Author Archives: Rabbi

Media Distortions

Posted on November 28, 2011 | 5 comments

The secular media’s knowledge of Judaism ranges from the commonplace to the laughably ignorant. The Daily Mail last month captioned a phonograph of Jared Kushner walking on Succot with his wife and child, and carrying a lulav and etrog, as holding some sort of “bouquet of flowers” for his wife.       Several years ago, the august New York Times Magazine, discussed the banishment of the yetzer hara in early Mishnaic times, and translated the Anshei Knesset Hagedola (Men of the Great Assembly) as “men from a great synagogue.” The Newark Star Ledger once described as among the outreach efforts of non-Orthodox Jews in Lakewood to the Christian population as “inviting them to sit shiv’a with us.” How thoughtful.

We expect more, of course, from Jewish media, but without much justification for that sentiment. Thus, many read JTA’s report last week of an “Orthodox Rabbi” officiating at a same-sex marriage in Washington DC. Whatever the rabbi is, and whatever his personal qualities, Orthodox he is not. An avowed homosexual himself, who lives with his partner with their newly-adopted child, the person in question certainly has strayed far from Orthodoxy. Such conduct is naturally described as brave, courageous, and daring – but it takes neither bravery nor courage just to dismiss explicit mandates of the Torah and carry on as if Judaism is a personal heirloom that one can cavalierly discard or distort. Certainly, if a self-described “Orthodox Rabbi” suddenly interrupted Yom Kippur services to invite the congregation to dine on pork and cheeseburgers, that decision might be popular, certainly innovative, but not courageous and daring. No one would entertain that such conduct is permitted by Torah law, and no one would call such a rabbi “Orthodox.”

The derring-do has been greeted mostly by rabbinic silence, born of the preposterousness of the act itself. Most organizations have ignored it, and, on one hand, not unreasonably. For who in his right mind would ever assume that the Torah endorses, celebrates, or permits same-sex marriages? To issue a public denunciation would be tantamount to decrying the Yom Kippur conduct described above, and give the conduct more attention than it deserves.

But on the other hand, the turbulence of Orthodox Jewish life – especially in the antics of its leftist fringe element – is such that allowing this misconduct to pass without protest will enable the confused and bewildered, willfully or unintentionally, to consider that it is within the range of possibility that same-sex marriage can be condoned by the Torah. Silence allows even a small window of doubt to open, and silence allows that doubt to fester and swell.
Jewish law is unequivocal in its condemnation of same-sex relationships – barring the physical contact itself, the seclusion of two homosexuals by themselves in a private room, and, of course, their “marriage” – and this regardless of society’s “evolution.” Indeed, the Gemara (Chulin 92b) underscores that one of the redeeming features of the ancient pagans was that, although they engaged in homosexual activities (in violation of the Noachide laws), even they did not deign to draft “marriage contracts for males.”

Perhaps the “rabbi’s” Torah study never encompassed that tractate. It apparently excluded several others as well. One hopes that he finds some internal peace and contentment, and remains faithful.

For sure, there is an element of sadness that attaches both to the event and its criticism, and therefore a simple protest and media advisory suffices. No one wants to pile on. The plight of the avowed homosexual evokes sympathy and pain, but even that must defer to a clear articulation of the truth of Torah. If it was clear from which institution the “rabbi” received his ordination, they too should issue a demurral. Rumor has it that the institution from which he claims ordination denies actually ordaining him.

No matter. It is sufficient to reiterate the obvious, enunciated by a broad spectrum of Rabbis and announced by the Rabbinical Council of America not long ago: “the Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.”

That is clear, definitive and authoritative. Media – Jewish and secular – take notice. And never assume that a Jew on staff is necessarily an expert on, or even remotely familiar with, Judaism. The “men from a great synagogue,” and their followers, deserve no less.

5 Comments

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

Modern Orthodoxy Under the Microscope

Posted on November 18, 2011 | 2 comments

This is only for those with time on their hands, but two very provocative essays, the first by Rav Yitzchak Adlerstein and the second by Rav Michael Broyde, provoked much thought across our small world, and prompted my response below.

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/09/27/modern-orthodoxy-at-a-crossroads-2/

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/11/09/modern-orthodoxy-is-always-at-the-crossroads/

Paradoxically, I found myself in agreement with both Rav Adlerstein and Rav Broyde in their recent comments on Modern Orthodoxy and the limits of RCA tolerance. Rav Adlerstein lays down the gauntlet in terms of the importance of parameters for RCA inclusion, so we do not define ourselves into irrelevancy, or worse, become a tacit endorser of quasi-heretical notions. And Rav Broyde’s exposition of Modern Orthodoxy as “Always at a Crossroads” is, in many ways, right on point and underscores true areas of difference, especially in the danger of witch hunts and in mandating acceptance of the views of “gedolim” who do not generally share our hashkafat olam. Additionally, the challenge to the “Far Left” of maverick approaches to halacha and minhag that destroy the envelope after first pushing its ends should also engender some necessary soul-searching and perhaps re-visiting of some views.

Yet, if my admiration for Rav Broyde only grows each time he puts ink to paper (or the modern equivalent), I remain troubled by certain assumptions that are made that I believe undermine his overall argument. This is perhaps encapsulated in his summation that states, in pertinent part, that Modern Orthodoxy “incorporates two central values that we cannot live without: Halacha and the best of Western culture.” I am afraid that overstates the case in a way that leaves Modern Orthodoxy bereft of its Torah moorings. Can we really – should we really – equate Halacha and (even the best of) Western culture ? Without Torah, we are nothing, non-existent. Without Western culture, we are like…more than half the rest of the planet. If the Ramban on Chumash was suddenly no longer extant, or the Mishnah Torah disappeared, r”l, we would be orphaned. Can we say the same thing about the loss of Shakespeare, Rembrandt or the Knicks ? (See how easily the world is adapting to the absence of professional basketball.) Is there one Western value not already reflected in the Torah that, if it disappeared tomorrow, we as Torah Jews would sense a loss and openly grieve? There are cherished Western notions – democracy, for one – that are not incompatible with Torah, for sure, but nevertheless, pose a grave threat to international order and safety. Democracy brought both Hitler and Hamas to power, and may leave us trembling from the aftermath of the Arab Spring. So just what are these values we cannot “live without”?  Certainly there are aspects of Western culture that add a positive dimension to our lives, but if they were permanently gone would not even evoke a tear, much less wistfulness or some existential angst. Ki haim chayenu is Torah, nothing else. And science is not a “secular” discipline, insofar as it reflects the revelation of the Creator in nature.

Thus, Rav Broyde’s contention that “The best of the house of Yefet should reside in the house of Shem – the best of western culture should be part of the Jewish community,” is misleading at best. “The beauty of Yefet should be in the tents of Shem” is primarily an admonition that the culture of Yefet should be exalted and ennobled by the influence of the morality of Shem and not descend into the tawdriness and decadence (to which it has), and secondarily (the context of that statement in Megila 9b) that the Greek language – the most beautiful outside of the language of Torah – has a place in the tents of Shem. But the blanket endorsement of the beauty of Yefet in our tents directly contradicts Chazal’s elucidation of this same pasuk in Yoma 10a: “Even though G-d extends Yefet, the divine presence only rests in the tents of Shem.”And therein lies the critical distinction: the culture of Yefet, even in its loftiest state, might find its place in the tents of Shem but can never be equated with it. And our role as the heirs to the tents of Shem is to preserve its purity and moral code and set an example for Yefet.

Therein lies another problem with Rav Broyde’s theses: “It [Modern Orthodoxy] requires that we examine western culture faithfully and diligently to determine that which is best and ought to be incorporated. More subtly, it requires that we recognize that there are things missing from our own tent, so that we ought to acquire them from the outside.” (my bold).

Really ? “Missing from our own tent” flies in the face of the notion of “Torat Hashem Temima” and even more Chazal’s commentary on the pasuk “ki lo davar reik hu mikem – “for it is not an empty thing for you” (Devarim 32:47). The Yerushalmi Peah 1:1 states:  v’im reik hu, mikem hu – “if the Torah appears empty (deficient, missing something), it is in you.” If we sense something missing from our tent, then what is missing is in us, and not in our tent, mipnei she’ein atem yegei’in BaTorah, because we do not exert ourselves sufficiently in the Torah. If we exerted ourselves sufficiently, we would find all we need in the Torah.

To think the Torah is not one’s sole address for moral guidance, or an insufficient venue for one’s spiritual aspirations, is dangerous territory indeed. It lends itself not only to wholesale rejection of parts of the Torah that “offend,” but also to wholesale revisions or original compositions of parts that are deemed “missing” and need to be restored or supplemented.

Needless to say, I don’t suspect this is Rav Broyde’s credo; I do sense it animates what is called the “Far Left.” They find fault with the Torah, openly criticize and often demean Chazal, and – this is barely concealed – are often disappointed when the Torah does not conform to current but transient moral norms. But most of us are happy with the Torah, if occasionally disappointed in ourselves, and the drive to incorporate western values in Torah – or make the Torah subservient to or the handmaiden of western values – is a well known dead end for Jews. Not every desideratum of modern life should be part of Torah just because it is modern or desired. And not every value embraced by Jews – egalitarianism comes to mind – is necessarily a Jewish value.

I am also less than sanguine about the propriety of grounding one’s deviations from the norm in rejected psak, even those with a “fine rabbinic pedigree,” when those deviations are far from the current norm. One can easily locate a justification or two for wife-beating and tax-cheating, as unsavory as those practices are, scattered in the words of fine scholars operating from different premises, but antithetical to the majority opinion and prevailing Jewish practice through the ages. We do not do that because minhag yisrael is sacred, because the mesora matters, and because we are a nation and not just a collection of individuals serving G-d in accordance with our subjective interests.

Obviously, our Far Left would not dare eradicate the mechitza – despite embracing ideological criteria that would endorse such a move. My sense is it would not be done not because it would violate the halacha (the Shulchan Aruch, they would posit, is silent on the matter) but rather because it is identified with the Conservative brand. It would be a blatant admission of defection. So the next best thing is done – either it is rendered unnoticeable or dismantled at the first opportunity, or that very same fight is taken to other battlefields. Hence the list of deviations from prevailing Orthodoxy that Rav Broyde cites critically as enacted by the Far Left without any hint of self-criticism on their part, or awareness that they are distancing themselves from the mainstream of faithful Jews. But the main deviation, as I see it, is not in this or that practice or change, but in an approach to the words of Chazal and the Oral Torah that is more reminiscent of the Conservative movement and that prompts each step away from the tent.

In truth, I am agnostic about expulsions because the fears of Rav Broyde of endless line-drawing and persecution are well-grounded.  Nevertheless, I do see the value in clarifying what we stand for and giving clear guidance to our fellow Jews, even if that means pulling down the flaps of our tent to keep out deviationists. As Rabbanim – teachers of Torah – we shirk our responsibilities if our solitary goal remains a big tent. That would be useful if the primary objective of the RCA is to serve as a professional rabbinic fraternity that protects our jobs and pensions, come what may. But if we aspire as an organization to Torah leadership, and to impact the spiritual lives of our fellow Jews in traditional ways, then lines must be drawn and clarity achieved.

Where those lines are drawn should make for an interesting discussion. But at a certain point, it is clear that diverse opinions are impossible to reconcile and a unity on paper only will easily crumple. Therefore, “scholars, be careful with your words, lest you incur the penalty of exile, and are banished to the place of evil waters (heresy) and the disciples who come after you will drink and die, and G-d’s name will be desecrated” (Avot 1:11). That is good musar for all of us.

2 Comments

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

The Political Racing Form

Posted on November 15, 2011 | Comments Off on The Political Racing Form

The strongest attribute of any of the Republican candidates for President is that they are not named Barack Obama. Obama’s unpopularity is such that re-election is hard to fathom, or stomach, but stranger things have been known to happen (like his election in the first place). His advantage lies in a built-in 40% of the vote – consisting of blacks, knee-jerk liberals, union
members, and recipients of public handout – although the labor unionists might have been turned off by the President’s decision to  delay the Keystone oil pipeline that would have weaned the US off Arab oil and provided tens of thousands of jobs to Americans. Oil’s well that ends well, he must assume.

The fear of Republicans is that no one candidate has gripped the
imagination of the public or galvanized the support of barely a quarter of the
electorate, much less half plus one. That foreboding sense – born of several
snap conclusions – is misplaced, as follows.

No person seems presidential until he/she actually becomes the President
and some not even then. In November 2007, no one could have looked at Barack Obama and seen a “President.” Such a perception was laughable in the extreme. One can never compare a person who carries the trappings of high office with either civilians or lower level politicians. The entourage is different, the mode of travel, the absence of a presidential seal, the obvious presence of the Secret Service, the capacity to actually do things (or pretend to do things; see Obama’s speeches about student loan waivers), and, mostly, the necessity to
talk only of the future, which is always speculative. People tend to grow into
the office, and not just in the office, and so almost any of the candidates
could easily fit the bill and be perceived as presidential one year into their
term.

Consequently, the head-to-head polls are not as meaningful at this early
stage, when sane voters have not yet coalesced around one candidate and therefore – as a display of partisanship – construe Obama as electable if their personal favorite is not nominated. However, is it credible that a Gingrich supporter would actually vote for Obama over Romney? Possibly, but highly unlikely, especially since the election will ultimately be a choice between Obama and Anybody Not Obama who is a functional human being. It is true that you cannot beat something with nothing, but as the election draws nearer, candidates begin to appear more plausible, especially as the field narrows.

The other factor that exercises people these days are the flaws that are
perceived in each of the Republican candidates. It is a lot like the Jewish
dating scene, where people go out with each in order to find the one trait that
renders them unmarriageable. But of course each candidate is flawed because no one is perfect (except, apparently, the critics of each of the candidates). Nor
is it rational or sensible to expect that a voter should agree with every
single position of even a preferred candidate. (The wag said: “If two people
agree on everything, then one of them is superfluous.”) Certainly each
candidate comes with weaknesses, vulnerabilities, ideological inconsistencies,
questionable personal conduct, unpalatable positions – all because each is a
thinking, breathing human being.

Thus, those who look for salvation to the non-candidates – Chris
Christie, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, et al – don’t realize that if any of them,
or others, entered the race, they too would be crucified and vilified within a
very short time. That unhappy aspect of modern life keeps many fine, though
imperfect, people out of politics. And some of the “perfect” candidates don’t
measure up under even mild scrutiny. That is why we were never privileged to
elect President Fred Thompson or President John Edwards. Mindful of the
Talmud’s statement (Yoma 22b) that a leader should have some skeletons in his
closet in order to keep him humble, we must evaluate the candidate’s strengths
and weaknesses, and look for the “best” and not the “perfect.” There is no
perfect.

Additionally, the pundits and laymen who obsess daily on this process
seem to forget that not a vote has been cast in either a caucus or a primary,
and that polls are volatile. They reflect momentary perceptions but not the
reality over time. It is frankly, bizarre, that disproportionate weight in the
primaries is given to states like Iowa and New Hampshire that are hardly
reflective of the rest of the country. But it is what it is, and undoubtedly
after the votes are cast – within a few weeks – the field will be whittled down
and an apparent nominee will appear, who will even begin to look somewhat
presidential.

So, without expressing a personal favorite – I find endorsements presumptuous – here is the current racing form:

THE PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE – It is Mitt Romney’s race to
lose. He recognizes that, which is why he seldom allows himself to be
interviewed, and prefers to control the dissemination of his message unimpeded
by annoying media queries. He looks the part (important today – Lincoln could
not have won a primary or an election), has command of the issues, and no
scandals have yet attached to him. Indeed, he is criticized for looking
perfect. His papers and positions on Israel issues are solidly on the right-wing
of Israeli politics (indeed, like all the candidates except for Ron Paul), and
it impossible to imagine a President Romney ever oozing the contempt for Israel and its Prime Minister that President Obama does.

Sad to say, the main obstacle that Romney has to overcome is the
distaste that many Evangelicals have for Mormons, whom they consider heretics, and that many Conservatives see Romney as too pareve  in an election in which  the choice will be between meat and milk. It might be wishful thinking on my part, but I can only assume that on Election Day, revulsion for Obama will cause these voters to cringe and vote for Romney. In any event, I think most
Americans are long past having a religious test for president, which the
Constitution itself rejects. And the Mormon experience is, on a skeletal level,
somewhat akin to the Jewish experience, so a Romney would have a much greater affinity for Jews than an Obama – a disciple of the US-hating, Jew-baiting Reverend Wright – could ever have.

What about Romney the flip-flopper? That is media talk. Most normal
people change their positions on some issues during their lives, whether
because circumstances change or maturity gives them a new perspective on old
issues. The only people who never change their minds on anything are people who have stopped thinking. It would seem that a President Romney shares the morals agenda of the American Right, but like President Reagan, will not do much about them. And Romney has the endearing habit of actually looking his opponents in the eye, and listening to – and responding to – what they are saying, all indicia of a leader. His main weakness is that his message is too elastic and spongy to attract the most energized Republican voters – the Tea Party  enthusiasts and the Christian Evangelicals – who want a political revolution. Romney wants to continue business-as-usual, but done better, more intelligently and more effectively.

THE SMARTEST KID IN THE ROOM – Newt Gingrich blows away
every listener with his mastery of the issues. He has not only thought through
each of them, but he has proposed solutions (in some cases enacted them into
law) and revised them and proposed new solutions when the former did not work.  A Gingrich-Obama debate would be worthwhile and riveting television from which people might actually learn something.

Gingrich has the charming quality of being able to apologize and to
admit when he was wrong, a trait that comes in handy given his checkered
personal history. (Asked the other night about a commercial he made with Nancy Pelosi about climate change, he answered that “it was the dumbest thing I ever did. I don’t know what I was thinking, but I thought it was a good idea at the time.” And he laughed.) A Gingrich candidacy would make it easy on Democrat advertisers, as they only need to trot out the “Gingrich=ogre, monster” ads from 1998 and 2000. His successes as Speaker are only now being recognized – four consecutive years of balanced budgets from his House, for which Bill Clinton claimed credit to all those who don’t comprehend that spending bills all originate in the House. It was Gingrich who forced Clinton into balanced budgets, against the will of the Democrat Party at the time.

Can Gingrich overcome his personal baggage – affairs, three wives, the
demonization by the press for whom Gingrich has little-disguised contempt? That is also possible under the ABO theory of this election, but still risky. He
will be a human piñata for the media. Expect a tsunami of anti-Gingrich stories
in the next two months dredging up past positions and peccadilloes.

RAISING CAIN – Herman Cain possesses leadership qualities
and business success that are well-suited to the needs of this election. Still
a little raw on the issues, his main problem is not the recent kerfuffles with
female accusers. They have harmed his brand – which was the refreshing aura of the non-politician trying to right the listing American ship – with the dirty,
“politics as usual,” unproven accusations that might just backfire and energize
his supporters, especially given the credibility of his accusers, some of whom
are serial plaintiffs. Oddly, Cain seems to have confined his “harassment” to a
2-3 year span all during the Clinton administration – not before or after, an
unlikely resume for a real harasser.

Cain’s main problem is that the early states – Iowa, New Hampshire – do
not cater to his strengths, and poor performances there will set the media
train rolling to the theme of “Cain’s fall and decline” from which it is
difficult to overcome. He does well in the polls, but that is not the same as
success in individual states. Nonetheless, he can still be a formidable
candidate – one reason why the accusations arose – if the female drumbeat
ceases soon, because he is perceived as a straight-talking, solution-oriented
businessman who rose from obscurity, lived the American dream and can cut
deeply into Obama’s black base.

THE TEXAN – Every election since 1948 (except 1972) has featured
a Southerner as either the presidential or vice-presidential candidate, and this
year’s participant is the estimable Texan Rick Perry. Perry is a solid
achiever, whose candidacy has been undermined by his wooden and sometimes
obtuse debate performances. His assets do not lend themselves to that format,
which, in truth, is completely unrelated to the needs of the presidency. A
president never debates anyone – he sifts through various issues and arguments
– and makes decisions. His recent stumble over the government departments he would shut down – he should’ve said ten, not three – only shows that he had
over-rehearsed, and was parroting but not thinking.

He is done, but he will inevitably re-appear in the future, better
prepared for the rigors of the campaign. He reminds me of another Southern
governor whose initial foray into national politics – a long-winded, incredibly
tedious speech in support of Mike Dukakis at the Democrat Convention in 1988
that became the butt of jokes – until Bill Clinton stopped the laughter in
1992. Perry might be in the future another Clinton, only more honest.

THE DAFFY PERENNIAL – Every election features candidates who
always run, never win, but represent a sector of the electorate. That is the
candidacy of RON PAUL, who has some good ideas on the economy, and an attractive libertarian streak, that is undone by some wacky views on major issues. For a candidate to harp on proposals that will never come to pass (end the Federal Reserve), whatever the merits, is a waste of time. And Paul is a throwback to the isolationists of the 1930s, in a time when the world is much smaller and the dangers to America and its allies much greater. Although the politics differ, Paul seems to do a good Ross Perot imitation, but votes for him are wasted.

NOT HIS TIME – RICK SANTORUM is a solid candidate with good ideas but dogged by the one black mark on his record: he lost his own state – Pennsylvania – in a landslide defeat just a few years ago. He is also running on a social values platform that, although worthy, is out-of-step with the needs and interests of this particular campaign. Santorum, a fine speaker and good debater, will likely drop out sometime in January, endorse Romney, and be in line for a cabinet position in a Romney administration.

 THE WOMAN – It is difficult to pinpoint when MICHELLE  BACHMANN’s campaign fell off the rails. She is an appealing candidate, well-versed on most issues, and clearly possessing more depth and experience than Sarah Palin. She is fiery, unafraid and very competent, but has received something of the Palin treatment by the mainstream media: since she, too, cuts into a major Democrat voting bloc – women – the media attempts to marginalize her as extreme, backwards, just a pretty face, etc. Nothing sticks but she is dying the death of a thousand cuts, and being ignored as well. A misstatement or two, all blown out of proportion to the actual significance, has not helped. Iowa is her first and last stand, but she will remain a formidable influence, and should. If she hadn’t criticized Romney harshly on health care, she might be in the running for the Veep slot. Her career is far from over.

THE UNKNOWN WHO WILL REMAIN UNKNOWN – Jon Huntsman is a thoughtful fellow with some accomplishments under his belt who lacks only two assets in presidential politics: a base and other voters that the base can
attract.

In truth, all the candidates are credible (except for Paul) and all
would be improvements over the incumbent. It is actually a strong field of
contestants who are honing their messages in the seemingly interminable
debates. One who sees the field as weak is being influenced by the fact that no
one looks presidential until they become president. In time, and not very long
at all – months – two or three will stand head and shoulders above the rest and
the choice will be clearer. And the road to recovery, if there is such a road,
that much closer.

Comments Off on The Political Racing Form

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

The Origins of Discontent

Posted on November 11, 2011 | 4 comments

(This was originally published as an Op-Ed in the Jewish Press, November 11, 2011.)

It is difficult to remember the last time that the United States was wracked with such dissension, discontent, protests, and economic hardship. From my vantage point, “Occupy Wall Street” has been primarily a source of comic relief – the participants, their complaints, their solutions, and their antics – except for the sporadic violence, and the loss of job and business in lower Manhattan caused by the unwillingness of sane people to traverse that area under siege. There are many different forces at play in these nationwide protests,
most without any clue as to how to improve their personal financial situations
or the national economy. Having occupied Wall Street, the occupiers do not seem to know what they want to do with it.

But there is discontent among the wealthy as well, who are being demonized for the most crass political purposes and who have lost much of their wealth in the last few years (from 2007 to 2009, there was a 40% drop in the number of millionaires filing federal tax returns, from 392,000 to 233,000), and among the middle class, who have seen their assets diminished, and found near-insurmountable obstacles to their pursuit of the American dream. Everyone is unhappy.
And the more government meddles in our lives, the worse and less free
our lives become. All this discontent is the fruit of the poisonous tree of
big, intrusive government trying to run every aspect of our lives – and failing
at all of it: telling us what we can eat, what we can drive, what types of
bulbs we can use, how much water the shower nozzle can dispense, how high our fences can be, how many miles per gallon our cars should provide, what types of medical procedures we should or should not have, etc. There are many who expect and want government to satisfy their every desire and care for their every need – to be given a job, a home, health care, retirement pay, and a host of other entitlements. I want none of that. I just want to be left alone.

America was founded on the premise of the right of the individual to
pursue happiness as he sees fit – as long as his pursuit does not encroach on
the rights of others. So a federal government should provide for the common
defense against external enemies, enforce contracts so the commercial system
remains viable, and build interstate roads and highways. Beyond that, I
struggle to find where a federal government is useful or effective, and I
resent that the fruit of my labor is confiscated to pay for useless, frivolous,
unneeded and unwarranted boondoggles. I just want to be left alone.

Consider how far we have traveled. In 1887, Texas was stricken by a
drought (just like this past year). Congress appropriated $10,000 to purchase
seed grain for the suffering farmers there. President Grover Cleveland (the
only president born in New Jersey) vetoed the bill, saying: “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. … The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

“The lessons of paternalism ought to be unlearned and the better lesson
taught that while the people should patriotically and cheerfully support their
Government its functions do not include the support of the people.”

     Notwithstanding that those sentiments (and undoubtedly other reasons as
well) led to Cleveland’s defeat in 1888 – he was re-elected four years later –
those lessons of the dangers of “paternalism” need to be re-learned and
re-internalized. Part of America’s greatness in the 20th century was
built on the labor of millions of immigrants – including more than two million
Jews – who arrived on these shores and looked not to government for a handout but to their relatives, neighbors, and co-religionists for temporary assistance until they could support themselves by the sweat of their brow. Hard work, self-sacrifice, material deprivation and personal responsibility were the norms of life. It was expected that people would succeed or fail on their own, and therefore everyone had an interest in succeeding. There was no governmental safety net, and the safety net that did exist for the elderly and infirm was usually provided by family and religious institutions.

The Constitution does not allow government to confiscate money from the productive and distribute it to the unproductive or the clueless – whether the clueless are reckless individuals or reckless corporations. But today, that is the primary function of government, and so 49% of Americans receive some form of government assistance and wayward, mismanaged corporations are bailed out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars rather than allow the market to take its natural toll on unprofitable businesses. Blame Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, and then almost every president since then, who have all realized that there are electoral victories to be obtained by handing out money to as many groups and individuals as is feasible. And, frankly, blame the citizenry as well, people who are being weaned on getting something for nothing, and letting others work and prosper and then thinking that it is fair and just that their work product be redistributed to them. It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote that democracy fails the moment the majority realizes that it can vote itself money out of the treasury. We have arrived at that moment, and the national character, accustomed to handouts and bailouts, has been concomitantly weakened to its current flaccid state of disgruntlement and self-pity.

The two visions of America – the free enterprise state that allows the individual free choice in pursuit of his happiness vs. the nanny state that is paternalistic, intrusive and demanding – can easily be discerned by the one defining difference: the former sees each person as an individual (created in the divine image) and the latter sees man as simply part of a collective whose rights are drawn from the fact that he is part of a group but do not inhere in him. America and the free world used to celebrate the role of the individual – encouraging it, fostering it – because no individual prospers without also benefiting others. No individual can become wealthy unless he makes a product or provides a service that others want at a price they can afford. So, everyone benefits. Now, it is one size fits all – like the housing in socialist societies that all looks the same, and like the clothing in old Communist China where everyone dressed the same. No individuality is tolerated. Rights are awarded to some individuals, and denied to others, because they belong to a particular group – the very premise of affirmative action, for example.

Similarly, these attitudes engender the populist complaints about income inequality – the rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor. Why does the income gap, which so exercises the Occupy World Street crowd and other anarchists, bother anyone? If everyone has – or can have – then why be troubled by the success of some?       Indeed, a study not long ago showed that people are happier if they are earning $25,000 and their neighbor $50,000 – than if the sums are doubled and they earn $50,000 and their neighbors earn $100,000. Why? Although the income gap has widened, they too are earning more money?     For only one reason, that greases the wheels of much of the discontent in America and across the globe today: jealousy. What a deadly mida! Envy ruins lives, leaves people dejected and despondent, and is the cause of wars and much suffering.

Envy is the very  antithesis of Succot. Rav Dessler writes famously that Succot reflects bitul hayesh, the nullification of the material. Has anyone ever walked into someone’s Succa and said: “This is beautiful – I am so jealous, I wish I had a Succa like this!” Of course not. And why not? Because it is gone in a week, and is therefore defined as a temporary dwelling. But that is the point –
everything in this world is temporary, so why be jealous? Why covet what
someone else has?

The Gemara Avoda Zara 3a-b states that in the future the nations of the world will be tested with the mitzvah of Succot. The nations are easily inflamed, and much of what they accomplish is triggered by jealousy. So G-d burns the sun
on them as if it is the height of summer – the sun, which to us appears to be
the most permanent fixture of the physical world. And they kick their Succot on
the way out, as if to say, the only reality is the material world, of
substance, and mergers and acquisitions – so why waste time and energy on
anything that is temporary and cannot stoke our competitive juices like the
Succa?

If that regression will happen in the future, as the Gemara says, the good news is that that future is already here. And it is fostered by a heavy-handed government that speaks of charity and generosity as disguises for outright theft. Trillions of dollars spent in a war on poverty has created more poverty – not less. The poverty rate has increased since the war on poverty began, as well as fostered a cycle of multi-generational welfare dependency and a surfeit of broken homes.
For Jews, we perceive the material as temporary and tangential to life, and
look to G-d as the only true source of our rights and values.     To us, life is blissful when, as in the time of King Shlomo, “Yehuda and Yisrael dwelled in security, each person beneath his vine and his fig tree”(I Melachim 5:5) – each person content, satisfied and comfortable with himself and his neighbors, free of the burdens of jealousy and greed.

It is hard for a thinking Jew to generate much sympathy for the “demonize the rich” populism, for a number of reasons, but especially because the Torah seems to like the rich (the Torah likes the poor too). It is one of the defining, oft-repeated themes of Avraham’s life – and maybe a great nisayon as well. The Torah sees fit to emphasize that Avraham does not only leave Charan with his wife and nephew, but also “with all the wealth they had amassed.” And he does well in Egypt – “laden, very heavy, with cattle, silver and gold,” Strange words – kaved me’od, not that he was wealthy, ashir, but kaved, heavy. Wealth can be a burden as well.

And Avraham rejects the gifts of the king of Sodom, so “you shouldn’t say, ‘I made Avraham rich.’” And the Torah underscores that both Yitzchak and Yaakov (and Moshe) were wealthy, all of which gave them credibility with their contemporaries. In the most far-reaching comment, Avraham is told that his descendants would be enslaved in a land not theirs for 400 years, “after which they will leave with great wealth.” But why is this important ? And why does the Torah speak of wealth of our ancestors again and again?

Avraham’s wealth was purposeful. It was designed to bring him respect from his peers, and enable him to better promote his divine message. He was completely focused on advancing Hashem’s agenda, and on realizing spiritual goals. Why should that be demonized? We need not – and should not – succumb to materialistic excess. It is unnecessary, beneath our dignity, and the result of environmental influences that we should strive to keep out of our lives. We know how to live – but we also know how to use our money to build Torah and shuls and yeshivot and mikvaot. We know how to help the indigent, and we know how to support Israel.

Wealth is a challenge but it need not be a curse, or somehow ignominious as today’s malcontents would want us to believe. Wealth is a “blessing from Hashem” (Mishlei 10:22), so it is to be used judiciously, wisely and productively. We don’t always succeed, but we do succeed much more than people tend to think. Wealth is therefore a great test, and our use of our bounty is usually a very keen indicator of our moral aspirations and the state of our character. Prioritizing Torah education and the performance of Mitzvot is obviously a more effective and rewarding use of our bounty than is the relentless pursuit of more stuff – houses, cars, fancy gadgets and clothing, and extravagant affairs.

That is why none of the complaints and antics of these American protesters resonate with me. They choose not to see the hard work, the sacrifices, the risks and even the re-distribution wrought by the wealthy consumer (a person who buys a private jet supports a number of people who built that private jet). All they see is mass consumption, all they see is materialistic excess – and they just want it for themselves, without having to work for it. They should learn the lesson of Succot, and we should strive to embody the values and vision of the Avot.

If we choose poorly, then wealth can corrupt us as well, and we can go down the path of Lot, Avraham’s neer-do-well nephew, who was literally destroyed by his worldly ambitions. But if we choose more wisely, then the legacy of the Avot is ours, and our example to the rest of society as to the divine values of personal
responsibility, individual morality, the appropriate utilization of resources
and generosity can be profound. It was for that reason that G-d chose Avraham,
and blessed his offspring with that eternal mandate to the nations of the
world.

4 Comments

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