Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

     “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.

   On the road the other day, I drove across a tiny body of water that bore a strange name, Jewfish Creek, which is not far from the even tinier municipality of Jewfish in the Key Largo district. I didn’t know whether or not I should take offense at such a name, which probably means that I should not. Of course, taking umbrage at the faintest slight is a cottage industry today but I am extremely difficult to offend. It turns out that some people did complain about the name “Jewfish” in the recent past, and the townspeople could not care less and voted not change it. Jews are not Redskins or Indians, much less Chiefs or Braves, the former sports teams now searching for new names and the latter two on the chopping block as well.

    To add insult to injury, some trace the etymology to the fact that this Jewfish, which is a saltwater fish that can grow to be quite huge, is kosher and was widely consumed by the region’s Jews; hence the name. But the Fisheries Society, sensitive to this slippery slur, two decades ago stopped using the term “Jewfish” and instead reclassified it by its scientific name – the Atlantic Goliath Grouper. So not only did they drop the term “Jewfish” but also they renamed this fish for one of the great villains in Jewish history. Now that is an insult. At least the residents of Jewfish and its adjacent creek stuck to their harpoons.

     There are people who possess very keen antennae that pick up signals of abuse that most normal people do not. They have very low thresholds for affront and their main interest is not rectitude but power. The shortest route to power is through intimidation, and particularly by controlling the thoughts and words of others. That is why the variety of groups that perceive themselves as victims – American Indians, blacks, women, homosexuals, transgenders, etc. –  are always modifying the terms by which they prefer to be referred. Indeed, they categorize all prior references as slurs and try to stifle their use, except, oddly, among themselves, where they liberally use words that are verboten to all others. Again, that is an attempt at power and control, not sensitivity and morality.

     The latest addition to this genre is the repeated repudiation of so-called “anti-Semitic tropes,” words or phrases that are supposedly inherently hostile to Jews and brand practitioners as borderline Jew haters. Mentioning things like the Jewish vote, money, influence, media, power, and control, or using “Zionist” as a substitute for Jew, and literally dozens of other phrases, presumably send “dog whistles” to hate-filled ears and can provoke overt violence against Jews. For sure, some of these phrases may and often are used by Jew haters who are trying to instigate even more Jew hatred. The problem, then, is not with the words but with the people, and even if they wouldn’t sound these whistles, their designation as Jew haters would be accurate. Their malevolence is not in their mouths but in their hearts.

     The bigger problem is that the accusation of “anti-Semitic tropes” is frequently used against people who have shown themselves to be quite friendly to Jews (Donald Trump, Boris Johnson) and to defend self-hating Jews (like the leftist George Soros) from any criticism. Thus, when the deeds of a non-Jew are objectively favorable to Jews but the individual is otherwise reviled by left-wing Jews and others, the search for “tropes” is pursued madly and always found. Conversely, when the deeds of a left-wing Jew are especially harmful to Jews, Israel, the United States and the rest of the West, his leftist allies (often Jews themselves) will label any criticism of this individual as trafficking in “anti-Semitic tropes.” It also becomes a convenient but vacuous tool to preclude any criticism of Jews for anything except being too proudly Jewish. It comes out that this cliché of the “anti-Semitic tropes” is a club to use against good non-Jews and a shield to use on behalf of bad Jews. We are better than that.

     There is real hatred in the world, even real Jew hatred, but we do ourselves (and truth) a disservice by flinging about these accusations recklessly. To accuse friendly people whose actions reflect support and amity for Jews, but whose past words are excavated and scrutinized for hints, allusions, insinuations or just ambiguities that might trouble some Jew somewhere, is especially churlish. This, too, is about power and control, not Jewish self-defense or verbal kindness. Saying that Jews are “smart” is a compliment (I wish it were universally true!), not a blood libel, and should not be construed as a blood libel. Those were false, repugnant, libelous – and deadly.

     We should be fearless in labeling Holocaust denial as Jew hatred, not a trope, but genuine Jew hatred. We should be fearless in labeling “anti-Zionism” as Jew hatred, not a trope, but genuine Jew hatred. Those who murder us, deny it happened and wish for it to happen again are Jew haters. Those who advocate that Jews, alone among the peoples of the earth, have no national rights are Jew haters. And this applies also to Jews who profess these malevolent views. These are not tropes or stereotypes but illegitimate expressions of contempt for Jews. They deserve all the opprobrium we can muster and send their way. They are not to be confused with people who send unconscious signals that are picked up by activists with a mission and a gripe.

     If it seems like the same people who are apprehensive about “anti-Semitic tropes” are also vexed by team names like Indians and Redskins, it is because they are the same people. They revel in umbrage, and no name is safe. If “Indians” has to go, why not “Cowboys”? “Yankees” surely offends southerners, “Red Sox” and “Reds” those who suffered under Communism, “Angels” and “Devils” cancel out each other, and the mere mention of “Knicks” is irritating to anyone who likes basketball. And there are many more such transgressions.

     What is masquerading as sensitivity is actually the toll road to tyranny. The activists should relax a little, get a sense of humor and find worthier causes to occupy their time. The rest of us should just keep speaking like we want to speak as long as we mean no offense by it and respect all people as individuals.

    And if the Indians and Redskins are looking for new team names, as far as I am concerned they could do worse than to call themselves the “Jewfish.”

      I have been fortunate to visit dozens of countries on almost every continent on this planet, and the standard advisory when visiting any country that is part of the third world is: “don’t drink the water.” Too often the water is contaminated, unclean, unfiltered or insufficiently so, or just doesn’t rest well in a first world stomach. Tourists live off bottled water and hotels routinely provide bottled water (the good ones, for free) in every room. It is the price of visiting these countries and enjoying their other, non-potable, attractions.

     Then I realized that for many years most people I know do not drink the water in New Jersey or many other places in the United States. That is why the bottled water business is a $7,000,000,000 (that’s billion) industry in America. It might not be a lot compared to other industries –it is half of what was spent on the 2020 presidential election and a third of what Americans spend on chocolate – but it means that people would rather pay good money, billions of dollars, for something that they can get for free right from the tap. There are very few, if any, similar choices made by a consumer.

     What about infrastructure? It is not uncommon in the Third World to travel on potholed roads, rundown highways, and transit systems that are crowded and inefficient (although European trains are a marvel of efficiency and exactitude). Bridges and tunnels are often in disrepair and collapses are not unknown. Railroad tracks always seem to be on their last legs.

     Is the United States really that different? The subways in many cities compare unfavorably with the third world. Highways, bridges and tunnels are in such need of upgrade and modernization that it is a perennial promise by the politicians to spend hundreds of billions to do it, and never do. That little seems to be done is not only because politicians need something to promise in the future and the union demands grossly inflate the cost of any project but mainly because until anything breaks down completely, why fix it? That money can be spent elsewhere on something new and shiny.

     Likewise, the urban areas in third world countries are teeming with slums, old buildings and neighborhoods, and, too often, garbage and rubbish in the streets. These areas abound with dysfunctional families, aimless children, and poor educational frameworks. While the American poor have standards of living that far exceed that of the third world poor, the rest of the description is far too accurate. A slum is a slum wherever it is, and some slums seem to exist permanently. The inner cities wherever they are located remain places of high crime (and misdemeanors), homelessness, social maladies and disorders that seem to defy resolution. In the US as in the third world, there are areas of great opulence that are a short ride from places of great poverty and deprivation. The only difference is that the US has many more places of great opulence than one would find in the third world.

     What else characterizes a third world country? Typically, one finds debilitated social and political systems and even the latter is often tenuously held together by a strong man. In the third world, one expect to see lawlessness, mobs and riots in the streets, with the homes and businesses of the successful looted by the unsuccessful and embittered. One would expect the commission of crimes that will or won’t be prosecuted based on the personal whims of the prosecutor. One expects the judiciary to be so corrupt that it places its political predilections over the rule of law. Justice itself is not just illusory but it is altogether capricious, a veritable gamble as to who wins and who loses. The mob drives disfavored politicians from office and places its favorites into office. The government just prints money and distributes it in order to placate the people, oblivious to the fact that soon that money will be worth less and less.

     In the third world, it is quite common that the wealthy people are those who cozy up to government power brokers. Cronyism is rampant, sweetheart deals, contracts and monopolies are the norm, and politicians, oligarchs and their media acolytes are often interchangeable. There is a revolving door in which jobs and perks are exchanged regularly. The media, controlled by the elites, suppresses dissent, breaks and cancels its enemies, and sets the agenda for the society. Cabals in the establishment, usually military or intelligence, plot from within and attempt to overthrow any leader who does not conform to their wishes. Dissidents are cast out of civil society unless they do penance, often embracing views they previously found repugnant in order to regain entry into the world of the elites, and having to pay a premium price to do so. The crimes of the disfavored lead to their excision and incarceration while the crimes of the elites are overlooked, minimized or covered up. The rich and powerful get away with it.

     Well, how well does that describe modern America? Almost perfectly. The mobs and rioters intimidated and continue to intimidate decent people. A good percentage of Biden voters did so out of fear that the streets would explode and burn (again) if Biden lost. These threats were not subtle in the least. Cities across America deployed their security agents in force on Election Day lest the mob find the results distasteful. (As a general rule, Republicans don’t burn down buildings or businesses. Why would they? They own the buildings and businesses.) In many cities, property crimes, assaults and trespassing committed by the mobsters were not prosecuted. Literally, people committed crimes by the thousands and got away with it only because their politics of the rioters and the prosecutors corresponded. Some rioters were arrested, released without bail, and then arrested again for more crimes, and released again. Black supremacists are disgracefully hailed even as white supremacists are justifiably castigated.

     In New York City, police solve crimes at a rate below 30%, which is actually astounding. Criminals just get away with it, and the average citizen does not realize the extent to which they get away with it. Dissidents on moral issues have their religious liberties threatened and curtailed, even as the margin of victory in the Supreme Court (their last protection) is extremely narrow. Congress is as dysfunctional as any third world parliament, with the only saving grace is that Congressmen have not yet come to blows on the floor of the House or Senate, something quite common in the third world. Elements within the CIA and FBI plotted against a sitting president, and few if any will be brought to justice. Money is printed and distributed by the trillions, which is not to say it is fairly or equitably distributed, or distributed to those who need it most rather than to the oligarchs and political cronies of the powerful.

      And what better characterizes a third world country than election fraud? It is almost synonymous with the third world, as is the weaselly, politician/media cliché repeatedly uttered of “no evidence of widespread fraud.” Left open is why there should be any fraud at all, as well as a precise definition of “widespread.” Note this well: if 99 ballots out of 100 are legitimate, and 1 out of 100 is bogus, then most people would not construe that as “widespread” fraud. After all, it is only 1% of the vote. Yet, in the three key states of Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, Biden defeated Trump by less than 1% of the vote. Widespread? Hardly. Determinative? Absolutely. And if we expand the definition of “no evidence of widespread fraud” to 3% of the vote (meaning that the election was 97% honest) then crunch the numbers and Trump won a smashing victory. I accept the outcome, but please do not insult our intelligence with the vapid banality of “no widespread fraud.” And at least acknowledge as well the oddity that all accusations of fraud went in one direction, not both.

      It is sad that the United States, to too great an extent, is becoming a third world country in all the aspects that define a third world country. The great irony is that, notwithstanding this political and moral collapse, only the United States could have produced the Coronavirus vaccine in such record time, and only the United States has the material and constitutional heft to lead the world, to be an example for other nations, and to fight the evil that persists in the world especially in countries antagonized by the American ethos. The United States has many places of astonishing beauty and prosperity, and successful people have long segregated themselves into communities that are gated, literally or figuratively. But Americans can also easily be fooled by the glitz, the glamour, the trappings of modernity and technology, and the soothing sounds of social media that indulge the worst facets of our nature and few of the positive ones. America is filled with soporific distractions, the bread and circuses of the Romans that lulled people into thinking that all is good and getting better even as every feature of civil society was breaking down.

      As Romans could tell you, nothing lasts forever. It is easy to get complacent, and easier, and worse, to deny what is happening in front of us because the consequences are too unpleasant to consider. “All are considered blind until G-d opens their eyes,” especially diehard partisans. Those who notice this should take it to heart, ignore the mindless cheerleading and empty platitudes, and draw the appropriate conclusions.

     Something curious has arisen in the recent past regarding this matter of the endless arguments without resolution that is a modern affliction. There are many occasions when I will disagree with someone who kindly informs me, “Well, you are entitled to your opinion,” or I will discuss with a third party a particular statement or position someone has that I find flawed, misguided or troubling, and that third party will respond, “Well, he has freedom of speech.”

     It is curious because I never questioned or doubted the person’s right to his or her opinion or the right to express it. What I questioned was the accuracy, wisdom, cogency, veracity, sensibility, logic or plausibility of that assertion. The “right” to say something is a procedural matter that it wholly unrelated to the substance of what was said. So when and how did that become an appropriate rejoinder in a discussion of a substantive issue?

     From one perspective, such a claim is intended to end the discussion. A mind having been made up and thus at present immovable, “he has a right to his opinion” is tantamount to saying “let’s move on.” So rather than further debate the substance, this plea is entered in order to allow the interlocutor to maintain his stance despite its senselessness, errors, illogicalities and untenability. It is still peculiar; given that in a free country people have the right to cling to and profess the most outlandish and erroneous ideas, that fact should go unstated.

      Perhaps, though, that is why this unusual declaration has become so prevalent. The right to hold and express certain views is under assault from many quarters in society, particularly the political and religious left. A recent survey indicated how basic principles of free speech are unwelcome on American college campuses. Thus, “more than half of students (57 percent) think colleges and universities should be able to restrict student expression of political views that are hurtful or offensive to certain students… A majority of students (70 percent) think students should be excluded from extracurricular activities if they publicly express intolerant, hurtful, or offensive viewpoints.” That is ominous but explains the chilling atmosphere on many campuses and classrooms where some ideas are considered beyond the pale – including support for Israel.

      It has become fairly common, even outside campus life, to be impolitely informed that certain ideas are unwelcome and may not be uttered. It often is related to a moral notion, especially a defense of a traditional viewpoint. It has happened to me, usually when people felt their avant-garde, “enlightened” views should be the only ones heard in the public domain. Some feminists have become notorious for this, as well as the advocates for same-sex practices. It never much mattered to me but I would hear from others, including rabbis, who said they agreed with me but could never articulate such views publicly. That’s a shame, because then the mob wins, and this is just one aspect of the cancel culture that has made social discourse so toxic. The right of freedom of speech is not much of a right if those who enjoy it are afraid to use it for appropriate reasons.

     It’s an even bigger shame because, as has been well documented, those professing conservative viewpoints have been largely intimidated into silence. Just to give one example, there are thousands of work places where it is safe to express contempt for the President and unsafe to express any support for anything he has done. Even neutrality is considered repugnant. But extrapolate from there to places where you cannot express support for Israel, and from there to what has become a most widespread phenomenon: the sheer inability of people to discuss politics or religion without descending into vitriol at best and blows at worst. That is a sad commentary on society. I have heard that there are families where certain sensitive (but not personal or familial) topics cannot be raised at any gathering lest reasonable conversation be drowned out by the cries of the moralistic monoliths who can only tolerate their own opinions.

     Words that incite violence or otherwise dangerous are already proscribed, and rightly so. I always laugh when the limits of free speech are described by some pundit as ending at the point of “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” Justice Holmes prohibited “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.” Obviously, if the theater is on fire, you are allowed to shout, and then get out.

      It might well be that the faulty citation is quite revealing. The context was “causing a panic” and thereby endangering lives, and such speech should obviously be illegal. But among the unduly sensitive, or censorious, speech that induces “panic” has been transformed into any speech that causes discomfort, offense, pain, hurt or even disagreement with the views of me and my friends. There are naturally religious bans on lashon hara, ona’ah and the like, which are quite edifying, but secular limitations on such speech are hazardous to the survival of any free society even if they come from civilians and not from government.

     It is understandable why discussions of religion and politics often bring out the worst in emotional people. Those two areas explore the best way to live, the values we should embrace, and how to implement those in the broader world. People’s opinions in these areas are often informed by their emotions and desires than by facts, texts, and traditions, and you can’t argue with people’s emotions. But these areas are not just the spice of life; they are literally life itself, and how to make the most of it. How pitiable that people can’t listen to and learn from each other and have their views shaped accordingly.

     Whatever opinions you hold, we can put an end to this pointless verbal tic of acknowledging people’s “rights to free speech” as a conversation stopper. The correct response to that is: “Of course they do. I never questioned their rights. They even have the right to be wrong. They even have the right to possess morally, logically, and religiously indefensible positions – but at least they should admit that.”

      That is because we also have the right to be thoughtful people who abandon our mistakes and are glad when they are pointed out. This is especially true in the subjects that are considered the most sensitive – because they are the ones that will influence our souls for good or ill and define our quest for spiritual and intellectual perfection.