Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

The Biblical Outlook: Topics in Jewish Philosophy by Rabbi Shlomo Polachek; Penina Press, Jerusalem, 2012; ISBN-10: 1936068273; 463 pages.

The concept the author wishes to present an important one. He wishes to show the various strands of biblical passages that can be used by a teacher or a student in ascertaining basic themes of Jewish philosophy. I commend his goal. However, I find myself thinking of what the angel told the medieval King of the Khazarian Empire, “Your way of thinking is pleasing to God, but not your way of acting.” In this case, I would paraphrase the angelic words, “Your way of thinking is pleasing to God, but not your way of writing . . .” (Kuzari 1:1).

Normally, one would identify Jewish philosophy with such luminaries such as Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, Nachmanides, Ibn Ezra, and a host of others. Before reading the book I had hoped the author would present a series of verses along with Jewish philosophical expositions as to how each thinker approached a given biblical text. An excellent resource for this is Jacob Klatzkin’s Philosophical Thesaurus of the Hebrew Language. I strongly recommend the author get a hold of this work and integrate the some of the ideas in his footnotes when dealing with a variety of interesting topical issues.

Such a composition would have considerable use, but this was not the case with the author’s book. When Polachek attempts to weave some of the verses together, he does so superficially. On page 38, the author writes about the “Voice of God,” and writes, “The voice of God shatters the cedars, sends forth flames, makes the desert tremble, and causes the dear to fear” (Psa. 29:5-9). Polachek writes nothing about the seven times “voice of God” appears in the Psalm, alluding to God’s mastery over the forces of nature symbolized by the waters of creation, the desert, and the power of fire. Some modern scholars think the phrase may also allude to the primordial slaying of Leviathan, the seven-headed sea monster of Canaanite mythology.

Now take a look at how some Christian topical sources deal with the same text:

• David calls on the mighty to give glory to God, 1, 2. He shows the majesty and power of his voice, 3-9; and that, as the eternal King, he will strengthen and bless his people, 10, 11.

1. Give. Ps 2:10-12. 68:31-34. 96:7-9. Is 60:12. Je 13:16-18.. mighty. Heb. sons of the mighty. sons. Cf. Gen. 6:2. Ps 89:6. mighty. ƒ24L, Gen. 6:2. glory. ƒ173, Gen. 27:44. strength. Ps 68:34. ƒ121L3, Ps +8:2. Metonymy of the Subject, whereby attributes are put for the praise and celebration of them. How can we give glory or strength to God? We can praise him for these, but we cannot give them. They are thus put, by metonymy, for the praise given him for his glory and strength.

2. Give. 1 Ch 16:28, 29. glory, etc. Heb. honor of his name. Ps 96:6, 8. 97:9. 113:3-6. 145:3-7. worship. Ps 27:4. 96:9. 2 Ch *20:21. the beauty of holiness. or, his glorious sanctuary. Ps 90:17. 1 Ch 16:29.

3. The voice. Ex +16:35. ƒ22A11, Is30:30. Ps 18:13-15. 68:33. 77:16-19. SS 2:14. 8:13. God. Heb. El, Exod 15:2. Ps 24:7-10. thundereth. ƒ22F2. Anthropomorphism B894: thunder is called the voice of the Lord (Ps 38:8); Exod. 9:28, 33. 19:16. 1 S 7:10. Jb 37:2-5.. many waters. or, great waters. Ps 93:3, 4. 104:3.

4. The voice. ƒ70, Ex +16:35. powerful. Heb. in power. Ps 33:9. Job 26:11-14. Jer. 51:15, 16. the voice. Exod.16:35; full of. Heb. in. Job 40:9-12. Isa 66:6. Ezek 10:5.

5. The voice. ƒ70, Ex +16:35. breaketh. Is 2:13.

6. skip. Ps 114:4-7. Lebanon. Je 4:23-25. Hab 3:6-11.. Sirion. Deut 3:9. unicorn. Ps 92:10. Num 23:22.

7. The voice. Ex +16:35. Jb 37:2-5. divideth. Heb. cutteth out. 1 K 5:15. flames. Ps 77:18. 144:5, 6. Ex 9:23. Le 10:2. Nu 16:35. 2 Kgs. 1:10-12. Jb 37:3. 38:35.

8. The voice. Ex +16:35. shaketh. Ps 18:7. 46:3. Jb 9:6. *37:2-5. Isa. 13:13. Joel 3:16. Hag .2:6, 21. wilderness. ƒ121J3. Metonymy of the Subject: wilderness is put for the wild beasts in it. Deut. 8:15. Kadesh. Num 13:26. ^[1]

A cross-section of biblical passages can create some interesting topics to explore in the interest of expanding one’s knowledge as to how a metaphor is used in the Bible. When citing scriptural references, it is vital that the author compare and contrast each passage he is bringing into the discussion. One can express a lot of information even without resorting to Jewish theological sources. Now, had Polacheck investigated his sources more comprehensively, he might have introduced an important some relevant questions:

• Raise the theological question that has puzzled Jewish commentators and translators since the time of the Septuagint, Onkelos, Saadia, and Maimonides: What does the phrase “voice of God” convey? Does God speak like a human being? What does the biblical narrator mean by “speak,” when the speaker happens to be God?

The “Voice of God” obviously conveys the thought of communication. How does God speak on the first day of Creation? How does God speak to Adam? How does God speak to Cain, or Hagar, or any of the patriarchs or prophets? Polachek shies away from asking such provocative questions, but Maimonides answers this question with considerable gusto: “Whenever the Tanakh says that God has ‘spoken’ to a person, this means that he has received a message either in the form of a dream or a vision that is mediated through an angelic being (cf. Num 12:6).”[2]

But even without the use of Jewish theological sources, the author could have stimulated some interesting discussions regarding the “Voice of God.” It is surprising that Polacheck did not think to include a well-known passage from 1 Kings:

Then the LORD said, “Go outside and stand on the mountain before the LORD; the LORD will be passing by.” A strong and heavy wind was rending the mountains and crushing rocks before the LORD—but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake—but the LORD was not in the earthquake.

After the earthquake there was fire—but the LORD was not in the fire. After the fire there was a tiny whispering sound. (1 Kgs. 19:11-12)

The author might have used this passage in particular to compare the theophany (revelation) of Sinai to the revelatory experience Elijah encounters. In both cases there is a dazzling array of natural forces, e.g., such as wind, storms, earthquakes, fire (Exod. 19:18–19; Deut. 4:10–15.). God speaks at Sinai, but the verse gives no inkling how God speaks to the Israelites. From the story of Elijah, one might deduce an important lesson about the phenomena of revelation: God speaks to a person(s) and nation through “the still small voice,” and not necessarily in a cacophony of nature’s fury.

In short, the author may want to go back to the drawing board and take a good look at what he wishes to present. The title of the book does not necessarily reflect the content of his work. I hope the author will take these suggestions in the spirit of constructive criticism and produce the book that I believe will eventually prove to be a great addition to any student’s library. He may want to utilize the Moznaim Tanakh commentary notes or something similar when he works on his next project.

Continue Reading

When Johann Gutenberg (1394-1468) unsheathed his new invention in 1454, this great device changed European civilization forever because it led to the advancement of literacy in all areas of human interest. It is interesting that the Catholic Church originally had some misgivings about Gutenberg’s new invention. They felt somewhat ambivalent whether the Word of God ought to be mass produced by a machine, instead of being written by the hands of pious scribes.

The main supporters happened to be the local churches. And by 1480, printing presses could be seen everywhere in towns and cities throughout Europe. Within twenty years, there were already over 238 printing presses. Literacy exploded. People actually learned to read the Bible alongside with the works of Aristotle, Plutarch, Cicero, Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, and Aesop’s fables, not to mention Boccaccio’s love stories.

History changed forever with the twinkle of an eye.

But it wasn’t just the sciences that changed with the invention of the printing press. Among the books reprinted was Ptolemy’s classic work, Geography. Once the maps were mass-produced, they soon led to exciting voyages across the globe. Explorers led their crews to the discoveries of uncharted territories. One explorer in particular, a Italian (Jewish?) man named Christopher Columbus, would soon use to discover the New World.

Gutenberg’s daemonic invention was more dangerous than the Catholic clergy dared to imagine. With the explosion of literacy, scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and others liberated Europe from the Dark Ages. The Gutenberg printing press gave people the freedom to express their ideas, which ultimately led to the collapse of the Catholic Church as the omniscient source of wisdom.

To put things in perspective, think of the Gutenberg printing press as a precursor to the Internet. The same kind of impact that Gutenberg had on Western Europe can be seen in how the Internet is fostering literacy, freedom, and self-empowerment to peoples all over the globe. Not since the 15^th century have we as a people witnessed the expansion of the human mind and its potential to encounter endless disciplines with a mere keystroke.

The Catholic Church was not the only agency that felt threatened by the printing press. Islamic culture in the medieval era was once the leader in mathematics, sciences, technology, music, and philosophy. However, after Genghis Khan destroyed the centers of Islamic culture in Iraq and Persia during the 13^th century, Islamic culture withered and died. Although Muslim scholars believed that the sciences were necessary, in actuality, they looked upon scientific innovation with suspicion. The sacred and the profane represented two separate domains, and the commingling of these two disciplines had to be partitioned.

Islamic culture retreated into a ghetto made by the clerics, as they attempted to insulate their world from the new ecumenical and technological advances that gave rise to modern secular culture. Had it not been for the Ottoman Turks in the early 18^th century, literacy in the Muslim would have arrived much later than the 18^th century!

Why did they oppose the printing press? Clerics felt that the Word of God would be defiled by anything that touched an iron or wooden press. Even today, it is not uncommon to hear mullahs decry the sins of technology because it engenders secular values, and undermines people’s belief.

They are not the only ones who felt this way.

Today, in the 21st century, a new movement afoot in New York, New Jersey, London, and Jerusalem by Ultra-Orthodox rabbis, who are demanding that their followers “ban the Internet.” Today’s Haredim are remarkably similar to the retrograde forces of Christian and Muslim societies in the medieval period.

They fear the openness of modern society.

Many of the Haredi rabbis claim they are trying to protect their followers from pornography, but what they are really terrified is freedom of thought. In the insular world of the European Shtetle, the rabbis of old could easily control the masses. The ghetto facilitated their influence, and they ruled like kings.

Not anymore.

Now their leader’s crimes and foibles are available for all to see. There is no place to hide. Sooner or later the people will revolt once they realize their leaders wish to control their bodies and souls.

Yet, the genie is out of the bottle.

Change is not only necessary for the denizens who follow the Haredi and Hassidic communities, it is inevitable. No rabbi or rebbe has the power to hold back progress. Change shall come crashing down upon their artificial environment with the force of an Asian tsunami, or with the same power that brought down the walls of Jericho. Continue Reading

When one takes a gaze at the Jewish horizon, one gets the distinct impression that many synagogues find themselves confronted by a spiritual problem they can scarcely understand—much less articulate: Irrelevance. Judaism may someday die—not by genocides—but by apathy. Yes, as rabbis we love to sermonize about Israel, political concerns, and a host of other miscellaneous topics ad nauseam, but we feel too embarrassed to talk, or engage one another about one of the most important issues of our time: recovering Jewish spirituality.

The obstacles are daunting.

For one thing, talking about God exposes our prepubescence. Can a sophisticated and educated person who is schooled in science still believe in God? Some of us also feel awkward about our ambivalence. Didn’t Feuerbach, Freud, and Marx convince us that God is nothing more but a human projection? Didn’t Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan tell us that God is anything but “personal”? Yes, history also gives us pause to wonder. God poses a mighty problem for those of us who remember Auschwitz and Rwanda, or the legion of Jihadists, who delight in destroying innocent lives in the name of Allah. Although we speak about the great miracles of the biblical past, e.g., the splitting of the Red Sea, we find ourselves cynically asking, “What have you done for us lately, God?” Maybe as a result of our collective suffering as a people, it is too hard for us to imagine God as “personal.”

Any close brush with evil makes it exceedingly difficult to talk about faith. Martin Buber asked poignantly:

• In this our time, one asks again and again: how is a Jewish life still possible after Auschwitz? I would like to frame this question more correctly: how is a life with God still possible in a time in which there is an Auschwitz? The estrangement has become too cruel, the hiddenness too deep. One can still “believe” in a God who allowed those things to happen, but how can one still speak to Him? Can one still hear His word? Can one still, as an individual and a people, enter at all in a dialogical relationship with Him? Can one still call on Him? Dare we recommend to the survivors of Auschwitz, the Jobs of the gas chambers: “Call on Him, for He is kind, for His mercy endureth forever?”[1]

Jewish tradition teaches us that anyone who lives in a cemetery could be considered insane according to mishnaic law.[2] I often wonder whether we have lost our sanity since Auschwitz. Nevertheless, the rabbinic proscription against sleeping in a cemetery ought to make us wonder: Is it possible that our concepts of God and the Bible might have been flawed to begin with? A friend of mine who is a large publisher of Jewish books confided with me, “Michael Leo, I cannot believe in a rabbi who does not believe in miracles.” In my usual Socratic style, I asked him, “Will you define for me, what you mean by ‘miracle’?”

We are so used to Hollywood defining what “miracles” are supposed to be-supernatural violations of natural law; as a result, we fail to consider the obvious. Miracle comes from the Latin miraculum “object of wonder,” and when we see something that awakens within us a sense of wonder, we experience the miraculous. From the religious perspective, the continuous survival of the Jewish people continues to surprise the world. When you consider the enemies that we have faced and out-survived, that too is a miracle. When one considers that the Jewish people bear witness to the reality of ethical monotheism despite the countless attempts of our enemies to destroy us, I am dwarfed by miracles.

There are no easy answers as to why bad things happen to good people, yet the continued existence of the Jewish people seems to point to something very majestic and profound—the God of history. Miracles are subtle. If a miracle can be subtle, I believe God is also subtle. Our childish images of Big Daddy God doing it all for us helpless fools, is passé—God is, for me, the Power that is giving shape to a good world. However, we are also God’s co-partners in Creation. Human generated evil would never be possible if we didn’t allow it to happen. In my opinion, before we start pointing fingers at God, we need to start taking a sober look at our abdication as God’s shepherds and rescuers.

Lastly, when discussing spirituality, it is important to understand its Hebraic usage in the Torah and Tanakh. To be begin with, the “Spirit of God” רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים (rûah ´élöhîm) mentioned in Genesis 1:2 describes רוּחַ as the life-breath and life-principle that transforms the chaos of creation into a cosmos. In theological terms, רוּחַ alludes to the most profound dimension that converts, liberates, and sublimates human existence. In practical terms, when we embrace this aspect of spirit within our being—we can transform even the darkest forces of chaos into an orderly cosmos that exist in our world. This has been our task as God’s witness in history. Isn’t about time we start learning to get in touch with this profound dimension of our life that can improve and transform our earthly and spiritual existence?

** Continue Reading

Picture: Rabbi Yona Metzger

A question came up recently in my congregation regarding the use of music at a Jewish funeral. The Reform Movement has long permitted the use of music at a Jewish funeral—provided the music does not derive from the Christian liturgy, e.g., Amazing Grace. Most Conservative and all Orthodox synagogues frown upon the use of music at a funeral because they feel it distracts the mourners from mourning. R. Isaac Klein’s book on A Guide to Jewish Practices, says nothing about it, one way or other. However, an argument ex silencio suggests that Rabbi Klein frowned upon this particular practice.

The question is not by any means a new Halachic issue.

About a year ago the Israeli Knesset member Rabbi Hanan Porat died; he was one of the founding members of the Gush Emunim, a religious Zionist organization that is very visible in settling the West Bank. At the rabbi’s funeral, his children sang and played some songs with a guitar that upset Rabbi Yona Metzger, the Chief Rabbi of Israel. Rabbi Metzger made his opinion known, and is quoted as saying:

• Rabbi Shlomo Amar and I stared at each other and neither one of us knew what was going on -a band, guitars, children singing … One might think that the people came to attend a wedding! But this was a funeral! I have never heard of this kind of ‘mourning’ before-not in Israel, not in Europe, and I am sure not in Yemen. We have never heard of and never saw such a thing like this.[1]

Actually, I applaud the family’s innovative spirit—and I am sure the spirit of their father did not mind either.

The tradition of music in funerals is well attested in biblical, post-biblical texts, Mishnahic and medieval sources.

In biblical sources, the Hebrew term qînâ (qînôt), is an oral poetic music used for times of national calamity and mourning. The best known example of this kind of singing can be seen in the acrostic style of writing found in Lamentations. Indeed, one of the more extraordinary images of God in the Bible is that of a musician and composer. The prophet Jeremiah depicts God as mourning for Moab, “Hence the wail of flutes for Moab is in my heart; for the men of Kir-heres the wail of flutes is in my heart: the wealth they acquired has perished” (Jer. 48:36 NAB).

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus arrives at the ruler’s home and saw the flute players and a crowd making a tumult, he said, “Depart; for the girl is not dead but sleeping ” (Mt 9:23, 24; Mk 5:38, 39). The NT passage suggests that the flute players went to work immediately at the time of death, as well as the time leading to the internment.

Josephus writes that when the news reached Jerusalem of the fall of Jotapata to the Roman armies in 67 C.E., “Most people engaged flute-players to lead their lamentations.” This style of mourning was common throughout the ancient world; Greece, Rome, Phoenicia, Assyria all utilized the flute in times of loss. Roman funeral processions were especially known for being very noisy. Musicians used to lead the way blowing their trumpets, horns and flutes announcing the presence of the corpse.[2]

The wailing of the flute players, the cries of the mourners, the sound of torn garments, was unmistakably common in the cities of ancient Israel. Note that the Jewish mourners had no afterthoughts whether they were emulating the pagan gentiles or not.

In the Mishnah, we also find: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי חֲלִילִים וּמְקוֹנֶנֶת R. Judah says, “Even the poorest man in Israel should not hire fewer than two flutes and one professional wailing woman [for a funeral]” (Ketubbot 4:4). Other Mishnaic sources speak about the use of pipes or flutes as a normal part of the Jewish funerals.[3] The rabbis lifted their prohibitions against women’s voices being heard in public were relaxed for funerary rituals.[4]

Maimonides similarly ruled almost 1200 years later,” When a man’s wife dies, he is obligated to bury her and to have eulogies and lamentations performed as is the local custom. Even a poor Jewish man should provide at least two flutes and one woman to lament.“[5]

Why is the music of the flute so special? Maimonides explains that the plaintive melody moves a person to tears at a funeral.[6] The Halachic Codes all acknowledge this custom.[7]

One 14^th century classical work on mourning, Kol Bo al Hilchot Aveilut admits that during the Talmudic period music was part of the funeral, but rejects its reintroduction because it would be as a result of non-Jewish influence—undoubtedly referring to the Christians, who used music in their mourning rites. Some Halachic authorities had no problem with music being played at a funeral-so long as the musicians happened to be Jewish. It is interesting to note that this custom continued in Egypt during the early 19th century.

A very dear friend of the TBS synagogue died this past week. His name was Kurt Sax, and this Viennese Jew loved the Spanish guitar. In honor of his memory, two of his good friends played a couple selections that Kurt really loved. I can personally attest that the music was very meaningful and moving for the family and their friends.

Was it traditional?

Maybe not by Rabbi Yona Metzger’s standards.

However, I will say Rabbi Metzger is right on one point. If a rabbi chooses to pursue such a path, it is important that he remind the people not to applaud, after all-it is a funeral and not a concert.

However, history has allowed this type of musical innovation. I think Jewish law and tradition needs to be less austere and become innovative, as it once was before. If Judaism is to be healthy, we must find a way to make our faith more appealing and less hung up on the external forms of Jewish piety.

In other words, it’s time to allow music to liberate the heart that inspires and experiences prayer—in good times and in bad times. Continue Reading

President Obama’s revelation surprised me. I wondered: Why did it take him so long to state his opinion? Wasn’t it obvious?

True, the President indicated that he had reservations on whether he should personally endorse same sex marriage, or not. Although I think the President would be wise to speak more about the economy, the question about accepting gay relationships and marriage is an important issue—but not because of its political ramifications. In a democratic society, the homogenization of public opinion is not always possible or even desirable. People have a right to their opinions on this subject—even if I, as a citizen, may not necessarily agree.

There is a higher issue at work here: it’s really about personal autonomy, i.e., the freedom for consensual adults to live one’s personal life without government interference. Therefore, I support anyone’s right to choose having a same-sex marriage.

In all honesty, I did not always feel this way.

Let me share a story with you. In the late 1980s, I lived in San Francisco and I was the rabbi of a Modern Orthodox congregation in the Richmond District of San Francisco. My father was a Holocaust survivor who had witnessed many terrible things in Auschwitz and Majdanek, two of the worse concentration camps of the Holocaust era. Hitler, as you may know, went after the gay community and killed approximately 15,000 in the camps. My father remembered seeing how they were treated. Their suffering left an impression upon him that he never forgot.

After settling in Alameda, CA., my father helped establish Alameda’s first Reform synagogue—Temple Israel. Well, one Sunday, I went to visit my father and he was on his way to attend a wedding. I asked him, “Where are you going?” He replied, I am going to be a witness for a gay Jewish wedding.” Feeling surprised—even shocked—I observed, “Dad, you never cease to amaze me; you are the last person I would have ever expected to participate in a marriage ceremony, given your religious background . . .” Dad replied with a smile, “What’s the matter with you son? What’s so terrible about two human beings wanting to affirm their love and commitment to each other?”

My Father’s words left a lasting impression. He helped me to look beyond the religious barriers that tend to stigmatize or marginalize feeling people in the name of “Tradition.” Just as I mentioned earlier, same-sex unions between consenting adults is a privacy issue. Nobody—whether it is the State or the Church or synagogue—has the right to micromanage people’s personal lives.

Earlier this past week, I briefly participated on an Orthodox blog named Hirhurim, and while I was on, I was surprised to read some of the comments regarding Rabbi Elliot Dorf, who happens to be an outstanding Conservative rabbinical scholar. One person felt it was wrong to call Rabbi Dorf by his title, “Rabbi,” since he endorses gay marriages. Some of us demurred. I wrote, “Whether you recognize Rabbi Dorf as a rabbi is not the issue here; it’s really about respect. You cannot go wrong showing kindness to another person. One can politely agree to disagree without being disagreeable.”

As the conversation ensued, one participant quipped, “According to the Torah, homosexuality is punishable by death!” I asked him, “Can you show me a single instance in Judaism where anyone was ever executed for being a homosexual?” He had no answer. I pointed out that there are two kinds of cases where a homosexual may be executed according to the Mishnah. One case pertains to someone who is threatening to sodomize a man, i.e., homosexual rape. Alternatively, the Mishnah may be speaking of someone threatening to sodomize an underage male child (BT Sanhedrin 73a). However, both cases appear to be only theoretical for there is no court record of any homosexual ever having been executed. If anything, the law is heuristic and intended for some future application, should the practical need arise. In the medieval Jewish period, the death penalty was sometimes administered on an ad hoc basis.

In our discussion, I explained that the scriptural basis of this law most likely derives from the famous biblical story of Lot and the angels:

• But before they laid down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; ⁵ and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” (Gen 19:4-5).

Obviously, the townspeople were interested in not inviting the guests for coffee, cake or crumpets. However, one thing is motivating their behavior—a desire to show that they are in control. Homosexual rape has nothing to with love or even, “free love (for you ex-Hippies). However, it has everything to do with dominance and control. This would also explain why the Torah considers the rape of a male—“an abomination” (Lev. 20:13). Although this term is not used for cases of ordinary rape, one must remember that in a patriarchal society, sodomizing someone against his will evokes disgust and primal fear. In fact, it still does—even in the 21^st century.

So, in the final analysis, what does this mean? For one thing, ancient Israel’s society differed considerably from our own. Just because Abraham and Sarah lived in tents, doesn’t mean that we should live in tents also in order to emulate their particular lifestyle. Monogamous male relationships probably did not exist, or, happened to be extremely uncommon in ancient Israel, as it later occurred in Greek and Roman societies. Therefore, the issue of a same-sex marriage is for all practical terms historically irrelevant.

In addition, I would add that there are numerous passages that we do not interpret the Torah literally. The Torah tells us to “circumcise the foreskin of our hearts” (Deut. 10:16). Yet, I do not know of any fundamentalist who would interpret this passage literally; if he did, he would be a fool. In fact, the rabbis frequently refused to interpret biblical legislation pertaining to the death penalty literally because of their concern for the social welfare of the community.[1] We do not stone people for adultery either. If we did, a sizable portion of our society would be dead by now.

Unlike the Fundamentalists of the evangelical community, which tends to focus on the literalism of biblical truth, Jewish tradition has long argued that exegetical interpretations are derived contextually as well. Evangelical scholars often derive the prohibition against same-sex marriage from the biblical passage, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen 24:25).

While it is true the Genesis passage speaks of a marriage between a man and a woman who create new life, one must remember that marriage is not only for the sake of siring children. The emotional bond of marriage, i.e., “becoming one flesh” can also mean a fully monogamous life that involves sharing and caring to one another. Marriage is the most profound connection that binds two human beings as they face good and sorrowful times together. Each partner is always present supporting the other. “One flesh” entails a lifelong, exclusive attachment of one person to another—both physically and spiritually; this sharing involves a willingness to eliminate all the barriers that keeps their hearts apart from one another.

In summary, a contextual reading of the Torah dealing with homosexuality allows for a more elastic postmodern interpretation that could conceivably permit same-sex marriages.

One last question arises: Is it Halachic?

Halacha is not a static system. It allows for a radical re-visioning of Jewish law based upon the ever changing social circumstances. Hillel, for example, permitted people to circumvent the agricultural laws of the Sabbatical Year—despite the fact scripturally speaking—all debts are cancelled.[2] People who have committed suicide used to be buried in the outer parameters of a Jewish cemetery as a sign of disgrace. Today, psychoanalysis has completely altered our understanding of suicide, which often has physical or psychological causes that overpower a mentally ill person. The rabbis of the Talmud did not understand or legislate against pedophilia, but given what we now know about this terrible social and psychological disease, we would be foolish to rely on the views of Sages that lived almost 2000 years ago who thought molesting a child was harmless.[3] Women never voted in biblical times; today, despite the fact that many Halachic scholars think it is biblically forbidden for women to participate in an election or even run for a political office[4] (see the Woman’s Suffrage debate of the early 20^th century in the halachic literature[5]).

For generations, the Orthodox homosexual has been marginalized, ignored, and often shamed for being “different.”

This can no longer be tolerated.

Across the Orthodox divide, more and more Orthodox gays are “coming out” and demand that they be treated honorably and lovingly by their families and by their communities. The world has changed, and so must the Halacha. Nobody has the moral or halachic right to expect or demand that a Jewish homosexual ought to spend the rest of his/her life in seclusion, bereft of a life companion. Continue Reading

One of the 20^th century’s greatest Jewish mystics, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, develops this theme in one of his most famous passages:

After the Flood, God lowered the standards of morality and justice He expected of humanity. We would no longer be culpable for slaughtering animals; we would only be held accountable for harming other human beings. Then our moral sensibilities, which had become cold and insensitive in the confusion of life, could once again warm the heart. If the original prohibition against meat had remained in force, then, when the desire to eat meat became overpowering, there would be little distinction between feasting on man, beast, or fowl. The knife, the axe, the guillotine, and the electric pulse would cut them all down, in order to satiate the gluttonous stomach of “cultured” man. This is the advantage of morality when it is connected to its Divine Source: it knows the proper time for each objective, and on occasion will restrain itself in order to conserve strength for the future.

In the future, this suppressed concern for the rights of animals will be restored. A time of moral perfection will come, when “No one will teach his neighbor or his brother to know God – for all will know Me, small and great alike” (Jeremiah 31:33). In that era of heightened ethical awareness, concern for the welfare of animals will be renewed.

In the interim, the mitzvot of the Torah prepare us for this eventuality. The Torah alludes to the moral concession involved in eating meat, and places limits on the killing of animals. If “you desire to eat meat,” only then may you slaughter and eat (Deut. 12:20). Why mention the “desire to eat meat”. The Torah is hinting: if you are unable to naturally overcome your desire to eat meat, and the time for moral interdiction has not yet arrived – i.e., you still grapple with not harming those even closer to you (fellow human beings) – then you may slaughter and eat animals. Nonetheless, the Torah limits which animals we are allowed to eat, only permitting those most suitable to human nature.

According to Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed 3:48), the animals permitted for food are those most suitable for the human body, and “no doctor will doubt this.” Ramban disagreed, explaining that the permitted animals are the ones shechitah (ritual slaughtering) restrict the manner of killing animals to the quickest and most humane. With these laws, the Torah impresses upon us that we are dealing with a living creature, not some automaton devoid of life. And after slaughtering, we are commanded to cover the blood, as if to say, “Cover up the blood! Hide your crime!” These restrictions will achieve their effect as they educate the generations over time. The silent protest against animal slaughter will become a deafening outcry, and its path will triumph . . .[1] Continue Reading

Ever since I was a kid, I love baseball. When I was about 7 or 8, I could rattle off the top ten pitchers, batters, along with their minor league and career averages.

Yes, baseball is terrific.

Yet, today, I must confess: I do not like watching the Barry Bonds and the Roger Clemens baseball hearings take place. Though steroids have been banned in MLB since 1991, the league did not implement league-wide PED (Performance Enhancing Drugs) testing until 2003, two years after Bonds hit 73 home-runs.

On the basis of his impressive career alone from 1987 to 1999, a period where he was steroid free, Bonds would have been a lock for the Hall of Fame. Bonds would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer and he would have also been known as one of the greatest players ever. Up until that point of Bonds career, he was a three-time National League MVP winner, he won eight Gold Gloves as a left fielder, and he had hit 455 home-runs. At that time some baseball historians were saying that Bonds was one of the top 10 players ever to live.

If Bonds had never taken steroids, he would have played another six or seven seasons, each year fading a little bit. He would have certainly surpassed the 500-homerun mark, and he could have made a run at 600. But even if he ended his career with 445 home runs, he would have been a shoe in for the Hall of Fame because of the amount of home-runs he already had, plus his three MVPs and eight Gold Gloves.

Then Bonds’ record took off. In 2000, he hit a career high 49 home-runs, and then in 2001, he broke McGwire’s single season home-run record by hitting 73. Bonds went on to surpass Hank Aaron’s career home-run record, and Bonds finished his career in 2007 with 762 home-runs.

It seems to me that some purists feel angry Bonds broke Aaron’s record.

Let’s be truthful with ourselves: the home-run race benefited baseball, and everyone looked the other way. Ok, the fact baseball czars did not test for PED means that one must give the benefit of the doubt to the players. If one wishes to be angry at anyone, be angry at the Baseball Commissioner and his associates for not testing the players. Bear in mind that after the infamous Baseball Strike of 1994-1995, fans like me, vowed never to watch another ballgame. When Big Mac and Sammy Sosa started their famous competition, thousands of fans came back to the game with a spirit of forgiveness. Bud Selig, the Baseball Commissioner delighted in the renewed interest of the game.

We all did.

The time has come for fans to give credit where credit was due. If we want to go after anybody, we should inspect the politicians from the President to the common Congressman and see whether their records will stand the test of purity and honesty.

Somehow, I don’t think they would do so well.

Ask yourself a simple question: Who do the politicians think they are? Do they fancy themselves as the guardians of baseball purity?

What is wrong with this picture?

Think again. Aren’t these the same politicians who have squandered Social Security monies and Medicare funding? Aren’t these the same charlatans who are personally enriching themselves at the expense of the public, e.g., inside trading?

“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

Just for the record, whatever Bonds or Clemens may have done is benign when compared to the kind of the antics baseball has tolerated for much of its history. In fact, fewer sports can claim as many cheaters as baseball. Baseball and cheating have a long history. The artful deception of the Baseball Other is the stuff that baseball lore and legends are made up of. Contrary to popular political belief, there are a lot of players in the Hall of Fame who would have never made it for we have empirical evidence that cheating took place. Some cheated long enough to change the outcome of a pennant race, while others cheated throughout their careers. Some cheated just for the fun of it.

In Jungian terminology, baseball has a shadow side that cannot be denied. Let’s be honest, baseball is not a shrine for Catholic saints or Hassidic Rebbes (many of whom, also cheated). It is a place where we honor the memory and life achievements of baseball’s immortal heroes, but make no mistake: many of them were not saints.

In the interest of brevity, I will mention just a few of the game’s best known baseball cheaters:

• 1. New York Giants (1951) - Bobby Thomson

The year was 1951. Bobby Thomson got mobbed by his Giants’ teammates after hitting the “shot heard ’round the world.”

“That year, the Giants admitted they had an elaborate sign-stealing system in place at the Polo Grounds in 1951. Did it help them erase the 13½-game lead the Dodgers had in August? Did Bobby Thomson know what Ralph Branca was throwing when he hit his “Shot heard around the world?” Those questions are unanswerable, even by Thomson, who exhibited Clintonesque qualities when he was once questioned by the Wall Street Journal, years later. He said, “I’d have to say more no than yes . . .” After equivocating, he finally said, “No, I didn’t steal the sign for that pitch.”

• 2. John McGraw (3B, SS, OF, Orioles, Cardinals, Giants, 1891-1906)

This Hall-of-Famer should have played football. Two old chroniclers named Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns wrote in “Baseball: An Illustrated History,” On the field, the 155-pound McGraw “held far bigger base runners back by the belt, blocked them, tripped them, spiked them — and rarely complained when they did the same to him.” He was known to grab onto runners belts as they were rounding third, and grab the belt loops of runners tagging up at third. “He uses every low and contemptible method that his erratic brain can conceive to win a play by a dirty trick,” wrote one reporter.

• 3. Gaylord Perry (pitcher, Giants, Indians, Rangers, Padres, Yankees, Braves, Mariners, Royals, 1962-1983)

“Gaylord Perry, a Hall-of-Famer, compiled his 314-265 record on the wings of a Vaseline ball. He’d stand on the mound, touching his cap or his sleeve, either loading up the ball or trying to convince batters he was doing so. In 1982, he became one of the very few pitchers to be suspended for doctoring the ball. Gene Tenace, who was Perry’s catcher with the Padres, said the ball was sometimes so loaded he couldn’t throw it back to the mound. Indians president Gabe Paul defended Perry: “Gaylord is a very honorable man,” he said. ‘He only calls for the spitter when he needs it.’”

• 4. Ty Cobb, one of Baseball’s greatest players, loved to sharpen his spikes and maim anyone who tried to tag him out when he would steal a base.

• 5. Whitey Ford has many outstanding records: Winning percentage, left-hander, career (minimum 100 wins), .690; Most World Series wins, career, 10; Most World Series starts. After his career ended, Ford admitted to occasionally cheating by doctoring the ball with his ring. Ford, Sutton and Perry were often accused of throwing illegal pitches, scuffed ones or spitters.

We honor some men who found a way around the rules of the game while excluding others? Was Perry an isolated incident? Of course not, Whitey Ford is in the Hall as well. Whitey, the great, was fond of cutting up a baseball or two with a sharp ring he once wore. In short, the infamous list of less than honest citizens goes on. Despite the baseball antics, these players give much for the fans to cheer about. I personally resent the politicians and the purists who are trying to make the Hall of Fame into a religious shrine for the holiest players.

What about Pete Rose? Hasn’t he done enough penance yet? Let’s be honest: Pete Rose made a mistake. But he is hardly alone-we all do. To disregard one of the most successful baseball careers in the history of the game with a zero mistake policy does a disservice to Rose, the teams he played for, the fans who enjoyed watching him play, and the sport of baseball. Pete Rose’s suspension should be lifted for him, and for baseball. Heck, even the Pope forgives, just like Jesus-so should baseball.

Guess what? People who bring excitement to our favorite pastime deserve to have a break. If you want to test the players from now on (which we already do), then fine—but baseball didn’t mind letting their superstars play, and neither should we. Continue Reading