Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Well, people often wonder who the Messiah is going to be. Many faith communities believe it will be Jesus, while others among the Chabad Hassidic movement believe that Rabbi Schnersohn will arise from the dead and save humankind. Personally, when asked, I often like to tell my students, “Here’s the bad news: The Messiah is more metaphor than it is a historical reality-at least with respect to the present or future generations. Antecedents for this belief appear in BT Sanhedrin 99a:

Rabbi Hillel said: There is no messiah for Israel, seeing that they already had him in the time of King Hezekiah. Rav Yosef said: May Rabbi Hillel’s Master forgive him. Hezekiah lived during the First Temple while Zechariah prophesied during the Second Temple.

Rashi in his commentary, notes that R. Hillel accepted the concept of a future redemption but merely held that there will be no individual who will bring that redemption. Rather, God will do it without a human messenger. In other words, the human aspect of the Messiah is not that important; what matters is that it is God Who will bring about the final redemption. The 15th century Jewish philosopher, Joseph Albo, contends that the belief in a personal messiah is not essential to Judaism. There is also nothing indicative that R. Hillel rejected the futuristic concept of a messianic age-just a human messiah.

In the Tanakh itself, the term Messiah, simply means, “the anointed one,” originally referred any individual consecrated with sacred oil such as the king of Israel and the high priest. But it the was also applied to any person for whom God had a special purpose - Cyrus of Persia, for example (Isa. 45:1). This passage in particular is especially intriguing, because the prophet suggests that God can designate anyone-even a gentile-to function in an anointed capacity. One could further suggest that in modern times, President Truman was King Cyrus redux, for he alone made it possible for Israel to be recognized as a Jewish state.

One could even argue that the idea of a Messianic age is another metaphor for Utopia.

But then I tell my students: “Now here’s the good news: You’re it! You must act like a Messiah in redeeming the world around you.” To create the Messianic world, each of us must actualize the goodness p that we possess. Nobody is going to do this task for you. Here is a remarkable Talmudic story that speaks about the importance of getting in touch with the kind of redemptive lives each of us must live-if we are to ultimately midwife the Messianic Era that was envisioned by the prophets.

The concept of memory in Biblical Hebrew and theology is never something that is passive, ceremonial, or nostalgic; it is active and dynamic. Most importantly, it is and ought to be transforming. Although memory is a mental act, it is inextricably related to outward behavior in addition to public invocations. Thus with respect to remembering the Exodus, the memory of the biblical Exodus becomes the moral template for Israelite society (Deut. 5:15). This memory prevents Israel from transforming into a cold and cruel Israelite version of Egypt. Most importantly, it is the way we as Jews have always honored the past. One of my favorite passages reads:

“You shall not violate the rights of the alien or of the orphan, nor take the clothing of a widow as a pledge. ^For, remember, you were once slaves in Egypt, and the LORD, your God, ransomed you from there; that is why I command you to observe this rule (Deut 24:17-18)

The message of redemption is one of the most important theological ways we can honor the memory of the Exodus. The true character of a nation is never measured in terms of its religious or theological platitudes but by its actions and behavior. Otherwise, the event of the Exodus is lost in bland ceremonialism and the present generation becomes historically dislocated from the past. One of the basic principles of the Tanakh demonstrates repeatedly that God is always on the side of the oppressed and downtrodden, which in turn explains why the prophets’ continuously demand social justice. The Kingdom of God must not be relegated to an eschatological dimension. Rather, it needs to become an earthly paradigm that is achieved through human means.

In light of this basic truth, it is very important that the State of Israel continue to be a beacon of hope for those people who have fled to it from the lands of their oppression. I was deeply shocked when Israel recently sent back 150 Sudanese Christian refugees consisting of mostly children, who will in all likelihood face certain death at the hand of their Muslim tormentors. In a recent letter to the Israeli community, Eritrean African refugees (from northeast Africa) made a most passionate plea, which I will now present to you—the reader.

December 25, 2010

African Refugees To Israelis: Please Do Not Hate Us

“We assure the Israeli public that we are not a threat to Israel or to its Jewish character. We have been labeled with so many names so far, such as economic migrants, infiltrators and so on, expressing in a contradictory way our true reasons for being here.”

“PLEASE DON’T HATE US”
Op-ed: Eritrean asylum seekers concerned by protests write open letter to Israelis
Haile Mengisteab, et al • Ynet

We are very concerned by what is going on in Israel towards the refugees in general, and particularly by the action taken by some community members in south Tel Aviv on December 21.

We of course respect the rally held against us refugees, but we believe that the Israeli people do not have any information about our real problems, as otherwise they would not hold the rally.

We assure the Israeli public that we are not a threat to Israel or to its Jewish character. We have been labeled with so many names so far, such as economic migrants, infiltrators and so on, expressing in a contradictory way our true reasons for being here.

We are begging the people of Israel and the government of Israel to provide us with protection. We are not here to claim citizenship, but rather, for reasons of safety and protection of our lives which we do not have in our country of origin (and unfortunately not in Israel either.)

The reasons that brought us here have to do with the unstable and unjust political leadership of the regime at home. We were forced to flee, and none of us likes being the victim of exile. We hail from a culture with good norms and values of respecting human dignity. We show a very positive approach towards foreigners in our country, and abide by the law.

We want to make it clear that we are not infiltrators or economic migrants. Rather, we are people with real political problems and we are at the top of the global ranking in terms of asylum seekers in need. In fact, some 88% of Eritrean asylum seekers in other countries are granted refugee status. We strongly condemn the racial or other discrimination that we are facing in Israel, yet at the same time we are ready to talk and negotiate with all who are against us.

At last, we would like to remind you that there is nothing permanent in the world so one day there will be peace and stability, and the good things done to us by the Israeli government and people while we faced adverse conditions will be told in history to generations. Realizing this, we plead with you not to hate us, engage in terror against us or cause us mental distress. We are the right people at the right time, in need of protection.

We therefore politely request the government and the people of Israel to reconsider the steps that have been announced against us, which truly put the lives of refugees in danger.

Thank you.

Haile Mengisteab, Mehari Okubai, Kidane Essak, Tesfai Hadgn, and Keberom Mengistu are members of the Committee of Eritrean Asylum Seekers in Israel.

I encourage all my readers to send a letter to the Israeli Embassy near you and let your voice be heard.

Every country has its challenges with the plight of migrant workers and refugees seeking political asylum, but it is imperative that in these anti-Semitic times that the refugees be integrated into Israeli society. In the 70s, that is exactly what Israel did with the famous Boat People. Continue Reading

A Chabad friend of mine sent me the following email that I would like to comment on. It comes from the Lubavitch Headquarters regarding how the Lubavitcher (Chabad) Hasidim must conduct themselves on Christmas Eve. Many Jews and Christians may find this custom interesting but very strange-and for good reason!!

“December 25th is universally celebrated by non-Jews, as the birthday of the person upon whom a dominant non-Jewish religion was founded and who had the Halachic status as a Jew who lures other Jews to idol-worship. A spirit of impurity therefore prevails on that day. (Additionally, there was a period when members of that religion used to celebrate this eve by attacking Jews, which led to an enactment against keeping the Yeshivas open during the eve of Dec 25th). As a side note, traces of this kind of historical memory can still be seen in certain Sephardic synagogues which operate almost in cognito-away from public view, e.g., behind a storefront, and so on.

The Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe adds, “It is our custom to refrain from studying Torah on Nittel Nacht until midnight. The reason, as the Previous Rebbe heard from his father, the Rebbe RaShaB (Rabbi Shalom Dov Baer Schneersohn, a.k.a., the 5th Lubavitcher Rebbe), is so that one will not add spiritual vitality to that person [Jesus], and those who presently follow his views [i.e., Christians everywhere]. The Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe (i.e., Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schnnersohn, the 6th Rebbe) quotes his father in the popular Hayom Yom (Teves 17), ‘I am not fond of those students who begrudge these eight hours and cannot tear themselves away from Torah study!’” [1]

Incidentally most ultra-Orthodox Jews, like the Lithuanian and Sephardic communities, disregard this custom; for them—the study of Torah is of primary importance.

HOW ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND THE ORIGIN OF THIS CUSTOM?

To understand a Jewish custom, it pays to have the curiosity and determination of a Sherlock Holmes. Most of you reading this Hassidic instruction might be wondering: “What in the world are they talking about? Why should we finish Torah study before Christmas Eve?”

The answer is more complex than most of us realize. Permit me to explain:

The origin of Nittel Nacht in modern rabbinic literature is one of the more fascinating chapters of Jewish history and folklore. “Nittel ” actually comes from the Latin, “Natalis,” or, “Nativity Night.” It is truly ironic that 99% of all the Hassidic Jews follow this observance, haven’t the foggiest idea that Nittel Nacht means “Nativity Night.” It is also possible that Nittel Nacht may be a corruption of the Latin dies natalis, “birthday,” i.e., the “birthday” of Jesus.[2] Continue Reading

It has often been said that “Denial is not just a river in Egypt.” Although this adage has become a cliché, it still carries considerable punch whenever we examine the psychological mechanisms that prevent people from dealing with the truth of an addiction.

While in some instances of denial the facts of reality might be consciously accepted, their personal and emotional significance is unconsciously disavowed; one seems oblivious of their significance. The denier tends to look elsewhere for the root cause of the problem. Typically, it is usually someone else or something else that makes them act in destructive ways. More usually, these painful thoughts and feelings reflect the most unpleasant or unwanted aspects of the Self.

The theme of this short article is not about chemical dependencies, although many of its aspects certainly are relevant to the topic at hand: the refusal of Orthodox Judaism to confront the serious and egregious problems that are infesting its society. The issues we will discuss pertain more to the Ultra-world of Orthodoxy known as the Haredim (the “shakers”) and the Hasidim (the “pious” ones”).

Many years ago, I had a conversation with a study partner who has since become a prominent leader in the Lubavitcher community in Brooklyn. He told me about a sermon he once heard from his father in Toronto. Someone asked his father, who was a leading Rav of the community at that time, “Why are so many Orthodox Jews so dishonest in their business dealings? Surely the power of Torah should have made these people into more refined people!” The Rav replied, “Ah, the answer is simple—if this what these people are like with the power of Torah, just imagine how much worse they would be without the benefit of having studied Torah.”

At the time, I marveled at the Rav’s excellent penchant for gentle but wise humor, but now I must question the wisdom of his remark. Is it possible that religious communities have failed educating their children because they are not teaching the right kind of subject matter? Torah without mentschlikeit or ehrleichkeit (human decency with an emphasis on personal ethical excellence) is not being stressed at all precisely because more emphasis is placed on ritual rather than ethical practice. It is a lot easier to be worried about bugs in lettuce than it is to paying one’s workers on time.

Over 200 years ago, R. Hayyim Luzzato writes in his classic book “Mesilat Yesharim,” the principles of ethical etiquette are presumed to be too elementary—but really they are not. Luzzato was correct. The system of Talmudic interpretation known as “pilpul,” (hair-splitting) has damaged the student’s ability to think in ethical terms precisely because the Halacha is constantly being parsed in ridiculous and non-ethical ways. As one good friend of mine said, “When the Ten Commandments says, ‘You shall not steal,’ rabbinic law argues that this pertains only to kidnapping-but not real ‘stealing,’ which under certain circumstances may be permitted.” Such interpretive readings sadly re-enforce the negative image that Jews throughout history have endured for being, “dishonest” in business. If the emphasis of study focused more on interpersonal ethics, we might have a better chance in creating a more honest kind of student. Continue Reading

Part I - A Revelation About the Past

It has been said, “Men are more easily governed through their vices than through their virtues.” The political philosophy of expediency illustrates a concept that is commonly known in the arena of international relations: “Realpolitik,” a German phrase that basically means “the reality of politics.” Politicians who subscribe to Realpolitik never not make decisions based upon morality or other such “sentimental” issues but solely upon the practical considerations, i.e., will such and such a policy benefit the United States and further its interests? The above adage could certainly apply to many of the most famous leaders of history and it especially pertains to the leaders of the 20th century.

This point is only too painfully evident in the newest revelation concerning President Nixon’s attitudes about the Jews, along with his cohort Henry Kissinger. The news regarding Kissinger-more so than Nixon- reveals shocking information that most ethical people ought to find disturbing—even horrifying. The Nixon tapes illustrate the President’s disdain for the American Jewish community, which he regarded as overly aggressive and abrasive. Yet, Nixon had a strong admiration for the Israeli Jew. Shortly after the Yom Kippor War, Nixon met with PM Golda Meir, who visited on March 1, 1973. Meir praised Nixon for his support of Israel during this crucial period of her history.

Immediately after she left, a conversation took place between Nixon and Kissinger that focused on the plight of Russian Jews. The question people asked at that time was, “Should the United States push the Soviet Union to allow their Jewish population to immigrate to countries of their choice in their efforts to escape persecution?” Kissinger, himself a German refugee, said, “The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy . . . And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”

While Nixon’s remarks are not that surprising, Kissinger is an altogether different matter. While he was in the White House, I recall how Jewish leaders often likened Kissinger to the biblical hero Joseph. But now we must admit this comparison was wrong. The Nixon tapes reveal that Kissinger is in many ways the antithesis of the biblical Joseph, who utilized his power to be a blessing not only to all the nations of the world, but also to his own people. As Jews, we cannot forget how Kissinger tried to sabotage Israel’s defense by arguing for delaying an airlift to aid Israel in order to make Egypt feel empowered to make peace. According to the NY Times, three years after the Yom Kippur War, Kissinger delayed the airlift because he wanted to see Israel “bleed just enough to soften it up for the post-war diplomacy he was planning.” (Golda Meir knew of the Egyptian sneak attack, but had hoped the world would be sympathetic toward Israel if they did not unleash a preemptive attack as they did in 1967. Bad mistake! Golda Meir and Moshe Dyan lost their mandate in disgrace.)

How could Kissinger- of all people-say that a Soviet genocide of the Jews might not even be considered “a humanitarian concern,” let alone “an American concern?” How could the United States not be “concerned” when any superpower engages in genocide?? Nixon quickly replied, “I know, we can’t blow up the world because of it.” Well, short of war-surely the United States could achieve its objective through other means. While I could excuse Nixon, Kissinger is worthy of moral criticism. As a Jew, Kissinger is clearly a man who represents the worst kind of Jew who is indifferent to the suffering of his people.

Fortunately, other American Presidents (with the exceptions of President Carter and Obama) have openly expressed the special bond they felt with the Jewish people. My father told me that when Eisenhower freed the death camps, he made the local German residents see firsthand what their people had done. Eisenhower had a conscience but Nixon operated on purely utilitarian principles. Ever since WWII, the matter of genocide has become an important “American” concern precisely because we are and have always been the moral guardian and champion of the oppressed world, which looks to us for moral support, help, and practical assistance.

True, Nixon really disliked any Jewish leader who did not support the his politics. Yet his snide attitude is not unique in the annals of American history. Decades later, Nixon’s comments were out matched by Secretary of State James Baker’s remark, “____ the Jews. They didn’t vote for us anyway!” (James Baker, under GHW Bush, son of Nazi sympathizer Prescott Bush.) Since Israel’s inception, the American State Department has always shown an ambivalent attitude toward the Jews as a voting block and toward Israel, as a Jewish state.

Part 2: Comparing Nixon and Obama

One gets the distinct impression from President Obama that caving in to the traditional enemies of Israel, demanding for Israel’s destruction, serves the real important and economic interests of the United States. Today, the Nixonian and Kissinger animus is much more directed at Israel than it is at the American Jewish community. President Obama has really inverted Nixon’s criticism. Most Jews and Americans are probably unaware of how Obama instructed his national security adviser John Brennan to henceforth refer to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel for millennia, as “Al Quds” — the Arabic Muslim name for the city. Jerusalem is now being described by the Secretary of State (for the first time in Israel’s history) as an “occupied territory.”

Although Obama has made many trips to numerous Arab capitals, to date Obama has yet to visit Israel. How can this diplomatic snub serve the cause of peace? Surely the leaders of Hamas view this snub as an endorsement of their genocidal ambition to destroy Israel. Our leadership is enabling some of the worst leaders imaginable in the Middle East who interpret Obama’s snub as reason for not engaging Israel in any kind of constructive dialogue. It only furthers the bellicose attitudes seen thus far.

Unlike Nixon who greeted Gold Meir with respect, Obama chose to snub Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minster of Israel and former PM Shimon Perez, at the White House during their visits. Beyond that, Obama via Hillary is funding hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to Hamas, an organization that remains dedicated upon the destruction of Israel.

To a serious onlooker, it seems that Obama wishes to intimate that Israel is no longer essential for American interests. Yet, nothing could be further than this untruth. Today, Saudi Arabia and Israel are working together to prevent the expansion of a militant Iranian regime from threatening to wrest control of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, which have been under Sunni Islam’s control for centuries. Israel is paradoxically the cure to the Middle East’s problems. America’s bond with Israel is based upon the values we share in common. These values are based upon our common religious Judeo-Christian heritage and these ethical and spiritual values must be reaffirmed all the time. Obama has done his best to minimize this special relationship Israel shares with the United States.

Realpolitik is a dangerous amoral attitude that needs to be exposed. Our founding fathers had a very different view of America-as the harbinger of hope and freedom-a role our country has relished since the beginning. We have evolved in many positive ways, liberated more people than the world has ever seen in all of its history. However, President Obama would much rather go around the world apologizing for the sins of the United States.

At a very important juncture of Iran’s history, I think Obama missed a golden opportunity that would have endeared him to the American people and its Middle Eastern allies. He should have publically condemning the Iranian regime from the outset. If the bully-pulpit worked for Reagan when he confronted the sins of Communism, it certainly would have worked for Obama! However, only after pundits and politicians began criticizing the President, he finally relented and gave a short but perfunctory speech against the Mullahs. Obama felt uncomfortable using the American bully pulpit to criticize the Iranian thug-regime. By the same token he offered no moral support whatsoever on behalf of the millions of Iranians, who risked life and limb throughout the cities of Iran-calling for an end of the illegitimate mullahcracy that has been enslaving Iranian people for more than three decades. President Obama is an enabler of thug-regimes and has yet to act like a real American President who is proud of his country. Continue Reading

Old fashioned religious attitudes are hard to change. Concepts involving divine retribution run deep in our psyches. Take the word, “pain,” which derives from the from O.Fr. peine, from L. poena “punishment, penalty” (in L.L. also “torment, hardship, suffering”), from Gk. poine “punishment,” from PIE *kwei- “to pay, atone, compensate” (and is related to the common word “penal”). Ancients and moderns alike have long subscribed to the belief that pain is inextricably related to retribution for sinful thoughts, words, or deeds.

This perspective is not limited to the religious fundamentalists, even advocates of pop culture/religion support this way of thinking. Louise L. Haye, authoress of the once popular bestseller, “You Can Heal Your Life,” argues that each person is metaphysically responsible for one’s sickness, which exists because of destructive thoughts.

Moreover, thoughtful guidance by the helper can help prevent or heal the hurts that have manifested themselves in the form of illnesses. She maintains that all human beings are responsible for creating every circumstance in life. All disease comes from a lack of self‑love and unwillingness to forgive others. This true regardless whether one has headaches or hemorrhoids. The fact that some of the world’s greatest saints, mystics and healers often suffer from common diseases like the rest of humanity does not seem to bother Hay’s personal theology.

The reverse is also true. If a person is blessed with riches and “abundance,” it must mean that the “Universe” is pleased with him/her. Despite being termed “New Age,” Hay’s theology reflects the same good old‑fashioned retributional thinking espoused by the friends of Job. It explains handily why certain people are blessed with all the goods, while others are not. Hay’s attitude certainly appeals to a highly consumer mentality that measures spirituality in terms of financial success and rewards.

Journalist Michael Da’Antonio relates a thought-provoking conversation he had with Louise Hay that completely exposes the foolishness of her position. Regarding Third‑world nations and AIDS, she muses: “People starve amid the abundance of the universe because of low self‑esteem . . . A poor self‑image is more damaging than one might imagine. The soul projects a person’s self‑image, and attracts the kind of experience that seems appropriate . . . That’s why women who are raped are responsible for what happens to them. They attract the rapist because they expect and fear an attack. Similarly, she told me, the poor of the world are responsible for their plight, as are those afflicted with AIDS.” With the right spiritual approach, she said, any poor person can raise himself up, any sick person can make himself well.^[1]

Hay boldly speculated that the AIDS victims were the reincarnated souls of the Nazis, who were being paid back for their crimes against the Jews! According to this way of thinking, the six million Jews exterminated by Hitler, somehow deserved their ‘karmic” fate. This view is not much different from the view espoused by many Christians who maintained the Holocaust was God’s way of punishing the Jews, who were guilty of the crime of deicide. What is true with the stories of Job, is equally true with the superficial way Westerners have convoluted the Hindu concept of karma. Such a portrayal of God resembles Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, who is determined to demand a pound of flesh in order to exact payment for debts owed.

[1] Michael Da’Antonio, Heaven and Earth ‑ Dispatches From America’s Frontier (New York: Crown Books,1992), 94‑95.

In this section, I shall attempt to define an alternative perspective that reconciles tradition with the realistic problem in presenting a cogent theodicy for today. As I have pointed out in my new Genesis commentary, God creates a relational type of world where human beings must become stewards of God’s Creation. In terms of a biblical theology, the book of Genesis merely states that God made a very good world,” after beholding His greatest masterpiece-man! Note that nowhere does the Torah indicate that Creation is “perfect,” it is merely very good.

Yet, for all the beauty the world contains, only humankind can improve upon God’s original Creation. This point is very significant, for as R. Moshe Chayim Luzzato (18th century) observes, God did not create human beings to be mere receivers of God’s blessings, but to be dispensers of God’s blessings.

From this point we may assume that since Creation is far from perfect, the moral evolution of our planet is contigent upon human acts of kindness and compassion. As Augustine correctly observes, “evil is a privation (i.e., an absence) of good.” Let us reformulate Augustine’s definition of evil: Evil arises from human thoughtlessness.

Perhaps we might say in modern theological terms that evil occurs whenever human malevolence or indifference arises. With respect to the Holocaust, the theological question is not, “Where was God?” but as Heschel masterfully observed, “Where was man?” Martin Luther King Jr’s words offer us guidance how to combat this problem: “To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it. We must never feel that God will, through some breathtaking miracle or a wave of the hand, cast evil out of the world. As long as we believe this, we will pray unanswerable prayers and ask God to do things that he will never do. The belief that God will do everything for a man is as untenable as the belief that man can do everything for himself.”

In a relational universe, God respects human freedom, but ultimately how we respond to cry of the oppressed and suffering does not depend upon God, but upon us-as God’s stewards of Creation. Natural law does not mean that God does not act, but that God acts in conjunction with His junior partner-humankind. One of the important lessons Liberation Theology teaches us is that we cannot abdicate our responsibility unto God; we are responsible for the moral problems of our world; we are likewise responsible for how we respond even to natural evil as well. In the case of the recent Carmel forest-fire, we saw unusual cooperation take place, e.g., Russia, Turkey, even the Palestinians (!) participated together in putting this fire out.

But what about the human factors that contributed to the conflagration? Was it an act of terrorism? The evidence is unclear at the present moment. Some individuals have been arrested for arson. But what really puzzles me is the Haredi reaction. The Haredi scholars are quick to look at what they believe to be the “religious reasons,” because they believe that the world is like a mighty chain, where every deed impacts the other. While this perspective requires more of a metaphysical belief in causation, I prefer to look at the more mundane causes of a disaster that involve human volition and responsibility.

An Israeli Shas minister named Eli Yishai has taken a lot of heat (pardon the pun) for not spending more money on purchasing more fire-trucks to help combat forest fires. Yishai claims that he fought hard with the Finance Minister just to obtain the same amount of money that previous administrators had received. One thing is certain: a committee will be assigned with the task of researching how this terrible fire that resulted in the death of 40 soldiers and 2 firemen might have been avoided.

It might seem at first blush that Yishai’s culpability remains a question mark at this point. However, there is one part of the story that strongly suggests that human foolishness played a major role in the Carmel forest fire and the evidence against Yishai seems very damning,

A well-known Jewish and Christian group called the “International Fellowship of Christians and Jews,” headed by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, donated eight fire-trucks that might have been used to quell the fires from the very beginning. However, MK Eli Yishai refused to accept these trucks because they came from an interfaith group that is trying to improve relationships between Jews and Christians.

The underfunded Fire and Rescue Service could have used this equipment to make a difference. Interestingly, Rabbi Eckstein (who is an Orthodox rabbi), remarked that Yishai’s religious-based rejection of contributions from non-Jewish sources led to the termination after the group had completed delivery of eight fire trucks last year in a donation that had been okayed by Yishai’s predecessor, MK Meir Sheetrit (Kadima). “Since that time, under Yishai we have not received any further requests from the ministry because of the way they perceive us . . .So we could have had more trucks than those we already delivered.” (Emphasis added).

Continue Reading

Part 2 of my original article will focus on the recent forest fire that took place in Mt. Carmel. When bad things happen to good people, inevitably the question of theodicy comes up for discussion.

The Sephardic Chief Rabbi, Ovadia Yosef is no stranger to controversy. The aged patriarch of the Shas Council of Torah Sages, exclaimed that the devastating Carmel fire was a result of insufficient Shabbat observance in the area. Yosef says, “Fires only happen in a place where Shabbat is desecrated . . . ” As a proof-text for his position, R. Yosef quoted from the Babylonian Talmud Shabbat tractate “entire neighborhoods are wiped out, and it is not arbitrary. It is all divine providence. . . We must repent, keep Shabbat appropriately. When the People of Israel repent, God safeguards them with a wall of fire, but not of the incinerating type,” Yosef added.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s position is consistent with other opinions he has offered before from time to time. On August 27, 2007 Rabbi Yosef also proclaimed that the reason why Israelis die in battle is because they have failed to live an Orthodox lifestyle. He notes: “It is no wonder that soldiers are killed in war; they don’t observe Shabbat, don’t observe the Torah, don’t pray every day, don’t lay phylacteries on a daily basis – so is it any wonder that they are killed? No, it’s not . . . God have mercy on them (soldiers) and make them become newly religious – then they will all live a good life in peace . . . When soldiers believe and pray, God helps them during the war, these soldiers don’t get killed.”… [2]

Earlier this past year on the Eve of Tisha B’Av, a holiday that marks the destruction of the first and second Temple in Jerusalem, R. Yosef said, “Those murdered in the Holocaust were a reincarnation of sinners from past generations . . . All those poor people in the Holocaust…we wonder why it was done. There were righteous people among them. Still, they were punished because of sins of past generations.” [3]

On the other hand, some of the leading rabbis of the Holocaust and Post-Holocaust eras argue that the Holocaust occurred because of the Jewish support for Zionism. This has been the view of the Satmere Rebbe, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, Rabbi Menachem Eliezer Shach, and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn. The latter offers a novel explanation for the Holocaust: “Imagine walking into a gallery overlooking an operating room. There behind the glass are people dressed in white cutting off a man’s leg. You have never seen surgery. You do not even realize there is a medical treatment called surgery. What do you think when you see the ‘horror’ below you? You scream, you try to get the ‘butchers’ to stop mutilating the man. But, in truth, what these men are doing is saving the life of that patient.”[4]

Other Haredi rabbis pursue a similar approach when dealing with the question of theodicy and the Holocaust: Rabbi Moshe Sternbach, one of Jerusalem’s most celebrated dyanim, who heads the Edut Charedut Court in Jerusalem explains: “I asked my rabbi: How were so many righteous men murdered during the Holocaust – because they did not protest . . . Whoever does not protest is confessing with silence . . . The Lord is testing us in this world and wants to see if we protest. If we don’t, there will be disasters. We are alone and they are many, but we are more in quality. They are evil criminals that have no place with the God of Israel.” [6]

Almost a year ago after the earthquake in Haiti, a number of Haredi rabbis proclaimed that God punished the Haitians because they are:(1) sodomizers, (2) idolaters who engage in witchcraft. Another leading Haredi rabbi, Rabbi Avi Shafran, argued that the earthquake in Haiti is because of the sin of speaking gossip.[6] Rabbi Aaron Twersky, a well known Haredi psychologist argues that God punished the Haitians because they did not observe the Seven Noahide commandments, which are:

Prohibition of idolatry
Prohibition of murder
Prohibition of theft
Prohibition of sexual promiscuity
Prohibition of blasphemy
Prohibition of flesh taken from a live animal
Requirement to have just laws.[7]

The net result: 200,000 dead Haitians were “punished” by God, but were the victims of the reckless behavior of themselves or other people around the world.

In the next section we shall critically examine the theories discussed above and whether or not the classical rabbinical concept underlying what may be justly called retributional theology, ”because of our sins,” might still have some limited validity in a contemporary and postmodern society. Of course, as promised, we shall turn many of these ideas upside down on their proverbial heads, so stay tuned in for more! Continue Reading

One of the most interesting concepts of the theological world since the days of Leibnitz and Hume is the notion of “theodicy.” Defined, theodicy is the rational attempt to exonerate God’s goodness and justice in a world that is marred by the presence of evil-both human and natural. This word was originally coined by the brilliant 18th century philosopher, Leibniz who fused two Greek words together: theo- + Greek dikē, order, right.

Since the days of Late Antiquity, the Greek philosopher Epicurus fleshes out the cognitive dissonance people experience when contemplating the problem of theodicy:

1. Is God unable to prevent evil?

2. Is God unwilling to prevent evil?

3. If God is able and willing to prevent evil, then where does evil come from?

4. If God is neither able nor willing to prevent evil, then why do we call him “god”?

In the 18th century, the English philosopher David Hume paraphrased Epicurus’s dictum: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then God is impotent. Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing? Then God is malevolent. Is God both willing and able to prevent evil? Then why is there any evil in the world? If one believes in a dualistic view of the universe, it is far easier to attribute the existence of evil to a primordial chaos that is in a perpetual war with a deity of light and order. However, monistic and ethical faiths like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam cannot accept a dualistic theory where evil operates outside God’s jurisdiction and supervision of the world. Dualistic views are, therefore, unacceptable.

To argue that God controls all human events in history, and that God is truly “omnipotent,” as well as “omniscient” at the very least seems to intimate that God, at best is a bumbling deity Who does not fully control the world as we imagine Him to do. For this reason, many theologians tend to depict God not as a coercive force in the universe, but rather operates through the use of persuasive power-thus never violating human freedom. Critics of this view affirm that the traditional notions of Godly power are incompatible with the ubiquity of evil and human suffering. For traditionalists who believe in the literal word of God, human beings reap what they sow; i.e., every experience of suffering occurs because human beings have failed to act or live righteously.

In terms of a personal theodicy that I believe has considerable merit, one could argue that the second century Christian theologian, Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 2nd century) believe that the existence of pain, suffering, temptation and sin play an important role in humanity’s evolution toward spirituality. Growth inevitably comes with a degree of pain and discomfort. If this were not the case, humankind would never self-actualize its strengths and potentiality in choosing goodness. Each person’s life takes the individual on a road that has yet to be travelled where one can actually develop a heightened capacity to choose and love God, thus actualizing one’s freedom in a conscious manner.

Despite the numerous debates we have witnessed in history–from the various wisdom books of the Tanakh–to rabbinic literature, it is difficult to accept evil’s existence which Augustine conceived as “absence,” or “privation.” To the victims of Armenia, Auschwitz, Rwanda, or Cambodia also reveal the shallowness of human debates and speculations. It is only in the spirit of solidarity people of all nationalities and faith can give each other the strength to face evil without necessarily denying its reality. Random acts of compassion go a long way in at least defying evil, while affirming the sanctity of life.

One might also add that it goes without saying that any faith community must have the inner strength and integrity to recognize the roots of intolerance that have contributed toward the problem at hand.

In the case of the Armenian and Auschwitz genocides, the objectification of the non-believer (as evidenced by centuries of anti-Semitic literature) creates the impression that the Other has no moral or human standing whatsoever.

Depth structures of racial, sexual, societal and economic prejudice needs to be more than intellectually understood, they must be combated and challenged by all good people of conscience. Reconciliation is possible provided that both conflicting powers engage in their own spiritual housecleaning and while taking moral ownership for their portion of the conflict.