Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

      What a debacle, a series of terrible miscalculations and awful judgment exhibited by all sides of the political divide in America. It has all the markings of a banana republic.

      Who put into President Trump’s head the preposterous idea that the Vice-President has the right to reject the votes of state certified electors? Whoever did is guilty of malpractice or worse. The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution authorizes the Vice President (in his capacity as President of the Senate) to “open all the certificates” as provided by the States, and then the votes are counted. How that can be construed as certifying, confirming or being allowed to reject said certificates is a mystery. That the President believed whoever told him that reflects poorly on him.

      As stated before, President Trump did not incite or cause an insurrection – the guilty are the perpetrators – but as president he bears responsibility for whatever happens on his watch, especially when, based on the previous paragraph, the rally itself was pointless. Nothing he said can be fairly interpreted as a crime or as dispatching a small mob (most of the participants in the rally went home, so by last summer’s standards, what happened could be called a “mostly peaceful protest”). President Trump showed appalling judgment in not denouncing the attack in real time, something that might have inhibited some of the protesters. The mob should be punished, like all mobs, and politicians of all stripes should denounce political violence of all sorts even when committed by their own supporters. The attack was a horrible stain on American democracy.

     That stain was deepened by the subsequent reaction, including the bans on the free speech of a variety of individuals, including the President, by private companies that benefit from federal regulations that insulate them from liability. That is an evil wind coursing through American society. The ease with which basic freedoms can be suppressed – and the past year has seen the heavy hands of government and major corporations crushing fundamental liberties – should frighten every American, and every citizen of the free world. What happens in America sets an example for the world. It is not only that the world’s dictators are laughing at the dysfunctional American government but more that governments that look to America for democratic guidance will now feel emboldened to repress their populations whenever it suits them.

     Worse is the sham impeachment that took place, something vindictive and absurd. The motivation for impeachment and conviction should be removal of someone unfit from office. A President who is days away from leaving office who cannot be “removed” from office should not be subject to impeachment. The argument that the Democrats seek to bar him from ever running again doesn’t hold water. As I read the Constitution (Article I, Section 3), impeachment and conviction “shall not extend further than to removal from Office and disqualification to hold or enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” (This assumes that political office is one of “honor, trust or profit.” Well, maybe profit.) More to the point, such “disqualification” is a consequence of “removal.” It doesn’t stand alone, otherwise it would permit Congress to impeach and try any politician simply to exclude them from seeking office.

     For example, could a Republican Congress have impeached Joe Biden in 2018, two years after he left office, for a High Crime (having been credibly accused of rape), only to prevent him from running in 2020? Such a thought is ludicrous or Richard Nixon could have been impeached even after he resigned in 1974. (Pardons are ineffective against impeachments [Article II, Section 2]). As a constitutional enthusiast, I look forward to this being litigated in the courts.

     Worst of all is an impeachment without an investigation, hearing, witnesses, testimony or any resembling a fair trial. The rush to judgment has all the markings of a Communist show trial. It sets such a dangerous precedent that one can look forward to impeachments whenever the House of Representatives and the White House are controlled by different parties. Since impeachment is a political act, and all presidents do something that the other party doesn’t like, impeachment can become routine, and a routine waste of time since it is unlikely that any Senate would ever convict.

     And then there is something raised the other day by a Florida congressman, unwittingly channeling the Jewish legal principle of “Ain eid naaseh dayyan” (a witness cannot be the judge). A witness cannot be a judge because of the obvious lack of objectivity that engenders in the “judge.” The blurring of the roles makes fairness impossible. The House effectively sits as a Grand Jury that hands up an indictment of the president. Here the Grand Jury consisted not only of witnesses to the alleged crime but its purported victims as well! Does the victim of a crime ever sit on the jury? Of course not. Potential jurors are routinely excluded if they were ever crime victims so as not to prejudice them against the defendant, much less the victim of the crime being tried. Additionally, in impartial hearings, the accused has the right to defend himself; the rush to judgment here precluded that.

     Why then did the Democrats sprint to impeachment? I don’t buy the notion of wanting to disgrace Trump as the only president ever to be impeached twice. Impeachment has lost is stigma. Bill Clinton did quite nicely for himself after his presidency, and Donald Trump won more votes in his re-election bid than in 2016. (In fact, he is the only president in history to have lost* a bid for re-election while garnering more votes than in his initial election. Go figure.) It is another line in a biography, and for as many people who feel that Trump is thereby dishonored, the same number will feel he is a wrongly persecuted hero.

     My speculation is that the Democrats did this to discredit any attempt to investigate potential fraud in the past election. They will immediately respond that any such allegations instigated a treasonous attack on the Capitol and that anyone who makes the argument or raises questions is similarly treasonous. This will enable them to hasten to make mail-in ballots the norm, the simplest route to fraud.

     Yes, yes, I have heard that there was “no evidence of widespread fraud,” and nothing that would “overturn the results of the election.” Here is why Trump couldn’t legally prove his case of fraud:  For all the shenanigans that people testified to (mail trucks of fake ballots delivered, suitcases of ballots being brought out after hours, ballots of the dead and missing, keeping observers far away so as to render them useless, etc.), he cannot prove that those ballots were for Biden. Ipso facto, the results of the election cannot be overturned, nor is there evidence of widespread fraud. But anyone who believes that there was no fraud because the courts so ruled must also believe that OJ was innocent of double homicide. The judicial system doesn’t always get it right; it is sufficient for a civil society that it gets it right most of the time.

     If the Democrats want to enshrine in law mail-in voting, you will know the fix is in. The fairest electoral system would require a national voter ID, which the Democrats have always ridiculously claimed disadvantages minorities. Why that is so is another mystery; anyone who flies on a plane has to produce identification. In Israel, every citizen has an ID number and such is presented before voting and duly recorded. This way people only vote once, and priority is given to voters who are alive. That would ensure a fair system – mail-in balloting combined with election month is a formula for perpetual mistrust of the system by one side or the other.

     Of course it won’t happen. That is the price of the dysfunction and corruption that afflicts all sides of American politics today with no signs of abatement.

      Rep. Mary Miller, a new Republican Congresswoman from Illinois, was lambasted  by the customary caterwaulers for saying at a (not the) Capitol Hill rally the following: “Each generation has the responsibility to teach and train the next generation. You know if we win a few elections, we’re still going to be losing unless we win the hearts and minds of our children. This is the battle.” So far, so good.

     Then she added: “Hitler was right on one thing. He said ‘Whoever has the youth has the future.’ Our children are being propagandized.”

     Less than a week after she assumed office, there were ubiquitous calls for her resignation. A rabbinical organization with which I am affiliated, the Coalition for Jewish Values, came to her defense in a way, rejected calls for her resignation but noted her unfortunate reference to Hitler, for which, by the way, she promptly apologized.

     It is not a good look to be citing Adolf Hitler in any context but to inform that he was beyond evil, a sick, perverted, malevolent mastermind of the greatest genocide in history. Miller’s context was apt, in that she was underscoring that evil (i.e., Hitler) can easily triumph if the minds of the youth are corrupted, and she openly stated that Hitler was one of the most evil dictators of all time. It was a strong point made inartfully, but the point she made, well taken as it is, could have been substantiated by quoting the Bible or 100 lesser thinkers.

     The broader point is that incessant references to Hitler, Nazis, Storm Troopers and the like have become too prevalent and banal in American society. To seek the resignation of all those who misuse these terms would leave almost no one standing in public life. In the Wall Street Journal the other day, Peggy Noonan, after asserting that she has fought off the temptation for years, finally compared President Trump to Hitler. Arnold Schwarzenegger, better body-builder than politician or thinker, compared last week’s riot at the Capitol to “Kristallnacht.” Nancy Pelosi this past summer compared federal law enforcement officials trying to restore order in America’s riot torn cities to “Storm Troopers.” AOC compared ICE detention facilities to “concentration camps.” Parenthetically, none of these four individuals have been asked to apologize or to resign.

     Here in Israel, it is also not unknown for the epithet “Nazi” to be hurled at police officers, politicians, bureaucrats and the occasional cab driver.

     Good grief. Perhaps some ground rules are in order as to the use of Nazi metaphors.

     Hitler was a genocidal mass murderer without any redeeming features at all. For twenty years, he planned the mass incarceration and then extermination of an entire people. He murdered six million Jews, and scarred several million other survivors and refugees. While doing so, he ignited a world war that consumed tens of millions of other lives.

      Anyone whose deeds do not rise to that level should never be mentioned in the same breath as Hitler. All that does is diminish Hitler’s evil. To compare President Trump – the best president for Jews and Israel ever, not that Jews show any gratitude for it – is obscene; memo to Peggy Noonan and thousands of others. If you need to compare Hitler to someone, compare him to his rivals Stalin and Mao (each of whom murdered more people than did Hitler).

      President Trump, whatever his personal flaws, did not round up millions of innocent people for extermination. Harsh tweets, even harsh rhetoric, are not the same as cattle cars and gas chambers, and the mere suggestion is repugnant to one whose relatives experienced cattle cars and gas chambers.

     Furthermore, on Kristallnacht (November 9, 1938, the “Night of the Broken Glass,”) several thousand Jews were murdered, tens of thousands were arrested and sent to concentration camps, hundreds of synagogues and thousands of businesses throughout Germany and Austria were burned, ransacked and looted. The riot at the Capitol was despicable – but Kristallnacht? The hyperbole is appalling and disgusting, especially coming from a native Austrian. (To me, even calling it an “insurrection” is over the top, just politics. Did the invaders try to seize the government? Did they have a plan to form an alternative government? Did they have any plan at all? t is disgraceful enough that the Capitol was invaded by a motley crew of misfits, clowns, pillagers, and violent trespassers. They should all be in prison – like all rioters and looters – but insurrection?) It is that type of exaggeration that induces publicity seeking polemicists to compare it to Kristallnacht, an insult to Jews who lived and suffered through it and the thousands who then fled Germany in its wake.

     Are law enforcement officials “Storm Troopers” as Pelosi termed them? Well, were these officers trying to restore order or create mayhem? Were they rounding up innocent people for detention, slave labor and execution, or were they trying to protect innocent people and their homes and businesses? The answer is clear, and the epithet Pelosi used was reprehensible, not that she will called to account for it.

     Are ICE detention facilities “concentration camps” as Cortez labeled them? Such a characterization can only emerge from someone who is completely unfamiliar with concentration camps where innocent people (not lawbreakers) were forced into slave labor, malnourished, received no health care, and died in huge numbers when they weren’t being executed. Jews in concentration camps were not held for brief periods of time until their status could be clarified, and then freed.

       Godwin’s Law lives: the longer any discussion goes on, the likelihood grows that someone will compare someone or something to Nazis. Users demonstrate emptiness of thought and an absence of values and historical perspective. Unfortunately, Jews too are not strangers to misappropriating Holocaust references and shooting them at their perceived political foes.

     We need a moratorium on Nazi references, especially when used by politicians as propaganda for their views. Any act that does not reach the level of genocide or potential genocide is not “Hitler, Nazi, or the Holocaust.” Perhaps the only enduring lesson we can learn from Hitler is how easily pure evil can be diluted until it seems trivial, which can only lead to the proliferation of more evil.

     If it is not genocide, leave Hitler and his henchmen out of the discussion. Try to make your points using logic and reason rather than a conversation-stopper born of ignorance.

Capitol Crimes

And while I’m on the subject of a Third World country…

Everyone should acknowledge the truth of Chazal’s statement (Avot 3:2) that we should always “pray for the welfare of the government; but for fear of government men would eat each other alive.” It certainly seems that way. When government is perceived as illegitimate and fear of authority dissipates, there is no limit to what mayhem even decent, and certainly indecent, people can perpetrate.

It needs to be underscored that the assault on the Capitol was wrong, despicable, deplorable, and beyond the pale of a civilized society. It does typify what is common in Third World countries. To the extent that President Trump was responsible, he deserves criticism. It doesn’t undo the good that he accomplished in his four years as president, but the leader is responsible for what happens on his watch and especially an assault on the seat of American democracy.

It was inexcusable, which is not to say it was unprecedented. Let’s get real. Democracy is not in danger.

In January 1952, thousands of Israelis surrounded the Knesset to protest the impending negotiations about reparations from Germany. Egged on by an irate Menachem Begin, who urged his supporters to sacrifice their lives along with him, the Knesset chamber filled with tear gas. Lawmakers had to be evacuated. There was pandemonium in the streets. Numerous arrests were made. Democracy in Israel was assumed to be tottering on the brink of collapse. Begin was eventually banned from the Knesset for three months.  The talks with Germany began. There are persistent rumors (OK, I can verify it personally) that democracy in Israel survived.

American democracy will not be aborted by several hundred protesters who briefly occupied the Capitol, and once there, had no plan to actually do anything. It was less a revolution than an empty, pointless, but deadly gesture.

In 1932, tens of thousands of outraged veterans descended on the Capitol and squatted on the grounds. This was the Bonus Army, impoverished former soldiers protesting that their pensions in government bonds would not be payable until 1945. In the nadir of the Depression, they needed the money now. They, too, were deemed a grave threat to democracy, although too decorous to actually enter the Capitol building. Following orders, Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur directed his soldiers to fire live ammunition at the Bonus Army in order to clear the Capitol. They did. Two veterans were killed, and although democracy endured, this violent act probably cost MacArthur a chance at the presidency. His second-in- command, Dwight Eisenhower, fared better.

We should spare ourselves the apocalyptic talk, most (but not all) of which is politically motivated.

The justified condemnations of yesterday’s protest stand in stark contrast to the tolerance, even celebration by many of yesterday’s critics, of the riots, protests, and looting that swept through American cities this past spring and summer and lasted months. Those riots found enormous support especially among those who detest President Trump. It is a curious stance.

Consistency – intellectual and moral – demands that the black supremacist (BLM) riots of the summer of 2020 warrant the same passionate criticism of the Trump supporter riots of 2021. That it didn’t bears some analysis, and sheds light on the real threats to democracy in America.

Many rabbis and Jewish organizations, livid over the assault on the Capitol, were quite sympathetic, even supportive and some quite enthusiastic about the summer’s devastation in urban America. They saw no real problem, and even downplayed and ignored, the targeted attacks on Jewish businesses and synagogues (in Los Angeles, for example) and were very indulgent of the assaults, the homicides, the looting of hundreds of stores, the arson against homes and workplaces, and the chaos that ensued. They even excused the non-wearing of masks and the nonexistence of social distancing at these riots, holding that racial justice is more important than even protecting life from the ravages of Coronavirus. Some even opined that riots and protests were not contagious because…well, because they are just not.

In essence, these leaders, media personalities, activists and politicians all reasoned that political violence for a worthy cause is commendable if the grievance is construed as legitimate. And now they are shocked when another group asserts the same rights. If the black supremacists, Antifa and their allies were permitted to vent when aggrieved by some perceived violation of their rights, it should not be surprising when whites, supremacists and others, also seek to vent when they are aggrieved by some perceived violation of their rights.

What democracy might not survive is a persistent double standard in society. Few of the black supremacist rioters and Antifa looters were arrested, and of those who were, slightly more than none are being prosecuted. Theirs was a just grievance, apparently. But when millions of Americans have probable cause that there was significant fraud in the recent election, the elites determine that such a grievance is not legitimate. That position will clearly not persuade the offended.

Yet, the black supremacists and the white supremacists are mirror images of each other (the common denominator is that both dislike Jews). Blacks and others who feel targeted by the police and recklessly attacked were offended, and took to the streets, occupying large areas of Seattle, Portland and other cities. Washington DC, for all the hand-wringing and pieties heard yesterday, has been a war zone for months. Americans who feel that the government has taken away their freedoms, businesses, jobs, ability to earn a living, closed its schools to their children and saw their champion, President Trump harassed, harangued, and victimized by phony charges since before he took office and now defeated by fraud (so they say), are also offended.

Once political violence is legitimized at one end of the spectrum, the genie is out of the bottle. Let’s face it – political violence often works. Occupy Wall Street was a favorite cause of President Obama. The summer’s riots changed the election dynamic, was perceived as weakening Donald Trump, and encouraged and (to an extent) funded by Democrats and other left wingers. (Recall, for one example, Amy Klobuchar raising money to bail out rioters.) Arab terror weakened Israel sufficiently that it provoked the disastrous Oslo Accords. Of course, too much violence fails; thus the 2002 war in Israel against the terror infrastructure. Riots in the wrong place at the wrong time (like the Capitol riots) dishearten and disgust even those supportive of the cause. Besides being wrong and criminal, they are also counterproductive. The double standard, though, “violence for thee but not for me,” must surely grate on the protesters.

It is reasonable and proper to denounce political violence as a tool for everyone, and to prosecute anyone who engages in it. Anyone. Period. That should be obvious and those who properly wish to condemn yesterday’s riots while giving a pass to previous riots are misguided and pursuing an agenda. Too many people are afraid to accept this simple reality, and even now hide behind the contention that the Capitol riots are somehow different (because of venue?) and should not be compared to other political violence. That is wrong and short-sighted.

The more serious problem evinced by all these riots is the utter disconnect in America between the common people and the ruling class. It is felt both by the black supremacists (media darlings) and many white Americans (media villains). That will not be easy to heal. The polarization in society is that profound and the mutual contempt of both sides for each other stunning.  Each side points to the extremists in the other side and denies the existence of their own. There is no Democrat presently in a leadership position who has the slightest interest in outreach, another Obama legacy. The latest, frivolous impeachment talk, with Trump’s term ending in less than two weeks, demonstrates that what they seek is blood, not harmony. The “threat” to American democracy of the Capitol crimes will grow in the retelling, from riots to insurrection to a coup attempt, and all for a disgraceful scene whose purpose and objectives remain murky. Did the rioters really think Congress would stop tallying the electoral votes? Hard to believe.

What should Trump have done? I doubt that he even suspected that any of his supporters would invade the Capitol. He should have addressed the nation, as follows: “I feel cheated, robbed of an election that I won by all metrics. But no legal recourse has succeeded. I don’t concede but accept the conclusion and will leave office on January 20.” It would be a different world had he said this yesterday, instead of the speech that he gave, which was a terrible miscalculation.

He is best off not attending the inauguration. It would be a gigantic distraction. Neither President Adams did, so did they loathe their successors (Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, respectively). And he completely destroyed his quixotic quest for another term in 2024, and just as well.

What is the way forward?  It is not simple. The world has yet to realize the extent of the damage to individuals, families and society of the social media platforms that bring out the worst in people and are addictive. It encourages spontaneous outbursts instead of sagacious deliberations. That has to change.

Fighting for a lost cause is futile and vain; the only lost cause that was ever worth fighting was the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The challenge to the Electoral College vote was such a lost cause not worth fighting, even if the primary request for a bi-partisan commission on election integrity is prudent. Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell were wonderful – statesmanlike and forceful – and putting country over party loyalty. Americans could use more of that, less demonizing of the other side, and an end to the political zero sum game that the parties have played for decades.

One indication will be whether yesterday’s appalling acts are seen as aberrations that reflect poorly on the participants and no one else, or are used as a club with which to pound all Republicans for the foreseeable future. I suspect I know the answer to that question.

     “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
― Aristotle, Metaphysics

      A colleague of mine posted on the internet the moving clip of Jonathan Pollard arriving in Israel this week, kissing the ground and being greeted by Prime Minister Netanyahu. For his efforts, the rabbi was “unfriended” (or whatever the term is) by a number of people who, presumably, do not like Pollard, his arrival in Israel, the clip or the prime minister.

      Personally, I believe Pollard is a hero of Israel, placed in an impossible circumstance in which he chose the self-sacrificial route of risking his freedom in order to save Jewish lives. And I understand (without embracing) the counterargument that he endangered Jewish liberties in America. Many Jews feared that his espionage raised the specter of the “dual loyalty” charge against all American Jews, which, ultimately, is a comment on the level of insecurity of Jews in America. This is a recurrent pattern in Jewish history. Many Jews opposed Zionism, the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of the State of Israel because of the fear of the “dual loyalty” indictment.

Captured spies in the recent past who were Chinese-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Christian-Americans and the like did not seem to evoke the same universal fears among their compatriots. A major objective of spy craft is to turn citizens against their own country, and it is certainly despicable when the spying country is an enemy of the host country (unlike the Pollard case, in which he was charged with spying for an ally). There have been Russian Jews in Israel who spied for Russia, as there have been American-Israelis who spied for America. I don’t doubt that Israel has recruited numerous Iranians to spy against that evil regime on Israel’s behalf.

      Of course it was a crime (do not do it yourselves) but when lives are in danger, it takes a special person to risk everything to save those lives. Not everyone could or should do it, but Pollard’s valor always impressed me more than most of his critics’ poltroonery. If we ask in our daily prayers that God should not test us, this would be one test worth avoiding.

     Nevertheless, the point here is my inability to understand why the rabbi’s post should lead a tiny but intolerant band to cancel him, as if a mere post renders his Torah unworthy of study and disqualifies him as a human being. Why couldn’t they just “entertain [the] thought without accepting it”? Not to mention rejoice in the arrival of a Jew in Israel.

     That they and so many others can’t is one of the more execrable features of modern life, and itself engendered an interesting discussion in recent months in the rabbinic world. Three sides formed during the recent presidential election. There were rabbis who averred that they openly support the Democrat or openly support the Republican, and rabbis who made a virtue out of non-partisanship and taking no public position.

      I found myself in the second group, as you might have guessed. I am still mystified by the first group but respect their opinion – at least until President* Biden demonstrates hostility to Jews and Israel, and then they will be held to account. I struggle to understand the third group – the ones who took no public position.

      In theory, their argument is plausible. In such a polarized environment, taking sides could have the potential of alienating congregants on the “other” side. Teaching Torah is more important than who wins or loses a presidential election. Rabbis should not be dictating to free citizens how they should vote. It is plausible.

      Here is why I don’t accept it. The straw man is this notion of “telling people how to vote.” I have never told anyone how to vote; I only told them for whom I’m voting when I was asked. And it would certainly be inappropriate and an abuse of the sanctity of the shul for a rabbi to endorse a candidate from the pulpit. It is not that there are legal issues (black pastors have been doing this in churches for generations); it is rather that the shul is the place of Tefila and Torah, and introducing sordid politics into the shul itself is demeaning. Had I been active in the American rabbinate, it would have been unthinkable that I would have mentioned the political wars on the High Holidays. I did preach in Israel, and there such a notion is even more preposterous.

Nevertheless, if important enough, the rabbi can make his opinions known in other forums, which is far removed from “telling people how to vote” and obviously not seeking vengeance against those who vote otherwise. I don’t know how people vote nor are they obligated to inform me or to accept my opinion on these matters. I can only share my judgment, my application of Jewish values to current events, my analysis of what is good or bad for Israel and America – and then the ballot (in many but not all states) is free, fair and secret. That is how it should be.

      On several occasions I have noted one of the paradoxes of Modern Orthodox Jewry. When I express my opinion on a certain political issue, detractors say “who is he to tell me what to do?” But when I give a psak, a definitive halachic ruling, the detractor’s response is “well, that’s his opinion.” They have it backwards!

      A psak is a psak, not an opinion, and must be heeded. Even then, I would never characterize a psak as “telling people what to do,” which sounds abrasive. (There is a subset of Modern Orthodoxy in which a psak is also just an opinion, and they reserve the right to search for a more suitable opinion that coincides with what they wanted to do all along; it’s a small subset.) An opinion is just that, an opinion, and one can agree or disagree. If I announce to the world that I am a Yankees fan or a Mets fan, I am not demanding that all Jews follow suit. Such is an opinion, or a preference. Learning the difference between a psak and an opinion is a prerequisite to understanding and learning anything from a rabbi. And if it is purely an opinion, well, educated people should be able to “entertain a thought without accepting it.” Maybe they will re-think their opinion. Maybe they will find logical flaws in the rabbi’s argument and have their own opinion confirmed. Maybe they will even begin a discussion with the rabbi, exchange ideas and learn from each other. Wouldn’t that be something? The echo chamber can become quite tedious, although these days it is never lonely. Maybe rabbis can even demonstrate to all others that it is possible to disagree without becoming disagreeable, without making personal what is essentially political.

      I have always believed that rabbis should never shy away from addressing the major, even controversial, issues of the day. To do so makes the rabbinate appear irrelevant and disengaged from what is most on people’s minds at any particular juncture. That is not to say that every sermon – or, indeed, any sermon – must simply be an account of the week’s headlines with a cute spin from the sedra. That would be very provincial and a waste of time. What it does mean is that the good rabbi knows what is on people’s minds – fears, issues, concerns, insecurities – and tackles them directly with the wisdom of Torah and Chazal.

      Decades ago, newly married and still a civilian, I remember one Shabbat in particular when, on the previous day, a horrific terrorist attack had taken place in Israel in which Jews were murdered. The rabbi chose to speak that morning on the topic of toothpaste on Shabbat, important in its own right but something that left the congregants quite deflated.

      To make a virtue out of non-partisanship is as short-sighted as to make a virtue out of the rank partisanship that now afflicts America, in which Republicans and Democrats take turns (investigations, impeachments, the propriety of confirming Supreme Court Justices in the last year of an administration, challenging the Electoral College results, etc.) crassly switching sides in each argument without even a pretense of integrity, a smidgeon of sincerity or the faint memory of their previous positions.

     What is even more troubling is how this pungent partisanship forces partisan Jews to criticize Israel in order to rationalize their support of their party favorite. For example, Jews who now coalesce around the Georgia Senate candidate Raphael Warnock, an obvious Jew-hater and Israel-basher by any reasonable definition, excuse his hostility and cover up his sins, should take a good look in the mirror. It is high time for an identity check. The same goes in spades for Jewish politicians (all Democrats) who look the other way at anti-Jewish statements made by their teammates that would feign apoplexy over if made by a Republican.

     That being said, from a rabbinical perspective much depends on personality and goals. There is a rabbinic model in which the status of toothpaste on Shabbat is an inescapable and weekly reality that is more meaningful and unchanging. It will impact people’s lives, certainly in the short term. Those rabbis eschew all news as immaterial to their primary focus, and Jews have the right to choose those rabbis to guide them. It is a legitimate approach even if it creates a leadership void, as reaction to public events is usually limited to the expression of platitudes.

     It is harder to justify that approach in the modern world, and rather than display an intense focus on Torah it can also result from an unwillingness to take sides, make anyone unhappy, or a dearth of knowledge. Then it panders to the spirit of intolerance rampant in society and is tantamount to self-censorship.

Teaching is about sharing ideas and values, and shaping minds, which is wholly different than telling people what to do. The latter is coercion, typical of tyrannies, and not teaching at all. It also convinces no one of anything.

      I would rather stand with Aristotle, and show respect to the educated mind that can endure listening to a contrary opinion, and even entertaining an idea without accepting it.

     Jews, and the world, could use a few more educated minds.