Author Archives: Rabbi

      Volodymyr Zelensky is an inspirational and courageous figure. His single-minded focus on his country’s survival at great personal risk reveals him to be a Ukrainian patriot, even as his knowledge of the Holocaust is a little deficient. And as a Jew, he could come to Israel tomorrow and declare himself an Israeli citizen. Not only Zelensky himself but his Gentile wife and baptized children could also become Israeli citizens tomorrow. It is not that they would – but they could.

      Similarly, Agata Kornhauser-Duda is the first lady of Poland, married to Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, a practicing Catholic. She too could arrive in Israel tomorrow and declare herself to be an Israeli citizen, along with her husband, parents and daughter, because her paternal grandfather was a Jew. Her Gentile parents could come as well.

       There are fine people whose connection to Judaism is that they carry within them drops of Jewish blood, do not at all identify with Israel or the Jewish people, and yet, according to the Law of Return, are eligible for Israeli citizenship as Jews.

      That, in a word, is insane.

      Compounding the insanity is the havoc this clause has knowingly caused to Israel’s Jewish character. We would not be arguing over diluting the traditional standards for conversion – mocking halacha in the process – if we were not embracing hundreds of thousands of halachic Gentiles who bear but a tangential connection to the Jewish people. And with the influx of Ukrainian refugees – not the Gentile refugees who are looking for a temporary refuge but those refugees of Jewish descent that are similarly claiming Israeli citizenship – we are dealing with the existing problem by exacerbating it. Undoubtedly, we could find tens of millions of people across the globe that have Jewish ancestry, even a Jewish grandparent. And what will be of Israel, the only Jewish state?

       Certainly, part of the campaign to secularize Israel, reform conversion laws, and relax public Shabbat restrictions on transportation, commerce and entertainment, is a consequence of the arrival in Israel of hundreds of thousands of halachic Gentiles. While waving the magic wand of conversion over them – immersing them in a mikveh without requiring acceptance of mitzvot – sounds attractive to some, it doesn’t solve the problem of secularization. (Will we soon see Ukrainian refugees of Jewish descent taken from the airport straight to a mikveh – and then to their hotels?) The Jewish character of Israel will be further adulterated.

       Consider: about twenty minutes from my home is a Christian church that caters to the immigrant population that arrived in the 1990’s and 2000’s. I hesitate to name the church because I do not want to call attention to it in any way. Their membership has grown from dozens of families in the early 1990’s to many hundreds. They have built a new building. They have in the last decade or so added branches in Rishon Letzion and Ashkelon. They conduct their services on Shabbat (both as Israel’s official day of rest and probably so as not to draw too much attention to themselves) and have simultaneous translation of the services into Russian, English, Yiddish and Romanian. The church also engages in social welfare work, helping their immigrant families find homes, jobs, education, etc.

     It is indisputable that most of their families came here as beneficiaries of the Law of Return, as the offspring of Jews. It is equally indisputable that they are practicing Christians who might even allow themselves to be dunked in a mikveh if there were tangible benefits to being a recognized Jew in the land of Israel. But that is also insane. What interest of the Jewish people is advanced by pretending that Gentiles are quasi-Jews, “traditional” but not religious?

      It is long past time to amend the Law of Return to conform to sanity and promote the true interests of the Jewish people dwelling in Zion. While most of the fireworks in the past fifty years have centered on the conversion clause – accepting as citizens Jews who have “converted,” even if not according to halacha – this has applied to relatively few people, even as a change would infuriate the non-Orthodox movements in America. But the clause that vests the rights of a Jew in the State of Israel “to the grandchild of a Jew” and “the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew” has caused more spiritual harm and created more havoc and social disunity than did the conversion clause. It was adopted at the same time as the conversion loophole (1970) but somehow flew under the radar.

     To be sure, the text of the law disqualifies anyone “who is not a member of another religion,” but aside from celebrated cases (like Brother Daniel) who would really know? Who investigates? Are the current group of refugees of Jewish descent interrogated as to whether or not they practice Orthodox Christianity? The number of Russian Orthodox churches in Israel alone would indicate that a large number of olim from the great wave of Aliya did not renounce their prior faith but brought it with them to Israel. It must be underscored that this is not meant to exclude any Jew with a Jewish mother regardless of his or her level of observance. Nor is it a comment on the propriety of temporarily admitting other Ukrainians as refugees.

     There are always those who will contend that we should grant Israeli citizenship to descendants of one Jewish grandfather because that was Hitler’s criterion for determining Jewish status for his malignant ends. But Hitler, may his name be blotted out, was a genocidal murderer. He was not a posek. He doesn’t decide questions of Jewish law – not about Shabbat, Kashrut, conversion or Jewish status. And to allow him that privilege is to award him a posthumous victory over the Torah.

     We must return to sanity. Approximately one-quarter of Israeli citizens today are not Jewish and most do not want to be. What is the tipping point at which we realize that Israel is only nominally a Jewish state – when one-third are not Jewish? For when we reach one-half, it will not be a Jewish state at all, and this without being conquered by any hostile country.

      The Law of Return is one of the crown jewels of the State of Israel. It is a declaration that no Jew in the world is homeless and that every Jew has a place and can automatically become a citizen in the land of Israel. It is a bulwark against the persecution of Jews and it is an invitation to all Jews to come home and build a Jewish state. It is as fundamental to Israel’s self-definition as is Israel’s Declaration of Independence. But just like, as US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson once stated, “the constitution is not a suicide pact” but must be interpreted “with a little practical wisdom,” so too the Law of Return is not a suicide pact and should not be interpreted as such.

       So it is high time that the Law of Return applied to Jews, and only Jews. For those remarkable people of Jewish descent – whether they had a Jewish grandfather, or are descendants of Conversos, or were otherwise part of a hidden community – who want to come to Israel and live full Jewish lives, the road to sincere conversion is open and welcoming. If it isn’t, then we should make it open and welcoming so that we may gather in all our exiles and bring closer the redemption.

   

     If platitudes were weapons, Ukraine would by now be advancing on Moscow.

     Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, unprovoked except by paranoia, has been devastating and deadly for Ukrainians and Russians but has also exposed the moral weakness of the West. Ukraine has been overrun by clichés – Western expressions of sympathy, empathy, compassion, commiseration, concern, condolences, solidarity, respect, admiration, and warmth. Ukrainians have been the focus of an infinite number of prayers and the beneficiaries of the newest Western sign of support – hashtags. In place of weapons they have received words, and even with weapons now pouring in to Ukraine, it seems evident that this is being done to assuage Western consciences more than to change the strategic equation or enable Ukraine to survive.

      With the West having from the beginning ruled out the use of force, and currently even rejecting repeated pleas for the creation of a no-fly zone, the carnage in Ukraine continues unabated. Its ultimate conclusion rests in the hands of one unpredictable Russian man who can either look for a settlement that preserves some of his interests or carry on with an invasion that will result in the deaths of tens of thousands and the destruction of a country. If Russia prevails, it is hard to conceive of a more Pyrrhic victory. If Putin assumed that Ukraine did not constitute a legitimate nation, Ukraine’s spirited defense of its territory and people proves otherwise and will make for one very unpleasant occupation.

     It is hard to say that war could have been avoided. I was in the camp of those who believed that Putin would not invade but would succeed in gaining most of his strategic objectives without the need for an invasion. After all, prior territorial seizures in Ukraine were tacitly accepted by the West with strong words but little else. The immediate response to the invasion – sanctions (which for decades now have not deterred Cuba, North Korea or Iran from seeking their strategic aims) – was extremely unlikely to deter Russia which, after all, withstood the 872 day Nazi siege of Leningrad that claimed one million Russian lives. Projecting Western notions of morality or politics onto Putin – he’s down in the polls, he’s losing popularity, he doesn’t care about the material welfare of his people – was always fanciful, and irrelevant in any dictatorship whose survival depends not on popularity but on raw power

     Putin was certainly emboldened by the fecklessness of Western leadership – a feeble American president, a Europe dependent on Russian energy, and a materialistic, flaccid West tired of war and even tired of paying for defense. When you continually announce ahead of time what you will not do, what troops or weapons you will not send, and even wink at acquiescing to a “minor incursion,” you have essentially invited aggression. Then again, this war was unnecessary, the product of Putin’s paranoia that somehow, for some inexplicable reason, NATO wishes to invade Russia and Putin’s job is to prevent that. But why would NATO – which has never invaded anything – want to invade Russia? It is a concise application of the Talmudic principle (Kiddushin 70a) that “He who disqualifies others…does so with his own flaws.” A revanchist aggressor sees everyone around him as a revanchist aggressor as well.

     And what Putin also failed to anticipate was the resolute courage of President Zelensky, a stark contrast in vigor and values to most Western leaders for whom courage usually consists of a snarky tweet against a universally accepted and convenient target. Zelensky’s fearlessness is extraordinary in modern times, especially given the stakes and his options.

     But what of the West – and what of Israel and the Jewish people? Focusing on the humanitarian crisis is an appropriate response but it is post facto and serves to deflect from the main problem. To be sure, it is complicated. It was Lord Palmerston, the 19^th century British Prime Minister, who declared with great perspicacity that nations “have no permanent alliances, only permanent interests.” And each country responds according to those interests. That the West (not to mention Russia) guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in the Budapest Agreement when Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal in 1994 is as relevant as was Eisenhower’s 1957 guarantee to maintain Israel’s freedom of passage through the Straits of Tiran (a guarantee forgotten a decade later and provoked the Six Day War). The Western focus on saving refugees – while pursuing policies that do nothing to inhibit the creation of more refugees – is benevolent but hollow. Standing by while civilians are being massacred, and sufficing with unleashing a torrent of verbal condemnations, makes the bystanders feel better about themselves but does little to help the victims. The purveyors of platitudes are talking to themselves far more than they are talking to the aggressor. Raising funds for refugees is noble but preventing the creation of more refugees is even nobler.

     Israel’s role is certainly, and mindbogglingly, complex. On the one hand, the moral outrage cries out for action, not just words. On the other hand, Israel has pursued good relations with Russia for over a decade now, as a counterforce to US vacillations and the encroachment of Iran. It is not an alliance but the occasional convergence of interests. Russia allegedly quashed an Obama-proposed UN Security Council resolution endorsing the creation of a Palestinian state. Ukraine, even under Zelensky, has not once voted in support of Israel at the UN. There is also a sizable Jewish community in Russia that is protected but still vulnerable. To condemn Russia outright jeopardizes Israel’s interests. To ignore wanton attacks on civilians jeopardizes Israel’s moral posture. It is realpolitik at its most agonizing.

     And yet.  Doing the right thing always entails some risk; otherwise it would be simple and unremarkable. In six weeks, when Jews commemorate Yom Hashoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day) one of the persistent themes we enunciate is how the world stood by and did nothing, how they heard the cries of the victims and were silent. Well, yes, that is so because the world usually stands by and does nothing. The “world” is amoral; it is the responsibility of the human beings who inhabit that world to infuse it with morality. When those human beings make their calculations, and struggle over the complexities, and weigh their interests and their values on opposite sides of the scale when confronted with unfolding atrocities, we easily discern how evil can proliferate. During the Holocaust, each nation – and each individual – also wrestled with competing interests and values and the results were painfully evident.

     There are three possible responses to evil: public protests against the crimes, apathy in the face of human suffering or even hostility to the victims. But when all three responses eventuate in passivity and inaction, the protests are not much more than virtue-signaling, and are not much more edifying than the latter two reactions. We don’t have much to complain about if our reactions are similar to the reactions of others. And it should make us even more awestruck by the actions of the Righteous Gentiles who risked their lives to shelter Jews. That has never been the norm of human behavior.

     What has become the norm is that after every atrocity, someone will piously intone “never again,” and then someone else will piously intone “never again” after the next atrocity, and so on. It is certainly better than indifference. How much better? That is a question each person has to answer. It would seem that a no-fly zone is the least the West should do at this point. There is a slight risk of a nuclear exchange (Putin is not suicidal), but the alternative is to give nuclear powers carte blanche to indulge in mischief around the world. This is a notion that Russia is testing, and which Iran is watching carefully. Israel should take note as well.

The incisive question that Eliyahu Hanavi asked his contemporaries (Melachim I 18:21) reverberates in almost every generation in one form or another. “How long will you dance between two opinions? If Hashem is G-d, then follow Him. But if Baal, follow Him. And the people answered him saying, it is good.” But of course, they didn’t answer Eliyahu’s question, which was his whole point in raising it. 

Israeli society has been divided since its origins on one such question which, when elided, places us on both sides of the fence. Is Israel intended to be a Jewish state or a state of Jews? Israel’s scroll of independence, interestingly enough, comes down squarely on the side of a Jewish state (“we are thus proclaiming the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel, the State of Israel”).  But the debate rages on, sometimes vehemently and sometimes subtly, and often both simultaneously. 

A state of Jews has no pretense to being based on the religion of the Jewish people. Its value is primarily as a haven for Jews from persecution, surely nothing to dismiss given our bloody history. It tries to embrace the history and culture of the Jewish people, partly to buttress its claim to the land of Israel and partly to serve as a unifying element in a country comprised of immigrants from more than a hundred countries. 

In that state of Jews, the Torah is something to be honored in simplistic, ill-defined manner, Halacha is to play no role in public affairs or in the public lives of its citizens and “Jewish” as an adjective connoting adherence to a divinely ordained set of values, principles and deeds is missing and sometimes suppressed. But let’s face it openly: Judaism without Mitzvot is, more or less, Christianity without its founder. Almost every “Jewish value” articulated by those who profess them but eschew the performance of Mitzvot is essentially indistinguishable from Christianity and most of the world’s religions. So why then is a state of Jews necessary?

The answer we are always given is that otherwise the Jewish people’s existence is in danger. That itself ignores the million dollar question that those who believe in a state of Jews never answer: why is important that Jews survive, especially if we are not going to observe the Torah, and certainly if we have no interest or intention of fashioning a polity based on the laws and values of the Torah? What would the world be missing if there were no longer any Jews? I have heard this question answered in ways that don’t appeal to me. “Look at what we have brought to the world – Waze and the camera pill, technological wizardry and medical innovation, a respect for human rights and the dignity of all mankind.” That sounds great – but cannot Gentiles produce the same creativity? Do not the religions of the world also endorse human rights and dignity? They do indeed, with occasional failures, but those same failures are also attributed by our adversaries, some of them Jews, to Israel.  

 The founders tried to have it both ways. They were focused – rightfully so – in creating an Israel that would be a land of refuge for survivors of the Holocaust, persecuted Jews in Arab lands, and for any Jew who would want to return to his or her ancestral homeland. But they were also mindful of the need to stamp this state of Jews with “Jewishness.” Hence the promulgation of the status quo agreement that ensured the public observance of Shabbat, Kashrut in all public institutions including the military, and Rabbinic authority over personal status issues such as marriage, divorce, and conversion. These were concessions, even limitations on personal liberty that would in other contexts encroach on Western, democratic norms, all so that the state of Jews would exist within a Jewish infrastructure. 

There was something for advocates on each side of the fence. 

Eliyahu’s question speaks directly to us. “How long will you dance on both sides of the fence?” Thus, the status quo has become steadily enfeebled over the decades, and with the proposed reforms Israel’s pretensions to be a “Jewish state” are teetering on the brink of disappearance. That it is being orchestrated by people who wear Kipot on their heads is disappointing but unsurprising. Years ago I addressed the phenomenon of the Orthoprax, Jews who observe Halacha to their heart’s content (but no more than that) and yet are secular-leaning in their values and world view. Many such Jews – and this is a general comment, not a specific reference to anyone in particular – prefer the state of Jews to the Jewish state, notwithstanding its inherent contradictions. Typical of this mindset is the repeated notion that service in the IDF, worthy as it is, somehow confers Jewish status on those soldiers. That is a non sequitur masquerading as a cogent argument. The United States is a predominantly Christian country, but military service does not make one an honorary Christian. But advocates here see it differently, reflecting their original error conflating Israeli identity with Jewish identity. That error is only possible, and is exacerbated, by proponents of Israel as a state of Jews and not a Jewish state. 

An Israel that so waters down Jewish identity that it would confer Jewish status on Gentiles with Jewish blood but no interest in Mitzvot except in the flimsiest sense is a state of Jews and not a Jewish state. An Israel that would officially repudiate Shabbat by opening malls and commerce and providing public transportation on Shabbat is a state of Jews and not a Jewish state. An Israel that would treat its rabbis as ceremonial functionaries whose opinions on public issues are not sought, and when proferred are ignored, is a state of Jews and not a Jewish state. An Israel that would officially desecrate its holy places (such as the Kotel) by allowing egalitarian prayer in defiance of all religious norms is a state of Jews and not a Jewish state. Indeed, the latter is the most telling example although by no means the most significant. In a state of Jews, the Kotel has symbolic, historic and cultural value – but no more; in a Jewish state, the Kotel and the Temple Mount are places of holiness, where the divine presence rests, where the past, present and future of the Jewish people come together. 

What is a Jewish state? A state in which the values, ideals and practices of the Torah are realized in the public sphere and encouraged (though not coerced) in the private sphere. It is a state in which religious leaders share the Torah’s wisdom on all issues of the day and are not limited to ritual matters. (In this regard we are witnessing a dual failure. On one hand, the kippa-wearing leadership is doing more to undermine Israel’s status as a Jewish state, and weaken its connection to Torah, than secular advocates ever anticipated in their wildest fantasies. On the other hand, the Haredi leadership has locked itself into a parochial world in which its focus is on securing the interests of their bloc rather than broaden their base to include all Jews. Neither, at this point, is truly representative of a Jewish state. The proof of this is the primary argument used by the reformers to justify their reforms: the Haredim are against them, therefore they must be good. They are wrong – plenty of non-Haredi religious Jews are against them – but they are now inextricably bound to their ideology, if not to their ministries and seats.)

A Jewish state prioritizes the needs of Jews and the settlement of the land of Israel, and feels no need to apologize for that emphasis. A Jewish state seeks to defend Jews wherever they live and doesn’t aver that living in certain parts of the land – even Yerushalayim – is a provocation.  A Jewish state honors the concept of family as we have always known it and extols the roles and virtues of mother and father, son and daughter, rather than redefine them into irrelevance and ignominy. Leaders of a Jewish state speak with pride about the Torah and Mitzvot, about Jewish history and destiny, and about the accomplishments of the generations that paved the way for redemption after emerging from the pit of destruction. They are mindful at all times of the prophetic vision fulfilled before our eyes – and that Israel as haven is simply part of the progression to Israel as the Jewish state envisioned by the Torah. A Jewish state has eschatological significance; a state of Jews could as well but does not necessarily have to advance that objective. 

There is one more troubling element to Israel as the state of Jews which seems to be what the political system is now endorsing, either on the merits or because of shallow, coalition politics. The Torah repeatedly underscores that our residence in the land of Israel is conditional on our fidelity to G-d’s law. There is nothing to indicate that this historical rule has been repealed or that G-d has given our generation a mulligan. I don’t know how G-d’s runs His world. But I do fear that a state of Jews, as opposed to a Jewish state, if it treads down to the path of secularism, will become unworthy of His protective hand which underwrites our armies and its successes in battle. 

In the last quarter century, the steady dilution of Israel’s Jewish identity – in terms of Shabbat, Kashrut, personal status, respect for Torah, etc. – has been accompanied, if only coincidentally, with terrorist explosions in our cities, relentless threats to Jews in the heartland, and retreat from our  biblical centers. Indeed, the failed Oslo process itself was a triumph of those who advocate for a state of Jews while warring against the notion of a Jewish state. A Jewish state has defined and sacred boundaries. A state of Jews need have no contours at all; in fact it doesn’t even have to exist in the land of Israel, as imagined by Mordecai Manuel Noah’s Ararat in northern New York or still inhabited by Jews in Birobidzhan. The riots last May that featured murderous attacks on Jews and wanton destruction of Jewish property (including synagogues and yeshivot, and in the middle of Israel) were perpetrated by Israelis, albeit Arab Israelis. That alone should have forever eradicated the notion that Israeli and Jewish identity are synonymous. Jews were assaulted and their  homes and stores were burned not because they were Israelis but because they were Jews. Yet, rather than lead to a surge in measures that strengthen Jewish identity and the Jewish character of the state, it seems that the riots galvanized those who seek to dilute the Jewishness of the state even more. 

Some will argue that a truly Jewish state, besides offending non-observant Jews, will always segregate Israel from our Arab neighbors. Neither the former or the latter needs to happen, and the converse is equally plausible. A restoration of Jewish pride in our traditions strengthens our claim to the land and disincentivizes our non-Orthodox brothers and sisters (those who still are of Jewish origin) from further straying. But this is also important to remember. Just like yesterday’s enemies can be tomorrow’s friends, so too today’s friends can be tomorrow’s enemies. And today’s enemies can be tomorrow’s enemies as well. It is not ironic that the conversion reforms designed to dilute Jewish identity are being introduced as the West is poised to enter into an agreement with Iran that will, for all intents and purposes, subsidize Iran’s production of a nuclear weapon. Israelis who are banking on America intervening militarily to thwart an Iranian bomb are living in a dream world. It will not happen, or to be fair, it is unlikely in the extreme to happen. As the Americans like to say, “all options are on the table,” and there the military option will always remain, on the table, like leftovers at a meal that carried on too long. And of you doubt that, please consult the people of Ukraine, beneficiaries this week of heartfelt sympathy and strong words but not much else. 

Strengthening ourselves militarily requires strengthening ourselves spiritually. It requires increasing our commitment to Torah and Mitzvot, not reducing it. It requires bolstering Jewish identity, not diluting it by importing thousands more Gentiles and waving over them the magic wand of conversion. It requires that we internalize that the state of Jews is not eternal. The Torah is eternal, and the Jewish state partakes of that eternity in equal proportion to its fidelity to the Torah. 

I am not a prophet, so I cannot be a prophet of doom. Indeed, so many of Israel’s trend lines are positive that if those could be married to a religious revival, the potent impact both domestically and globally is immeasurable. 

Israel’s founders were probably prudent in deferring to another era these questions of identity. But now that the status quo has been breached and the battle joined, we must choose wisely. Eliyahu’s contemporaries, challenged to choose between two inconsistent beliefs, hesitated until Eliyahu forced the issue and miraculously demonstrated the falsity of Baal. We are not yet privileged to those interventions, but we can still climb off the fence and choose Torah, life, honor, pride and eternity. We can start by asking ourselves, each individual, what can I do today to make Israel more Jewish?

(This is my third year answering reader questions in this Jewish Press forum named “Is It Proper?” Each one, along with my colleagues’ answers, are available at Jewishpress.com)

Is it proper to reject a shidduch candidate because he or she is Sefardi while your family is Ashkenazi or vice-versa?

Shidduchim should be made in the first instance based on shared values and commitment, as well as complementary personalities. In fact, those should also be the criteria for the second and third instances. And those values stem from the Torah that is the mutual heritage of all Jews, no matter their background or country of origin.

From my vantage point in Israel, the question itself sounds peculiar because almost half the marriages in the country involve couples from different ethnic backgrounds. Most young people today are broad-minded enough not to distinguish between Ashkenazim and Sefardim or Jews who hail from Ethiopia or Asia. If we want to be precise, the differences between various groups of Ashkenazim (Hasidim, Mitnagdim) and various groups of Sefardim (Turkish, Syrian, Moroccan, Yemenite Jews et al) can be just as sharp as that between Ashkenazim and Sefardim.

That is the beauty of modern Israel and the reality of Kibbutz Galuyot. Not only is it improper to reject a shidduch on that basis, it is foolish, and not just because marrying outside one’s ethnic heritage broadens the gene pool. It is primarily because it is sorely lacking in Ahavat Yisrael – love of our fellow Jews.

Certainly, navigating the different cultural backgrounds and customs can be a small challenge – but it is also immensely rewarding. Additionally, it reverses the destructive pattern of the exile that divided us geographically, and hastens the redemption in which we will again be one people.

What should one do if family or friends use curse words in conversation?

What are we, a nation of sailors? We are a kingdom of priests and a holy nation!

People usually curse in order to attract attention when they feel they will otherwise be ignored or to underscore a strongly held point. It is like using an exclamation point in the middle (!) and at the end of every sentence! But cursing has become so common that it has lost its shock value – except, of course, in the polite and refined society where Jews should strive to live. Indeed, it has become so prevalent that, in Israel, curse words are frequently uttered on live television and radio, or in ordinary conversation, because they are perceived as American slang, like “OK” or “shopping.” They are not OK, even when stuck in a long shopping line.

Rambam wrote (Moreh Nevuchim Part III, Chapter 8) that Hebrew is called “the holy tongue” because it has no original expressions for the bodily parts, functions and secretions that comprise most of the vulgarity in use and so utilizes figurative language. As such, one who resorts to these words is making constant reference to the animalistic side of life, which does not speak well of where his or her thoughts are. Moreover, the Gemara (Shabbat 33a) states that due to the sin of vulgar speech, troubles proliferate and harsh decrees are renewed. That alone should resonate today.

Children should be admonished. I recall when the threat of having one’s “mouth washed out with soap” did the trick, as I remember hearing people protest that “there are ladies present.” The latter seems unfortunately quaint today. Even family and friends should be gently rebuked as to what is acceptable discourse. We should guard our tongues and our language. Since there are people who preface their vulgarity with “Pardon my French,” I have stopped speaking French.

A holy nation is typified by purity of speech.

Is it proper to name your child after a Biblical figure who is portrayed in a negative light?

There was a time in Israel not long ago when children were routinely named Nimrod or Omri, demonstrating their parents’ awareness of biblical names but little about the nature of the individuals who bore those names (although Omri did have some merit, as he added one city in Israel). Using such names is certainly improper, and thus we do not find Jewish children named Korach or Haman, Datan or Aviram.

Yet there are names that have beautiful meanings but are associated with wicked people. Yishmael is an uncommon name for Jews, even though he repented and even if there was a great Tanna named Rabbi Yishmael. But it means “G-d will hear,” an inspiring thought, and, after all, he was named by Hashem. Similarly, the Gemara (Yoma 38b) notes that the names of the wicked will decay, since no one should use them. It cites the name Do’eg (the tormentor of David) as an example, properly so because otherwise many Jews might be inclined to name their children “worrier.” Tosafot there justify someone named Avshalom, one of the rebellious sons of King David, because he was really Avishalom.

Therein lies the conundrum: what if the name expresses a spiritually meaningful idea but is associated with an evildoer? In such a case there is no prohibition, and as we see, the name Avshalom is widely extant in Jewish life.

In modern times, since Ashkenazim generally name after deceased relatives, it is quite possible to arrest the use of the names of biblical villains, and rightly so. That would be an act of piety. Certainly we should never name a child after the rasha himself but if the name is used because of the idea it represents or because it was used by a virtuous ancestor, it is not prohibited.

Is it proper to brag about your children/grandchildren’s accomplishments to friends or is it better to keep it within the family? What about sharing on social media?

The simple answer is no, and even from Israel I can hear the incredulous wailing of parents and grandparents who view their offspring as “nachat machines” spawned to produce limitless opportunities to gloat over their achievements. Of course, when the ancestors boast, they are not so much taking pride in the child’s successes as they are taking credit for having brought such progeny into the world. It is their accomplishment that demands the notice of others, and many unfailingly (and tediously) insist upon it.

Both my father and grandfather a”h were fond of quoting the verse from Mishlei (27:2) “Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; [let a] stranger, and not your own lips.” Once we internalize that we are primarily boasting about our offspring because they are extensions of ourselves, the ethical harm is patently clear. The Chayei Adam wrote (in his introduction) that a person should never praise himself for his deeds because it will lead to haughtiness and other execrable traits. The same should apply to those within our family.

Social media is particularly detrimental in this regard because it magnifies the arrogance a thousand fold. Generally, this type of casual bragging reinforces to the child that the most important and worthwhile objective is to be noticed, to receive public acclaim for something – and if not, it is as if it never happened and has little value. That is an appalling message to teach children.

It is best, and more rewarding, when others tell us the accomplishments of our offspring, which we accept humbly and graciously. Even among immediate family, it is preferable not to boast as such will invariably lead to jealousy. Positive reinforcement should be offered privately.

Of course, I am tempted to carve out an exemption for my children and grandchildren… But it is bad form, practice and midot.