freedom for terrorists. Talk about self-sacrifice on the one hand – and the mendacity emanating from the government. Certainly, PM Netanyahu knows this. He knows this so well that he even devoted a substantial part of his book on terror to the futility and foolishness of terrorist-prisoner releases. But to argue that he is not a person of his convictions is not exactly breaking new ground. The attempt to sugarcoat this atrocity by linking it to the building of new housing in Israeli settlements (especially in Yerushalayim, that most illustrious “settlement”) is itself shameful. Why does a proud nation, bequeathed the land of Israel by the Creator, have to tap-dance around its historic rights?

Israel should build throughout the land of Israel without deference to Arabs or Americans, and it should begin executing terrorists. Period, as President Obama likes to say for emphasis.

Where do such weak-willed, mendacious leaders come from?

Look no further than the second outrage of the week – the ongoing investigation into the election fraud that saw the incumbent Haredi Mayor of Bet Shemesh re-elected. What fraud? Traditional Chicago-style fraud: people came to the polls and were told they already voted. Others voted several times. ID cards were forged. The dead seem to have been resurrected – and only for the purpose of voting. Slips of paper with the challenger’s name on it disappeared from some polling places, allowing “voters” to vote only one way. Arrests have already been made and the election itself should be voided.

Worse, the religious corruption that justified and underwrote the election process is itself reprehensible. Religious Jews were told that there is only one way to vote – for the incumbent. Venerable Torah scholars were lied to – or perhaps they willfully allowed themselves to be misled. Jews from the Edot Hamizrach were warned that Rav Ovadia zt”l would be watching them from the Great Beyond, and woe to them and their families if they voted incorrectly. Cards were handed out that explicitly stated that it fulfilled a Torah commandment to vote as told, and blessings would accrue to those who voted accordingly.

The Holy Grail at stake is, of course, money. With Haredim out of the national loop, and still disinclined to be as self-supportive as the rest of the population, the local coffers are an attractive way to fund their needs. To be sure, the package was wrapped and sold under the guise of holiness, modesty, Torah, mitzvot, etc. – but the key is money. It stands to reason that, like in America where the party that gives out the free stuff (like food stamps to 47 million people, almost doubled in five years) has a distinct advantage, the incumbent in Bet Shemesh also had an advantage and the election itself would have been close even if honestly conducted.

But – need I write this? Sadly, yes – the Torah does not permit cheating, lying, stealing, threatening, coercing, over-promising or selling blessings. Period. Shame on those who perpetrated these schemes, and the so-called rabbis who assisted them and gave them spiritual cover. They are not fooling the One who really matters.

There is a small comfort in the fact that the incumbent mayor, re-elected in such a duplicitous way, is not in the Knesset or the Cabinet.     Yet.

May the Israel of the first paragraph survive, thrive and prosper.

8 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel