If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or add your name and email to my blog announcement list. Thanks for visiting!
It was a bit shocking to see a story in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Prominent Jews join boycott threat, citing Rabbi Shlomo Riskin as a prominent Rabbi and moral authority more than 5 months since his contempt of the order of the Beth Din of America.
OK, so maybe it has only been public for only 3 weeks with the article in The Forward, Secular Court is being Called on To Enforce a Beth Din Ruling, that Rabbi Riskin has flouted the judgment of the beth din and refused to comply with its award in a case brought before it last summer.
Not only has he refused to pay, but now he is acting like a recalcitrant husband making demands for his compliance with the ruling. Just like the recalcitrant husband who demands $40,000 or more for providing his wife with a get, Riskin’s latest is to say that as soon as he is offered a payment plan, he will make a first payment on the judgment.
To put that in perspective, Ohr Torah Stone raises $6.5 million per year, according to its latest 990 filed with the IRS. That means they raise, on average, more than $500,000 per month. In addition, more than half of his board of directors could easily write personal checks for the full amount of the $300k award. Furthermore, the original award came as a payment plan. The judgment of Septemebr 17, 2007 called for one third to be paid in November 2007, one-third in January, and the final payment in June. Now it is June, and Rabbi Riskin is demanding a payment plan!
All I can figure out is that Rabbi Riskin is trying to provide an example for the those husbands who don’t want to provide their wives with a get and who want to use their superior economic power to extract concessions. It is clear that the husbands of agunot everywhere owe him a great deal of gratitude for setting such an example. If a prominent Rabbi, who runs a beth din himself, can get away with not following the judgment of a beth din, then how much easier it should be for an unknown husband to do the same, or to extract financial concessions before he does so.
Please Share With Bookmarks to:
In the news business, journalists are often admonished by their editors not to “bury the lead.” That is, get to the heart of a story and put it in the first sentence or first paragraph.
Anthony Weiss of the Forward wrote a fine article about the unusual case in which a Secular Court is being Called on To Enforce a Beth Din Ruling. Perhaps it is the secular perspective of the Forward itself that caused him to not only bury the lead, but to miss the shocking news within this story.
In an inexplicable and unprecedented move an orthodox rabbi is in contempt of a ruling of a beth din!
But this is not just any rabbi or any beth din. This is not a recalcitrant husband refusing to give a get. This is one of the leaders of modern orthodoxy, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, refusing to abide by the ruling of the Beth Din of America, the beth din run by the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) of which he is a prominent and respected member.
The RCA is the largest and most prestigious organization of orthodox Rabbis in the US. The Av Beth Din, the head of the Beth Din, is Rabbi Gedalia Schwartz, an eminent Jewish legal scholar. This case goes far beyond a note of interest that a secular court is being asked to affirm the judgment of a religious court. This case is nothing less than a move by a prominent Rabbi to set himself above his colleagues and halacha, Jewish law itself.
Of course, Rabbi Riskin has been more subtle in his contempt for the Beth Din of America. Instead of coming out and telling them he will not abide by their ruling, he has sent no less than three “appeals” to the Beth Din asking for it to change its judgment, suspend its judgment, or otherwise explain their reasoning to him.
The Beth Din of America has been flexible with its own rules to allow Rabbi Riskin leeway, allowing extensions when his attorneys missed deadlines or allowing for translation of documents though the rules specify English as the required language. However, the Beth Din has been firm in its application of its rules that the case was heard, a single appeal to the Av Beth Din is allowed, and then the case is settled. The latest reply of the Beth Din to Rabbi Riskin’s entreaty to stay its judgment stated:
As you know, the Beth Din issued a decision in this matter dated September 17, 2007 (issued October 8, 2007) and a Response to Appeal of P’sak Din dated February 4, 2008. The Av Beth Din has reviewed your request for the issuance of a formal stay of the decision, and has denied that request.
So when Rabbi Riskin told the Forward that he would not comment because the case was still before the Beth Din, he was shading the truth a bit. The Beth Din issued a final ruling on February 4, 2008 and the fact that Rabbi Riskin has sent additional letters to them asking them to change their ruling, does not reopen the case nor bring the case before them again.
Nevertheless, like a child who does not like the result of a contest, Rabbi Riskin continues to ask for a “do over.”
This case easily could have been taken to civil court, but out of respect for Rabbi Riskin and orthodox Jewish sensibilities, I decided that the appropriate place for Jews to take a dispute was to a beth din.
I was asked during the many months of the process what I would do if I won and the rabbi refused to pay. All I could answer was that it was inconceivable that a prominent orthodox rabbi would not abide by the ruling of beth din.
It is all the more shocking in that Rabbi Riskin has been an advocate for the agunot, chained women who cannot get remarried because their husbands refuse to give them a get, a Jewish divorce. It is a major problem and a major issue for virtually every beth din. How can the community force someone to abide by community standards? What can a beth din do to exert pressure on someone who refuses to do the right thing? That’s the critical question for every beth din whether it is dealing with a recalcitrant husband or a recalcitrant rabbi.
Please Share With Bookmarks to:
I read many different blogs, particularly in the fundraising and marketing fields. One of my favorite is an old college friend who became one of the marketing gurus of our age, Seth Godin. Seth not only has a great perspective to share on business and marketing, but his perspectives on life are pretty special too.
But in one of his latest posts, a partial tribute to his mother specifically done not on Mother’s Day, Seth notes that his mother didn’t like Mother’s day because:
she pointed out that anytime you do something because you’re supposed to, or because everyone else is doing it, it’s not worth as much. Flowers the week before or a nice poem the day after were priceless compared to the trudge to the restaurant on the appointed day.
I used to think the same way as Seth’s mom. Then I learned the Jewish teaching that something done out of obligation is a greater mitzvah, a greater good deed or commandment, than something you do out of free choice.
It seems rather odd when viewed through the lens of the modern world. Aren’t random acts of kindness one of the highest ideals in our society? Isn’t that encouraging word, the poem, the flowers given on a day where you are not obligated to do so a greater gift?
Perhaps it is a greater gift to do the nice thing when it is unexpected. But, nevertheless, the Talmud teaches us that it is no substitute for the real thing, that is, doing it when you are supposed to do it.
When I was younger, whenever I came across Jewish teachings that made no sense to me, I rejected them. After all, Reform Judaism teaches that we should do the mitzvot that are meaningful to us and it is o.k. to drop the ones that are not. As I grew older and learned more, I realized that if I disagreed with a teaching from the Jewish tradition, perhaps it was my frame of reference that was flawed.
After all, my values came from my parents who were not particularly well versed in Jewish law and tradition, from my teachers in the public schools who were mostly Christian, and from my friends and colleagues who were not observant Jews either. Hmmm, maybe there is something to learn from a tradition that has survived 3000 plus years.
So why would the Talmud teach that is a greater mitzvah to do something out of obligation than it is to do so out of mere goodwill?
As I understand the answer, it is that if we do it out of obligation, the odds are that much greater that we will continue to do it and we will do so regularly. Thus instead of random acts of kindness, Jewish tradition teaches us to make acts of kindness a regular part of our day, not random, and not just when we feel like it. Instead of giving charity because it feels good, we must give tzedakah (loosely translated as charity but literally translated as justice) because it is just to give to those in need whether we feel like it or not.
And as much as we might not like to honor Mom on Mother’s Day because it seems too commercialized, we should do it then. Of course we should also do it every other day as well. After all, the Torah doesn’t teach us that we have to love our parents, but it does teach that we must “honor your mother and your father.”
I suppose I didn’t do that well enough when Mom was alive; do any of us? I hope I made up for it a little bit during the 11 months I said kaddish for her everyday. A chronicle of that journey and a resource I hope will benefit all Jews in mourning can be found at http://KaddishJournal.com. It is now a community journal for anyone to share thoughts, memories, and the pain and love of loss. You don’t have to visit it, but if you do feel obligated to, it might influence you to do so on a regular basis.
Please Share With Bookmarks to:
I read Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars in a Philosophy course when I was at Tufts University in the late 70’s and have often picked it off my bookshelf since. His moral clarity and reasoning is sound, clear, and easy to follow.
So I was pleased to find an article in the New Jersey Jewish News about a speech he recently gave regarding Israel’s execution of the Second Lebanon War. Here are some excerpts which I think sum up the argument. Of course, I recommend you not only read the original article: Scholar weighs moral dilemmas in Lebanon war, but get his book as well.
At the end of the first week of the war, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan “made a curious and revealing statement to the UN’s Security Council,” Walzer told the gathering of more than 130 people. “He said that Israel had a right to defend itself, so it was fighting a just war, but that Israel’s response was disproportionate and excessive, so it wasn’t fighting justly.”
“In our judgments of justice in warfare, responsibility comes before proportionality,” he said. “The city street location was deliberately chosen by Hizbullah to make any response to their attacks morally difficult and to make sure that the response would be condemned around the world. These civilians were not literally human shields, but they were being used in a similar way. The first responsibility for their deaths falls on the heads of the Hizbullah militants who were using them.”
Even with such care, however, the number of likely civilian deaths will always be disproportionate to the military value of destroying rocket launchers, Walzer said.
In that view, arguing from the perspective of proportionality, “in the Lebanon case, Israel would not respond at all,” he said. But that would have put Israel in an impossible position — under attack, but morally unable to respond.
“The responsibility for civilian deaths falls only on Hizbullah,” Walzer said. “It’s a central tenet of a just war that the self-defense of a country cannot be made morally impossible.
I’ve editied out some of the reasoning, but even so, how much clearer can you get?
Please Share With Bookmarks to:
Had lunch with my friend David on Friday. We went to his favorite restaurant, named for and owned by his best friend, Samir, in Ramle, not to be confused with Ramalla. The latter is in the West Bank and the former is in Israel proper and is one of the few integrated cities in which Jews and Arabs live together.
Samir’s had some of the best hummus we have ever eaten and the atmosphere is awesome as you sit next to the walls built by the crusaders several centuries ago. They discovered the original walls when they renovated a few years ago. Unfortunately we did not get to meet Samir as he was visiting one of his sons in Egypt.
I’d say that David was on the opposite side of the political spectrum to my friends in Efrat, but that would be understating the issue. He told me that when my friends were ready to make aliya to Israel from Efrat that he would welcome them home. Yes, this is what passes for what is left in Israel.
Although he is a little out there when it comes to politics, he is a good man who does good work. He also created the first real baseball field in Israel that now serves as home to the Israel Professional Baseball League’s Gesher Lions and his son played for the champion Beit Shemesh Blue Sox. I can’t wait to return home with the IBL inaugural year poster and the signed ball he gave me to present to my kids.
David is not only a great guy, but a great Jewish educator as well. His educational park, Pinat Shorshim at Kibbutz Gezer, “turns text into texture” as visitors create sculptures depicting different verses and stories from the Tanakh. Once each month he also works with prisoners in a rehabilitation program.
David may be on the left politically, but he understands the challenges. He noted that there are two types of people, politically. Those whose views are guided by fear and those who are guided by hope. And he goes on to note that those whose views are guided by fear, always have the data on their side. Wow. Read that again.
So that’s why Democrats think Republicans are evil and Republicans think that Democrats are stupid! Tose who base thier views on hope (the left), don’t believe in data, don’t believe in polls, and don’t believe that the past has any bearing on the future. They base their views on hope and the belief that all people are good or that they can be. And David notes that he believes this is a very Jewish view of the world.
My friend Sarah in Efrat, on the other hand, notes that in Israel, while those on the left hope that those on the Right are wrong, those on the Right hope that those on Left are right. Ultimately the Right wants to be wrong. But history and current events keeps proving them right. They want hope to win out, but reality keeps getting in the way. The Arabs just won’t cooperate.
And so the debates go on and those doing “peace work” continue to little things they know won’t have much of an impact. But they do know that when they stop, it will mean they have given up hope. And while they might be willing to give up Jerusalem, they will never agree to give up hope.
Please Share With Bookmarks to:
I just spent a wonderful Shabbat in Efrat with my dear friends. Not only is it wonderful to spend time with friends, and to spend Shabbat in a community where 99% of the people are also celebrating Shabbat, but they give me a perspective on Israel I don’t get in the news or on websites.
For instance, anyone who reads news about Israel, knows that Ehud Olmert has a popularity rating the makes Gearg W. Bush look loved by most Americans. We’re talking single digit numbers for a favorable poll rating.
So one thing people do for fun, or is it more a comment on the despair they are feeling, is to create a folder on their Windows desktop and name it “Ehud Olmert.” Then the fun begins. You highlight it, and then delete. And Windows asks you “Are you sure you want to permanently remove Ehud Olmert?”
Ahhh, the feeling of empowerment.
Please Share With Bookmarks to:
Some articles are too great to cite with only a link. This needs to be read in its entirety, but if you only have a minute, at least read this excerpt…
A Moral Outrage - by Mortimer Zuckerman in US News and World Report
The world applauded when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, forcibly removing Jewish settlers. At last, the Palestinians were free to show how they could build their own society.But what did they do with their freedom? They elected the terrorist organization Hamas in 2006. First Fatah and now Hamas have rained 4,000 rockets on Israel, killed 24, and wounded 620—the equivalent of killing 1,200 Americans and wounding 31,000. The citizens of Sderot and Ashkelon have suffered a collective trauma; children fear that when parents leave for work, they will never see them again.
And what does the world do?It criticizes Israel—Israel!—for a “disproportionate” response. Israel is discriminating in trying to defend its people. It attacks Gaza’s rocket launchers, weapons factories, and terrorists, all hidden in civilian areas.
What is a proportionate response? None at all, it seems.
Hamas kills indiscriminately. It makes no distinction between civilians and combatants. But it is Israel that earns the opprobrium. The moral equivalency was evident in a New York Times headline: “Hamas and Israelis Trade Attacks, Killing at Least Nine.” Nor did TV broadcast pictures of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza celebrating the news that eight teenagers had been shot dead and many more injured in the library of a Jewish religious school in Jerusalem.
Would Paris, London, Bonn, or New York sit back quietly if terrorists attacked from sanctuaries somewhere just off their borders?
Silent voices. Where is the world’s outrage against these Palestinian war crimes? Twelve resolutions have passed the United Nations Human Rights Council on the conflict, but not one has made even a passing reference to the terrorism against Israel.
Where is the appreciation that while under attack, Israel has continued to supply its enemies with electricity and with 2,500 tons of food and medicines every day? Last year, 14,000 Gazan Palestinians were treated in Israeli medical facilities.
Read the rest of the article at: A Moral Outrage - US News and World Report
And thanks to the Daily Alert prepared for the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs for bringing the article to my attention.
Please Share With Bookmarks to:
Years ago, when I was living in New Haven and was in business with my brother, one of our employees came to us with an advertising opportunity. He was a member of an organization at Yale called The Party of the Right. He wanted us to put an ad in their journal.
At the time I was not particularly conservative, and my brother wasn’t then and still isn’t. But still, almost thirty years later, I remember their motto at that time.
We don’t care that you think as we do, only that you think, because if you think, sooner or later, you will think as we think.
Are you afraid of people who think like that? I know many who are. They fear people who think they are right. In fact , they do not believe there is a right, only perceptions. Everything is relative in their world. There are two sides to every story and neither is right or wrong. We each hold our own truths.
Well, I don’t buy it and I don’t think the Jewish tradition does either. There is a difference between right and wrong and there is a difference between terrorists and sovereign nations defending themselves.
The Party of the Right’s motto (at that time, I cannot find any reference to it on their current website) is a bit arrogant for sure. But what a powerful statement about the power of thinking, the power of words, discussion, and debate. They are not only so sure that they are correct, but that the logical arguments they will challenge you with are so cogent that they will change your thinking.
Are you afraid to change your thinking? Are you afraid to engage in political discussions with people who don’t agree with you? My partner cringes when I talk politics with friends and they learn I am more conservative than they are. They can’t handle it. They are afraid to engage in discussion and debate unless it is with someone who agrees with their world view. But if you only discuss ideas with people who share your world view, then how will you grow and how can you expect your thinking to change?
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? — John M. Keynes.
But it doesn’t have to be a change of facts that changes your mind. It can be a different point of view or a different way of looking at an issue. One of the most beautiful parts of our tradition is that even the minority opinion is preserved and recorded. In fact, Shamai’s opinion is often cited before Hillel’s opinion, even though the law is more often with Hillel.
Are you discussing, debating, and yes, even arguing (in a respectful way) with Jews and others who don’t share your opinions or world view. Can you have a political discussion with a Republican without thinking they are evil or a Democrat without thinking they are stupid? Can you engage a Jew of another tradition in a respectful way about your different perspectives on our tradition? If not, you need to heal yourself and then join the community.
Please Share With Bookmarks to:
I’ve been blogging for business for about a year now and I just completed phase one of my first Jewish blog, KaddishJournal.com. I say phase one because I created KaddishJournal.com to chronicle my thoughts and feelings as I experienced the rituals of Jewish mourning during the first year after my mom passed away. I thought about continuing it as a general blog on things Jewish, but it was clear that the domain had another calling.
So I’ve decided to convert KaddishJournal.com from my own personal chronicle to a community resource. I’ve structured the blog so that the default setting for anyone who registers as a new user has authoring capabilities. Thus, anyone can register and then post there experience. In so doing, I hope to transform Kaddish Journal from my personal journal to a community journal and resource.
I am hoping to turn it from my personal journal into a resource for Jews experiencing the loss of a loved one and who are looking for insights into some of the emotions they might be experiencing, or looking for insights into the Jewish rituals surrounding death and mourning.
The more people who post, the greater a resource it will be. I suspect most people who lose a loved one will not start their own blog as I did. I hope that you will consider sharing your pain, comfort, and full range of thoughts, feelings, so that those who might be experiencing the same thing, or for those who are about to experience similar things, will find comfort in your words.
I’m sure that people will respect the blog and its readers and only post their experiences related to Jewish mourning and Jewish mourning rituals, but I will retain sole editing capabilities and will remove inappropriate posts as soon as I see them. That’s right, people who register will not only be able to write and edit, but even post to the blog. Thus I will not be reviewing and deciding on what to post.
All you have to do to post is look on the left sidebar under the “Meta” title and click on “Register” or you can just click on this link to Register for KaddishJournal.com.
Please Share With Bookmarks to:
If you are one of those who cannot distinguish between a sovereign nation defending itself and the indiscriminate attacks on civilians by terrorists, you need to read Ending the “Cycle of Violence.” at HonestReporting.com. Oh heck, even if you do know the difference, go read it, it is a fine, well reasoned, article.
I’m not so naive to think that there are not Jews who think this way, and if you are one of them, though I disagree with you, I still welcome you as part of the community. All the more reason why you need to read the analysis of how too many in the media write and characterize the the war in Israel.
The article includes the following quote from the Jerusalem Post editorial:
In truth, however, there is no cycle of violence. There is no spiral of attack and counter-attack relentlessly unfolding here.
What we have, rather, on the one hand, is a sovereign nation’s desperate effort to live in its homeland, seek peace with those of its neighbors who will partner it, and defend itself against those who seek its destruction. And, on the other, we have the forces of militant Islam, firing rockets across Israel’s sovereign borders, murdering Israelis wherever they can be found vulnerable, indoctrinating their people with a vicious intolerance of Jewish historical rights in this region, and simultaneously spreading a perverted interpretation of Islam that purports to require each and every believer to carry out personal jihad in the name of God against the infidels - be they Jews, Christians or unbelieving Muslims.
Yes, it is time we end the use of the phrase “Cycle of Violence” and start calling this what it is.
Please Share With Bookmarks to:
