Category Archives: Current Events

The Sotah Among Us

Posted on June 7, 2011 | Comments Off

The Talmud (Sotah 2a) asks: “why are the tractates of Sotah and Nazir juxtaposed? To teach us that one who sees the Sotah in her degradation should take a vow of abstinence from wine.” The Nazir is the individual, man or woman, who strives to elevate his/her spiritual level by accepting additional restrictions, such as abstention from wine. The Sotah is the married woman who improperly secludes herself with another man, is suspected of adultery, and undergoes a ritual ordeal in the Bet HaMikdash that adjudicates her guilt or innocence.

“One who sees the Sotah in her degradation should take a vow of abstinence from wine.” But why? Perhaps the Sotah herself is the one who should lay off the booze, not the innocent onlooker.

Rav Moshe Zvi Neria, the great thinker and founder of Bnai Akiva, commented that “seeing” here is not an idle or neutral pursuit, but “seeing” in the sense of
understanding. What must be understood ?

The Torah exists in two different realms – the normal and the abnormal. In the conventional world, our lives are bounded by mitzvot and service of G-d. Each field of endeavor, each human activity, and each desire is moderated and sanctified. These commandments – most of them , in fact – regulate a normal life and straighten out our paths.

But there is another realm in which Torah exists as well – the abnormal, typified by the Sotah. She represents the collapse of the Jewish family; even if innocent of adultery, she is still guilty of seclusion. A person who sees these deviations must immediately take corrective measures, otherwise he runs the great risk of thinking that the abnormal is normal, that everyone is doing it, or that somehow he is missing out on all the fun.

It is hard to escape the tawdriness and degradation of the modern world. Each day brings new “celebrities” in this genre. One day it is John Edwards, whose despicability is reaching its inevitable denouement in a courtroom. Another, it is Anthony Weiner, whose contrition today seems on par with his haughtiness on all other days. (Strange: Republican Congressman Chris Lee (NY-26) did something similar but less salacious and didn’t lie about it but still resigned almost immediately. Are the moral rules different for Democrats ?) Not long ago, it was Elliot Spitzer, and even more recently Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Arnold
Schwarzenegger, et al.

We are forced to endure what seems like an avalanche of decadence, and we delude ourselves into thinking that it does not affect us. It does. How? We start to think that it is normal – sad, tragic, depraved – but normal. Everyone is doing it. “One who sees the Sotah in her degradation” must do something, lest he conclude it is not degraded at all, but rather part of life. Everyone is doing it.

But everyone is not doing it. Most marriages do not end in divorce, and most spouses do not cheat on each other, and most people do not murder or steal, and most of our children do not go off the derech. It only seems that way, because our world is filled with the ubiquitous images of the violators, but they are not typical at all. They are deviants. They are exceptions to the norm.

“One who sees the Sotah in her degradation should take a vow of abstinence from wine.” The onlookers, the passersby – they are the ones in danger of being seduced by the existence of the Sotah into thinking that the world is degenerate and corrupt while in reality it is mostly good and decent.

“Abstaining from wine” means that a person must temporarily deprive himself of the means of obscuring his moral sense, which alcohol will do in sufficient quantity. He has to counterbalance what he sees so it does not distort his world view. How that is to be done is not as simple as saying “get rid of the television.” That might help, but is still not enough. There is radio, there are newspapers,
there is the public domain. Sometimes it is difficult to walk down the street
these days without encountering a full range of Sotah-wannabes.

The least we can do – and the first step we must take as we observe the travails of Weiner, Edwards, and the rest is to realize that it is not normal, that it is atypical and disgraceful behavior, and that it is a moral offense, repugnant to our
sensibilities. If saying that certain conduct is “immoral” stamps us as judgmental, then so be it. Normal human beings make judgments all the time.

Where society is debauched, and too many are quick to rationalize misbehavior and trivialize iniquity, then we must go to the opposite extreme – for our own protection and to safeguard our own moral preserve. The Nazir and the Sotah are polar opposites – one takes on more prohibitions because the other observed too few. To uphold our moral standards in the face of unpopularity is a badge of honor, worthy of those who again preparing to receive the Torah as on the day it was given to us at Sinai.

Comments Off on The Sotah Among Us

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

The Gender Benders

Posted on June 2, 2011 | Comments Off

All things weird seem to originate in California. Just last week, a public school in Oakland subjected its youthful charges to a day of “gender diversity” training. Led by a Gender Spectrum trainer (with, unfortunately but typically, a Jewish name, and an appearance straight from the 1960’s), children were taught that “you can be a boy, you can be a girl, you can be both, or you can be neither.” Such is freedom of choice in the land of the free, which is liable not to be confused with land of the “educated” in the immediate future.

Add to this the news that a Canadian couple has decided to hide their newborn’s sex from the world in order to encourage a gender-neutral upbringing (he looks like a boy, or Heaven help him), and we have social engineering run amok and a new method of pushing the ends of the envelope to challenge existing social norms.

But why stop there ? For example, imagine a world in which children were free to choose their race, a world in which the troglodytes who determine race based on some reprehensible criterion like “skin color” are forever silenced ? In one fell swoop, we could eliminate the scourge of racism. Blacks could choose to be white and thereby increase sales at the Gap; whites could choose to be black and dominate the NBA. Asians could choose to be white and have their grades decline. Skin color is so limiting, and judging one’s race by skin color is so antiquated.

Then, we can allow people to choose their nationalities. Why must that designation be confined to countries of origin or residence ? North Koreans and Saudi Arabians can become “Americans by choice” and, in an instant, free at last. Americans can opt for Chinese citizenship and thereby still remain the dominant country in the 21^st century. John Lennon lives ! “Imagine there’s no countries!”

Imagine there’s no intelligence, common sense and morality, and we have a better description of what is happening. From one perspective, the decline and abuse of public schools continues. Have American youth aced math, science and classical literature that taxpayer-financed schools can afford to spend time on indoctrination – and indoctrination of such a perverse nature ? Of course, the Bible cannot be taught for fear of whatever, and so children cannot learn that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). But “anti-Bible” apparently can be taught, all in the guise of teaching sensitivity, anti-bullying, mutual respect, etc.

From another perspective, the Oakland propaganda campaign recalls the adage that some ideas are so preposterous that only someone university-educated could believe them. Even worse, it is sinister, as it corrupts one of the fundamental functions of education: the capacity to draw distinctions, and to learn about life through the ability to distinguish. What must offend the “Gender Spectrum Coordinator” is the idea that men and women are different, fundamentally and irrevocably so, and the world was created in such a manner and we are all better off for it. There are great similarities (each was created in the “image of G-d”), but there are profound differences in the way men and women think, act, interact, communicate, feel, emote, and live. It is what makes the world interesting, and what enables men and women in a normal society to pool their common resources, fuse their disparate personalities – and build homes that rear healthy, functional children. One need not adhere to a rigid view of roles (no male nurses, no female engineers!) to recognize that there are roles and tasks that are uniquely suited to males and females respectively, and that a stable society depends on them.

A healthy, functional child – male or female – ideally benefits from both male and female influences. Where that does not or cannot happen, it is a tragedy. It is certainly never a desideratum under any circumstances. Some single parents make it work despite the challenges; most struggle, and often the struggles are not at all attributable to the dedication of that parent but to the inherent difficulties of the situation. But no one would deny that there is a unique role for father and mother that only each can play. Strike that – someone would deny it; it is actually being taught in Oakland, and likely elsewhere.

How is that education ? If a teacher stood before a class and routinely taught that 1+1=3, such a teacher would be fired (or in the public school system where few are fired, the teacher would be put in the rubber room for years at full pay, and then retired at full pension). To teach that gender doesn’t matter, or is a
matter of choice, is simply false. What can be excused as the idiosyncrasies of
a meshugganeh couple in Toronto is inexcusable in the American public
education system. It is gross mis-education. It is also an obvious attempt to
further the homosexual agenda.

What underlies this curriculum is the desire to de-stigmatize homosexuality, and the attempt to make sexual attractions as morally innocuous as one’s choice of ice cream flavors. Clearly, one who can “choose” to be a boy, girl, both or neither can also “choose” to become attached to any or all of the above. Not content to proclaim that sexual orientation is innate, the gender-benders seek to enshrine their views by promoting the notion that gender itself is a hollow, social contrivance.
And people expect their children to actually learn something from these schools ? It even sounds contradictory: how can orientation be innate, when gender itself is a matter of choice ? Hmmm… could the exact opposite be true ?

This follows on the heels of a new comprehensive survey (CDC) that revealed that 1.3% of Americans identify as homosexual, a survey that has the homosexual lobby reeling. They like to assert that 10-15% or more of the population are homosexuals – the difference between roughly 4 million people and 40 million people. Interestingly, an even more recently released Gallup poll claimed that about 25% of those surveyed felt that one of every four people is homosexual, owing, if nothing else, to the high profile of the homosexual community. (Jews have a similar profile. Years ago, a non-Jewish lawyer
colleague of mine estimated – at my request – that there are approximately
40-50 million Jews in America (!). His deduction was simply based on the
prominence of the Jewish community in American life. He was shocked to learn that his estimate quadrupled the Jewish population in the entire world.)

In both cases, prominence is conflated with prevalence. Homosexuals are disproportionately represented in the media, arts and entertainment industries – all high profile occupations – and therefore their numbers are wildly inflated. But their influence is even more wildly exaggerated, and the deference paid to them – including such educational travesties as above – absolutely ridiculous compared to their real numbers, which is roughly equivalent to the Jewish population in America.

To be sure, what is private should be kept private, and tolerance, love, mutual respect and fair treatment should pertain to all. But Americans are done a disservice when their children’s education is distorted, and classroom time usurped for the indoctrination of views that are false, harmful, and – because they are so unnatural – ultimately futile.

Comments Off on The Gender Benders

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

Netanyahu’s Gamble

Posted on May 27, 2011 | 4 comments

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to Washington DC was a tour de force, a virtuoso performance on several stages that demonstrated leadership and communication skills of the highest caliber. A leader evaluates, decides, guides, inspires and persuades; in each sphere, the PM excelled in DC. I attended the AIPAC Convention and listened to his rousing address that touched all the right notes, in a hall in which the electricity and excitement was palpable. Poor Obama.

Netanyahu first appropriately put the President in his place while in his place – the Oval Office itself. There have been such dress downs in the past, although none televised and none as dramatic. In a few moments, Netanyahu squashed Obama’s dream of presiding over another signing ceremony about a new spate of withdrawals from the land of Israel. Obama’s protestations about the misconceptions that attended his State Department address were hollow and unconvincing, as his inability to speak coherently without a teleprompter is increasingly maddening. The contrast in the demeanor and poise of the two leaders was stark, and Netanyahu’s open rejection of the Obama initiative was as necessary and welcome as it was dangerous; clearly, the PM is banking on a one-term presidency. He need not expect another warm invitation to the White House anytime soon.

In his addresses, to AIPAC and Congress, Netanyahu made clear that Israel has red lines that it will not cross: the 1967 borders are not the starting point of negotiations (as Obama nefariously insisted, while deviating from the policies of his predecessors and denying that he was) nor would they be the outcome of negotiations; Jerusalem is not for sale, division or sharing; Israel will maintain its right of self-defense, and looks to the American people and Congress for support and understanding, if not the Executive Branch. Above all, he reiterated that Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, given to us by the G-d of the Bible. We returned to that land after 19 centuries of exile in an astounding fulfillment of the Biblical vision. He touched all the right notes. Now, if only he sticks to them.

The enthusiastic response – I sat through it awestruck – was at times boisterous, and bi-partisan. Republicans (Boehner and Cantor) and Democrats (Reid) subtly and not-so-subtly let it be known their public disagreement with Obama’s approach and policies. It was an unprecedented smack down of a President – by his own party and by the opposition – just days after a new foreign policy initiative. Many speakers unabashedly proclaimed that support for Israel is a bi-partisan effort, and the fact that 2/3 of the Congress joined 10,000 Jews at the AIPAC Conference banquet was telling, and no doubt intimidating.

For sure, Netanyahu is helped by his command of unaccented, idiomatically-correct English, which makes him seem almost American to an American audience. His familiarity with American culture and history – and his embrace of American exceptionalism – is both a pleasant reminder and a challenge to an America that has a president who abjures such jingoism. He succeeded in completely turning the tables on the Arab enemy, speaking of the concessions that Israel has made and will make in the future for a true peace, but only for a true peace. He even offered more territorial retreats for a real peace, a peace that includes a de-militarized Palestinian state that accepts a Jewish state of Israel. He seemed so magnanimous that some on the right in Israel were critical that he went too far, even as some on the left lamented the death of the “peace process.” So how can both be true, and how can we trust Netanyahu, who failed in his first term as prime minister and was routed from office ?

I don’t know if he can be trusted, but I do sense that he is playing a high-stakes game of poker. He can afford to speak incessantly of “painful concessions” because he knows he has no interlocutor on the other side. Thus, Netanyahu is wise to eschew another interim agreement that involves the same Arab promises in exchange for the surrender of more land, and insist on a final status agreement or nothing. Why ? Because he knows that the Arabs will never agree to his terms, all of which sound (and are) reasonable – no more violence, no “right” of return of Arab refugees to Israel, no militarized state of “Palestine,” and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Any one of those sticks in the craw of any Arab politician; the likelihood of the Arabs embracing all of them is nil as it would require – in the words of a Foreign Ministry official I met with in Israel last week – the “negation of Islam.” What a brilliant gambit, putting the ball in their court. Israel’s new “concessions” are literally on the table; let the Arabs come forward now with some of their own. Don’t hold your breath.

While the purist in me disavows any dilution – even verbal, even insincere – of the rights of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, the analyst recognizes the ploy for what it is: a gamble that has Israel playing a strong hand that, if maneuvered well, will leave the Arabs on the defensive. If Netanyahu has concluded – in his heart – that “peace” is impossible for the foreseeable future, then he can say what he wishes without any real consequences.

Two pitfalls remain. True, the enemy might say “yes,” but that is so unlikely as to not even enter the analytical equation. More probably, the Arabs will play their traditional card – unrestrained terror and violence against innocent civilians – in the hopes of regaining the strategic upper hand. That will unleash enormous pressure – both domestic and foreign – on Netanyahu to “do something,” show some “good will” in order to quell the violence. That would enable the Arabs to capitalize on these new “concessions” – a retreat from areas beyond the settlement blocs – while maintaining their rejectionist stance. All this can be deterred and pre-empted if the violence is suppressed immediately with a strong, forceful and merciless hand. Will Netanyahu be able to do that – and will Israeli society remain supportive of him ? That is an open question. In his previous incarnation as PM, he consistently caved in the face of pressure, and the leftist Israeli media will be relentless in their depictions of impending doom and gloom. They can – and should – be ignored, like Tom Friedman. If Netanyahu cannot resist the pressure, then these “rhetorical” concessions will come back to haunt him and all of Israel.

Netanyahu has cleverly changed his style of governance from his first term, when he made himself too accessible to the media and tried to do all his explaining by himself. He thus opened himself to unremitting attacks and potshots from the media that undermined his rule and created the impression of weakness (which he also fostered through poor policy choices). He has learned. He rarely speaks publicly – but when he does, as he did in Washington this past week, the effect is dramatic and the political results extraordinary. If he has internalized the sad reality that the “peace process” is and always was a sham, that his tactics are ingenious and the way he has taken the PR war to the enemy masterful.

Contrast the image of a strong Israeli leader with a bumbling American president, whose foreign policy initiative was stillborn, who disrespected the Queen of England by mangling his toast (doesn’t he have a Chief of Protocol, or did he just ignore him?) and then dated the guestbook at Buckingham Palace with the year 2008 (Obama must still be in campaign mode), and we might have witnessed a historic week that strengthened the Israeli Prime Minister’s standing and weakened that of the American President as he begins his re-election campaign.

4 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

Civil Discourse

Posted on May 18, 2011 | Comments Off

During an 1863 Senate debate on the propriety of President Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeus corpus during the Civil War (which allowed the government to incarcerate people without charges or trial), Senator Willard Saulsbury of Delaware took to the floor and began in berate Lincoln in an apparently liquor-fueled harangue. He denounced Lincoln as an “imbecile” and “the weakest man ever placed in a high office.” Ruled out of order, Saulsbury refused to be seated or be quiet. When the sergeant at arms came to escort him out of the Senate chamber, Saulsbury pulled out his revolver, pointed it at the officer, cursed him and said: “If you touch me, I’ll shoot you dead.” Some time later Saulsbury was disarmed, removed, calm was restored, and the distinguished senator’s political career continued intact.

So much for the halcyon days of civility and graciousness in public life. And this happened to Abraham Lincoln, not Franklin Pierce or some lesser light !

It is unfair to say that matters are worse today than ever before; in fact, it probably was far worse in the 19^th century than today. But that sad fact does not make it any easier to digest the pitiable depiction of politicians and public officials in our society. The pervasiveness of the news cycle exposes everyone’s blemishes and peccadilloes (and worse), so much so that the options in all recent elections seemed to be limited to choosing between the racist or the sexist, the adulterer or the embezzler, the clown or the crook, and the abuser or the thief. It is enough to make one want to avoid voting altogether – which, in fact, is the reality for most Americans.

The disturbing tendency – exaggerated by the media, that most enthusiastic purveyor of lashon hara – to define a person by one word, one quote or one event is rampant, misleading and ultimately grossly unfair. People are not caricatures, but, often, when we disagree, we reduce our adversaries to such, which is an attempt to score polemical points or intimidate them into silence. It is relatively easy to find a molehill, and to build a mountain of lies and distortions around it.

These unfortunate tactics are not limited to politics, just like the Gotcha ! gang is not restricted to members of the media. There are times when controversial issues arise in communities that often find people on opposite sides of an ideological, substantive or procedural divide – issues that have no one right answer and on which reasonable people can differ. We mimic the most appalling aspects of the modern secular media – and modern life generally – when we seek to demonize the “other” side on a personal level, or when we attribute to them ignoble or despicable motivations, or when we lift a word or phrase out of context in order to smear an antagonist, or when we concoct conspiracy theories that reflect more our own baser instincts than have any counterpart in reality.

It is a well-worn cliché, but a most noble sentiment nonetheless, that people must learn to disagree without being disagreeable. Chazal (Brachot 58a) noted that just like the faces of human beings differ one from another, so too our thoughts, minds and personalities also differ. That is not lamentable but normal, and a tribute to the wisdom and glory of our Creator. It is what makes life interesting, and what enables us to learn from each other. It so normal that it ensures the existence of a machloket l’shem shamayim (a dispute for the sake of Heaven) that, Chazal (Avot V:20) teach, will “endure in the end.” A machloket l’shem shamayim has no winner or loser; a decision must be made that offers practical guidance, but the machloket remains, and can be the source of further discussion, review, insight and inspiration.

In fact, Chazal (Yevamot 14b) make a point of stating that despite the fact that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagreed on hundreds of important matters, ranging from the laws of Shabbat and kashrut to marriage eligibility, they “did not refrain from marrying into each others’ families nor from using each others’ utensils, always evincing love and friendship for each other and in fulfillment of the verse ‘love truth and peace.’”

Truth and peace may not be natural allies, but they need not be bitter enemies.

To disagree agreeably – to contend with another and yet remain friends – is a mark of maturity, intelligence and decency. It is far easier to make noise and generate strife than it is to foster peace and mutual respect. The former requires only one person, a Senator Saulsbury-type who can transform a lively debate on the weightiest issues into a madhouse of pandemonium, peril and incivility, and ruin the environment for all. The latter requires humility, tolerance, respect for others, and perhaps even self-respect for one’s innate potential to be good and to do good, to see the best in others and in our institutions, and to preserve a spiritual environment that glorifies Hashem and His Torah.

It is that spirit and that commitment that guides and sustains us throughout our lives, and quantifies the extent to which the ideas and values of Torah have permeated our core and animate our daily existence – as individuals and as a community – and which elicits the blessings of Heaven for continued success, prosperity and peace in all our endeavors.

Comments Off on Civil Discourse

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