Author Archives: Rabbi

The Changing World

The Great Flood is re-visited annually in the Torah reading, and it is often helpful to return to basics and ask a simple question: why did all of mankind (except Noah and family) have to die? G-d promises the “end of all flesh” because of their wickedness, corruption and violence, but why? If a parent has five children, and four misbehave persistently and grievously, we don’t take the four out back and shoot them, and rebuild through the fifth!  So why didn’t G-d talk to that generation, negotiate with them, dialogue with them – in our parlance, and try to solve the world’s problems without violence – instead of drowning away all His disappointments, so to speak?  The answer reveals as much about our world as it does about theirs.

The story’s hero, of course, is the righteous Noah, but who are the villains? Everybody else? Eventually, yes, but the Torah focuses on two groups that led everyone down the primrose path to destruction. One was called the “Bane Healthy” – literally, the sons of G-d or the sons of the powerful, and they were influenced by the “Nefilim” – literally, the fallen ones, and together the devastated the world. But who were these two groups, and from where did the fallen ones fall?

Finally, G-d ultimately concluded that He must destroy them, because “I have reconsidered having made them.” But how does G-d reconsider anything? What happened that G-d, so to speak, did not anticipate?

There were two major changes that occurred after the flood that explain the “reconsideration” – and both for the identical reason. G-d created man as a being with free will, and with the scales of free choice evenly balanced. Adam stumbled, to be sure, but then man was placed in an environment where he could indulge his soul and pursue spiritual delights for centuries on end. He could sow once and have enough food to last forty years; he was living for 700-800-900 years in perfect health (without fear that politicians – income re-distributionists – would take away his Medicare advantage or otherwise bankrupt Social Security). Every need was taken care of – man had every possible opportunity to nurture the divine image within him – the tzelem elokim.

But it was too much – man had too much luxury and leisure, temptation was too great, and G-d’s moral strictures were perceived as both elective and ephemeral. It did not have to be like that – Noah was proof of that. But after the flood, the power of the instinctual forces were greatly diminished: the land was never again as fertile, and man would have to work, and work, hard, to earn a living; the change of seasons – cold and heat, summer and winter – were all challenges that man had to overcome in order to survive – and survive he would but for dramatically reduced life spans – from the high hundreds to the low hundreds, and then, for most, to less than 100 years. Longevity and leisure were inducements to sin. Nature itself changed – but man could not have survived the turbulence that accompanied the dramatic change of nature – effectively, a “new” creation – so it was a divine act of kindness that G-d took mankind at once in the flood. The global environment posed too difficult an obstacle for man to overcome – except for Noah, and a system that is adhered too by only one person cannot long endure.

And there was another great stumbling block – the Nefilim. Who were these fallen ones? Perhaps the following is plausible: there are, of course, credible accounts of what is called pre-historic man (man pre-Adam), which should not pose any problem to Torah Jews. The Ramban indicates that the unique creation of Adam was that he was a nefesh chaya, infused with a soul, with the divine image, that rendered him an ish acher, a different type of “man, in implied contrast to other beings that possessed a similar form to his – but were not created in G-d’s image. (Thus Chava could eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and give her husband to eat as well, Rashi says, for “fear that she would die and leave Adam to marry someone else.” But who else – the shidduch pool was very small ? And the answer would be one of these human-like creatures that looked the same, but was not endowed with a soul, with a tzelem elokim, and lacked any moral sensibility at all.

These were the Nefilim, “fallen ones” because they had never risen to Adam’s level – but they successfully corrupted the “Bnei Elohim,” the children of G-d, i.e., the descendants of Adam, and for the most obvious reason: a society cannot endure if it has different rules for different people, if the law doesn’t apply equally, if one group (Adam’s descendants) lives with moral restraint and another (the Nefilim) with immoral abandon.

G-d “reconsidered” the ground rules of creation, in the sense that the global environment and  man’s social environment were hopelessly corrupted. Man’s “free choice” was mostly incapable of living in luxury and making virtuous choices, and it was untenable, in a sense, to ask beings with free choice and consequences for those choices to live in harmony with beings without free choice and no consequences for those choices. No one likes double standards – and a society that is founded on it cannot long sustain itself.

That is what Roman Polanski has just learned, to his utter surprise, and to the chagrin of the other inhabitants of his amoral Hollywood universe – civilized society does have rules – but that is what Jews live with constantly. And it makes life unpleasant.

What is the Goldstone Report? Rather than admit that Jews have a right to defend themselves, the world would rather completely transform the rules of war – essentially arguing that an attacked party cannot respond if civilians might be harmed (a most novel, unprecedented and bizarre interpretation – and one that no nation has any intention of ever applying elsewhere but to Israel. How obscene is it that Russia, that killed thousand of civilians in Chechnya, and Sudan, that has killed millions of civilians in Darfur, sit in judgment of Israel, and with a straight face, and without a hint of irony or shame. Mind-boggling.

It is hard to live in such a world – hard to maintain any aspirations for moral goodness in such a world. If Israel is to be criticized anyway even though it tried to avoid any civilian casualties, why bother making the effort? Do what all other nations do. It is hard to justify the continued existence of such a world. But Noah was spared, and in a sense, so are we, in generation after generation, century after century, in society after society across the globe, so we can continue to point out – often to the remnants of the amoral Nefilim who surround us – what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral, what is the word of G-d and what is the falsification of the word of G-d.

That remains our mission, in this irrevocably hostile world, as Isaiah prophesied, to be “a witness to the nations and a commander to their regimes,” so that eventually they will join us to bring glory to our Creator.

Premature Congratulation

At almost every Jewish wedding I have attended (40-50 annually), immediately after the first dance, a chorus, often led by the (occasionally off-key) newlywed husband, serenades the new wife with a rousing rendition of Eishet Chayil, the paean to the Jewish woman, wife and mother found in Proverbs, Chapter 31. And I usually think to myself: “Really ? ‘A woman of valor’ ? Already ? Shouldn’t the husband at least wait until she cooks a meal, or performs some other wifely function, or at least he gets to know her a little better – before pronouncing her in front of hundreds of people an “eishet chayil” ? It seems just a tad premature, an exercise in wishful thinking.

Well, perhaps not. President Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace for his work on behalf of…his diplomatic initiative in…for bringing peace to… I am not quite sure. It is quite a mystery. Certainly, he has made some nice speeches, and has articulated a vision – albeit unrealistic, even slightly preposterous – of world disarmament, universal peace, and friendship among all nations (he is a little light on the freedom and democracy talk), but shouldn’t a prize carry the expectation of some accomplishment in the field in question ? Doesn’t the baseball MVP actually have to play the game ?

Usually, one would not bestow a prestigious art award on someone who has a fine canvas and a variety of paints but has not yet painted anything, nor would we declare a child who has just learned aleph-bet a “Gaon.” It is also appropriate – and healthier – to wait until bananas actually turn yellow before consuming them. This must be different.

Most other Peace awardees have actually achieved something in the area of peace and diplomacy, rather than merely spoken about the subject. Contrast Obama with the only two other American presidents to win the Peace Prize while still in office: Theodore Roosevelt (1906, for negotiating the end to the Russo-Japanese War of 1905) and Woodrow Wilson (1919, for his Fourteen Points, and his creation of the League of Nations at the Versailles Peace Conference at the conclusion of World War I. President Obama take note: Congress wasn’t as impressed, and refused to ratify America’s participation in the League).

Say what you will, but those were accomplishments. Ditto most of the other honorees, even though some had a debatable connection to “peace” (Al Gore, in 2006, for sounding a shrill, unending alarm on global warming ?). Even Jimmy Carter (2002), who was associated with a host of disreputable causes, at least did something. Is there an anticipatory award, a motivational award ? None that I am aware of.

Certainly, the Nobel Peace Prize has made some dubious choices. The trio of Rabin, Peres and Arafat (!) won the 1994 award, just in time for Arafat to escalate his terror war against Israel that lasts until today. But at least they had an impressive signing ceremony. This ? I must be missing something.

Some of it is anti-Bush (as in Cater and Gore), some of it is reflexive European satisfaction at Obama’s constant apologizing for America’s perceived sins, some of it might be the hope that Obama follows through on his rhetoric, and some of it might be a preemptive strike to induce Obama not to send more troops to Afghanistan, not to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and to abandon Iraq prematurely. Or perhaps, with the world at war in so many places, there were no other choices that were meaningful – like there were none from 1939-1943, and so no award was given then. Unlike now. But a new standard has been set: maybe next year Ahmadinejad will win the Nobel Peace Prize for not using his nuclear weapons anywhere. The bar has been set very low.

The real question is: where can Obama go from here ? He might be peaking too soon. Now might be the time for his diehard supporters to seek a repeal of the 22nd Amendment that currently limits a president to only two terms and therefore was clearly racist in intent (it preceded the civil rights movement by more than ten years.). Many feel he is the Messiah – he himself jokes about it – so his only promotion is to the deity. Of course, he can win the NBA Most Valuable Player Award this year, because he talks such a good game. His failure to join a team is a technicality. The world loves him, far more than the American people.

Fortunately, the Nobel people have the capacity to honor him for years into the future. Extrapolating from today’s award, it is clear that Obama should win the 2010 Nobel Prize for Literature (he has written two fine books – about himself, but fine books); the 2011 Nobel Prize in Medicine (for his achievements in the field of health care, whether or not his reforms pass); the 2012 Nobel Prize for Science for successfully shifting the alarm from “global warming” to “climate change” (which I have actually experienced in my Succa from the beginning of the holiday until today); and, of course, the 2013 Nobel Prize in Economics for his most novel theories: health care for all while reducing costs, jobs for all while reducing the deficit, spending money that one does not have as a sign of compassion, and – the most classic – demonstrating how a government takeover of the economy brought prosperity to America and the world.

And a permanent, annual award for bringing hope and change to mankind. Congratulations !

Olympian Failure

I was stunned – STUNNED – when Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympics was rejected apparently with prejudice and contempt – in the first round of voting, no less. And all this in utter disregard of the fact that President and Mrs. Obama had flown all the way to Copenhagen to make this personal appeal.

My assumption was that the choice of Chicago was already a done deal (which was fine with me) and that Obama only went to bask in the glow of this great “victory” for his new, internationalist foreign policy. I assumed that, Chicago style, the money under the table had already exchanged hands and that the votes had been counted. Why else risk the prestige of the American president ?

Now, originally I did not think that such a trip was becoming the American president, notwithstanding that the heads of government of Brazil, Spain and Japan did appear. And that was the point – the United States is not those these middling countries, and its president is not just another leader, primus inter pares (first among many). He is the leader of the free world, the world’s most powerful nation, and the leader who is expected to set the tone and direction of international affairs. So to travel there and make a speech – about himself, mainly – and then to lose ignominiously in the first round was a stinging rebuke to Obama personally and to the United States. And even if he went to satisfy a debt to his Chicago political cronies who stood to make a mini-fortune on these games, the defeat reinforces one unsettling notion about the stagecraft (and statecraft) of this White House: it is amateurish.

Granting that Obama took office with the least experience of any modern president, it is still the responsibility of the White House staff to put the president in positions that enhance his personal – and our national – prestige, rather than dissipate it. I may not care for Obama’s policies, but when the American President can be so easily trifled with – dismissed, as if he were the Prime Minister of, say, Spain – then the United States is hurt. And that is what is happening across the globe. Obama packs no punches, carries no weight, and has to be chided even by… France (!) for a lack of toughness.

Certainly, Netanyahu was able to reject Obama’s demand for a settlement freeze by just saying “no” (as advised in this space several months ago) without any consequences, and to his credit. That is good for Israel. What is bad for Israel – and the free world – is when Obama’s efforts are also summarily rejected by Iran, North Korea, Russia and the list goes on. There is a lack of gravitas, and experience, that might turn out to be frightening. Nations toy with him; he fires a volley of words at them, and they respond – occasionally – with pleasing words to him, that buys time but does not change behavior. That is more than naiveté; that is amateur hour in prime time.

Witness as well this week’s White House visit of dozens of doctors in support of Obama’s health coverage proposals. It is fine for him to rally support – but to dress them all in white coats, as if they were coming straight from their offices ? And for the White House to provide white coats to those who didn’t bring them ? Such a display – hokey beyond description – is a childish and heavy-handed attempt at a photo op and unworthy of an American president.

Every president uses photo ops to reinforce his image or policy goals. But do it with class, with dignity, and with more than five seconds’ of thought. Think Mike Deaver, Dick Morris or Karl Rove, and – like them or not – they knew how to stage-manage a presidency. Amateur hour can have grave consequences, far beyond the joy of watching pole-vaulters and marathon runners alongside Lake Michigan.

The Great American Race…Card

Now we are hectored that opposition to Barack Obama’s policies, and him personally, is fueled “largely,” or “substantially,” by racism. That is to say, the millions of Americans (now, a slight majority according to polls) who oppose a government takeover of the health coverage industry are motivated by hostility to President Obama’s black skin color. What do we make of this ?

At first blush, since Obama is, of course, only half-black, critics should have alleged that only “half” the opposition is motivated by racism. Beyond that, it is undeniable that some people vehemently oppose the President because he is black, just like some (probably more) people opposed President Bush because he was an born-again Christian. Bigots endure, and they cannot be legislated out of existence. But the notion that those who oppose Obama do so because of his skin color is simply not credible, and is a shameless attempt to divert attention from his policies themselves – that have aroused and antagonized mainstream America – and to put opponents of those policies on the moral defensive. It is a diversionary tactic, to change the topic of discussion away from the merits or demerits of the arguments themselves and onto the moral caliber of the opponents. And that is a historic and sad decline in the annals of American political discourse.

If truth be told, Obama was elected because he was black, not in spite of his color. Anyone who doubts the reasonableness of this proposition needs to answer a simple question: can you name any other United States senator, from the class of 2004, who even remotely would have been considered presidential material ? Or, another: can you even name another member of the senatorial class of 2004 ? Answer: the only other first-term Democrat elected was Ken Salazar of Colorado, who, like Obama served for just four years and is now Secretary of the Interior, and who likely will never be heard from again.

Obama had the thinnest resume of any presidential candidate in recent times, much less an elected president – just several years as a state senator. But the people elected him by a small majority – 52-47%. How did that happen, and what role did his race play ? A substantial one.

Obama’s status as the first serious African-American candidate galvanized black and minority support in crucial Democratic (especially heavily urbanized) states, and doomed the candidacy (or coronation) of Hillary Clinton. His strongly liberal politics and the novelty of his candidacy mobilized many others. His presentation as a “non-threatening black” (as opposed to a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton) who – having a white mother and grandmother – “transcended” race, and the explicit assertions of his campaign that his election could “heal America’s racial wounds,” “atone for America’s racist past,” and even put the “race issue” behind us once and for all appeased a majority of voters – who were, in any event, less than enamored with the Republican nominees.

The race card was played sporadically – but by the Obama campaign, and each time it encountered a rocky situation. It essentially makes Obama off-limits to any criticism – personal or political – stifles debate, and hinders the free exchange of ideas and opinions. By their reckoning – especially, and most ironically, by a Jew-hater like Jimmy Carter – any critic is suspect, and therefore any criticism need not be scrutinized on its merits.

As a shield, the race card is a wonderful tool. Consider: in today’s Wall Street Journal, a fine book review (of Norman Podhoretz’ “Why are Jews Liberals?’) begins: “In a conference call with more than 1,000 rabbis before Rosh Hashanah, President Barack Obama encouraged the religious leaders to use their sermons on the Jewish New Year to promote health-care reform. It is more than ironic that liberal Jews, who call for a complete separation of church and state, saw nothing wrong with the president scripting their sermons.”

While invited, I declined to participate in this monologue, orchestrated by the liberal Jewish groups. (I could not think of even one Orthodox rabbi who would be so bereft of a Torah message that he would actually preach about health-care on Rosh Hashana.) But, imagine for a moment, if President Bush had attempted a similar monologue – on Iraq policy, on social security privatization, on responding to terror. He would have been lambasted for overstepping the proper boundaries of American political life. Obama, on the other hand, has immunized himself from such criticisms – and from liberal Jews, even from condemnation over his wobbling support for Israel.

So it is fair to say that Obama would not have been elected had he not been black, and his candidacy benefited from the perfect storm of flawed Democratic challengers and weak Republican opponents. But now his presidency must stand on its own, and defend its policies on their merits. That might be a new experience for him and his acolytes, but it is indispensable to a fair public discourse.

Will there be a backlash against Obama because of the playing of the race card ? Certainly. But I expect a counter-backlash: subtle but clear references, come 2012, that President Obama’s re-election is a referendum on the state of race in America today. You vote for him ? You are a progressive denizen of the 21st century. You vote against him?  You might as well change your name to Jim Crow.

Complaining that opposition to you is only now racist after those same people elected is a bit hollow, and sounds like whining. The only way for Obama to overcome this is for him to state publicly and unequivocally that he respects his opponent’s positions but disagrees with them, and part of that respect is his personal repudiation that any of the mainstream opposition to his policies is race-based. Renounce racism as a factor and as a tactic.

Will he do that ? The chances are slightly less than the chance that I will eat a cheeseburger on Yom Kippur.