Ends do not justify the means

It is an often repeated warning. Clearly most Machiavellians will take issue with this characterization, but most decent modern people would agree to a certain extent.

But this is not just a passing reminder or secondary moral guideline. So important is this concept that the Torah uncharacteristically repeats itself in presenting the verse Devarim 16:20:

צֶדֶק צֶדֶק, תִּרְדֹּף

(Righteousness, righteousness shall you pursue . . . )

The repetition clearly puzzled all of the commentators. The early 1800s Hasidic master Rav Bunam of Peshis'cha interpreted this phrase as meaning that "one should pursue righteousness [only through] righteousness."[1]

This verse comes from the parashas Shoftim (last week's Aug. 28 - Sept. 3) , which deals with topics ranging from the installation of courts, the method for establishing a monarchy in Israel and how the Israelites should conduct themselves during war. Later in the parashah, we note that the legal procedure for instituting the death penalty is given (Deut. 17:1-7).

These portions are used in an interesting parable about Reb Chaim Brisker and his defense of an imprisoned anarchist found at the bottom of Rav Frand's shpiel on Shoftim.

[1] See the note for Devarim 16:20 on page 1025 in Artscroll's The Chumash: The Stone Edition.

Why I Am Not a Christian

The great mathematician/philsopher Bertrand Russell used secularism as a foundation for his similarly entitled essay. I am certainly not going to argue on the basis of secularism, as I find it more dangerous and damaging than Christianity.

Rather, though still attempting to "cold logic", I will base my argument against Christianity from the textual basis it espouses as its own foundation. It is remarkable to me that Mr. Russell whose work in the logical foundations of arithmetic and axiomatic theory was unable to find the inconsistency inherent in the Christian system.

I understand that Christianity takes the position that the "Old Testament" is useful mainly as a moral guide and a "fire and brimstone" counterpart to Jesus's messages of love and mercy. The Ten Commandments and patriarchal narratives are OK, but kashrus laws and circumcision practices are no longer necessary. As odd as this "pick-and-choose" basis of a religion is, Christianity still incorporates the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) as the Word of G-d.

The smoking guns is found in this week's parashah, Re'eh. The first gun, as it were, is found at the end of the second aliya where the general principle of Jewish observance is recounted:

Safeguard and hearken to all these words that I command you, in order that it be well with you and your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the eyes of HASHEM, your G-d. (Deut. 12:28)

While a modern Protestant might point to the last phrase "do what is good and right" as the ethical imperative to live "a good, Christian life" regardless of observance of the laws, Rashi puts the emphasis on the first two phrases. The first phrase, says Rashi, implies that one has to safeguard what one knows by reviewing it and committing it to understanding; thereupon one can then hearken to the commandment by performing it correctly. The next phrase "all these words that I command you" says Rashi teach that all of the mitzvos, whether obviously important or seemingly minor, should be treated equally (cf. Pirke Avos 2:1), blatantly refuting Christianity's customized choice of "applicable" laws.

In the next aliya, the Torah goes on to declare its own completeness. Here, we are not referring to mathematical or logical completeness of Russell or Gödel. Clearly, there are certain situations in life which are not specifically touched upon in the written Torah or even legislated by the Rabbis in the Talmud. Rather, Moshe exhorts the Israelites:

Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it. (Deut. 13:1)

The aliya then goes on to speak about the dangers of and punishments for a false prophet. The Sages relate in Sanhedrin 89a that anyone, even one that was previously confirmed to be a true prophet of G-d, is automatically discredited if he claims that any commandment of the Torah should be permanently repealed. Clearly even without the Talmudic extension, Christianity paradoxically acknowledges that Deut. 12:28 and 13:1 were at one point valid but somehow, despite their textual warnings, have been superseded and abrogated by the words of some new prophet.

I cannot vouch for others' justifications for not being Christian, but for me it lies in these contradictions. Of course I can understand that ex post facto, if I were a Christian, these contradictions may be easier to stomach. But that makes a rather flimsy basis for leaving the Jewish faith.

A little review

Well hello again, it has certainly been a while since we've caught up. Reading the sixth aliyah of this week's parashah, Eikev (Deut. 7:12-11:25), I was finally compelled to start posting again. In the sixth aliyah, which is found in Deut. 11:10-21, we find the second paragraph of the Shema, a three paragraph prayer said twice daily by Jews worldwide. Had I been more diligent, I would've talked about the first, most famous paragraph (Deut. 6:4-9) last week when it is read as the sixth aliyah of parshas Va'eschanan, but so it goes.

The Shema prayer declares HASHEM's unity and sovereignty over the universe. The first paragraph then commands each individual Jew to devote his entire heart, soul and resources to loving HASHEM. The second paragraph then switches tense and addresses the Jewish community as a whole in the plural and again commands the community to love HASHEM through performance of His commandments.

Let's take a step back for a second. We are currently three parshiyos into the book of Devarim (meaning "words"). Christians and other English speakers might know it better as Deuteronomy, which is from the Greek for "second law" (deutero- + nomos). In many ways this is true. Moshe is standing above the eastern bank of the Jordan River giving his final spiel to the people Israel. There is a second recitation of the Ten Sayings (or Ten Commandments, as you may know them). The entire story of the wanderings in the desert are retold. This is Moshe's time to review and make sure everyone is on the same page with the mitzvos before entering the Land.

The Hebrew wording of the first line of the second paragraph of the Shema (v. 13) is a bit curious: אִם-שָׁמֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ

Literally, "if hearken you will hearken" (notice the repeated shoresh ש-מ-ע, meaning "to hear" or "to listen"). While a little repetition is good every once in a while, like say the bulk of Devarim, this back to back repetition clearly strikes us as a bit odd since the Torah will sometimes not even address significant characters by name.

So what gives? Rashi indicates that the double form of the verb implies the maxim "If you forsake me [i.e.,Torah study] for one day, I will forsake you for two days." That is, if you neglect your studies, you'll forget what you learned earlier in addition to not adding more knowledge. Conversely, if [you] hearken [to the things you've already learned by reviewing them, then] you will hearken [to new insights as you study them anew]. A little review is essential to complete understanding.

I wish you all a wonderful, safe, happy, meaningful Shabbos. I'll drop some parshas Re'eh knowledge on you next week.

A little post-bar real estate law tidbit

For those of you who need a breather after the bar exams, firstly, congrats on making it through that ordeal! Secondly, I thought I'd open up with a little Q & A:

Question: Where can I find a (very) early example of a deed's metes and bounds?

Answer: That's crazy! Why would you even want to know that? What's wrong with you?

Question: No, but really, where?

Answer: Okay, fine weirdo, I might not be able to give you metes, but you can actually find bounds in this week's parashah, Masei (Num. 33:1-36:13). The boundaries of "the Land of Israel" are enumerated (Num. 34:3-12): Starting in the southeast corner of the Dead Sea and running westerly to the Brook of Egypt (a now non-existent eastern branch of the Nile) via Ma'ale Akravim, Tzin, Kadesh-barnea, Hazar-addar and Atzmon in the Negev; thence northerly up the coast of the ("Great") Mediterranean Sea up to Mount Hor; thence easterly to Hazar-enan via Hamas, Tzedad, Zifron; thence southerly to the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) via Shefam and Rivlah, thence further south to the Dead Sea via the Jordan River.

It has the run-on sentence narration of many modern deeds, but is missing the distances that make of the meat of the metes and bounds sections. It's a shame, too! Since without the metes there is tremendous controversy over where these now long-gone settlements were. This is complicated by the fact that there were at least two Kadesh-barneas, several places that could have been Mount Hor.

Other parts of the parashah contain the granting clause (Num. 33:51-53) as well as some deed restrictions (Num. 33:54-56), where quiet enjoyment is only conditionally granted. But, needless to say, I think the Israelites needed to have a better real estate attorney to review this deed, as there has been a bit of a historical cloud on title.

Oslo and Utøya

I apologize for the rash thoughts of Friday. I too am a bigot, it seems. I had totally pegged the Oslo and Utøya attacks as the result of some liberal anti-religious Norwegian drawing an incendiary anti-Islamic cartoon to which the radical Islamists retorted with an incendiary of their own. I never would have guessed Norway had the wherewithal to breed and harbor such an hate-filled extremist. Spain? Sure. There's plenty of historical anger there. Germany? Duh. France? Definitely. There's plenty of current events that would bring about violent anti-Islamic feelings. But the frigidly placid Kingdom of Norway? Are there even that many Muslims to be mad about in Norway? (Evidently about 100,000 or about 2% of the population, answers Wikipedia.)

In the end, it is this general extremism that is most troubling. It is unconscionable to open fire on children at a summer camp, no matter what their political bent. Railing against the government's policies is best done by voice and votes rather than guns and bombs. I could understand, somewhat, if Norway were the last bastion of totalitarianism (which evidently the deluded Mr. Breivik may indeed have thought), and the summer camp were some sort of paramilitary Hitler Youth-esque training facility. But allowing this loophole opens the door to nutjobs like Mr. Breivik and their distorted reality.

It is attacks like these that keep me up at night. As a member of a marginal group comprising less than 2% of the population of the United States, I always feel but one armed person's delusion away from harm and terror.

Why We Fight

As the sun sets this evening, we acknowledge the coming of the 17th of Tammuz. Historically, this day has seen several calamities including the destruction of the first set of stone tablets of the Ten Commandments and the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The 17th of Tammuz kicks off the "Three Weeks" mourning period which culminates in the most calamitous day of the Jewish calendar Tisha B'Av (9th of Av). Religious Jews throughout the world will be holding a sunrise to sunset fast tomorrow and accept onto themselves the mourning restrictions of the Three Weeks period, including for abstaining from haircuts, shaving, listening to music, and conducting marriages or any other joyous events. Additionally, since the Three Weeks are seen as a time of great danger for the Jewish people, medical operations, travel either to dangerous places or by a dangerous mode (e.g., via airplane) are avoided during this period. The Three Weeks are also sometimes called Bein HaMetzarim ("between the straits") after the verse from Lamentations: all [Zion's] pursuers overtook her within the straits (בֵּין הַמְּצָרִים). (Lam. 1:3)

On this day, July 18th, we must also acknowledge that back in 1290, King Edward I of England issued the Edict of Expulsion, expelling Jews from England and recently conquered Wales for over 350 years. (In the Jewish calendar, this event was actually on Tisha B'Av and it is listed as one in a long list of great calamities in Jewish history to coincide on that date.) It is this troubled history that bears witness that our national fortunes can change at a moment's notice that keeps me on guard. It forces me to speak up, to be strong and resolute (חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ), and to never forget! May we all navigate the Straits in peace, safety and health!

Does Father know best?

Have you ever wondered where the much bandied about "silence is consent under the law" maxim came from? Well if you guessed, this week's parashah, Matos, then you probably don't need this refresher. But if you guessed that Pope Boniface VIII and/or Sir Thomas More's speech in his own self-defense, then you're probably historically much closer.

After ending last week's parshas Pinchas with reviewing the various offerings that are brought for Shabbos and the holidays, the Torah then moves to the subject of nedarim, shevuos, and issarim, which roughly translate, though not well, into vows, oaths and bonds.

A neder becomes a personal (or household-level) change to the general halakhah. For instance, the Nazirite "vow" to abstain from cutting ones hair and to abstain from wine is a neder; though it is perfectly acceptable for the general public to get a haircut and drink wine, a Nazirite that does so is subject to punishment. Most Jews are more familiar with nedarim from the annual annulment of them comprised of the Kol Nidrei prayer on Erev Yom Kippur. Shevuos are oaths taken while bearing witness in a legal proceeding, while issarim are also less restrictive bonds to abstain from something. (Shevuos and issarim, by the way, are also annulled each year as part of the Kol Nidrei ( Kol nidrei, va'issarei, . . . u'shevuos . . . ), so no worries there.)

In the end, Judaism has mixed feelings about nedarim. Wise King Shlomo said in Koheles: Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. (Eccl. 5:4) In fact, the Nazirite neder requires that a sin offering be brought upon fulfilling the vow. This is an interesting review of some of the dichotomous feelings about nedarim and asceticism in general.

This is all well and good, but can you get to the old guy in a powdered wig? Verily, I shall, my dear reader. You see, for all the promise of gender equality from last week's portion and Tzelophehad's daughters, this week's opener starts off with a patriarchal smackdown on women's rights.

While in verse 30:3, if a man makes a vow, oath or bond, it is binding - no questions asked (except for a rescission by a Beis Din - Rabbinical court). But the next thirteen verses (vv. 4-16), concern what happens when a woman makes a vow or bond (tacitly stating that a woman would not be able to testify in court with an oath). There are several cases that are considered:

1) If a girl "in her youth" living "in her father's house" (Num. 30:4-6)

2) If a girl living "in her father's house" who is "married" (Num. 30:7-9)

3) A widow or divorcee (Num. 30:10)

4) A married woman "in her husband's house" (Num. 30:11-16)

The only case in which all vows and bonds are legally binding is in that of a widow or divorcee, that is, whenever there is not a man around to potentially overrule her. In each of the other three cases, her father (case 1) or her husband (cases 2 & 4) can annul the vow within a specified time-period (24 hours for cases 1 & 2; or until sundown for case 4). But, if the father (or husband) "is silent to her" (וְהֶחֱרִישׁ לָהּ) about the vow, then the vow is valid and can never be annulled (outside of a Beis Din ruling as with a man's neder).

In reality there is a fifth unstated case, which is a girl who is living in her father's house but is no longer "in her youth" (which the Rabbis concluded only encompassed the ages between 11 years and 1 day and 12 years and 1 day). In this case, since by 12 years, the girl would be bas mitzvah and legally responsible for her own actions, her father has no ability to remove a vow or bond. Upon marriage, however, the annulment powers transfer to the husband, albeit with a shorter rescission period (until sundown, rather than 24 hours).

Further, it must be understood that according to Judaism, while men are subject to all 613 mitzvos, time-specific commandments are not mandatory for women. The intent is certainly to prevent a woman from voluntarily taking on too many mitzvos at the expense of child-rearing, family raising, etc. So while if a woman voluntarily attempts to follow all of the time-specific commandments, there is no repercussion for falling short here-or-there. However, this is no longer the case if, for instance, the woman made a neder to follow these optional mitzvos. Clearly, this justification is no less gender-biased or replete with "Father knows best"-ism than the text itself, but it is important to note that there is no imperative for a father or husband to strike the would-be nedarim.

While our parashah's verse is used as a means of limiting the misogynistic power of fathers and husbands, the macro-lesson here is clear (though no longer specifically socially acceptable in the case of nullifying female vows): If you do not like what you hear, speak up! That's part of the impetus for this blog. Speak out! Get active! Remove yourself from the silent (consenting) majority!

An Inheritance Rehash

So far we've just touched on one aspect of parshas Pinchas, that of Tzelophehad''s daughters and inheritance. Interestingly enough, the entire parashah is more or less on a similar vain.

In chapter 25, the eponymous Pinchas is rewarded for his zeal in killing Zimri with the gift of the everlasting priesthood (kehunah, not to be confused with the big kahuna of Hawaiian and Kevin Spacey fame). This establishes the line of the high priests which shall be passed on to Pinchas's offspring.

In chapter 26, there is another one of the seemingly everpresent censuses to determine the number of people who will be splitting up the Holy Land once it is conquered, as their national inheritance.

Chapter 27 is when Tzelophehad's daughters come up and inheritance is expressly discussed. Then G-d tells Moshe to go up to Mount Avarim and from that vantage point look across the Yarden River valley at the Land of Israel. Moshe asks for G-d to choose someone to serve as the his successor.

Then the final two chapters of the parashah deal with the various sacrifices that must be made for Shabbos and the holidays, Pesach, Shavuos, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Sukkos.

Well that's not very inheritance like, man?! What have you been smoking? The Pesach seder makes explicit reference to the fact that the rituals of Pesach are meant to serve as a spiritual inheritance for future generations. The rituals and laws of Shabbos and the holidays serve as a token of our Jewish heritage, both religiously and culturally, if only as a way to ensure that families convene together every Friday evening and handful of other times throughout the year for a nice hot, home-cooked meal.

Girlfight!

Evidently a short, harmless clip of female fisticuffs has everyone up in arms! No, not the Michelle Rodriguez movie (which I had no clue existed until this very post). Some 8 year old Sheila from Down Under who followed her kickboxing parents footsteps into a ring against a similarly trained 7 year old opponent. The fight was featured on a Today show clip which decried the danger of letting girls play contact sports.

As Mike Adamick writes in Jezebel, it is particularly ironic that this piece which panders to the Victorian "sugar & spice and everything nice" notion of girls is sharing airtime with the US Women's Soccer team's impressive run to its 3rd Women's World Cup Final (this being the 6th overall final in history). How belittling? Especially, considering the Women's Team has never placed lower than 3rd place, while the US Men's team has never placed higher than 3rd in any of their Cups.

I can understand why Matt Lauer and Ann Curry would not want to put their children (not just their daughters) into a boxing ring at such a young age. I myself cringe any time my wife goes to a non-competitive kickboxing-based workout class. I'm no fighter. From the looks and sounds of them, neither are Lauer or Curry. But that aversion need not, and specifically from high profile public figures should not be, directed only at girls.

Kletzky Tragedy

I am deeply saddened by the news of gruesome demise of young Leiby Kletzky (z"l). I can only imagine the unspeakable horror that his parents, friends, and community members are going through in Borough Park.

I have sat here for a while trying to figure out whether and if so how I want to approach this topic which is dominating the headlines in New York and throughout the Jewish world. I've tried several times to put something together on this, but in the end I cannot. My prayers go out to the Kletzky family and to the immortal soul of the poor slain child.

Bar Review Course

This week's parashah is Pinchas, in honor of Pinchas ben Elazar ha-Kohen, who at the end of last week's parashah killed Zimri who was conspicuously and blatantly trying to take a Midianite lady as a wife (remember, when Balaam tried to get the Midianite women to seduce the Israelites? Yeah, Zimri was Client #1.)

Now it's studying for the bar season and so that frummy law school graduates won't have a leg up on you, I'll start with a short synopsis on Judaism's take on the administration of an estate.

The Land of Israel was just apportioned among all of the men of Israel according to a census. However, there is an issue of one particular, Tzelophehad of the tribe of Menashe, who died during the wanderings of the desert with no male heir. His daughters ask Moshe why should our father's name be wiped out simply because he had no sons?

Such questions of estates are essential to any society, especially one as law-based as that of the Jews. Moshe prays on the issue and G-d, the ultimate bar exam grader, answers:

Zelophehad's daughters speak justly. You shall certainly give them a portion of inheritance along with their father's brothers, and you shall transfer their father's inheritance to them. (Num. 27:7)

The Torah then goes on to state as a commandment, that if a man has no sons, then his estate will go to his daughters; and if no sons or daughters, then to his brother; and if no sons, daughters or brother, then to his uncle; and if he doesn't have any of those then to his closest kinsman. That's a pretty simple - find the closest relative, easy enough. That's what they teach for the bar, right? See intestacy, isn't all that hard, right?*

* WARNING: I have no clue whether this is correct, I just haven't posted in a while and it seems like a topic that several of my soon-to-be bar taking friends have been talking about, so I figured why not confuse them with neither specifically common Federal law or New York State law. Right? You guys have extra room in there for some Torah law still, yes?

Another Weekend, Another Update; or, "I'm a Psychic!"

This weekend, in Miami Beach, I was hanging out at a bachelor party with a bunch of buddies from my college days. Naturally enough, three of us requested that there be at least a few regular hamburgers with no cheese and that at least one of the pizzas be just plain cheese. Even though one of the coordinators of the party was nice enough to bring a package of "all beef" sausages for us, it turned out they had dried skim milk as an additive (why? I don't know), so we politely declined. Out at the steakhouse, while I broke from the other two and had a steak (it's a party, right?), they had various fish dishes. All of this different-ness generated a few questions and conversations at this otherwise hedonistic celebration of the end of bachelordom, that featured a bona fide "Beer Olympics" which was obviously dominated by the bachelor's own hand-picked team.

Being that the group was mixed in with a few non-Jews, there were some "simple son" questions of "What are the rules?" My roommate, who despite perfectly fitting the bill was for the first-time ever called a "WASP" over the weekend, led that charge asking what did a hamburger have to do with not eating pork? (Since that was the only restriction he had known about.)

The bachelor himself brought out his favorite question: "What's the reason that I can't have chicken and cheese together?" Which is an interesting question, certainly. It's a matter of Talmudic "building a fence around the law" by broadening the restriction so that even if you break the custom (by eating a chicken parm, e.g.), you're still a good deal away from breaking the Biblical commandment itself. This led to a discussion of the concept of Karaitism, an Abrahamic sect that just follows the Biblical rules as stated in the Torah itself eschewing any and all Rabbinical interpretations and whether it was Judaism or not, etc.

I had some personal conversations with one of my buddies about how he feels very culturally Jewish but is not sure whether he believes in G-d, or at least in "the vengeful, Jewish G-d". I pointed out, much like my post of Thursday afternoon, that this was just a misconception. There are certainly instances where G-d acted vengefully (Noah & the Flood came to mind) and there are two different instances in the Torah (parshiyos Bechukosai & Ki Savo) where Israel is promised blessings if they perform the mitzvos and terrible curses if they don't. But Judaism generally envisions G-d as a parent figure who just wants His children to have good lives.

Then, current events came around and we started talking about how disgusting the intactivists are and I was at the very least pleased that the whole group, Jews & Gentiles alike, agreed that the measure was just thinly veiled anti-Semitism.

So, there you have it, outside of the small electrical fire, having to sleep through a balmy Miami night with no air conditioning, approximately 60 irritating mosquito bites, I pretty much foresaw the entire weekend. . . . spooky, huh?

Later this week I'll try to see what I can prognosticate with this week's parashah, Pinchas.

I'm no angel

N.B. - I feel that I should confess a few items to my audience. Those of you who checked the blog last night might notice that the Misconception post looks a tad different now. I lost my cool when frantically scrawling that post and wrote some things that this morning I(/my darling wife) realized had no place on a blog meant to spread the word against bigotry and hatred. Hopefully, everyone's OK with the (multiply) re-edited post as it stands now and I will try my best to keep calm going forward and liberally edit and re-edit as necessary.

As the incomparably coiffed Gregg Allman sings "I'm no angel!" But conveniently enough, our parashah features one prominently (Num. 22:22-35).

Balaam's donkey, to which I've referred in previous posts, witnessed an angel standing in the road with drawn sword blocking its path. The angel was trying to prevent Balaam from following through on his mission to meet with Balak and curse the Israelites. When the donkey tried to avoid the threatening angel by veering into a field, Balaam (who, though a prophet, did not see the angel) beat the donkey and turned her back onto the road. The angel then placed himself in two other successive locations at each of which the donkey tried to avoid the angel and was subsequently beaten. Miraculously, the donkey starts to speak and asks Balaam why he was beaten three times. Only after conversing with the donkey are Balaam's eyes opened. He sees the angel and realizes the evil that he has committed.

Sometimes in life, we naturally develop blinders - "keep your head down" we are commonly told. In today's society, we sometimes lose ourselves in the hustle bustle of the times; whether it's diving headlong into our job and losing sight of our personal life, or diving headlong into a relationship at the expense of our friends and families. Rabbi Josh Runyan's article concludes that we should let the large Biblical miracles remind us to enjoy the everyday miracles happening all around us. However, I see the tale as far more cautionary than a simple wake up call to the commonplace miracles of life.

While I too see the Divine behind the chaotic, stochastic nature of life, I think the tale bears more of an ethical imperative. Balaam's "blinding" hatred and lust for wealth were so complete that it took a miracle to help him see the truth standing right in front of him. In contrast to Balaam's attributes, Avraham Avinu is credited with exhibiting "a good eye, a meek spirit and a humble soul." (Pirke Avos 5:19) Clearly, there is some sort of spectrum between these two poles, but if we try to shade healthily towards the Avraham side, we should be in good shape. May we all keep our good eyes open to the truth in front of us and our blinders loose (in the off chance the truth is slightly to the side of us).

With that, I'm off to Miami for the weekend.

Misconceptions about Judaism

Today, I again saw a gaggle of Jews for Jesus on my way to work. Unfortunately, as with all things, this second encounter was not nearly as upsetting. Perhaps, now reawakened to their program of proselytism, I am now inoculated from the harm. I am still disturbed by their behavior and their message. At the very least I was glad to see them inside the turnstyles - at least they had to pay a little bit of money to circulate their shrift.

Identifying themselves at all, however vague, is better than other "Messianic Jews", like Sid Roth of It's Supernatural! TV infamy, who hide their true intentions.¹ Last autumn, my father-in-law and wife were lucky enough, presumably only for having the lucky coincidence of a Jewish last name and Russian first name, to receive a free book from this creep: They Thought for Themselves. Nowhere on the cover, summary, acknowledgments, anywhere except in the text itself does Roth's Christian prerogative become clear. Preying upon those without strong ties to their own traditions, Roth uses anecdotes of a few unfortunate compatriots who suffered under the Soviets and instead of returning to Judaism were led astray by Roth and his spawn. Its a cruel melange to insult Jews and Judaism for not "thinking for themselves" while advocating Christianity in its stead.

A typical misconception about Judaism (often purported by Christianity as a means of comparison) is that of a stern religion of rules given by a "law & order" G-d of wrath and vengeance. This line of attack lends itself easily to the Jews for Jesus & Sid Roths of the world to try to target those who may not fully know or understand all the rules. Instead, with a slight of hand, they propose a "simpler" regime where all one has to do is act ethically, not learn a bunch of rules about rituals which can no longer be done or the intricacies of how not to boil a calf in its mother's milk or pray in a particular way at a particular time. Certainly, there is some truth to this characterization of Judaism - it is much more practice-based than faith-based; however it is dangerous to let this generalization run wild.

In this week's parashah, there are no mitzvos given; it's just chock full of narrative, with no new rules. The narrative is meant to help the reader understand and deal with similar ethical issues should they arise in everyday life (not that talking donkeys are all that common outside of Far Far Away). This week's haftarah, Micha 5:6 - 6:8, which was chosen since the prophet references the villainy of the parashah's Balak and Balaam, further dispels this troubling misconception. Micha states that as opposed to offerings and sacrifices of "thousands of rams, [and] ten thousands of rivers of oil," (Micha 6:7) G-d wants man: "only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with [your G-d]." (Micha 6:8)

Well, that doesn't quite seems like hellfire and brimstone, does it. Yes, there are a lot of laws; it can be a lot to handle. In the end, the point of the mitzvos is to help Jews live fulfilling lives. However, while not advocating antinomianism, Micha's message is that without justice, mercy and humility, all of the mindless mitzvos performance is meaningless to G-d. Judaism is not a religion of rote ritual and empty practice, rather one of deep ethical responsibility, contemplative intent, thoughtful reflection and fulfilling love.

¹ Again, I'd really rather not give this guy any real publicity, so at your own risk google whatever you want about him and his treachery.

Weekend Update - Part 2

(cont. from Part 1)

Let's be clear, our communal relationship with G-d has had its ups and downs. But in general, if you reaffirm your dedication and devotion to one another daily and steer clear of the pitfalls in the G-d/Jews marriage, you'll pretty much be set (whether Jew or Gentile). And what were these pitfalls? Infidelity and baseless hatred.

The Talmud in Yoma 9b (pg. 24) indicated that the 1st Temple was destroyed because of the prevailing idolatry, sexual depravity and murder. These are the "Big Three" mitzvos that cannot even broken in order to save your own life. Clearly, the prevalence of these transgressions reveals a gross rejection of the commitments made during the wedding of G-d and the Jewish people (which is represented by Shavuos, the festival of the Giving of the Torah). The Jewish people were unfaithful in their relationship with G-d, for which a "short" 70 year exile in Babylon was decreed.

The 2nd Temple's destruction was ascribed (ibid., pg. 25) to baseless hatred (in Hebrew, שנאת חינם, sinas chinam). In Pirke Avos 2:16, Rabbi Yehoshua groups sinas chinam with the evil eye (jealousy) and the evil inclination as things that "remove a person from this world." Based off the relative severity of the exiles (70 years versus 1,940 years and counting), it is clear that baseless hatred and jealousy is far worse than even the Big Three of idolatry, sexual depravity and murder.

In this week's parasha, Balak (Num. 22:2-25:9), we meet a non-Jewish prophet (one of 7), Balaam, who is sent to curse the Jewish people in an attempt by the Moabite king, Balak, to weaken the Israelites enough to defeat them in battle. In a twist, Balaam instead blesses the Jewish people several times, culminating in the would-be curse which is now recited every morning upon entering a synagogue: "How lovely are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel!" (Num. 24:5)

Though Balaam was one of only 7 non-Jewish prophets in the Tanakh, he wantonly advocates for all of the Big Three and is guided by a deep seated hatred of the Jewish people. Balaam himself is an idolater who serve Baal in one breathe while communicating G-d's words in the next. In Num. 25, the Moabite women try to seduce the Israelite men into sexual depravity and idolatry, at Balaam's suggestion (though his involvement isn't specifically introduced until a later parasha). Further, Shemos Rabbah 1:9 relates that Balaam was one of three advisers of Pharaoh, when Pharaoh asked what he should do about the "Jewish problem". Balaam advised the Pharaoh to kill the Jews, for which, though delivering three blessings to the Jewish people, he is killed by Yehoshua in parshas Matos (in a few weeks).

Balaam's wickedness and subsequent demise serve as a lesson to those who commit the physical act that spiritually represent the potential stumbling blocks in marriage. The not-so-profound lesson being that hatred and infidelity, no matter how beautiful and poetic the repentent words of the adulterer (or, worse, hater), can destroy a marriage. Two whole posts to prove a relatively simple statement, but there you go.

And with that I wish my friends, the newlyweds, a lifetime free from the infidelitous Big Three, and even more so, from sinas chinam. May you enjoy all the happiness, devotion, and fulfillment that comes from their absence.

Weekend Update - Part 1

Let's see the past four days of July I've seen the temperature vary from 73 and sunny to 81 and sunny. I've seen almost 180 degrees of views of Mount Rainier's dominant visage that without severely spraining my foot and ankle last Thursday would have required a more up-close exploration. I choked down the rage at seeing a perfectly good building facade pocked by misguided militant hippie activism and managed to hold down my lunch while deep behind enemy lines within Greener/hipster central at Darby's Cafe (it would've been even harder had we waited for a table at Sage's). That's right, you guessed it, I was in the great Pacific Northwest for The Fourth and it could not have been nicer (except for maybe without the sprain and the general degradation of my once proud Tree City USA to a Mos Eisley-esque hive of scum and hippie-y).

Anyway, you can't go home again, blah, blah, blah. Like any good Jewish boy from the Northwest, I spent this past Shabbos at the Christian wedding of two of my high school friends. It was both far more religious and far more meaningful than I had previously expected of a couple that's been dating for over 10 years already. For all the time during and since high school that we hung out together, I had completely forgotten that their families were relatively religious. If not their specific families, when the program called for the Lord's Prayer, their extended family and almost everyone invited, without skipping a beat, bowed their heads and recited it from memory in eerily perfect unison. (Though I guess, I could probably do a snap rendition of the Shema, the Shechechiyanu, the Kaddish and a few select others with a big group.)

As isolated and exposed as the Lord's Prayer made me feel, my heart's cockles were warmed by the recitation of a short snip-it of Shir haShirim (2:10 - 13, to be exact). My own wedding featured Shir haShirim heavily, with my kesubah featuring the entire book in micro-calligraphy as ornamentation. Meaning "Song of Songs"(though some English Bibles, including Toni Morrison's, call it "Song of Solomon" instead), Shir haShirim is considered the holiest book in the Tanakh; Rabbi Akiva is famously quoted as saying in Megilla 7a that "If the Torah is Holy, then Shir haShirim is the Holy of Holies." The Commentators indicate that the book, which is read each year during the intermediate days of Pesach (or every Friday night, by Sephardic Jews), is really a mystical love song between G-d and the Jewish people.

The particular portion of Shir haShirim promised that the darkness of winter and its accompanying rain are gone (which pleasantly enough was true in this case) and spoke of the beauties of springtime (birds chirping - check!; sun shining - check!; flowers blooming - check!). Sure Shir haShirim is allegorically speaking of the Exodus from Egypt, but in the Pacific Northwest we'll take nice sunny days on their face value any day.

I think the couple chose not to go for the Shir haShirim mainstay of "I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine" (6:3), since modern couples tend to shy away from the more contractual, property-like vestiges of the marriage ceremony which form the basis of the Jewish wedding. But any shout out to the Tanakh, even side-by-side with the ever present Corinthian "Love is patient . . . " quote, is great. This was an especially nice sentiment since Christianity generally maligns HASHEM as a deity of austere punishment in comparison to Jesus's love-based message. Further, the minister tinkered with the "standard" vows to make sure that both bride and groom "choose" their counterpart not just on that day, but every day, as G-d and the Jewish people affirm in daily prayer.

(more later today)

A quick shout-out

I work with Mike Zegen's two doting brothers, so I'm always up on his latest auditions, roles, etc. His upcoming roles on Boardwalk Empire and How to Make It in America are old news to me, but its good to see this piece in The Atlantic about Mike and the glorification of strong Jewish characters (who may or may not be law-abiding).

How New York Missed an Opportunity

Last week New York joined the ranks of same-sex marriage allowing states, with a steady stream of licenses surely rolling of the presses starting in late July of this year. (Yesterday evening, Rhode Island limped into a same-sex rights fold with a much further watered down civil union statute. Though the Rhode Island statute is certainly not the desired result, it is better than what they had previously which was no same-sex couple recognition whatsoever.)

Personally, I am elated about the NY bill. It is frankly an embarrassment that New York waited as long as it has done to get this equal footing measure passed. However . . . and it's a big however, New York missed a huge opportunity.

As displeased as I am to say it, the much reviled Sen. Rubén Díaz, Sr. had a point when he stated "[G-d] has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago." Of course, his statement was factually incorrect. G-d never really settled anything about marriage, at least in the Abrahamic religions. Christianity adopted monogamy during its reverse merger with the Roman Empire, which first started codifying marriage under Augustus in the late 1st Century BCE. Judaism didn't officially ban polygamy until Rabbeinu Gershom ben Judah's synod around 1000 CE, and though some argue that ban was only temporary, it is now obligatory as a "universally accepted custom". Neither of these seem to be particularly divinely decreed monogamy between one man and one woman.

But for whatever reason, this is the "Definition" that permanently etched into Sen. Díaz's mind and the mind of all those who are quick to rush to marriages defense. Sen. Díaz is tangentially "right" that "for a long time" (only a few hundred years, but still in pretty long), marriage has been intricately linked in America to religion.

The problem here really enters when the social and political definitions are made to conform with the "Definition". New York, where the gay rights movement originated in 1969, should have originated the only useful end to all of this nonsense with some semantic slight of hand: The State should issue the same documents to any and every couple (gay, straight, religious, secular, asexual, whatever this is) a "domestic union contract" whereby the two who enter into the contract are therein bound financially, as next-of-kin, and with respect to inheritance and medical decisions, and all other rights currently afforded to a "married couple" according to the Federal laws of the US and the State. If that couple wants to then have a religious, cultural, or ethnic ceremony of within their own community, governed by that specific community's rules and called by that community whatever the hell it chooses ("marriage", for instance), then so be it!

At first there will be an uproar, certainly. But in the end, if you were married under the old regime, none of your rights, privileges or responsibilities changed. If your church, gurdwara, amateur astronomy enthusiasts group, Bieber superfan association, or local equestrian club had a different set of paperwork and/or rites that were necessary for you to be "married" under their purview under the old regime, well then you're grandfathered through those hurdles already! Way to go!

That said, it would probably still take a couple of lawsuits to compel some of the more staunchly religious hospitals to recognize these new-fangled "domestic union contracts" as legit. But they are just as likely to deny medical rights to a perfectly legally "married" GLBT couple.

It's a different kind of equal footing (at the lowest rung), but it gets the job done. And it won't ruffle the feathers of those, like Sen. Díaz, who slavishly appeal to a supposedly divine etymology.

Currently, the government doesn't care if I take my marriage license and then have a Jewish, or a Catholic, or a secular ceremony (or any combination thereof), as long as the proper paperwork's in order. The government doesn't care if the person signing the license is a rabbi, a priest, a ship captain, a butcher, a baker or a candlestick-maker, again, so long as the paperwork's in order. So this method now appeals to both those crazy "Definition"-ists and the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Of course, life, the State of New York, and certainly the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations are not ideal. So with a hearty thanks, I will take what I got thus far and hope the next state down the line (hopefully California) will take on the task of redefining the social/legal contract which creates kinship as it should be.

More thoughts on study as defense

(continued in spirit from My Morning Walk . . . )

Traditionally, the telling of the Pesach story should be understood "as if" it recounted our own personal deliverance from slavery in Egypt. Similarly, there is a tradition that all Jewish souls, past, present and future, witnessed G-d's Revelation at Mount Sinai. For the generation that left Egypt, of course, there was perfect clarity. It was their own personal deliverance with the culmination of the Revelation at Sinai. That event was so profound that the Torah says (in Exodus 20:15-16):

And the entire nation saw (ראים) the voices and the thunder, and the sound of the shofar, and the mountain was consumed with smoke. The people saw (וירא) and were frightened; therefore they stood at a distance.¹

Now, the faculty of sight requires active focus, rather than hearing which passively collects all of the random oscillations in the air around you (both signal and noise). When the Jewish people saw the voices declaring the Ten Commandments, they understood much more deeply and clearly than had they just heard the information. After all, "seeing is believing!"

In our current parasha, Moshe is commanded to draw water from a rock by speaking to it in order to show conclusively "before their [the Jewish people's] eyes" (Num. 20:8) that G-d provides for their needs. However, Moshe struck the rock twice and though the rock yielded the miraculous water for the congregation G-d chastises Moshe and Aharon indicating that they too will not enter the Holy Land. (Num. 20:9-13)

As Rashi comments, based on the Midrash, if Moshe had instead followed G-d's command to the "T", the Jewish people would have seen the voices again. They would have more clearly and more deeply understood that if even this inanimate rock, which cannot speak, cannot hear and does not need any sustenance, fulfills G-d's commands, then how much more so should we, the Jewish people to whom G-d entrusted his Torah? Instead, due to Moshe's strikes of anger and impatience, the Jewish people were left only with the notion that G-d will provide for the needs of the congregation (if they bug Moshe enough for them). It's still a nice and comforting thought, but not nearly as symbolic.

This thwarted re-revelation perhaps would have provided a refresher to that generation of Jewish people, who had only heard about the Revelation at Sinai from their folks. (At that point in the story, almost all of the generation of the spies had already died out. Only Kalev and Yehoshua who eventually make it to the Holy Land along with Moshe and Aharon were left at that time. Miryam, whose merit provided the people with a well throughout their wanderings, had just died at the beginning of Chapter 20, thus necessitating the people's need for water.) Instead, the generation of Moshe v. Rock are sustained by the knowledge that their parents saw G-d's Voice and that G-d continues to provide for their needs.

Today, numerous generations removed from the Revelation and Moshe's rock beating event, the communal memory of the Revelation still forms the basis of the Jewish people, faith and tradition, but its temporal remoteness coupled with the many catastrophes in the intervening years leave us open to attack from those of other faiths who seek to diminish our faith in G-d (either for the benefit of another religion or for the benefit of secularism). While some of the other sources that I gave earlier today may urge you to additionally sprinkle in some actual practice here and there, I think that we at the very least study our history, rituals, customs, religious practices. The best defense is always a good offense.

¹ N.B. - In general, I am a fan of the Mechon Mamre website, which offers numerous versions of the entire Tanakh (Torah, Prophets & Writings). However, I used a different text here, since Mechon Mamre follows the JPS 1917 translation, which I find to be very lacking for this particular passage. I've included the Hebrew verbs in the above translation. If you have a keen eye, you will see that both of the verbs have the same (corrupted) root ראה, meaning "to see".

My morning walk . . .

Today, I was on my walk to work when I was brutally interrupted. I couldn't quite tell what was going on but one look at the vile flier being shoved at me drove home the point. The most paradoxical and vicious of post-Crusades attempts to convert the world's Jewry en masse: Jews for Jesus. Vile, disgusting pieces of expletive!

I restrained myself, not quite politely refused his dreck, and waited anxiously for the light to change. Had it not done so as quickly as it did, I might have actually done what I fantasized about scarcely half a block further down: taken all his pamphlets torn them in half (with what I imagined would be Incredible Hulk-ulean anger-strength) and made his filth rain down upon him in a shower of purely nonsensical, derogatory propaganda.

But as seething as my hatred of their predatory, Evangelical Christian organization is, I felt it my civic duty to just let him be. After all, he was playing somewhat fair. We weren't on Brighton Beach where his smut would attract the babushki and dyedushki from the former Soviet Union, who as we discussed earlier only still remember bits and pieces of our tradition. Those Fucks for Jesus tend to have a field day there, actively supplementing the few pieces of yiddishkeit their prey remember with fundamentally Christian beliefs, hoping a yarmulke and a tallis will be enough to ease the transition into Christianity.

This subterfuge is preposterous. We get it: You don't like us, you want us to think like you, you realize that it's no longer socially acceptable to threaten us with "Baptism or Death?!" like the good old days, you also realize that your program sucks so you have to attack the old and weak.

I can only hope that access to Jewish learning remains strong with very accessible websites and community outreach programs like Torah.org, My Jewish Learning, JEC, Aish, even Chabad. Though again, as per my drash on Parshas Korach - PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCES!!! Many of these sites & programs are run with the hope of "converting" you to a more observant Jew, a ba'al teshuva (literally "master of repentence" - effectively a cognate of "born again") . This is not necessarily a bad thing if you so choose, but remember it is a choice. Bottom line: The information is out there - feel free to mix and match, but think critically about it. The best way to combat those who prey upon our ignorance (both from within and without) of Judaism is to become more acquainted with our history, our texts and our traditions. I myself tread the line of learning as much as I can about Judaism and trying to incorporate what observances, rituals and traditions that I can, but I'm no ba'al teshuva.

Anyway, I was gonna get into a little bit more from the parasha this week, but I'll get back to it this afternoon.

An everlasting (supra-rational) decree

This week's portion Chukas (Num. 19:1 - 22:1). A lot of stuff will end up happening later in the portion, but in the first two aliyos, we cover a portion of the Torah that is so confusing we study it not once but twice a year!

Numbers 19 relates to the laws of the Red Heifer or "Parah Adumah", which is read on the Shabbos following the holiday of Purim. On a macro-level, this section details the laws of how to ritually purify oneself after coming in contact with a dead body. However, much of the literal meaning seems to be self-contradictory - the process involves a completely red heifer (though red typically denotes sin and impurity); it must be slaughtered outside of the Israelite's encampment (later, Jerusalem), but it must be done within sight of the Tabernacle (later, the Temple) and its blood must be sprinkled towards the Holy of Holies and some think that the Kohen Gadol personally must slaughter the red heifer while wearing his white linens that are otherwise reserved for use only on Yom Kippur; the ashes of the red heifer purify the uncleanliness of coming into contact with a corpse, but leave those involved in its preparation spiritually impure.

In fact, the introduction to the section, and reason for the name of parasha, gives us a clue that the ensuing commandments will be difficult to understand. The portion Chukas starts by stating "This is the decree ( chok ) of the Torah." The Hebrew word chok (חק), meaning decree, is translated by Rashi as a "supra-rational command", beyond reason and is used for such commandments as the red heifer, prohibition against eating non-kosher animals (e.g., pigs) or prohibition against wearing a garment made of both wool & linen. There are why the kashrut laws should be the way they are; no rational reason why a mixture of animal fibers and plant fibers shouldn't be copacetic. In the end, though, the other two mainstay chukim are at the very least self-consistent and could be superficially given some sort of ex post facto rationale, e.g., dietary laws could be due to health reasons, etc.

For the red heifer, though, even King Shlomo, the wisest man in the Tanakh, couldn't grasp it. The Midrash Tanchuma states that Shlomo's lament in Ecclesiastes 7:23 concerned this portion; he said "All of the Torah's commandments I have comprehended. But the chapter of the red heifer, though I have examined it, questioned it and searched it out--I thought to be wise to it, but it is distant from me."

Unfortunately, today's society is ruled by the specter of rational humanism that relegates tradition, belief and cultural differences to the annals of history. It is becoming harder and harder to rest upon the ultimate justification for not just the mitzvah of the red heifer, but in the end all of the mitzvos - we do them "because G-d said so." Judaism does not deny rational, critical thinking about the mitzvos - if it did, the Talmud would be a lot smaller.

However, it's important to realize that justifications are often double-edged swords: while making it easier for modern man to swallow, justifications based on physical reality can become outdated, thereby seemingly voiding the necessity of the commandment. For instance, the chok of not eating pork was mostly commonly justified by saying that in days of yore there were health concerns about eating pork. In today's post-The Jungle society of tighter health standards and sensitive meat thermometers, trichinosis is a thing of the past (and/or thing of the current developing world), and unfortunately for many Jews so is the prohibition against eating pig.

The temporariness of justifications is why these laws of the red heifer and the purification of those contaminated by a corpse are summarized in Num. 19:21 as a chukas olam, or everlasting decree (chok). These laws are the supra-rational commands of G-d and will remain, both the law and the supra-rationality, forever. It is our job as children of Israel to struggle against the supra-rationality of G-d's decrees by trying to understand and comply with them rather than justify and sublimate them.

Weekend Update

Yesterday, we reintroduced some Italians to a bygone past-time of theirs: Cautiously and bewilderedly looking-on at Jewish life cycle events.

Yes, it seems it has been a while since Staten Island's much less tropical (and less classy) South Beach has seen its share of Jewish events, but Sunday night it saw its first bas mitzvah in, what I can with near certainty assure you is, all of recorded history. Yes, my wife's 12-year-old cousin held a very festive, not quite traditional ("So You Think You Can Dance"-themed), but much more religious than previously expected ceremony at The Vanderbilt @ South Beach.

The ceremony itself was outside on a private portion of the beach, which brought the aforementioned curio-shock from the usual passers-by. Sitting holding a balloon, which was released at the appropriate time in honor of the bas mitzvah girl's late relatives, I was struck with the vibrancy of the Jewish religion. The ceremony was as much a testament to our ability to survive persecution (the bygone bigotry of the bygone Soviet Union) and the importance of passing the traditions down to future generations.

Some things are inevitably lost in translation. The rabbi may not have been able to speak clearly in Russian (can't verify but in-laws assured me it was a relatively funny accent), English (think drunk Boris Badenov singing "Happy byors-day to you!") or Hebrew (weird Ashkenazi-Russian accent most likely stemming from a direct transliteration first into Russian where "h" becomes "g", so the להתעטף of the tallis blessing which strictly speaking shouldn't have taken place at a 6pm evening bas mitzvah became "le-gis'atayf"). The rabbi may have been wearing a bishop's mitre (as far as the Italian on-lookers knew). The girl's father may not have able to repeat particularly proficiently after the rabbi, but this may have been due to the latter's shortcomings, as detailed above.

But all in all, as I went up to the pseudo-bimah/stage with my wife to light one of the bas mitzvah girl's candles (a grand tradition dating back to . . . ? I actually have no clue where this came from, but all the Russians love it), I could not help but be honored to assist the girl in reaching out to her not quite forgotten religious and cultural identity.

Delta, Delta, Delta cannot help me, help me, help me

Hurray, a new topic to discuss (I'm tired of talking penis - not necessarily done, just tired of it)!

Delta's family is growing with a new partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines, announced a while ago. A lot has recently been bandied about that this new partnership with force Delta to ban Jews, Israeli passport holders and those with Israeli entrance stamps in non-Israeli passports from flights going to Saudi Arabia. This would clearly be very concerning, but word out of Delta is that this restriction is solely a Saudi Arabia visa issue - and that Delta and Saudi Arabian Airlines aren't even all that close. (What a brief honeymoon period?)

I sorta buy that. Saudi Arabia doesn't acknowledge Israel's existence (or even right to), so how could it possibly accept someone who claims to have that nationality? Saudis don't particularly like Jews (or Christians for that matter) and most likely don't hand out too many visas to regular Jews like you and me who don't have anything else to offer them than some tourism shekels.

However, it appears that the "national policy" shield has been pierced with respect to online booking policies - even where a Saudi visa is not necessary (in a stopover visit), Israelis cannot book tickets online at SaudiAirlines.com. I took the time to verify this independently and fiddled around on the site. There is no option to claim your Israeli nationality, but even if you are an American but for whatever reason have a billing address in Israel you cannot book a ticket. Interestingly, if you are one of the what could only be 3 or 4 people who have a billing address from Antarctica, then Saudi Airlines wishes you welcome aboard!

This policy is clearly fully implemented and carried out by the Saudi Arabian Airlines company itself. If Delta & the SkyTeam are really only just entering into an interline agreement with Saudi Arabian, then I don't quite know what the hubbub in January was about, but hey, good for them. If they are going to code-share, then I would urge the SkyTeam to at least make Saudi Arabian correct it's online interface and allow anyone who is duly allowed to travel on a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight purchase a ticket.

Clearly, even if this HTML issue is smoothed over, Delta will continue to draw flak anyway for voluntarily entering into such an agreement that would call upon it to enforce the Saudis' discriminatory policies. It's a cold economic calculus that lies behind this deal: A few upset Jews (of which I am one) won't offset the gains from new access to hajj passengers from throughout the world.

Another mini-drash topic on this issue comes from the haftarah from Korach, which comes from Sam. 1, 11:14 - 12:22. In it, Shmuel chastises the Israelites for clamoring for a human king when G-d has provided for them perfectly fine up until now. The end analysis is that if the Israelites stayed true to their devotion to G-d, then Shmuel assured then there would be no real harm done even with a king over them. Of course, in the end the monarchy led the Israelites through a varied array of calamities, idol worship, and eventually exile (though, certainly with a few bright spots thrown in there). Similarly, it is important for Delta and the SkyTeam to realize that sometimes despite your best intentions, big decisions have a way of distracting people from the true goal. For the SkyTeam, thought he decision to tap into the Saudi market may yield more customers, perhaps they should return to serving their current customers as best as possible.

As for me, I'm not happy about Delta's handling of the growing debacle. I certainly do not plan on using their services in the future if I can avoid it. In the end, Delta may have made its bed, but I'm not forced to lie in it. So, fair thee well SkyTeam Alliance! Make sure your new partner shapes up its website and try to serve your customers (whichever ones you have left) as best as possible without these grand distractions.

For the sake of Heaven

This week's Torah portion is Korach. (A drash?? Yeah, it's gonna get frummy!) It details an challenge by Korach, a disgruntled Levite from the Kohathite clan, and his followers who railed against the perceived nepotism of Moshe and Aharon, Korach's first cousins.

Certainly, on the face of things, Korach's outwardly stated agitation for more equality ("for the entire congregation is holy, and the LORD is in their midst. So why do you raise yourselves up above the LORD's assembly?" - Num 16:3) is admirable. After all, each of them had been holy enough to witness G-d's revelation upon Mount Sinai not so long ago and at the time, G-d's presence was resting in the recently dedicated mishkan (tabernacle). There is certainly merit to his superficial argument. Fighting injustice in the world is a central part of the Jewish concept of tikkun olam (healing the world) - G-d "deliberately stopped short of completing the work of Creation, leaving not just men but the world itself imperfect . . . in countless ways. This was [the] strategy for involving man in that very work [of perfecting the world]." (See The Jewish Body, Chapter 2 for its treatment of circumcision, which Kabbalists claim is the quintescential act of tikkun olam, perfecting the human form.)

Anyway, now that we think Korach's a nice guy, he even has a whole Torah portion named after he, why then is Korach's revolt met with Divine retribution by way of the earth opening up and swallowing him and his family whole? Further, why do the rabbis of the Talmud denigrate his argument, saying in Pirke Avos 5:20:

Any dispute which is for the sake of Heaven will ultimately endure, and one which is not for the sake of Heaven will not ultimately endure. What is a dispute for the sake of Heaven? This is a debate between Hillel and Shammai. What is a dispute not for the sake of Heaven? This is the dispute of Korach and his assembly.

Despite presenting himself to the Israelites as a populist, Korach's reason for challenging Moshe was resentment over the fact that he should have been made the leader of the Kohathite clan rather than his kinsman, Elizaphan ben Uzziel (see Rashi's commentary on Num. 16:1). The Midrash Tanchuma states that Korach initiated his rebellion by questioning Moshe's rulings on some of G-d's more difficult commandments: Why does a house filled with Torah scrolls need to have a mezuzah (which itself contains only a few excerpts from the Torah) on the doorpost? Why does a garment stained entirely with techeles (a bluish dye) still need one of the tzitzis (fringe) dyed with techeles (see Num. 15:37-40)? Why should a nation of holy people need Aharon and his offspring the kohanim (priests) to serve as their intermediaries?

Jimmy Taber at the American Jewish World Service put out an interesting drash on the portion and this verse from Pirke Avos. Taber clarifies along the lines of Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the UK, that "disputes for the sake of Heaven" are really arguments for the sake of the greater good, rather than Korach's which were based more on personal gain. Healing the world is all well and good, but not when you have your own best interests in mind.

For me, one takeaway from this mishnah is the need to be careful of what ulterior motives politicians and political activists may harbor. It's very easy to be swayed by charismatic figures, but in the end the consequences of following too blindly can be dire. I certainly do not think that every supporter of the circumcision ban harbors some deep seated anti-Semitism. That said, I think Protocols of Mr. Hess certainly shed some light on the tip of his.

Further, the way in which Korach derisively attacked Moshe and Aharon served to clarify the sake for which he argued. In contrast, the archetypal disputers "for the sake of Heaven" - the diametrically opposed Hillel and Shammai - may not have agreed on a single topic, but did so in a respectful, amicable manner. In the end, both sages profited greatly from their enduring disputes, constantly challenged to clarify their positions to arrive at the most defensible position, which ultimately is the best. This is the other lesson to be gleaned from this mishnah. It's tough to do - the U.S. unfortunately is not a nation of Hillels and Shammais - but if we can learn to engage in discussions above the rhetoric, above the name calling, above mud slinging and animosity that unfortunately accompany so many political topics these days, then perhaps we can learn to build a more harmonious society, where differing camps stand not as bitter adversaries but as partners in the continued upkeep of our nation.

Hopefully with time, as the mishnah predicts, this dispute over circumcision will come to an end. Even more hopefully, G-d willing, there will no ban on the practice or at the very least there will be a religious exception to any future ban. While I certainly do not wish Korach's demise upon Hess and his assembly (if anywhere in the US could spontaneously open up an swallow the intactivists whole it would be the San Andreas fault area . . . just saying), I do wish we could all rise to the level of a Hillel-Shammai type dialogue on this and many other currently divisive issues. . . . I call Hillel, though!

And now for something completely different

N.B. - This one comes from my brother - soon-to-be PhD student in bioarchaeology at SUNY Stony Brook. Look for him and his crazy smartness next fall, in the meantime, try to digest this (it honestly might take me that long to do so . . . )

I think that most of the arguments against male circumcision stem from the idea that it is a strictly medical procedure, as opposed to a cultural expression of identity and a signifier of belonging. The argument for male circumcision as a medical necessity is admittedly shaky, though there are reasons to be skeptical of the claims of the evils of male circumcision.

First, some background. Male circumcision is a practice that has been used by many non-related cultures to signify group membership. Reasons for this mainly stem from circumcision's role as a public sign – one that is impossible to fake, as well (beyond aposthia – the condition of being born without a foreskin). Sociobiological theories (the science of behavioral evolution – based on assumptions that social behaviors undergo the same evolutionary processes as biological traits) seem to center on the role of male circumcision on the sensitivity of the penis, which could lead to a smaller chance of being cuckolded in a polygamous society; by accepting the procedure, children would gain access to greater social benefits. Frankly, I think that this is a weak explanation, with most of the effect probably being related to perceived effects on male sensitivity. As a costly surgery, however, male circumcision acts as a public sign of group identity, which may be associated with marriage structure or marriageability (given the association with polygynous societies). But that's just speculation, given some personal knowledge with Jewish marriage customs.

Practically every religious group, as well as cultural affiliations and groups have public ceremonies that induct people into them – most of these ceremonies induct children, regardless of the child's true ability to make a conscious and well-researched choice. Baptisms, circumcisions, first communions, and b'nei mitzvot are a small sample of ritualized behaviors taken from just two religions – cross-culturally, research can bring forth orders of magnitude more ceremonies that induct a child into a cultural group. At a more general level, many of the actions that parents make for their children act to induct them into cultural groups – whether it be deciding which school to enter a child into, what extra-curricular activities to join, whether and what kind of instruments, languages, or other skills should be learned. These activities are not necessarily without the child's consent, but it can hardly be said that a child would be making a completely objective choice about what activities (and cultural groups) in which they engage.

So why all of the outrage? All men are freaked out about things that happen to their penises, for good reason. Evolution would dictate that since men require a functional penis for successful insemination (at least in a competitive environment where all the other males have functional penises), there is a considerable pressure to maintain a healthy and happy penis throughout a man's reproductive life. That said, the biological role of the foreskin is what concerns people skeptical of male circumcision – obviously, there is a trade-off resulting from male circumcision, which involves the loss of the foreskin's biological function and would be balanced by social benefits bestowed by a group that practices male circumcision (such as inclusion into a society). This ignores cases of foreskin maladies, where the foreskin interferes with normal sexual behavior and its removal may be of physiological or biological benefit to the man.

The sexual effects of circumcision (as well as the biological roles of the foreskin) are still debated topics in scientific literature, with claims ranging from circumcision being beneficial, detrimental, and many of the studies finding insignificant differences. One of the major issues that cloud studies about circumcision is that sexual behavior and practice is extremely variable in humans, within and across cultures – therefore, it's extremely difficult to claim that a study has isolated circumcision as the sole variable affecting sexual performance in its participants. Another issue is that many circumcision studies require self-assessment, which is particularly tricky for humans because of the aforementioned uneasiness with anything that has affected one's penis. Another issue comes from the terms people use for evaluating circumcision's sexual effects, namely “satisfaction” and “pleasure”. These are not terms that have any scientific meaning nor do they have discrete scales that mean anything from one person to another. Sexual satisfaction and pleasure can be seen as evolving throughout a person's lifetime, changing as they have more sexual experiences, as well as other experiences and mental states that are unrelated to the physical state of one's penis. This becomes increasingly tricky when people complain about a loss of sensation and pleasure due to a circumcision performed on them within the first month of life (or after 8 days, in Jewish traditions): because someone has had practically their entire conscious life (and definitely their entire sexual life) with a circumcised penis, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how much sensation has been lost or how much pleasure they would have received had their foreskin been intact. Since satisfaction and pleasure are emotions felt in the brain, not the penis, studies should focus solely on the amount of stimuli sent from the penis, shaft, and foreskin rather than how those stimuli are perceived and interpreted by the test subject.

Some conclusions:
- Male circumcision has been associated with the loss of nerve endings that were present on the foreskin, prompting reports of a loss of sensation or pleasure – these effects may be caused by other reasons or not have a very large effect, because scientific studies do not show consistent significantly detrimental effects associated with circumcision.
- Because of the nature of sexual performance and perceived pleasure and satisfaction – which involves much more than just the physiological state of the penis, circumcision may be used as a scapegoat to blame a perceived lack of sexual prowess and pleasure on a procedure that was not willingly elected for by the person.
- In cultures that regularly perform male circumcisions, circumcision is a ritualized behavior that gives the recipient access to many social benefits, especially entrance into the society and access to marriageable women. These trade-offs outweigh physiological and medical risks associated with the act within that society, prompting the continuation of the practice.

Discussion of circumcision's legality:
For a society that does not regularly practice circumcision – or does not have associated social benefits to the practice (uncircumcised men are still considered Americans), the question of whether to allow circumcision as a practice becomes less based on individual benefits from circumcision; instead, the decision rests on the benefits of allowing groups that practice the custom to continue their practice without outside intervention and the same costs related to the real (as opposed to perceived) losses in pleasure, satisfaction, and reproductive function. Concerns about a child's right to a choice in the matter is not a concern of the society at large, rather of the members of a community where there are social benefits to circumcision. Obviously, groups where circumcision does not grant access to anything would be likely to not undergo the procedure, since there are only risks. However, this does not mean that a society in which the majority of the people do not receive a benefit from circumcision should ban it altogether in a heterogenous society, since that act – rather than reflecting the cost-benefit analyses of the majority of the individuals in that group – determines that groups where the practice of circumcision does impart social benefits are not welcome in the larger society.

To be specific to the case at hand, since all of the general terms were blending together above, San Francisco is not deciding whether or not they want all of their children circumcised, nor are they deciding whether they want to allow Jewish children (or Muslim children) to be circumcised. Jewish and Muslim parents will continue to circumcise their children as long as they see social benefits to it, such as the inclusion into a larger community of Jews and Muslims. San Francisco's Male Circumcision Bill instead asks residents to determine whether their city would be a welcome place for Jews and Muslims to practice their religion freely – and such a bill flies in the face of the city's history and the American Constitution.