CHULA VISTA, California –George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
This statement has proven true time and time again. Such common-sense wisdom ought to be obvious to any student of history. How many revolutions have we seen in the past two hundred years where popular revolts end up with individuals seizing absolute power as we witnessed with Napoleon, Stalin, and Mao? Yes, despite our superior intellects, human beings have yet to show the wisdom to evolve to the next level of human consciousness.
The inner primitive which I call the “atavist” is always lurking in the shadows of our soul; but to evolve, we must, as the Psalmist would put it, “obtain a heart of wisdom” (Ps. 90:12)
Therefore, it is with great surprise—as we recall the attacks upon our nation on September 11, 2001— that The New York Times wrote:
18 Years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center. Today, families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2000 people died.
Notice the politically correct nomenclature the writer chose, “airplanes took aim,” and not Jihadi terrorists.
Imagine if the NY Times had covered Pearl Harbor attack much in the same way, “On December 7, 1941, airplanes took aim and seriously damaged the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor.”
The Times deliberately left conspicuous facts out of their story; the writer also deliberately reduced the number of people that were murdered. Seldom have I seen such outrage from the vox populi, as I did with this tweet.
Finally, they relented; the Times deleted the tweet and rewrote the article. The new text read, “Eighteen years have passed since terrorists commandeered airplanes to take aim at the World Trade Center and bring them down.”
The manipulative motive behind this correction that omitted the words, “Islamists” or even “al Qaeda.” And on the Op Ed page, all the editor could focus upon is the effects of Islamophobia on American Muslims post-9/11.
Jewish readers need to ask themselves the obvious question: Why is the Times being so coy and deceptive?
In his famous book, 1984, George Orwell coined the phrase “memory hole.” Defined: the memory hole was a small incinerator chute used for censoring, through destroying, any information that Big Brother considered necessary to censor. In 1984, Orwell depicted legions of bureaucrats, who was led by the “Minister of Truth,” whose task was to erase actual historical records; alter its documents, newspapers, books, and so on. The “Memory Hole” also helped to eradicate any trace of a person or event’s actual existence.
Orwell reminded us of an ancient device used by historians since antiquity. By the changing the narrative, one can control history.
Radical Islamic apologists are skilled at this artifice. Changing the narrative is what the Islamic fanatics of ISIS have done in destroying ancient artifacts and remnants. Among casualties of history that ISIS destroyed, the ancient city-state of Palmyra was destroyed; it had remained an important tourist site in Syria for over millennia. ISIS destroyed the 1,900-year-old Temple of Baalshamin with explosives. ISIS sacked artifacts from another famous city, selling priceless Roman mosaics for tens of millions of dollars to fund their operations. In 2001, the Taliban dynamited the Buddhas of Bamyan which were two large monumental statues.
A rich Roman-era trading city, Apamea has been badly looted since the beginning of Syria’s civil war, before ISIS appeared. Satellite imagery shows dozens of pits dug across the site; previously unknown Roman mosaics have reportedly been excavated and removed for sale. ISIS is said to take a cut from sales of ancient artifacts, making tens of millions of dollars to fund their operations.
Concerning the NY Times, the “memory hole” is no less evident in the infamous discourse when Ilhan Omar nonchalantly said, “‘some people did something.” And in one gathering, she expressed sympathy for radical Islamists and made a special request to a Minnesota judge that he rule “compassionately” towards nine men who were planning to join ISIS.
It is astounding how we have soon forgotten the real truth that happened on that terrible day. As Americans, we should feel a collective sense of outrage for the deliberate attempt of those who wish to destroy one of the darkest chapters of American history in the name of “political correctness.”
One of the most brilliant science fiction writers of all time was H. G. Wells (1866-1947). His insights into human nature might possibly qualify him as a modern-day prophet. In one of the most exciting stories he wrote, “The Time Machine,” a story that has been adapted for several movies.
The protagonist travels into the distant future to a post-apocalyptical era where the remnants of humanity have evolved into two distinctive groups: the Eloi and the Morlocks. The Eloi are docile people who comprise small, elegant, childlike adults. They live in small communities within deteriorating buildings; they subsist on a fruit-based diet. This people seem peaceful and have no ambition or desire to learn. Yet, there is something wrong about the Eloi. Members of the Eloi disappear at night. What he discovers is that the Morlocks have been hunting them at night, using them as a food source.
I
am referring to this story for a specific reason. It seems as though H.G. Wells’
vision of the Morlocks may not be a thing of fiction—it could become a reality
for today, and possibly the future.
A behavioral scientist from Sweden thinks cannibalism of corpses will become necessary because of the effects of climate change. The name of this person is Magnus Söderlund, and he is associated with the prestigious Stockholm School of Economics. In his dystopian vision of the future, he proposed that in order to truly take on the effects of climate change, we must “awake the idea” that eating human flesh should be discussed as an option in the future.
But wait, his justification gets increasingly gross. Söderlund realizes that present-day society would find the idea of consuming flesh “repugnant.” Historically, existing “conservative” taboos against eating human flesh date back to some of the most primal periods of human history. But Söderlund thinks that to combat climate change, people could eventually learn to get over their hang-up about eating human flesh–provided they do so incrementally. Moreover, he thinks human beings can be “tricked” into “making the right decisions.” [1]
This
begs the question: Who gets to determine whose life is carnally expendable? The
poor and under-trodden? Will it be the lower class? What about the members of
the upper echelons of society? What about the rich and powerful? Söderlund has no answer to these questions.
In
a society that places zero moral value on life in the womb, perhaps proposals
from men like Söderlund is something
that was bound to happen sooner or later.
It
reminds me of the story about the missionary who brought Christ to a community
of cannibals. When honored at a dinner, they asked him, “How did you succeed in
such an amazing feat?” The missionary sheepishly replied, “You see, before I
arrived, the cannibals used to eat with their hands. But after I told them
about the power of Christ, the cannibals learned to eat their prey with forks
and knives.”
Once
Mahatma Gandhi was asked, “What do you think of Western civilization?” “I think
it would be a good idea,” he replied. …”
Today’s
Western Civilization and its fanatical scientists have a lot to learn about the
true meaning of “civilization.”
As
I wondered about this insane idea deliberated by this Swedish scientist, I
found myself recalling the words of Haim Ginott, an Israeli educational
psychologist Haim Ginott writes about a letter that teachers would receive from
their principal each year:
I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what no
person should witness: gas chambers built by learned engineers. Children
poisoned by educated physicians. Infants killed by trained nurses. Women and
babies shot by high school and college graduates. So, I am suspicious of
education. My request is this: Help your
children become human. Your efforts must never produce learned monsters,
skilled psychopaths or educated Eichmanns. Reading, writing, and arithmetic are
important only if they serve to make our children more human.
What bothers me the most is that the climate-change alarmists have developed a self-righteous morphed into a religious-like cult. Anyone who questions the veracity of its claims is considered heretical. It is not surprising that some people think we ought to promote zero population growth. The most populous areas of people are in Asia and Africa. I often wonder what some deluded people will propose next to depopulate the human race to a size that poses little threat to the environment.
CHULA VISTA, California — The subject of kosher slaughter is one of those topics that have been widely debated in Europe since the 1930s. Animal rights groups have often spoken out against Jewish and Islamic slaughter (Halal), which they believe is cruel and barbaric.
Among the newest regions to come out against kosher slaughtering, two states in Belgium now insist that any kind of ritual slaughtering must first stun the animal before it is killed. The European Union held that the animal ought to be unconscious by the time it is slaughtered, to minimize its pain.
From an ethical view, both Jews and Muslims stress the importance of minimizing animal suffering. Most Orthodox rabbinical certification organizations have long maintained the view that no form of stunning may take place before slaughtering the animal. Most Halal authorities agree, but some scholars allow nonpenetrative stunning before slaughter.
Both religious communities argue that stunning does not destroy the brain tissue, but it does stop its functioning. Jewish law does not specifically prohibit this, but the consensus of most Jewish scholars is that stunning kills the animals most times, which would render the animal “nevelah,” which is an animal that had died from natural causes, which cannot be consumed by Kosher observant people.
While there is no direct prohibition against this in Judaism, most Jewish authorities do not accept this method. This is most likely because the stunning is done in such a way that it actually kills the animals in many instances. There are various modes of stunning. Electric shock is commonly used in slaughtering pigs and poultry. Jewish authorities have disapproved of this method for several reasons.
* It is debatable how “painless” this method actually is.
* Logistically, this method would dramatically slow down the process of kosher slaughter, resulting in a much higher cost for kosher meat
* Electric -shock is a potential danger for workers at the plant
* The use of chemical agents or gas could toxify the meat, rendering it too expensive for consumption.
Perhaps one of the most important reasons why stunning is frowned upon is because the Nazis spearheaded this attempt during the 1930s under the guise of “protecting animals,” but in reality their motivation was to cripple the Jewish community.
Given the return of anti-Semitism in Europe today, it is difficult not to say this too is a veiled attack against both Jews and Muslims under the guise of humanitarian concerns for animals.
Despite these objections, it is important to note that one of the premier Orthodox scholars of his time, R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, (Author Of Seridei Esh. 1884-1966); whose name still evokes only the highest admiration among Haredi and non-Haredi Jews, made the case that stunning is “theoretically” permitted. He was the Rosh Yeshiva (Dean) of the Hildesheimer Seminary of Berlin during the days of the Nazis.
The German and other European rabbis debated this topic. In one letter, Weinberg sought to form a consensus and thought the rabbis would permit it. However, Rabbi Chaim Ozer beat him to the punch and prohibited it. In short, R. Yechiel Weinberg did not wish to sow contention within the Jewish community and so he opted to remain silent on this matter.
Truthfully , if done properly, kosher slaughter is no worse than any other method of slaughter. But there was a time when the animals had to be shackled by chains, and this practice often resulted in making the animals trefeh (unkosher) because of broken bones. Dangling on these chains ten feet in the air can frighten animals into harming themselves.
Fortunately, because of the outcry of Jews wishing a more humane method, a special pen was made where the animal remained on the ground level. I have seen these pens, when I once studied to be a shochet after my ordination in New York, 1976. Fortunately, in July 2018, the largest U.S. kosher certifier announced that it would no longer accept meat slaughtered with the “shackle and hoist” method. The Orthodox Union (O.U.) told the Jewish Telegraph Agency that it expects that all slaughterhouses to be certified by the O.U.
The issues regarding stunning remains too complex to answer. We still don’t have a definition of death that everyone can agree to. Anti-Semitism is making a comeback in Europe and elsewhere across the world.
A personal note:
I recall taking part in an international animal rights conference and I was asked about ethics regarding kosher slaughter.
At the time, I pointed out that: “From an animal’s perspective, there is no such thing as a painless way to slaughter animals. Many non-kosher slaughter houses still club animals to death in this country. If you wish to be compassionate toward animals, do the animals a favor—refrain from eating meat.”
Now when laboratory-made meat is a reality, perhaps we will live to see the words of the prophet Isaiah become true, “There shall be no harm or ruin on all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be filled with knowledge of the LORD, as water covers the sea” (Isa. 11:9).
* Rabbi Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista. He may be contacted via michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com
Nachmanides: An Unusual Thinker by Rabbi Dr. Israel Drazin, Geffen Publishing House (c) 2018, ISBN 9789652-298874.
By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California — One of the most interesting books I have read in years is Rabbi Israel Drazin’s excellent primer on the Ramban, entitled, Nachmanides An Unusual Thinker about a brilliant rabbinic scholar of the 13th century. He was born in Gerona in Northern Spain in 1194 and he was a man who had many remarkable experiences. And while he is best known for his biblical commentaries on the Pentateuch and other biblical books, Ramban is no less famous for his debate with the apostate Jew Pablo Christiani, which took place in 1263 in Barcelona before King James 1.
As Rabbi Drazin pointed out, Christiani attempted to prove to the community that the Sages “foreshadowed the birth and mission of Jesus.” And surprisingly, Nachmanides downplayed the significance of the midrashic texts, pointing out that these writings were only legends and should not be taken seriously. In rabbinical school, we studied this debate.
Rabbi Drazin noted:
Maimonides was a rationalist and his philosophy was expressed systematically and explicitly, open to thinkers in every generation, whereas the majority of Ramban’s basic ideas are rooted in the metalogical realm of the Kabbalah. Their manner of expression is the allusion, which only a select few were able to fathom throughout the generations.
What I liked about his book is how the author delineated many of the key conceptual differences that best characterize Ramban’s approach and how it contrasted with Maimonides. Think of it as the mystic vs. the rationalist. Being that Ramban was a mystic, his viewpoint tends toward a greater belief in supernatural events that are recorded in the Tanakh.
The author noted:
As a mystic, Nachmanides was the first person to introduce the idea that the Torah contains mystical notions, and the first to offer a mystical interpretation of the Bible. He was also the first to state that the Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch, Targum Onkelos, contains imaginative aggadic material and mysticism. It was as if he were arguing that if the Torah is true, and mysticism is true, and Targum Onkelos is true, then it follows that the Torah and Targum Onkelos must contain mysticism.
It is ironic that both Nachmanides and Maimonides share a common attribute in their exegetical styles: each one reads their personal Judaic philosophy into the biblical text. Unlike Maimonides, whose ideas fused elements of Greek and Muslim philosophy into his theological worldview, Ramban drew much of his inspiration from the area of Jewish tradition known as the Kabbalah—and this sphere of Jewish learning was one that Maimonides examined with the utmost of his intellectual criticism. According to Ramban, the midrashic hermeneutic constitutes the simple and literal sense of Scriptures, the entire Tanakh makes up the Name of God. Supernaturalism is the peshat of the Torah according to him. Nachmanides promotes the Torah as a mystical text— and this view has left a lasting impression on all subsequent Judaic mystics down to the present era.
As one of Maimonides’ foremost critics, Nachmanides challenged many of Maimonides’ philosophical expositions of how he interpreted familiar biblical narratives and laws. Being that Ramban was a mystic, he interpreted supernatural events as they were recorded in the Tanakh. He had no interest in Maimonidean rationalism.
Let us consider the following examples:
Unlike Maimonides’s parabolic approach to the Book of Genesis, Ramban takes the opposite position in keeping with his understanding of the peshat. For him, when the Torah speaks about an actual Garden of Eden and that Adam’s disobedience was a historical event that occurs in real time; Eden occupies an actual place in the ancient Near East. According to Maimonides—the story possesses a distinctively allegorical meaning. But for Ramban, the Edenic serpent was more than just a mythical character or a psychological symbol—it walks, and it talks too!
As R. Drazin observed:
“Nachmanides used the commentaries of Rashi and Abraham ibn Ezra, and less frequently Maimonides as a springboard with which to contrast his own original mystical biblical interpretation. He disagrees with these sages, often with strong disparaging words. He also cites the Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch, Targum Onkelos, but always with admiration, deference, and respect. Yet, although he mentions Onkelos 230 times in his commentary to the Pentateuch, generally to support” his point of view.
There are many interesting selections the author mentions. For example, he raises the questions:
· Do Animals Sin? Similarly, Genesis 6:12 states, “all flesh corrupted their ways.” Rashi argues that “all flesh” means that animals and birds also sinned. Nachmanides recognizes that animals do not sin and states that “all flesh” denotes “all people.”
· Why State Both “Created” and “Made”? Genesis 2:3 seems to have a duplication, “which God created, had made.” Ibn Ezra states that “had made” means that God gave the items the power to reproduce. Rashi opines that it suggests that God did double work on the sixth day. Nachmanides understands “had made” as suggesting, “that which He had made out of nothing.”
Similarly, later on in the Pentateuch, when Balaam’s donkey speaks, the story means exactly what it says. Once again, for Maimonides, he argued that in psychological terms, Balaam’s donkey can only be understood as a prophetic event; the Torah narrated a biblical character’s visionary experience. The theme of prophecy continues to be a bone of contention with Ramban, who differed with Maimonides’ view that the story about the three strangers who visit Abraham also occurred in a vision. Ramban, argues to the contrary, citing the detail given in the narrative occurs in real time. Abraham entertains real guests, not figments of his imagination. Beyond that, Ramban regarded all the midrashic stories mentioned in rabbinic tradition as having occurred.
Ramban also did not believe in the existence of “natural law” and that God is literally micromanaging all of His Creation, tweaking it from time to time. “God is constantly and directly involved in every human act and thought and frequently interferes and even controls them. He calls these divine manipulations ‘hidden miracles.’” This concept is fascinating, but Maimonides differed, arguing that God’s Providence over nature does not extend to a leaf falling from a tree, or whether every minor event operates with a special imperative from God.
Along the same line of thought, Ramban believed demons are the product of sorcery, and possess bodies composed of air and fire,[1] which enable them to take flight.[2] are familiar with future events because they communicate with the angels in charge of the stars.[3] More seriously, Ramban takes indirect aim at Maimonides by asserting anyone who does not believe in demonic beings suffers from a heretical attitude toward the world. According to Ramban, if you believe in miracles, then you ought to believe demonic beings exist as well. Elsewhere, Ramban writes:
It is from this standpoint that you can come to realize the ruthlessness and stubbornness of the principal Greek Philosopher Aristotle—may his name be erased from memory—who denies the truth of many things which we have seen and has been publicized throughout the world. In Mosaic times, these truths were known to all for the wisdom of that generation pertained to spiritual matters, e.g., entities involving the demonic and sorcery. However, when the Greeks arose, Aristotle believed only in what the physical sciences could confirm. In his effort to establish the scientific disciplines, he denied the realm of the spiritual. Aristotle denied the existence of demons and all magical acts. For him, the world operated solely by natural law. But it is well-known and shown that this is not the case at all. [4]
Maimonides considered such a perspective to be superstitious nonsense, and never does he endorse such a belief in demonology throughout all his writings, which are considerable.
The reader will find the material presented in this book fascinating. Nachmanides may not be necessarily correct in all of his claims, but as an expounder of the peshat (plain meaning of the text), readers will feel challenged to debate his position with other great ideas expressed by Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and other famous Judaic luminaries.
I really enjoyed reading Nachmanides: An Unusual Thinker, and I know you will too.
This book merits a 5 star rating from this reviewer.
NOTES:
[1]Ramban’s Commentary to Leviticus 17:7. Ramban’s description of demons is almost identical with the Muslim belief in Jinn (الجن, al-jinn) who are shape-shifting spirits composed of fire and air.
CHULA VISTA, California — It might surprise most people to know that ecological themes form an important part of the Torah and Tanakh.
For example:
Genesis begins with an important ecological truth: “The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it” (Gen. 2:15).
When the Holy Blessed One created the first man, He took him and led him around all the trees of the Garden of Eden, and said to him, ‘Behold My works, how beautiful and commendable they are! All that I have created, for your sake I created it. Pay heed that you do not corrupt and destroy My world. For if you spoil her, there will be nobody to repair her after you. -Eccles. Rabbah 7:20
This Midrashic interpretation highlights the importance of stewardship, not only for the Garden of Eden, but for our taking care of the earth, God’s garden. By taking care of the primordial garden, Adam learns to recognize that all of life is God’s unique design, endowed with spirit, consciousness, and intelligence. Adam’s respect for Creation makes him realize that the human species is a part of the great web of life, which he must nurture for the world to be self-sustaining and productive. Indeed, the degradation of the environment damages the original balance that Adam and his progeny must maintain. Through toil, Adam would realize how all of Creation depends on the Divine as the source of life for its sustenance and continued existence.
Understanding the implications of Adam’s stewardship is vital for our contemporary society. The science of ecology has shown how ecosystems of the world are delicately balanced; should human beings ruin them through abusive acts (ecocide), future generations will have to endure the consequences. Through work and stewardship, humankind comes to emulate God’s own work and creativity as Imitatio Dei (imitation of God). It was the divine intent from the beginning for humankind to elevate and ennoble itself by work, and elevate Creation to the realm of the spirit, leading all Creation in song and joyous exaltation of the Divine. Note that God intended to make Adam not a “master” over the Garden of Eden, but its caretaker and steward. Once Adam forgets that he is only a steward of the garden, the boundaries established by the Creator became unclear and ultimately violated.
The midrashic writers expressed a profound intuition—one that still resonates with wisdom—even today. Chief Seattle, in a meeting that took place in 1854 with the “The Great White Chief” in Washington, is purported to have replied:
“How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? Every part of the Earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clear and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap, which courses through the trees, carries the memory and experience of my people.
The white man’s dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful Earth, for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the Earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle—these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and the man, all belong to the same family.
The rivers are our brothers for they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our canoes and feed our children. … The air is precious to the red man, for all things share the same breath ‑ the beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath. Teach your children what we have taught our children that the Earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the sons of the Earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves. This we know—the Earth does not belong to man—man belongs to the Earth. This we know. All things are interconnected like the blood, which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the Earth—befalls the sons of the Earth. Man did not weave the web of life—he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”
Back to the present:
We have all seen or heard about the news in Brazil, as the Amazon Rain Forest has gone up in flames. The Amazon Rain Forest is purported to provide 20% of the world’s oxygen—a necessary ingredient for our planetary survival.
The Brazilian government has tried to exploit the Amazon forest for decades, but recently industrialists have promoted a policy of deforesting their country. On Friday, the governments of the international community exerted pressure on the Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, who decided to mobilize his military to contain the blazes.
As a chorus of condemnation intensified, Brazil braced for the prospect of punitive measures that could severely damage an economy that is already sputtering after a brutal recession. The country’s populist besieged president faces a withering reckoning–especially at the polls, come next election.
Regardless what position people have concerning global warming, I for one believe that we ought to err on the side of caution. But I do not believe that we ought to spend trillions of dollars to prevent it by a degree or two.
Consider the Land of Israel.
What can we do about global warming? Mark Twain once wrote after touring the Holy Land in the 19th century that he was amazed at how desolate the land of Israel was. In a moment of inspiration, Twain said that the people who care for the land will someday make it bloom once more.
Israel to this day has planted over 200 million trees in forests and woodlands covering some 300,000 acres. Tese trees provide Israelis with a wide range of opportunities for outdoor recreation and appreciation of nature.
The Israeli people have made the desert bloom. In addition, Israel has developed the most effective water-management systems and a sustained prosperous economy even under relatively harsh climatic conditions. It has prevented the overexploitation of natural resources, which otherwise would have driven the land toward desolation, producing severe land degradation, erosion, and salination.
Since its establishment in 1948, the State of Israel has embraced issues of sustainable land management and has adopted public policies designed to restore, develop, and manage its natural resources. Outside of Israel, about 240 million trees have been planted, particularly in the Mediterranean and semi-arid regions. Regulations have been introduced to control grazing and ensure effective water management. Due to these activities, Israel is one of the few countries in the world that has more trees now than it had a century ago.
Now why is Israel’s example so important? Replanting the planet with billions of trees all over the globe will not only beautify our world, it will contribute dramatically toward the absorption of carbon emissions. According to some studies, we need not knock down cities or takie over farms or natural grasslands. Reforested pieces could add up to new tree cover totaling just about the area of the United States, researchers report in the July 5 Science.
Can we do better? Of course. Israel’s example has demonstrated just how effective such an approach can be. This approach can contain greenhouse gases. It is a method that will not destroy our society. Combined with other common-sense measures, we can ensure the world will be a beautiful place for future generations.
One day Honi was journeying on the road and he saw a man planting a carob tree. He asked, “How long does it take for this tree to bear fruit?” The man replied: “Seventy years.” Honi asked him: “Old man! Are you certain that you will live another seventy years?” The man replied: “I found already grown carob trees in the world; as my forefathers planted those for me so I too plant these for my children” (BT Ta’anit 23b).
We owe the future a beautiful earth.
* Rabbi Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista. He may be contacted via michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com
