Category Archives: Machshava/Jewish Thought

Remembrance Day

Posted on April 11, 2013 | 3 comments

There are few days on which the bonds of shared identity are felt as strongly in Israel as on Yom Hashoah, officially – and quite properly called here – “Yom HaZikaron laShoah v’laGevurah,” the Day of Remembrance for the Holocaust and the Heroism. It is interesting that in America, the day’s name is shortened to “Yom HaShoah,” the almost-macabre sounding “Holocaust Day.” Here, it is a day of remembrance, framed a week later by “Yom Hazikaron l’challelei Tzahal,” Remembrance Day for the Fallen of the Israel Defense Forces.
The nation is captivated by the day. Places of entertainment closed this past Sunday night, television shows for 24 hours dealt only with the Holocaust. Movie channels, except those showing Holocaust films, were on hiatus. Each show, each interview, each documentary, was more fascinating than the next. There is no story of survival that is not fascinating; there are no other stories outside the Holocaust genre that are more fascinating. Each tale is filled with sadness, courage, inspiration, grit and some sort of faith.
The enormity of the Holocaust was such that its dimensions are limitless, and therefore a consistent mode of commemoration has yet to be formulated. The official ceremony at Yad Vashem involved, as always, torch lighting by survivors preceded by an account of their survival. But the Yad Vashem service always focuses more on the “heroism” than on the “Holocaust.” All of the torch-lighters were fighters – in the ghettos or with the partisans – or escapees. The narrative of modern Israel demands a de-emphasis on the Holocaust itself and the immensity of the slaughter, and an over-emphasis on the stories of resistance. It is not that those stories are untrue or uninteresting, indeed, the opposite. It is that the attempt to turn the Holocaust into a tale of resistance rather than extermination is misleading.
In keeping with the basic theme, the Prime Minister spoke about the looming Iranian threat and the lesson of the Holocaust: a refusal to rely on other nations for Israel’s national defense. Again, it is true, but is that really the main focus of the Holocaust? Resistance was part of the Holocaust but a relatively small part – and official Israel in its ceremonies emphasizes the physical resistance and completely downplays other forms of resistance, especially spiritual. Those stories, thankfully, abound in the media and other sources, and are testaments to the inner strength of the Jew.
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in such accounts of spiritual tenacity – of the seder in Auschwitz, of Torah study in the ghettos, of striving to keep kashrut, of Jews maintaining their inner dignity in their treatment of others and not succumbing to the attempts at dehumanization. I learned this week of a museum called “Shem Olam,” located in Kfar Haroeh for over a decade and awaiting the construction of their new facility, which painstakingly documents Jewish religious life before and during the Holocaust. (The name is taken from the continuation of the verse – Isaiah 56:5 – in which “Yad Vashem” is mentioned: “In My house and within My walls I will give them Yad vashem, a place of honor and renown, better than sons and daughters, shem olam, an eternal renown, I will give them which will never be terminated.”) There are numerous artifacts and manifold accounts of the spiritual heroism that was also part of the story of the Holocaust. One recent find came during a dig at Belzec – a shard from a seder plate brought there by Jews who assumed that, wherever they were being sent, Pesach was coming and they would be celebrating it somewhere. They never got to celebrate that Pesach, and all that remains from their plate was a small piece inscribed with the last three letters of “Maror,” the bitter herbs. It is an eerie sight.
It is as if there are two worlds – or more – commemorating the Holocaust. One discordant note was sounded by IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz who saw fit to say in Auschwitz on Monday that “in our generation, we have the IDF. There is no other magen (shield) for David, no other chomah (protective wall) for Zion,” essentially transposing two praises of God found in our literature (Pesachim 117b and evocative of Zecharia 2:9, respectively) for the IDF. It is no disrespect to the IDF and their competence and valor to suggest that a price is eventually paid for such hubris, and perhaps has been paid already.
The official ceremony is a reminder of the old Israel where religious involvement was limited to “functions” – Tehillim, Kaddish, etc. – that are tacked on to the end of the ceremony. No other religious participation or perspective was included. The secular-religious divide is unfortunately part of the Holocaust story as well, especially in light of the inability of the religious world to also find appropriate and enduring means of commemoration. This is likely temporary, and it stands to reason that as the years pass, the secular world will be increasingly detached from the Holocaust era even as the religious world embraces it more and more, and derives great inspiration from it. Our local Holocaust commemoration contained an excellent and emotive power point presentation of the spiritual struggle during the Holocaust.
Nothing illustrates the secular struggle with the Holocaust more than a new movie that features, in part, one of the more revolting Holocaust commemorations imaginable. The movie, “Numbered,” tells the moving tale of how various survivors dealt with the tattoos on their arms. (One woman, in a clip that I saw, says she was asked years ago: “Why don’t you remove it? Aren’t you ashamed to have that on your arm?” She responded: “Why should I be ashamed? The people who did this to me, they’re the ones who should be ashamed!” Bravo for her.)
The movie, at a certain point, introduces a recent development in Israel that was featured in the NY Times last fall, found at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/world/middleeast/with-tattoos-young-israelis-bear-holocaust-scars-of-relatives.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&. Young Israelis are tattooing their grandparent’s numbers on their arms in order to feel a greater connection to them. Certainly, they are oblivious to the Torah prohibition against tattooing, but is that any way of showing honor and identification? Such a hideous act meant to dehumanize is not made any better when done voluntarily; it just shows a complete lack of propriety. When I saw the Times article that discussed the movie, I couldn’t help thinking that in some concentration camps, the Nazis fiendishly offered the Jews more food on Yom Kippur – an extra ration of pork. Would these young Israelis then decide to identify more closely with their grandparent survivors by eating pork on Yom Kippur? I shudder to think that I have put such a thought in their heads.
I have not seen the movie, but I would like to think that this account of the young Israelis is a small part of it and not its focus.
Nonetheless, the great strength of this Yom Hazikaron is that it does bring together all Jews, with all the commonalities and all the differences we have. And perhaps the Holocaust remains so enormous, and so evil, that it can be no other way. Everyone sees it from a different angle. It remains personal and raw. Words still fail to convey the horror of both the Holocaust and the Second World War unleashed by the Germans that cost more than fifty million lives.
Apropos of that, it is worth quoting a line in the conclusion to “The Storm War,” by Andrew Roberts, a history of World War II. In an Italian cemetery where British soldiers were laid to rest, one tombstone, of a British private, 30 years old, reads: “Beautiful memories, a darling husband and daddy worthy of Everlasting Love, His wife and Baby Rita.”
Roberts, the dispassionate historian, continues: “Even two-thirds of a century later, it is still impossible not to feel fury against Hitler and the Nazis for forcing baby Rita to grow up without her father…”
Jews, certainly, tertiated by the Nazis, have a special reason to feel fury, to remain vigilant against our enemies, to grow in faith and connection to God, to find the way to strengthen Torah across the Jewish world, and do what we can to hasten the redemption.

3 Comments

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

Last Gasp

Posted on April 3, 2013 | 8 comments

The US Supreme Court is now wrestling with two cases that pose the same dilemma: should the Court acquiesce in the legalization of same-sex marriage, and if not, then why not? The two cases present separate issues and could result in decisions that skirt the issue at hand. The first, the Defense of Marriage Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton all the way back in 1996 (when America’s moral code was apparently archaic and repugnant) might be ruled unconstitutional simply because the laws (and thus the definition) of marriage are almost always a state concern. The second case, although first argued, undermines that suggestion, as Proposition 8 in California that defined the only possible parties to marriage as one man and one woman was overturned by that leftist state’s Supreme Court; i.e., the better framework to define society’s values – the people of each state, rather than the federal government – was deemed unacceptable by that state’s court, after the people overwhelmingly voted to overturn a court decision that had permitted same-sex marriage. Do the people rule or do the judges rule?
Two points about the oral argument fascinate. As was widely reported, Justice Kagan read from the House report that accompanied the passage of DOMA in 1996, that stated that Congress acted in order to “express moral disapproval of homosexuality.” That provoked what was reported in almost every news account to be “gasps” from the assembled spectators in the courtroom (obviously, and understandably, overpopulated by same-sexers and their supporters). A “gasp,” as we understand it, is a “short convulsive intake of breath, as if from shock and horror.” It remains unclear whether the “gasps” resulted from the quaint expression of conventional morality less than two decades ago, or the astonishing bravery of Justice Kagan in reading aloud such subversive sentiments – and in public, and while being recorded, and despite her obvious disagreement. How is it that what was evident until just recently has become so unmentionable today?
That engenders the second point, which is the utter failure of the opponents of same-sex marriage (Charles Cooper in the California case, Paul Clement in the DOMA case) to make any cogent argument to support their case. Their contentions were tangential, as in Cooper’s argument that marriage laws exist in order to promote the state’s interest in “responsible procreation.” That argument is palpably weak, although its core (promotion of the ideal family) is a coherent thought. The fact is that the rate of Americans born out of wedlock today is approximately 40%, and in the black community well over 70%. Few of those births are the product of “responsible procreation.” Was that the best argument he could use?
Here is what he could have said, in an attempt to defer the last gasp of morality in American life:
The same-sex faction has been remarkably devious in setting the terms of the debate, and labeling (subtly or heavy-handedly, as needed) all opponents of their desires as dissolute bigots. That was accomplished by wrapping themselves in the mantle of the civil rights movement, and framing the issues as equality and the suppression of love. Neither is plausible.
The comparison to the anti-miscegenation laws, that banned marriage in the US between whites and blacks until finally ruled unconstitutional in the 1967 Loving case (how’s that name for pleasant coincidence?). But that analogy is easily refuted. The Equal Protection Clause applies to people defined by objective characteristics, for which even religion qualifies due to its all-encompassing nature. The protection of certain behaviors – especially private ones – represents a sharp departure from the purposes of the 14th Amendment.
Moreover, blacks are people, as are whites and Asians. Skin color is inherently no different than hair color or eye color. That society at one point made such distinctions is abhorrent and based on ignorance and prejudice. (Jewish society is certainly well aware of this, as on any day here in Israel, one can walk the street and see white, black, brown and Asian Jews.) Any law that would prohibit blondes from marrying brown-haired people would be understandably ridiculed by any thinking, decent person.
What does that have to do with men marrying men and women marrying women? The underlying assumption – to play out the analogy – is just like there is really no fundamental difference between blacks and whites, so too there is really no fundamental difference between men and women, and thus any combination in marriage should be acceptable. But would any thinking, unbiased person aver that there is no fundamental difference between men and women? (I said “thinking” person.) Marriage has always been an institution that unites “opposites” – the man and the woman – not the “sames.” And that union of opposites has always been the foundation of the family, and frankly, always will be.
Nor does the “suppression of love” assertion carry any weight. There is no logical reason why – if the basic definition of marriage is to be transformed – that marriage must be restricted to two people. Why not legalize polygamy? Polyandry? Polyamory? Poly-want-a-crackery? Love is a many splendored thing, and the only limits to the variety of romantic preferences of the Homo sapiens are imagination, energy, opportunity, and, of course, morality.
Furthermore, how can the law restrict the love opportunities of the bisexual? Should he/she be allowed one spouse of each variety, formally recognized by the state in which he/she lives? How can the law ban incestuous marriages between adults, like the Kentucky father and daughter who are currently in prison because their loving, consensual union has produced several offspring? The fact that the law limits marriage and prohibits certain relationships reinforces the unique nature of marriage that civil society has an interest in promoting.
Ted Olson’s contention that the law bans polygamous relationships because of fears of abuse, concern over inheritance rights, insurance issues, etc. is completely bogus. Abuse can take place in any relationship, and paternity testing is sophisticated enough today to determine appropriate parentage with absolute certainty. The insurance system is a mess anyway, and getting worse. It is shocking (and from this perspective, sheer ineptitude) that proponents of the California ban and DOMA did not see fit to raise these issues.
And, yes, there is the moral issue that the House report noted (although it was by no means the motivation behind the law) that provoked the audience “gasps” – but was not at all defended by the lawyers in this case, likely for fear of public ridicule or worse by the homosexual lobby. (Paul Clement, representing DOMA, had to resign from his law firm because of the threats that caused his firm to withdraw from the case.) But there is a compelling case to be made. There is a reason why the Bible – and millennia of history – endorsed marriage between men and women, and why the Talmud even states that despite the decadence (including same sex relationships) of the generation of the flood that necessitated their destruction, at least they did not have the gall to write marriage contracts and publicly celebrate such unions. (In Chullin 92a-b, the Talmud notes that the prohibition against “same sex marriage” is one of the three commandments that even the most depraved pagans observed, along with not selling human flesh in butcher stores and honoring the Bible.)
The man-woman dynamic in marriage is best for man, for woman, and for society. It allows for a proper division of roles, and for the full development of each aspect of the human personality. We all benefit from a loving relationship with the opposite sex, not to mention that we were designed to reproduce together, and that such a relationship, in a family ideally managed by man and woman, father and mother, is best for children (despite the politically correct rubbish being proffered today – and quite suddenly, at that– by the association of pediatricians and likeminded “scientists.”) That is obvious – political conclusions masquerading as “science.” The alternative – that the composition of the family unit does not matter – is so preposterous, that it calls to mind George Orwell’s famous quote: “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them;” an intellectual, or even a regular person cowed into fear and submission by a culture that is glorifying free expression at the expense of societal cohesion.
Justice Kennedy made a plaintive cry on behalf of the 40,000 Californian children who live with same-sex parents who cannot marry, and thus suffer some stigma. Oh, please. Hundreds of thousands of Californian children live in homes in which the two adults, male and female, are not married. This is California, for goodness’ sake. Has the esteemed Justice – a Californian himself! – never heard of the Hollywood marriages, where men and women flit from person to person, have children outside of wedlock, and think nothing of it? In parts of California, a child who is being raised by his two biological parents, married and living together, is probably stigmatized. And, again, none of the attorneys saw fit to point out, respectfully, the sheer preposterousness of the statement.
None of the proponents even dealt with another aspect of the claims raised against the traditional marriage – the hardship brought about through visitation denials, inheritance problems, etc. Besides the fact that each issue can be dealt with through civil contract – each and every one, without exception – the broader issue is that the same problem could affect brothers and sisters living together, or close friends who are roommates who also lack – naturally – the imprimatur of law on their relationship. Should the definition of marriage – and the institution itself – be undercut in order to allow visitation, bereavement rights, insurance benefits, etc. for people who just live together without any sexual relationship – what was once known as a “friendship”? Why is the private conduct of the parties the determinant? Why can’t just any two people who love each other – or profess love for each other, even in a Platonic way – “marry”? The answer is that such a definition will swiftly bring to an end to the concept of marriage as we know it, which might be the intention of the ancient Roman reincarnates who are promoting this cause.
The other issue that surprisingly was ignored was the effect of an adverse decision here on religious life in America. I do not believe for a moment that if same-sex marriage is legalized that religious groups – churches, synagogues, clergy – will be exempt from practicing it or allowed to ban it in religious facilities – no matter what proponents of same-sex marriage say today or the law enshrines today. I do not believe for a moment that a practice whose ban is analogized to anti-miscegenation laws will be permitted to groups adhering to Biblically-based objective morality. A church, synagogue, caterer, orchestra, rabbi, minister, photographer that refused to participate in a marriage of a white and a black would be sued, prosecuted, lambasted, tarred and feathered. (It has already happened in New Jersey – suits against a church and a photographer that originated with the state’s Human Rights Commission for rejection of a same-sex couple’s nuptial needs.) Those who state that religious organizations will be exempt from same-sex marriage laws are the exact same people who stated that religious organizations would be exempt from the dictates of Obamacare. We should not fall into that trap a second time. If opposition to same-sex marriage is routinely construed as nothing other than bigotry, no opposition will long be tolerated.
There is a libertarian argument to be made for same-sex marriage, but society benefits from strong families. No one suggests that a single parent household is ideal; sometimes, it is an unfortunate reality and many do a heroic job in raising children single-handedly. But a child reared without a maternal or paternal influence is disadvantaged regardless of the conclusions of the spurious “research,” but it is an impediment to a successful life that they might overcome. The law should be fostering intact families, rather than succumbing to the sham arguments about equality and civil rights.
The assault on the integrity of the American family – and the decline and even mockery of traditional two-parent families – has been devastating to American life, with the full ramifications not yet fully known. The phenomenon of men procreating and evaporating is one symptom of the collapse of the ethic of personal responsibility. The long term effects on children raised without clear sexual identities – taught to experiment, that they can marry either “a boy or a girl, or both, as they choose, because anything goes and everything is normal” – seem fairly obvious to all but those whose agenda is clear, and is another inevitable consequence of the legalization of same-sex marriage.
It is a shame that no one sought to respond to the “gasps” that erupted in the Supreme Court. Traditional morality has been the bedrock of every civilization since ancient times, and those societies that abandoned or rejected it did not long survive. Europe is already failing, and the rejection of traditional morality is just one cause of its deterioration that is proceeding apace. Why a United States – or a Western world – that heads down this same path should assume its long-term survival is a mystery. It is not that same-sex marriage will cause the world to end, but rather that legalization of same-sex marriage is one omen of a society that has lost the will to sustain itself.
Certainly, the Supreme Court might punt and decide on procedural grounds that they cannot rule substantively on these cases (“standing” issues, in legal parlance) but the Court has never been reluctant to insert itself into heated social issues. The better option for traditional moralists might be a ruling that this is a state matter, period, and allow the states to decide. Most states (31 to date) have banned same-sex marriage, while nine have permitted it – a source of some hope, but limited hope because those 31 states and the non-committed ones will be subjected to relentless pressure in the future. This, in a normal world, would validate Proposition 8 in California. The worst outcome would be a decision that same-sex marriage has somehow, magically, become a constitutional right, and thereby require each state to recognize it under the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Of course, the ideal outcome is not judicial, but repentance for all mankind and a return by all of us to the morality bestowed by God not to harm us but to benefit us, which – despite our occasional stumbles – is still the perfect blueprint for man’s happiness and success in this world.

8 Comments

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

Feeling Closer

Posted on March 13, 2013 | 15 comments

While driving in a Haredi neighborhood in Yerushalayim the other day, I noticed the latest wall poster, here as in Red China the preferred method of conveying news, information and public sentiment. In fact, there were two identical signs, side by side for emphasis, ominously citing the Biblical injunction: “Zachor et asher asah lecha Amalek… lo tishkach” – “Remember what Amalek did to you… Do not forget!”For additional emphasis, the word “Amalek” was written in white on a black background.
Only the word “Amalek” was substituted with the phrase “HaBayit Hayehudi.” “Remember what the “Jewish Home” did to you…do not forget,” the “Bayit Hayehudi,” of course, being the Israeli political party that began with a Religious Zionist base and has expanded its reach across most sectors of Israeli society.
The ire of the inhabitants of this neighborhood, or at least the producers of this wall poster, has been raised by Bayit Hayehudi’s platform and post-election insistence on some type of burden-sharing from the Haredi community, especially in terms of compulsory military or national service and increased participation in the work force. What has galled the Haredim is Bayit Hayehudi’s alliance with Yesh Atid, a nominally secular party that accentuated the need for “equality of burden” during the campaign, but also contains members who are Religious Zionist and Haredi.
Nothing here ever is what it seems to be, and this is no different. It has emerged in the last week that after the election Bayit Hayehudi first turned to the Haredi parties (Shas in particular) and suggested forming an alliance of religious parties – but were summarily and somewhat imperiously rebuffed by Shas who felt their ticket into the government rested on distancing themselves from Bayit Hayehudi and seizing the spoils of government for themselves. That rejection turned Bayit Hayehudi to Yair Lapid and his party Yesh Atid, in what is shaping up to be a brilliant political maneuver – both tactical and substantive.
The absence of the Haredi parties from the coalition with all that entails in loss of perks and power (i.e., money for their institutions) and the fear that the new coalition will in fact legislate Haredi participation in compulsory public service is what has engendered the hysterics on the wall posters, and the characterization of Bayit Hayehudi as “Amalek.”
They are certainly a different type of “Amalek” than the one with which we are familiar in the Torah and Jewish history. The real Amalek attacked the nascent Jewish people without provocation and throughout our history has been a consistent tormentor, the repository of all things evil: denial of G-d, relentless hatred of the Jewish people and absolute rejection of our rights to the land of Israel.
To their thinking, apparently, this new “Amalek” is expected to defend the very Jews who besmirch them, support them financially, and kowtow before their every wish and desire. If, indeed, that had been the manifesto of Amalek history – protection and support of Jews – then it is extremely doubtful we would be praying for their destruction in every generation. In fact, we would want their tribe to increase and prosper.
Yet, what the reprehensible characterization does is illuminate, or at least brings again to the table, a question that Jews have frequently asked of each other – a question that should be asked at a dinner table if you want to start an interesting discussion with unpredictable twists and turns, a question raised last week by a columnist in “Besheva,” the Religious-Zionist based weekly newspaper.
The question, asked of Religious-Zionists in Israel, is: to whom do you feel closer: to a Haredi or to a Chiloni (secular Jew)? This question arises in different forms in America, in the Modern Orthodox world: to whom do you feel closer – to a Haredi Jew or to a non-Orthodox Jew? Or, to whom to you feel closer – to a non-Orthodox Jew or to a religious Christian?
Note that “feeling closer to” does not mean “love.” We love all Jews, with their flaws, because we all have flaws. The question then is not about love but about closeness, identification, and symmetry of world view and life experiences. Ask these questions, and you will inevitably be surprised by the range of answers received. In the United States, I sense most ModO Jews feel closer to Haredim, because the study of Torah and observance of Mitzvot bring together both groups. It is rather effortless to pray together, learn together, and share together the rhythms of Jewish life, none of which are that simply achieved with non-Orthodox Jews. Granted, some will argue cogently, that the attitudes of ModO and non-O Jews toward modern life are much more similar than the attitudes toward same of Haredi Jews – but the question is not about perfect identification (otherwise, there wouldn’t be different groups) but of “feeling closer.” I sense this is the majority sentiment, but of course there is no right answer and no psak (halachic decision) either!
The last question about affinity for non-O Jews or religious Christians is much more challenging for us. The bonds of blood are strong, and we share the same destiny with our fellow Jews. But to the extent that non-Orthodox Jews worship at the shrine of liberalism, see liberal policies as the sum and substance of Torah, and are not observant of or knowledgeable about Jewish law and practice drives an emotional wedge that makes the question pertinent. To a great extent, religious Christians share the value system of traditional Jews, coming as it does from the Torah. They are comfortable with faith and the public expression of faith, have no interest in banishing “G-d” from the public sector, and often live their lives bounded by Christian ritual and observances in a similar way to what religious Jews do in our lives. Is blood stronger than values and faith? Ask around, and the answers (again, no right or wrong possible) might surprise you.
I reiterate that the issue is not love but closeness, affinity or kinship – and also that speaking in generalities is always somewhat misleading. The tendency to respond definitively based on a particular Jew or non-Jew that we know is tempting but disingenuous. Think not of a particular person but the group – with all the ambiguity that entails – and see what answers emerge. It is not a bad discussion for the seder table at the meal, as the responses go to the heart of the meaning of Jewish identity in the modern world.
To return to the first question is to see the possibility of a sea-change in Israeli life because of such hysterics as the “Amalek” references and the inability or reluctance of the Haredi world to leave their enclaves and feel like full members of the society around them. I would guess that, historically, the average Religious Zionist felt a comfort level with Haredim for many of the same reasons that ModO Jews in America do: the shared language of Torah, the love of mitzvot, even the love of Israel. But in Israel – ignoring the media straw men that are totally unrepresentative of the secular world – the average Chiloni is not anti-Torah and does not hate Judaism. The statistics that testify to the widespread observance of Shabbat on some level (around 80% light Shabbat candles, and close to that number have a real Shabbat meal), the familiarity with the holidays, the Hebrew language, the Bible and Jewish life almost belie the term “secular.”
It is no exaggeration to state that there is no comparison between the chiloni here and the non-Orthodox Jew in America in terms of knowledge and Jewish commitment (one reason why the non-Orthodox movements are still a hard-sell to Israelis), and I dare say that many chilonim are more familiar with Torah and Jewish life than are many Modern Orthodox Jews in America. (One example – my “secular” barber asked me yesterday: “do you want your haircut to last you through the Omer?”)
But in Israel, today, the mutual involvement of the chilonim and the Religious Zionists in defense, industry, culture and building the land of Israel have strengthened the bonds and made an alliance between HaBayit Hayehudi and Yesh Atid – two “new” parties with obvious antecedents – seem natural and long overdue. Granted, there will always be areas of divergence – the mandatory observance of Shabbat by public entities, support for the right of Jewish settlement throughout the land of Israel, the role of religion in public life, Israel’s public diplomacy – but those critical matters are being temporarily shelved in order to focus on resolving other important issues.
The Haredi world that has long kept its distance from the rest of society has succeeded in marginalizing itself. For all its strengths, its study of Torah does not include the works – both halachic or philosophical – of anyone outside their camp. Its observance of mitzvot – again, a strength – often seems like a caricature of what the essence of Jewish life should be, with a focus on external appearances as well as an obsession with the separation of the sexes that at times seems paranoid, if not outright dysfunctional, even given the rampant decadence in society. Their strictures are not traditional Torah norms as much as they are reactions (and probably overreactions)to a world that to them appears irredeemably degenerate.
The attitude that many in the Haredi world project – “we represent the true Jews, and therefore you must indulge us and support us” – does not really resonate anymore with most of the population, many of whom see the shirking of their responsibilities in national defense and self-support as the antithesis of Torah, not its observance or fulfillment.
And that is a terrible shame. The instinctive response of every Torah Jew is to join forces for the common good of all Jews. The parochialism that is rampant is increasingly off-putting and destructive. That the goal of having all Jews work together is met by the extremists with cries of “Amalek,” and by some rabbinical leaders during the campaign apparently oblivious to the laws of lashon hara who denigrated Naftali Bennett and others with the most derisive insults, does not bode well for the future.
The good news is, first, that circumstances may force changes in the Haredi world if their financial support from the tax dollars of others is cut drastically; and, second, that Pesach is coming, a reminder of the shared origin and common destiny of all Jews.

15 Comments

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

Bikur Cholim – Visiting the Sick

Posted on March 8, 2013 | 2 comments

Visiting the sick (or the “not yet well,” as we like to call the temporarily afflicted) is one of the characteristic acts of kindness that define the life of a Jew. It is a simulation of divine chesed. The Talmud (Sotah 14a) cites the verse (Devarim 13:5) that “You shall follow G-d,” and explains: “Can a person really follow the divine presence, which is a consuming fire? Rather, follow G-d’s ways…just like G-d visits the sick, so too you should visit the sick.”
Thus, bikur cholim is an important mitzvah, but – like all mitzvot – it has a precise form and methodology. Often, people with the best intentions can stumble and inadvertently fail to fulfill the commandment properly, or, in the worst case, actually exacerbate the choleh’s predicament. It is important to know that the essence of the mitzvah is to inquire after the choleh’s needs, and especially to pray for his/her recovery. To leave without offering a specific blessing – “G-d should have mercy on you and all cholei Yisrael,” or “May Hashem send you a speedy refuah shleima from Heaven” – does not fulfill the mitzvah.
Beyond the technicalities of the mitzvah is the realization that the choleh is a human being, and not merely – like a lulav, so to speak – a cheftza shel mitzvah, the vehicle through which the commandment is performed. I have heard from cholim who understand well the importance of the mitzvah, the willingness of people to perform it and the necessity to recognize guidelines and limitations. It is not always easy for the “healthy,” so to speak, to empathize with the choleh.
Thus, one overcome by serious illness needs time to adjust to the new reality, the challenge that G-d has sent his/her way. And it is a challenge; as is well known, we cannot always control what happens to us but we can control our reaction to it. Every stage in life is part of our mission to fulfill the destiny that G-d has set for us. Some cholim want to explore the spiritual dimensions of their illness, but others do not. One should be guided by the choleh, and not be too intrusive as to the spiritual state of the person unless the person raises the matter. Granted, the essential mitzvah is to tend to the physical needs of the person, but refuat hanefesh is often a part of a person’s recovery or his way of coping. That matter, nonetheless, is best raised by the choleh.
Even regarding the personal needs of the choleh, each person is different. Someone who is homebound can still be functional – and talk on the phone, daven, give tzedaka, learn Torah and even comfort others. Some look for ubiquitous companionship and others prefer time for solitude or just recovery. The time frame for visits should be determined by the choleh, although Chazal state that one should not visit in the first three or last three hours of the day – early morning or late evening. (The laws of Bikur Cholim are found in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, Chapter 335.) If the choleh says that “now is not a good time,” we must respect that – and certainly not say: “You are depriving me of the opportunity to do a mitzvah!” It is best not even to call early in the morning or late at night. One should first ascertain whether the timing of the visit is appropriate for the choleh – but also for the choleh’s family, which is also great impacted by the illness of their loved one. They too need chizuk – and sometimes just space and a life away from caretaking.
Thus, the choleh’s relatives should always be greeted not with the “pity face” but b’sever panim yafot, with a smile and pleasant countenance. They need not be reminded by your expression of their pain, nor do they need to be distracted from it. The worst reaction – not common but not uncommon either – is to avoid eye contact, to make believe that they are not really there. That reaction – seemingly cold even from otherwise thoughtful people – is an unconscious attempt to avoid causing pain, and even to avoid identifying with that pain that will someday be theirs as well. But little is as painful as that – as if not the illness but the sadness is infectious. Sometimes, the best approach is just to say “hello” with a smile, or send a card or message with simple words that you are thinking of them, davening for them, etc. Certainly, one can call and leave such a message on the answering machine – and do not at a later stage confront the choleh accusingly and ask why your call wasn’t returned? Not every call can be reciprocated. And if you have not called, do not tell the choleh that you didn’t call because you “know that they have others looking after them.” That might be true but it is not relevant, and just an attempt to assuage guilt.
Above all – be normal (a good rule for life in every event). That is hard to do because, again, it can be psychologically painful to see oneself in the position of the choleh and so we try to escape from having any association with that quandary. (Death often evokes a similar reaction in people.) That such is common does not make it acceptable, so, be normal, and supportive to the extent welcomed.
It is very helpful when friends offer to help, but the help should be specific rather than generic – not “can I do anything for you?” or “Please let me know if I can do anything for you” – but specific: “I am going to X Market. What can I get for you?” Or, “can I cook for you [or for your children]?” Can I drive you to the doctor?”
And, of course, whatever you commit to doing – do! Offer to do anything in your comfort zone – but then follow through. Do not say you are cooking, and then (well, of course you will cook, but) expect the spouse to pick it up. Do not offer to drive and then cancel (absent some exigency, of course.) Offering and reneging is worse than not offering at all.
If the choleh accepts your favor, then certainly be discreet. If you drive the person to the doctor, then the patient trusts you. Do not share personal information about the choleh’s condition with others. That is always the prerogative of the choleh. First and foremost, always respect the person’s privacy and dignity.
Visits should be kept brief. Do not stay too long, unless the choleh specifically requests it. Offer chizuk rather than pity, and don’t visit if your visit will make the choleh feel worse. (“Your illness has hurt our friendship and ruined my life!” or “You are not the same person!”) When appropriate, offer words of chizuk or Divrei Torah and even drop off reading material that can enrich the life of the person.
If the choleh wishes to speak about his/her illness, then by all means be receptive and listen, but do not ask about specific symptoms, prognoses or other medical issues unless the information is volunteered. The choleh might be uncomfortable discussing certain matters. If you have a valid reason to suggest a different medical protocol, then do so, but do not suggest that the choleh change doctors in mid-treatment, as that can shake the patient’s confidence and undermine his psychological state.
What should you talk about with the choleh? Certainly tell them what is happening in your life, but do not complain about having to do errands or activities that the choleh would love to be doing but for the illness. If you see the choleh (or relative) in shul davening with kavana, it would be rude and improper to interrupt them for a general inquiry about their welfare. They, especially, need those moments of solitude with Hashem.
Understand, as well, that each person handles illness in a unique and subjective way. There are people whose true needs are known to them only in retrospect, whether they required more support or less. That applies to both the choleh and the family. And just as we would not criticize someone who is public about the illness, so too we should not castigate (even behind closed doors) someone who wants to remain private. There is no one right way, although Chazal do state that it is preferable to inform people of one’s troubles so they can pray for you (Sotah 32b). But, ultimately, the choice is personal, and we must always recall that the illness is not the person and does not define the person. The person remains a human being entitled to respect and consideration, and has a life beyond the illness also.
And perhaps our main contribution to the welfare of the afflicted is to daven for them, to always have them in our thoughts and prayers. Davening helps – it helps the choleh but it also helps others develop a closer, more intimate connection with Hashem. That might be one reason why visiting the sick is a mitzvah whose fruit we consume in this world but whose principal remains for the world-to-come. It is a mitzvah that is not as easy as it looks, and in which we can all easily fall short, but one that properly done invariably makes us better people. With good intentions and even better words and deeds, we can bring great comfort to all cholim, as we pray to Hashem to bring them – and all cholei Yisrael – a refuah shleimah, a complete and speedy recovery.

2 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Halacha, Machshava/Jewish Thought