Archive

Archive for the ‘ethics’ Category

Does Halachah Permit Annulments for Marriage?

July 19th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

The principle of annulment for failed marriages has been used throughout Jewish history since the days of Late Antiquity.

In one Responsa of the Rashbam, he writes:

The correct rationale for all Talmudic statements that “the Rabbis annul this marriage” is that the court has the authority to expropriate the money used to effect the marriage, since the law recognizes the principle of hefker bet din hefker (i.e., the court has the right to declare privately-owned money or property ownerless). This being so, the money does not belong to him [the groom]—and thus he did not marry her with his money, and she is not married at all.

If so, we may expand this principle to cover a communal enactment, since the community may expropriate the property of any of its members, and all courts in every generation have the power to expropriate private property because “Jephthah in his generation is equal to Samuel in his generation.” …

Consequently, a community that adopts an enactment to the effect that any marriage not having the consent of the communal leaders is invalid has thereby taken the property away from the man and transferred it to the woman on condition that the man shall have no right to it. Since it did not belong to him, he gave her nothing of his own; what she obtained from him was ownerless property that had been taken away from him. She is [therefore] not married at all.

The community may do this as a protective measure to prevent an unworthy man from coming forward to entice a girl from a distinguished family and marry her in secret. If it is an earlier enactment [before the man moved into the town], then everyone implicitly consented to it, and the matter is even simpler.

(Cited from Jewish Law : History, Sources, Principles = Ha-mishpat ha-Ivri, p. 840.)

Unfortunately, the Orthodox and Haredi communities refuse to utilize such a measure because it involves a biblical issur. However, the loophole exists and this issue needs to be reappraised. Rav Moshe Feinstein utilized numerous Halachic arguments to annul marriages that occurred on a variety of different issues, e.g., the failure to disclose vital personal history, and so on. It is obvious that under normal circumstances a get would be required, but the Halacha sanctions a more extraordinary approach-when the situation calls for it, i.e., when the woman is subject to the threat of extortion from an estranged husband. Ultimately, today’s modern leaders will have to eventually answer God for their stubbornness and stupidity in World of Eternity. Such rabbinic corruption and anarchy must be confronted.

Bringing Civility Back to Religion . . .

July 19th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

What we can we do to bring civility back to faith, and remove its thorn of toxicity? Decades ahead of his time, the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber argued that one of the great spiritual challenges of our time is the process of purging our faith of all imagery that portrays the Divine as either vindictive or abusive. In his short but insightful autobiographical book, Meetings, Buber describes a meeting he had with a very pious and learned observant Jew. They had a conversation about the biblical story of King Saul and the war of genocide waged against Israel’s ancient enemy, Amalek. After Saul captures King Agag of Amalek, Saul does not kill him. The prophet Samuel becomes enraged at Saul, who places the onus of the blame on the people rather than himself. Perhaps he cannot kill his enemies with such reckless abandon, but Samuel will not hear of it; he personally hacks Agag to death. Afterward Samuel tells Saul to abdicate the throne, but Saul refuses. Buber tells the man sitting opposite him, that as a child, he always found this story horrifying. Buber recounts:

I told him how already at that time it horrified me to read or to remember how the heathen king went to the prophet with the words on his lips, “Surely the bitterness of death is past,” and was hewn to pieces by him. I said to my partner: “I have never been able to believe that this is a message of God. I do not believe it.” With wrinkled forehead and contracted brows, the man sat opposite me and his glance flamed into my eyes. He remained silent, began to speak, and became silent again. “So?” he broke forth at last, “so? You do not believe it?” “No,” I answered, “I do not believe it.” “So? so?” he repeated almost threateningly. “You do not believe it?” And once again: “No.”

“What. What”—he thrust the words before him one after the other—“What do you believe then?” “I believe,” without reflecting, “that Samuel has misunderstood God.” And he, again slowly, but more softly than before: “So? You believe that?” and I: “Yes.” Then we were both silent. But now something happened the like of which I have rarely seen before or since in this my long life. The angry countenance opposite me became transformed as if a hand had passed over it soothing it. It lightened, cleared, was now turned toward me bright and clear. “Well,” said the man with a positively gentle tender clarity, “I think so too.” And again we became silent, for a good while.[1]

Buber in the end of this anecdote mentioned how people often confuse the words of God with the words of man. To speak of God as “abusive,” is to speak of a man‑made caricature of God. Buber was well aware of the power such imagery has over people in the formation of their own personal relationships.


[1] Martin Buber, Meetings (Laselle, IL: Open Court, 1973), 52‑53.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob vs. The God of the Philosophers

July 19th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

As the 11th century Jewish philosopher Judah HaLevi observed in his Kuzari, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, is intimately concerned about the life of humankind.

When Moses first spoke to Pharaoh, he informed him: “The God of the Hebrews sent me unto you,” i.e., the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For Abraham was well known to the nations, who also knew that the divine spirit was in contact with the patriarchs, cared for them, and performed miracles for them. Moses never said to Pharaoh, “The God of heaven and earth,” nor did he refer to God as, “Our Creator sent me to you . . .” By the same token, when God gave the Israelites the Decalogue, the words of the Divine oracles began with the words, “I am the God (whom you worship,) Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt . . . ” Note that God did not say, “I am the Creator of the world and your Creator. . . .This is an appropriate answer to not only you, but also to the people Israel, who have long believed in such a faith based upon their self-authenticated personal experience. Moreover, this belief is something that has been confirmed through an uninterrupted tradition, which is no less significant . . .”

Many of the more theistic-minded Greek philosophers like Plato or Aristotle never had a personal name for the One God, whom they regarded as the Prime Mover of the cosmos. To the Greek imagination, it is inconceivable that God could have any interest in the affairs of mortals, much less have an ethical relationship with humankind.[1]

But for HaLevi, God is more than a Creator; He is also a Liberator who takes interest in the needs of all His Creation. Although Maimonides tried to merge Greek and Judaic thought together much like Philo of Alexandria attempted to do in the 1st century, even Maimonides discovered that such a new symbiosis had its challenges. To his credit, Maimonides’s critique of God‑talk reveals that the mystery of God’s reality transcends all analogies. Furthermore, Maimonides stresses that when we construct a theology about God, we must be careful not to take our metaphors and categories of faith too literally. Maimonides himself did acknowledge the importance of analogical language and its importance as a model for emulating God’s ethical conduct (Imitatio Dei). Contemplation of the Divine can only reveal to us God’s behavior (but not His essence) and relationship to the world. Contemplation alone, however, only produces a flawed understanding of God. To know God is to follow God’s moral ways (Exod. 33:13). Maimonides observes:

We are commanded to follow these intermediate paths—and they are the good and decent paths alluded to in the Torah: “And you shall walk in His ways” (Deut. 28:9): The Sages define this precept in the following manner: Just as He is called “Gracious,” so shall you be gracious. Just as He is “Merciful,” so shall you be merciful. Just as He is called “Holy,” so shall you be holy. In a similar manner, the prophets called God by other titles: “Slow to anger,” “Abundant in kindness,” “Righteous,” “Just,” “Perfect,” “Almighty,” etc. These metaphors serve to inform us that these are good and worthy paths. A person is obligated to accustom himself to these paths and emulate Him to the extent of his ability.[2] Read more…

The Book of Job as a Pastoral Parable

July 18th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

Rather than focus on the explosive religious issues of the day, I thought I would write about the importance of providing pastoral care. Often times, we hear that providing such care is usually the “job” of the professional clergy. Nothing can be farther from the truth! Mirroring God’s love and compassion is a responsibility we all share. I personally know of a number of clergy and non-clergy who find this particular precept difficult because it often forces us to confront and face our own insecure sense of mortality. However, such a self-awareness is necessary if we are going to make our contribution toward bettering the world we live in. Like Abraham, we must learn to respond to the problem of human suffering with the word: hineni – Here I am. . . . How can I help? God calls upon us all to behave as shepherds toward one another.

According to rabbinic tradition, the entire book of Job is a parable about pastoral care. For many years, I have personally find this insight very illuminating—especially if we interpret the Jobian drama in light of the principles found in Psalm 23.

In terms of providing care that is pastoral, the story about Job’s suffering (or any human being), represents a spiritual challenge to the family, friends, and community. The Bible does not subscribe to a belief in fatalism. The existence of the poor and needy is a spiritual problem for any just community. The way we respond to suffering defines and reveals the depth of our own spirituality and faith. The imagery of Psalm 23 provides a spiritual way good people can respond to the problem of suffering in their communities. Here are several ways how the pastoral imagery of Psalm 23 might serve as a praxis for how helping caregivers can become shepherds to those who are experiencing loss and a sense of abandonment. In the Jobian story, the pastoral imagery of Psalm 23 was absent in the way Job’s caregivers related to him. Read more…

Through the Eye of the Beholder ….

May 20th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

“Anti-Semitism is a horrible disease from which nobody is immune, and it has a kind of evil fascination that makes an enlightened person draw near the source of infection, supposedly in a scientific spirit, but really to sniff the vapors and dally with the possibility.”

Mary McCarthy quotes (American novelist and critic,1912-1989)

The world often reflects what we want to see. This is precisely the illusion that feeds anti-Semitism. Strange as it may sound, the same people who criticize someone because he is Jewish, more often than not ignore the good that many Jews do—because they are Jews! What is wrong with this picture?

Despite the thousands of stories and analysis lavished by editorials about the awful way Israel treats the poor Palestinians, one almost never reads stories about how Israel goes out of its way to provide electricity and other important human services to a people who have sworn to commit genocide against their benefactors. I doubt very seriously that the British would have acted so kindly toward the Germans in WWI or WWII.

Would one ever expect to find in the Palestinian territories a hospital that would treat Jewish or Israeli patients with as much care as they treat their own? The very question invites ridicule and scorn—if you happen to be a Palestinian living in Gaza or the West Bank. Yet, Hadassah Hospital of Jerusalem routinely provides care for the injured among the Palestinians, who curse the Jews even as they recover from their life-saving operations. Aside from promoting a religion extolling victimhood, what other kind of gifts have the Palestinians contributed toward the betterment of the world? Sad but true, if the Palestinian community would love life more than they love death, the Messiah would have been here a long time ago.

But why digress?

After Paul Newman died, throngs of people spoke about his greatness and generosity of spirit, but the pundits conveniently forgot to mention Paul Newman considered himself Jewish.

Then again, if you look at the Nobel Prize winners, you will discover an amazing array of Jews, whose brilliance made the world a better and healthier place for all humankind. Of course the media never bothers to mention the number of Jews who have won this prize; they would rather focus on the droll characters of our people. The list is impressive: Read more…

Better Dead than Alive? A Tale from the Haredi Zone

May 14th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

The ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Israel never cease to take the Jewish imagination to places where no rabbi has ever gone before. A case in point: One Israeli Haredi rabbi, Dovid Kornreich, thinks that homosexuals are better off dead than alive. In one of his popular blogs (his blogspot is called “A Voice from the Wilderness”), the rabbi offers a third possibility for Orthodox Jews who are struggling with their homosexuality—how about trying suicide?

To make his idea more appealing, Kornreich says that such behavior would be permitted provided that person commits suicide “al kiddush HaShem” as a means of sanctifying God’s Holy Name

Sounds pretty weird, no?

Well, the 18th century American philosopher Jonathan Edwards once wrote, “Even the Devil can cite Scripture for his purposes …” Actually, the Devil can even cite Talmud, Maimonides, and Jewish law as well!

Rabbi Kornreich doesn’t seem to realize the every human life is precious and of inestimable value. God created every person to be a unique expression that serves to glorify His Presence in the world. In Judaism, our Sages teach us that the true sanctification of God’s Name does not come with death, but with life. Suicide—even for religious purposes—only applies when the person is confronted by a disease or circumstance that threatens to debilitate the human spirit through a life of intense suffering.

In the case of Samson’s suicide (Judges 16: 30), Samson preferred to destroy himself in order to sanctify his God before the pagan Philistines. Given the choices Samson had, he did not wish to be tortured any further by the enemies of his people.

Thus, when King Saul saw the Philistines approach him, he asked his armor-bearer to kill him, so that he would not be tortured by the enemy in their pagan shrines. However, his armor-bearer refused. In the end, the narrator relates: “So he took his sword and fell on it” (1 Sam. 31:4).

According to the Talmud, After the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, the Roman soldiers gathered four hundred youths in Israel and sent to Rome on ships. The children realized that they would become victims of immorality and abuse at the hands of their Roman captors. They decided it would be better to take their own lives than be sexually degraded by their new masters. And so it was, they jumped into the sea and died (T.B. Gittin 53b). Read more…

How is this Pope different from all other Popes?

May 14th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

How is this Pope different from all other Popes? For one thing, Pope Benedict XVI has been an outspoken critic for the plight of Christian minorities suffering in Islamic countries. Most recently, in his visit to the Jordanian capital of Amman, Pope Benedict made it a special point to speak out about the shabby way Iraqi Christians have been treated by their host country. Fearlessly, Pope Benedict is continuing his ideological battle against religious extremism that he in his 2006 speech at Regensberg where he quoted a Byzantine emperor from the Middle Ages criticizing Islam for seeking to spread its message by the sword. Although the Pope apologized to the Muslim community, he delicately made an apology only for the hurt his statement caused, but not for the substance of his remarks.[1]

During his visit at the King Hussein Mosque in Amman on Saturday, once more Pope Benedict alluded to the 2006 speech. When he said, “It is the ideological manipulation of religion, sometimes for political ends, that is the real catalyst for tension and division, and at times even violence in society,” Benedict was reinforcing—if cryptically—his basic criticism of radical Islamic extremism.
Obviously Pope Benedict realizes that Israel is the only country that can ensure that the Christian holy sites in Jerusalem remain protected under her care. The relationship between Jews and Christians is, according to the Pope, spiritually profound and intimate. In one of his speeches Pope Benedict spoke about “the inseparable bond between the Church and the Jewish people …. From the beginning, the Church in these lands has commemorated in her liturgy the great figures of the patriarchs and prophets, as a sign of her profound appreciation of the unity of the two Testaments. May our encounter today inspire in us a renewed love for the canon of sacred Scripture and a desire to overcome all obstacles to the reconciliation of Christians and Jews in mutual respect and cooperation in the service of that peace to which the word of God calls us!”
A Jewish interest in protecting the holy sites of Jerusalem is not merely a matter of Jewish concern; it is also of Christian interests. In saying this, the pope made clear that he views the preservation of Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem as essential for Christian heritage. For the record, the Islamic Wakf (religious leadership of Jerusalem) which desires to be the sole custodian of Jerusalem’s holy sites in the event of its partition, has already gone to great lengths to systematically destroy the ruins of the Temple Mount and the Jewish and Christian heritage of the holy basin through archeological theft, illegal building and digging.
The Pope is very cognizant of the anti-Christian sentiment that the Palestinian community has expressed over the passed sixty years. During the week of the pontiff’s arrival, Palestinian Authority Muslims went on a rampage Sunday and desecrated 70 Christian graves two weeks after the pope praised efforts for a new PA state and tried to appease Muslim anger over previous disputes between the two religions. The vandals smashed gravestones and knocked metal and stone crosses off graves in the village of Jiffna, near Ramallah, home to approximately 900 Christians and 700 Muslims. Greek Orthodox Church official George Abdo told Reuters the head and hand of a statue of Madonna also was severed.
If I were a Christian, I certainly would not want a bunch of Muslim gangsters and thugs controlling my faith’s holy sites in Israel. Frankly speaking, their track-record is pretty pathetic.


[1] Pope Benedict XVI, during a speech in Germany, at a university where he used to teach, quoted a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor: “He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’ . . . Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God,’ the emperor says, ‘is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.’” And, the pontiff even condemned violent jihad, or “holy war.”


A Modern Story about Pygmalion and the Haredi Rabbi

May 13th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

An interesting story hit the newspapers in Israel the other day. Rabbi Rafael Cohen, chief of the northern city’s kosher division in the city of Tiberias, calling for a boycott of all stores that display mannequins in bathing suits, claiming that to merely look at these figures, “damages the souls of the passerby.” He even threatened to publish a list of stores that continue such displays, saying “residents of Tiberias should not set foot in stores of that kind, and that will cause them irreversible damage …. ‘Modest’ mannequins, he said, are acceptable but added, “But there are mannequins that are really revolting, mannequins in bathing suits that damage our souls.”

The above story makes one wonder: From where did Rabbi Cohen derive this prohibition? In my discussions with members of the Haredi community, they point out that “lusting” after immoral images is expressly forbidden in the Torah, “When you use these tassels, let the sight of them remind you to keep all the commandments of the LORD, without going wantonly astray after the desires of your hearts and eyes” (Num. 15:39).

However, Jewish law does distinguish between “merely looking” (ri’iyah) and what may be termed “fixation” (derech histaklut), and it would seem that the Haredi rabbi has conflated these two categories together. To use an illustration: A porno video is made for histaklut, not r’iyiah and anybody with a modicum of common sense ought to immediately grasp the difference. Merely looking at a mannequin is certainly permitted, but being fixated at its presence—well, this reflects more of a psychosis or fetish. This idea is explicitly spelled out in the Shulchan Aruch as well [1], and the principle applies no less to the question of looking at idolatrous idols. [2]

The Mishnah in Avodah Zarah 3:4 tells us about a most remarkable story that is relevant to this discussion. The 1st century rabbinic sage Rabban Gamliel I (ca. mid 1st century C.E.) used to frequent Aphrodite’s bathhouse. Judging by Rabbi Cohen’s standards, Rabban Gamliel’s behavior should have been very dubious indeed; I doubt Rabbi Cohen and his legion of Haredi supporters would have approved of any Orthodox rabbi or Jew today attending a bathhouse adorned with the sexy image of Aphrodite “staring” at him. Yet, even standing in front of the Aphrodite goddess was of no religious consequences whatsoever because the statue was nothing more than an adornment for the bathhouse as the Mishnah plainly states. Remarkably, the Mishnaic Sages realized the statue was nothing more but a graven image.

All in all, the Haredi folks may want to read the old Greek myth about Pygmalion, a man who once fell in love with a statue he made. It seems that he was not the only one ….

Postscript A: American Pygmalion?

Shortly after this story came out, similar incident occurred–not in Israel–but in the United States. In the town of Reading, Ohio, a barbecue restaurant displayed a scantily clad mannequin can keep her spot outside a Cincinnati area barbecue joint, but local officials want her to cover up a bit. The life-size figure stands as a busty beacon outside a restaurant in suburban Reading owned by Kenny Tessel. He told zoning officials at a hearing Wednesday night that the advertising gimmick has boosted business 40 percent.

The 5-foot-10 mannequin is on the street wearing a bikini top and tight short-shorts, leading some residents to complain about her lack of clothing. Tessel brought the doll to Wednesday’s hearing draped in a long, sleeveless gray T-shirt. The board said Tessel may continue to use the figure only if it’s dressed more modestly in front of the restaurant, too.

What a remarkable coincidence! Who would have imagined that a similar story would occur elsewhere around the world? So I started thinking: What are the differences between the mannequin in Tiberias and its parallel story in Reading? Maybe there’s an important distinction to be made. Whenever going by a dress shop; or a swimming suit shop, one expects to see a mannequin display whatever happens to be the fashion of the day.

However, with respect to the Reading mannequin, some people just felt its appearance was in bad taste, especially since it involves a family restaurant. Ultimately, it is the community leadership that must decide the standards used by stores-and such matters cannot be decided by one person’s decision.

Jewish law frequently has to make subtle distinctions between cases, which on the surface appear similar but are not.

Postscript B: May 14th, 2009.

Well, the merchants of Tiberias were finally heard. When Mayor Zohar Oved got wind of the matter on Wednesday, he spoke with the Head of the Religious Council, Yaakov Sheetrit, and called for Cohen to be suspended. “I deplore Rabbi Cohen’s strange actions, which upset the delicate balance between the city’s different sectors,” Oved said. Tiberias is an international tourist city,” he added, “and as such it contains tourist zones which operate peacefully alongside neighborhoods with a religious character …. The bond between religious and secular in the city is a close one and I will not allow a rabbi acting as he pleases and with no support, to upset it,” he declared.

And let us say, “Amen.”

[1] Y.D. 142:15, see Be’or Halacha

[2] T.B. Shabbat 149b and T.B. Avodah Zara 50a with the gloss of Tosfot, s.v. בחול אסור.

Excerpts from the Pope’s Speech at Yad Vashem

May 12th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

Pope Benedict XVI visits Yad Vashem Memorial, Jerusalem

“I will give in my house and within my walls a memorial and a name … I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off” (Is 56:5).

This passage from the Book of the prophet Isaiah furnishes the two simple words which solemnly express the profound significance of this revered place: yad – “memorial”; shem – “name”. I have come to stand in silence before this monument, erected to honor the memory of the millions of Jews killed in the horrific tragedy of the Shoah. They lost their lives, but they will never lose their names: these are indelibly etched in the hearts of their loved ones, their surviving fellow prisoners, and all those determined never to allow such an atrocity to disgrace mankind again. Most of all, their names are forever fixed in the memory of Almighty God.

Sacred Scripture teaches us the importance of names in conferring upon someone a unique mission or a special gift. God called Abram “Abraham” because he was to become the “father of many nations” (Gen 17:5). Jacob was called “Israel” because he had “contended with God and man and prevailed” (Gen 32:29). The names enshrined in this hallowed monument will forever hold a sacred place among the countless descendants of Abraham. Like his, their faith was tested. Like Jacob, they were immersed in the struggle to discern the designs of the Almighty. May the names of these victims never perish! May their suffering never be denied, belittled or forgotten! And may all people of goodwill remain vigilant in rooting out from the heart of man anything that could lead to tragedies such as this!

The Catholic Church, committed to the teachings of Jesus and intent on imitating his love for all people, feels deep compassion for the victims remembered here. Similarly, she draws close to all those who today are subjected to persecution on account of race, color, condition of life or religion – their sufferings are hers, and hers is their hope for justice. As Bishop of Rome and Successor of the Apostle Peter, I reaffirm – like my predecessors – that the Church is committed to praying and working tirelessly to ensure that hatred will never reign in the hearts of men again. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God of peace (cf. Ps 85:9).

- Excerpts from Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks at Yad Vashem Memorial in Jerusalem (May 11, 2009)

Journey through the Looking-glass: Pope Benedict XVI’s Interfaith Encounter in the Holy Land

May 12th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

One of the most interesting aspects of the Pope’s recent visit to Israel was the interfaith group that met with the Pope to discuss important issues and challenges that Jews, Christians and Muslims face as a faith community. Despite the good intentions of the forum’s organizers, the Pope’s desire to act as a facilitator for religious tolerance found some explosive road-blocks along the way, as they met at the holy site Norte Dame.

Following the pope’s visit to Yad Vashem, Palestinian leader Sheik Taysir Tamimi forced his way to the pulpit at an inter-religious event demanding that the pope to fight for “a just peace for a Palestinian state and for Israel to stop killing women and children and destroying mosques as she did in Gaza”; he asked the pope to “pressure the Israeli government to stop its aggression against the Palestinian people.”

Of course not a word was said about how these mosques were being used as military bases to attack Israeli citizens. Evidently, Tamimi doesn’t get what “Never Again” really means. Context is everything. But let us return back to our discussion.

Rather than confronting Sheik Taysir Tamimi, the Pope quietly listened and left the room. As one friend of mine wrote in his blog, “The biggest shame of it all is that the entire Muslim community he represented was not even embarrassed by or ashamed of this verbal explosion.”

Yet, this was not the only place where Pope Benedict XVI found some difficulties. After he spoke at the Yad Vashem, the Pope proclaimed that he had come: “to stand in silence before this monument, erected to honor the memory of the millions of Jews killed in the horrific tragedy of the Shoah … ‘May the names of these victims never perish! May their suffering never be denied, belittled or forgotten!”

Rabbi Lau, the former Chief Ashkanzic Rabbi of Israel and holocaust survivor took center stage and said, “The Pope’s Speech was devoid of compassion …” Shaming any individual is wrong—especially when that individual happens to be the religious leader who represents over a billion Catholics worldwide!

If I were Rabbi Lau, I would examine my own behavior and ask myself: Couldn’t the criticisms have been made in a more personal and less public venue? On the other hand, the Vatican ought to be a little circumspect with his behavior as well. Rabbi Lau justifiably said that the Pope spoke in vague generalities about the victims of the Holocaust, and chose to use the word “millions” instead of the more specific “six million.” When referring to the Jewish victims, he referred to them as being “killed” rather than the more precise verb “murdered.” These are legitimate criticisms. That being said, I think Pope Benedict XVI’s next meeting will show a marked improvement in every respect.

Postscript: May 14th

If I were the Pope, I would look to the example of Pope John Paul II. One of the greatest qualities he showed was a capacity to personally relate with the people. Pope Benedict XVI, on the other hand, is a trained academic, who is more comfortable giving a lecture at a seminary or at a college. Pope John Paul II had a very charismatic ability and could relate to his audience with life anecdotes and the lessons he learned. When Pope John Paul II arrived at the Yad Vashem, his crucifix was made out of cast iron resembling the twisted barb-wired fences of the concentration camps; at the top of the crucifix stood an image of Jesus, intimating that he too was among those who suffered in the camps. How could one not be deeply moved by such a powerful identification? With time, I hope Pope Benedict XVI acts more like his predecessor.