FailedMessiah.com

Israel's Surge Of Despair

Gregory Levey writes in Salon.com:

…While the U.S. and Israel clearly are united in the goal of stopping Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, some Israeli leaders have lost confidence in Bush's leadership when it comes to that crucial concern.… Last week, I raised these assessments with [MK Rafi] Eitan, himself a former spymaster who led the Israeli capture of Adolf Eichmann in 1960, and who was the handler of the infamous spy Jonathan Pollard in the 1980s. "Sooner or later, a year or two, America will go out from Iraq," Eitan said. "Iran will unite with the Shiites of Iraq -- with or without force -- and then with the Shiites of Syria. Is this good for Israel? No, it is bad for Israel."…

Baby Dies From Circumcision

A baby has died from cardiac arrest and oxygen starvation caused, it could be, by his bris. The Mirror reports:

DETECTIVES are investigating the death of a seven-day-old baby after he was circumcised.

Stunned relatives at the Jewish ceremony saw the toddler experience breathing difficulties.

He was taken to hospital but died eight days later. A post mortem found the infant died from cardiac arrest and oxygen starvation.

Police are to interview family members and the senior rabbi who performed the operation at [the Orthodox] Golders Green Synagogue in North London. Concerns raised by doctors treating the baby have led to the probe being led by Scotland Yard's child abuse investigators.

Police and Home Office sources said the investigation was "highly unusual".

A Scotland Yard spokesman stated: "The death is being treated as unexplained at this early stage."

The baby died two weeks ago at University College Hospital, Central London.…

[Hat Tip: The Beadle.]

Dead Messiah Receives Awareness Center Page

He proclaimed himself to be the messiah. He was followed rabidly by throngs of supporters, including major rabbis, worldwide. He died leaving the world unredeemed. His followers still idolize him; some even worship him. And, now, he has an Awareness Center page all his own.

Gutnick Targeted In Terror Plot

Chabad rabbi and multi-millionaire Joseph Gutnick, the man behind the "Bibi is good for the Jews" campaign, was the target of another Islamic terror plot. The first, some years ago, was linked to Al Qaida. This newest plot is linked to an Al Qaida offshot. The Australian Jewish News reports:

PROMINENT Melbourne Chabad identity Rabbi Joseph Gutnick has been named for the second time as the target of a terrorist assassination plot.

A French court last week heard that Rabbi Gutnick’s name was listed in a notebook filled with coded messages belonging to terror suspect Willie Brigitte.

The court heard that the notebook, found in Brigitte’s home in the Sydney suburb of Lakemba, also contained the names of Jemaah Islamiah spiritual leader Abu Bakar Bashir and Jack Roche, who is serving a nine-year jail sentence for conspiring to blow up the Israeli embassy in Canberra.

But Rabbi Gutnick vowed he would not allow the latest revelations to affect his lifestyle, and said he had no immediate plans to increase his personal security. “I’m not going to allow individuals like these two to dictate my life,” Rabbi Gutnick told the AJN from New York this week.

“We can’t have these individuals telling us what we should do and what we shouldn’t do,” he said.

“It is concerning that my name has been brought up again by unsavoury individuals it’s not a pleasant thing to know that you’re on such a list. But we move forward and do what we can in regards to security and get on with our lives.”      

Roche said in his 2004 trial that Rabbi Gutnick was the target of an al-Qaeda plot to attack Jewish interests in Australia. Rabbi Gutnick said he was in regular contact with national security agencies, including ASIO, and federal and state police, whom he praised for their vigilance in monitoring potential security threats.…

JTA "Reports" On The Current State Of Russian Jewry

The JTA has two articles on the current sate of KEROOR, Chabad's rival for control of Russia's Jewish community. In typical JTA fashion, the pieces leave out the dirty tricks from Putin and Chabad that helped ensure Chabad dominance, instead focusing on the weakness of KEROOR. Not a word about Rabbi Pichas Goldschmidt's expulsion from Russia or the other Putin-lead attacks on KEROOR, which, by the way, supports democracy – Chabad does not, which is why Putin supports Chabad.

Also notable is the JTA's inability to ask questions. Why are there so few non-Chabad rabbis in the FSU? Is it because they are badly mistreated by Chabad, as is the case with Rabbi Yaakov Bleich, the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine? Or is it because YU and the haredim are loathe to work in Russia?

The JTA once did a piece on Chabad dirty tricks in the FSU. That reporter, perhaps the only reporter in the JTA with any talent or real world experience – was quickly marginalized because, it seems, JTA affiliated newspapers got too many complaints from Chabad rabbis and their wealthy supporters.

The JTA wants to be the news service of the entire Jewish people. To do so, it must learn how to cover stories, and how to stand up to community leaders. Of course, it will do neither.

JTA1 and JTA2.

 

Grassroots Activism At YU

Reader and frequent commenter YUGUY has launched a FaceBook page to warn people about rabbinic sexual abuse, especially the case of Rabbi Yehuda Kolko.

The Jewish Press On Sexual Abuse And Family Violence

The Jewish Press has a comprehensive article on sexual abuse and family violence in the Orthodox community. Sadly, most of the haredi leaders quoted want beit dins to handle abuse and violence issues. This is impossible for many reasons, as YU's Rabbi Blau notes:

Rabbi Blau put it this way: "The old Israeli, Meah Shearim solution of posters telling people to stay away from so and so" will not work today.

"I’m not convinced we have batei din at the present time that are able to deal with it," he said. "Who will investigate? Who is able to? Who is trained and sensitive to all the ramifications?"Batei din, he explained, would have several difficulties to overcome, a major one being a lack of expertise in the field of abuse. Would all dayanim, for instance, possess sufficient understanding of the deleterious long-range effects of abuse on victims?

While the above is easily solvable — batei din could work in tandem with experts — a more difficult problem, said Rabbi Blau, is the lack of a set of accepted criteria. "What kind of testimony will be used? How much trust will be afforded the testimony of victims? You can’t use regular halachic criteria. Halachic expertise alone is insufficient."

A third difficulty, he said, is that batei din will have to define key terms ranging from age of consent ("according to halacha, a girl is an adult at 12," he pointed out) to what kind of touching constitutes abuse.

Any attempt to fix the latter two difficulties would prove to be daunting, he said. "Who would be in charge? Who would set up the system?"

Rabbi Blau also raised the issue that outside of Israel, batei din have no investigative powers.

"We know there are cases of charismatic people who are able to bring lying [witnesses to appear before a bet din]," Rabbi Blau said. "No consequences if someone lies in front of a bet din."

Some of these problems could be solved if there were a national bet din in this country, he added, but of course there is none. Over the centuries, he pointed out, rabbinic authorities came up with ways of dealing with difficult accusations — i.e., a lack of two witnesses — but that such solutions require "a society we don’t have, where a bet din can bring things to bear."

"In Israel," he continued, "if X doesn’t give his wife a get and we feel he’s [obligated], he can be thrown in jail. These methods are not available to batei din in America."

Rabbi Michael Broyde, a dayan on the Beit Din of America and a noted expert on the intersection of Jewish and secular law also notes:

Rabbi Broyde noted that "batei din do not get involved in cases involving what American law considers a crime" — they never, for example, adjudicate murder and violent theft cases. He added that while abuse, sexual and otherwise, encompasses a large spectrum of offenses, he believes that no halachic authority "thinks a violent rapist should be summoned to a bet din."

Rabbi Broyde's colleague Rabbi Yona Riess notes:

"We don’t have jurisdiction over criminal cases," said Rabbi Yona Reiss, director of the Beth Din of America.

Rabbis Blau, Broyde and Riess are Modern Orthodox.

The Brooklyn DA was forced to set up a special project to deal with haredi family violence, because haredim simply would not call police – and women and children were badly injured because of this. Called Project Eden, it specializes in keeping haredi abusers out of court and out oif jail. In return, it gets some minor protection for abused women and children.

Think about this. Would we tolerate special treatment for WASPs, special treatment that kept rich, lilly-white abusers out of jail? Would we tolerate it if the special treatment was given to blacks?

Project Eden is a terrible idea loaded with the potential for abuse. Haredim need to learn how to live in the real world. That includes realizing that abusers should not be allowed to walk the streets.

How Messianist Is Chabad? This Messianist …

This picture from Chabad.info shows women in the Lubavitch main synagogue in Brooklyn, 770 Eastern Parkway, at the recent International Convention of Shluchos (the wives and daughters of Chabad rabbis worldwide). The sign hanging at the back of the picture reads: "Long Live Our Master Our Teacher Our Rabbi King Messiah Forever And Ever." These women are part of the so-called "anti-messianist" Chabad camp.

[Hat Tip: The much maligned Ariel Sokolovsky.]

Rabbi Dovid Feinstein On Sexual Abuse

JewishWhistleBlower notes this July 2006 quote from the Jewish Voice:

In general, Rabbi [Dovid] Feinstein says, it is a good idea for would-be
accusers in the Jewish community to take their charges to a beit din
before going to the police. “If the person is found guilty, the beit
din would tell the accuser to go to the police; if the person is found
not guilty, the beit din would tell the accuser to forget it,” he
says. Asked if he knows of any instances in which a beit din referred a
case to the civil authorities, Rabbi Feinstein says he does not.

JWB adds:

I would just note that both Rav Dovid Feinstein and [his brother] Rav Reuven
Feinstein were aware of the sexual molestation allegations against
Rabbi Kolko. They had specific knowledge regarding this and did
nothing.

This, I believe, is because their father, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, supposedly held going to police was always wrong because it would violate the prohibition of mesira. Rav Moshe himself had credible evidence of sexual abuse against children perpetrated by an authority figure in the haredi community. He railed privately against the abuser, urged the abuser's family to deal with the abuser, but did not call police or allow others to call police. That abuser raped children and continued to do so until non-Jewish victims went to the police.

Dovid Feinstein's view – that a beit din should first decide on the guilt or innocence of the abuser – is foolish. Beit dins have no investigatory or police powers. Rabbis are not trained in investigation. It is a recipe for covering up abuse – and Dovid Feinstein knows this.

Rabbi Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg's contention that, since Rabbi Kolko did not anally penetrate his young victims, no abuse took place according to Torah law and therefore Rabbi Kolko is innocent, is only one of many such travesties committed in the name of halakha.

Haredism has failed in almost every area other than making lots of babies. Unfortunately for those babies, demographics seems to be all the Jewish world really cares about.

Is This True?

This was left as a comment to an earlier post. Can any of you confirm this information? Did Rabbi Cohen speak at Beth Abraham this past Shabbat? What did he say? Did Rabbi Schachter tell people not to pray in Rabbi Cohen's synagogue? What are the facts here?

The following is a summary of the events relating to Rav Dovid Cohen's ("RDC") speeches at Beth Abraham this Shabbos and my subsequent conversation with him. I should have listened to Rav Schachter when he said publicly in shiur a few years ago not to daven in his shul because of RDC's disgraceful approach to business ethics in building his shul with stolen money.

RDC publicly said that there is no problem with cheating on taxes or lying on a tax return. He also said that all goyim hate Jews and we should not be fooled by American goyim who hide it better. He said that he would deny having said this if anyone from the press (or someone that he suspects might be from the press) asks him about it.

I called him yesterday to ask how he can say that it is permissible to cheat on taxes when the Shulchan Aruch, Tur, Rambam, and many others all say that cheating on taxes from a non-Jewish government is a violation of lo sigzol. His answer was similar to a conservative rabbi. He said that he does not feel bound by the psak of the shulchan aruch. In any case, he said that he believes that all of the statements in the shulchan aruch, rambam etc. that tax evasion is forbidden was put in there because of fear of anti-Semitism if they said the truth which is that you can cheat on your taxes. He therefore said that he ignores all of these statements in the sifrei halacha. In fact, he said that he paskens that you can outright steal from a gentile (even one that keeps the seven mitzvos and is not an idolater) as long as you think that you will not get caught and cause a chillul hashem. I then pointed out to him that every posek in the past two thousand years has paskened that gezel akum is forbidden under lo sigzol. He once again said that he does not believe that they meant that and they were only saying it for fear of the goyim. This sounds like Strauss's view of the Rambam (I can explain that if you are not familiar with it).

In addition, I heard him many years ago say that Baruch Goldstein did not violate lo tirzach and that the only reason he should not have killed the Arabs was because his actions were likely to create more violence against Jews.

As to other crazy things he said, he said on Friday night that you are obligated to vote for the candidate that your rabbi tells you to vote for based on daas torah. He also told me during my call on Sunday that it is an issur doraisa to say anything complimentary about any gentile. His example was that a person who says that Beethoven was a good composer is violating an issur doraisa.

He caused a great chillul hashem as many people told me after he spoke that they were sickened by what he said. I have a call in to Rav Schachter to let him know what happened as he will certainly hit the wall when he hears this. He used to tell us in shiur on many occasions that the basics of Judaism relate to honesty and integrity and people who cheat on taxes or steal are a disgrace to Judaism. When I got married, he told me that the main thing to ask the witnesses is whether they ever cheated on their taxes. I also plan to speak to Rabbi Neuberger about this. I kind of feel responsible that I did not tell Rabbi Neuberger what I know about David Cohen before he came. I had always heard in Flatbush that he has no problem with cheating and stealing in business as long as Jews are not hurt. I also plan on sending letters to Ohel (where he is the posek) and to Avi Shafran at the Agudah. This man must be stopped although I am not sure what is the best way to do it. There were hundreds of people in the audience who, if they believe him, will think that Judaism allows them to cheat and steal. One baal teshuva told me that he could not sleep that night because he had always been told that Judaism preached honesty and integrity and he now sees that a very well known and respected posek can get up and advocate stealing and cheating. He is questioning everything he has been taught. The sad thing is that he infiltrated the YU community because he is articulate and worldly.

Chabad Lashes Out At Ariel Sokolovsky

Ariel Sokolovsky notes in an email that Chabad of Oregon has officially disassociated itself from Sokolovsky and his websites. Interesting is the language used by Chabad:

We of Chabad-Lubavitch of Oregon were shocked to read about the beliefs of Ariel Sokolovsky in the Haaretz Newspaper. His beliefs are heretical and anathema to Torah.

Ariel Sokolovsky has no position in the Chabad Lubavitch movement. He is not a rabbi certified by our movement. He cannot possibly be described as a Chabad activist. He acts in numerous ways in complete contradiction of the Shulchan Aruch - The Code of Jewish Law.

His blasphemous blog is his own private initiative, just as the concubine blog that advocates ideas inimical to Torah and Jewish Tradition. His blog is not part of the Chabad web system. The statement by Haaretz that it is a Chabad website is false.

We strongly protest any assertion that he has any connection to the Chabad-Lubavitch movement.

Rabbi Moshe Wilhelm
Regional Director
Chabad-Lubavitch of Oregon

The article that got Ariel into trouble (this time) highlights the beliefs of rank-and-file Chabad followers, including yeshiva students, many of whom have difficulty making a distinction between the Rebbe and God. Their confusion stems from years of Chabad teachings, going back at least until 1950 and the behavior of Menachem Mendel Schneerson immediately after the passing of the 6th rebbe. The Rebbe wrote that the 6th rebbe was and remained after his passing :

 "The essence and being of God clothed in a physical body."

I remember seeing this quote in Jerusalem immediately after the Rebbe's passing. I was shocked. I learned the entire essay it came from and became even more upset. The concept would appear to be foreign to Judaism. But Chabad follower after Chabad follower assured me that the Rebbe was just that, God clothed in a body.

He was the most perfect man who had ever or would ever live. The Rebbe, I was assured, knows our thoughts. He watches over all of us. He is equally aware of an event happening in Moscow as he his of one taking place in Cape Town or New York, even if they take place at the exact same moment in time.

The difference between the Rebbe and God? Most hasidim then knew there was a difference, but they could not articulate it. Some, however, saw no difference – God and the Rebbe were one and the same.

This is the milieu that Ariel Sokolovsky lived in. It where he learned his Judaism. Sokolovsky is not an employee of Chabad, but he is, nonetheless, a product of Chabad and of Mendel Schneerson.

The Rebbe instructed his followers to make their homes – all of them – into Chabad Houses. It became the fashion to have a small plaque reading "Beit Chabad" mounted on one's front door. This was was done by rabbis and by non-clergy, by Chabad employees and by regular working stiffs, all over the world, at Mendel Schneerson's request. All Sokolovsky has done is make websites that follow that lead. He does not claim to be an employee of or sanctioned by Chabad of Oregon. He is his own boss, as is clear from looking at those blogs.

The Rebbe gave away the Chabad "trademark." The Rebbe also "gave away" Chabad's monotheism. People unhappy with Ariel Sokolovsky should direct their anger to where it truly belongs – Menachem Mendel Schneerson and Chabad.

Ethical Advice From Haredi Orthodox Ethicist?

Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir offers some advice for potential whistleblowers. He explains how to blow the whistle, when to go to the police, etc. But then Rabbi Meir drifts off into haredi Ortho-speak:

One of the most original and useful solutions to this problem was suggested to me by one of the leading Roshei Yeshiva (Yeshiva heads). The suggestion is to use the threat of a destructive formal complaint to obtain a more modest and constructive settlement. The truth is that in many cases going to the authorities is the worst outcome for all involved. The objective is to fix the problem, not the blame. Following are some examples of how I have proposed to readers to apply this advice:

In the case I consulted this rabbi on, a young lady was being sexually harassed by her employer, a prominent individual in the community. All the young lady wanted was an apology and to be able to work unhindered; she wasn't interested in creating a scandal. Certainly the employer was not interested in a scandal. The rabbi's advice was for the employee to demand an apology and that the abusive behavior cease; if this did not happen she would sue.

Another reader wrote me that he was forced to resign from his job because of religious harassment at his workplace. Prospective employers want to know why he left his job, but he is reluctant to give details because they are embarrassing to all concerned. The suggestion is to go to the previous employer and ask for a non-specific apologetic letter explaining that the employee was unfortunately compelled to leave because of inappropriate treatment by some co-workers. The letter is not really very incriminating but it provides an adequate explanation to other employers and doesn't make the person seem like a job-hopper or trouble-maker. Again, the leverage for obtaining the letter is the threat of legal action or other whistle-blowing which ultimately is against everyone's interest, but the threat is needed in order to obtain the fairer outcome.

Benign enough advice – if the problem is mild harassment of the individual receiving that advice. But what of future employees so harassed? Worse yet, the question Meir is responding to is about others who are being abused and what seems to be criminal wrongdoing:

My employer engages in scandalous exploitation and abuse of his clients. But I'm afraid that if I report him to appropriate authorities I'll be considered a troublemaker and will have trouble finding work.

And, here is Rabbi Meir's answer:

One possible application in your case is to approach your employer and explain that you have detailed evidence of his wrongdoing. Make clear that you are not interested in ruining his business, just in protecting his clients. Your ultimatum is that if the abusive behavior doesn't stop, then you will blow the whistle using one of the routes mentioned.

What Rabbi Meir does not consider is the following:

1. How can this employee be sure the abuse really has stopped?
2. How can this employee be sure the abuse was not transferred to others?
3. Is the employee breaking a law by not contacting police, etc.?
4. Is the employee exposing him/herself to actual risk by following Meir's advice, when going to police or other authorities may very well minimize that risk?

Think about the child sexual abuse cases where Rabbi Meir's advice (given, of course, by the haredi gedolim he follows) was followed. Think about the number of children who were abused because the police were not called. Now why listen to Asher Meir?

UPDATE 3-29-07: Asher Meir writes, in part:

…I generally identify myself as Modern Orthodox and that the Rosh Yeshiva I consulted
regarding the whistle-blowing case is also generally identified as a
Modern Orthodox rabbi. (What does that mean? Who knows. He advocates
going to college, secular liberal arts education, and getting a job.)

I think that there is a big difference between a grown woman who is
being pestered by annoying but harmless propositions and a teenager
who is being sexually abused. There is a world of legal and ethical
difference between sexual harassment (a tort) and sexual abuse (a
crime), and also between a grown-up and a minor.…

The Rebbe Is Alive And Well And Living In 770

Chabad tried to organize a "unity conference" to bring together the various Chabad factions, most prominently the messianists, who believe in publicly promoting the late Chabad Rebbe as "our righteous messiah," and the so-called anti-messianists, whose beliefs are almost identical to the messianists', except that the so-called anti-messianists  believe publicly calling the Rebbe the messiah is bad for Chabad outreach and PR. This they hold, hurting the image of Chabad, goes against the Rebbe's wishes. But both camps believe the late Rebbe is the messiah.

Anyway, the "unity gathering" did not work out as planned. Ynet reports:

Rabbi [Yosef Chaim] Ginsberg is one of the more ideological members of Chabad’s messianic faction, and serves as the head of a Chabad yeshiva in Ramat Aviv. With considerable courage he gave a rousing speech reflecting his messianic beliefs. “Are you looking for unity?” he shouted. “Look at our people! There is wonderful unity among them. Everyone agrees that the Rebbe, the King, the Messiah, still lives, and this is how we educate our children. All of our people agree that the only work today is to receive the righteous Messiah.”

This led the anti-messiansts to respond. They trotted out Rabbi Yoel Kahn, widely considered the chief theologian of Chabad. As reported here last month, Kahn told Kfar Chabad Magazine that:

…The right shitah is to say the truth: That now the Rebbe is also alive and affects us here physically. That after Gimmel Tamuz 1994 no change has occurred in the relationship between the Rebbe and chassidim - no change as the Rebbe relates to chassidim and no change as chassidim relate to the Rebbe.

But Kahn also attacked the messiansits, saying:

“Writing ‘shlita’ (may he live a good long life, Amen) in and of itself makes a mockery, but this is not enough for them,” he said angrily of the messianists, “and they also continue with the words, ‘yibadal lechaim tovim,’ (may he be set aside for long life), which makes an even greater mockery.

“All the dastardly deeds of the enlightened and the Yevsektsia (the Jewish section of the Soviet Communist party), who attempted to besmirch the honor of our holy teachers with all kinds of endeavors, are nothing compared to the defamation caused by the messianist."

In other words, the Rebbe is in some sense dead, it is true, but he is also more alive than he was before, and our relationship with him remains unchanged.

The messianists could not let this broadside pass, and so they responded this way:

The response … came about two weeks after the unity conference, when the messianists held their own conference at the Tel Aviv Culture Hall in honor of yud shevat, the date Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson became Lubavitcher Rebbe. A red velvet chair was left empty on the stage for the Rebbe, and one of the chassidim poured wine into the cup on the table. To judge according to human eyesight, the chair remained empty until the end of the conference.

Even the biggest messianists were well aware that they could not ignore [Rabbi Kahn’s] fighting words. “In recent days we heard what Rabbi Yoel Cohen [Ynet has mis-transliterated the name, which is spelled in English "Kahn"] said,” Rabbi Ginsberg began, “that, God forbid, our faith has no basis.” “The same Cohen who declared a year before gimmel tamuz (the date of the Rebbe’s death) that anyone who thinks, God forbid, that something will happen to the Rebbe should throw his tallis into the ocean. That anyone who thinks that the Rebbe, the King, the Messiah, can die should get up and leave. This is what I heard with my own ears and this is what others heard.” continued Rabbi Ginsberg, “He is the person who said that it isn’t so certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. But that our Rebbe will live forever—that is true. He screamed this from every possible pulpit.

“Suddenly gimmel tamuz came, and we stupid Jews believe that if the Rebbe says such and such a thing and the whole world is screaming the opposite, we remain true to our belief. We don’t know anything, we are nothing, but if the Rebbe says that he lives forever and will bring about redemption, we should believe that we will be redeemed in our body, truly."

And the saga of our newest Christianity continues.

Rabbi Ahron Solevietchik On Kosher Slaughter

Rabbi Harry Maryles writes about the new Tsedek Hecher proposed by the Conservative Movement:

… It would behoove the kosher certification industry to create their own standards and Hashgacha on this issue and to make Hechsherim (kosher certification) contingent on whether these guidelines are followed. Just because “they [the Conservative Movement] thought of it” doesn’t mean we can’t implement it. It is a good idea. Only I would take it a step further and make certain that not only are laborers fairly treated but that animals are humanely treated as well.

The Kosher meat industry has not performed well in this area and this was true even before Rubashkin ever existed. Rav Ahron [Soloveichik] told our Shiur way back in the seventies that he was disgusted by the wide spread practice at the time of shackling the cattle by its hind legs, then hoisting and suspending them upside down for slaughter. This is a completely inhumane and unnecessary practice.

He also felt that the way in which veal was and still is produced today is inhumane and unacceptable. I believe Rabbi Soloveichik never touched veal because of it. Our appetites for veal should not trump the torture those calves must go through. I’m not sure if the practice of hoisting and shackling still exists or how common it is. But it ought to be stopped if it exists at all. Animals mistreated in this or any other way in the Shechita (Kosher slaughtering) process must be barred from getting any kind of Hechsher. Slaughtering animals should be done as humanely as possible. It is long past time we implemented such standards so we can truly be a light unto the nations instead of an embarrassment to God.…

Both Rubashkin and Satmar (Alle, Meal Mart, etc.) import large quantities of meat from South America. As I have reported several times over the past two years, food industry sources say those animals are shackled and hoisted. That means any glatt kosher hot dog, burger, etc., that you eat will for the most part be made up of at least some meat from South America, meat that is shackled and hoisted before slaughter.

UPDATE 2-13-07: I forgot that Rubashkin buys veal and lamb from Atlanitc, which failed its animal welfare audit in September of 2006 because it uses shackle and hoist. And, yes, the OU and Rubashkin's other rabbis approve of that method of slaughter.

The Lies Of Kosher Today Exposed

I wrote two weeks ago that the claim made by Kosher Today that OSHA had inspected Rubashkin's Postville, Iowa plant and given the plant a clean bill of health, was most likely false. I pointed out that the man who made that claim, Rabbi Asher Zeilingold, was unreliable, and that he has a close business relationship with Rubashkin. I called OSHA and Iowa state officials and reported that no official visit was made by Federal or State Plan OSHA, and that the only possible "inspection" that could have taken place would been a consult done through the state's consultancy program, which is not an inspection and has no bearing on what plant practices were before it or after it, but even this seemed unlikely.

The Forward has picked up this story (although it did not bother to give this blog a hat tip), and it did the one thing that I could not do – ask Rabbi Asher Zeilingold what the truth is. Here is what Rabbi Zeilingold told the Forward this week:

…Zeilingold, who is paid to provide kosher certification for the meat at AgriProcessors, was an early defender of the company when the original allegations appeared in the Forward. In Kosher Today, Zeilingold said that the Conservative task force was “delighted to accept all the lies and slander of the Forward article as absolute truth because it gave them a pretext by which they could gain entry into AgriProcessors and other plants positing as the champions of ‘kashrut’ and the rights of workers.”

Zeilingold’s Conservative counterpart, Rabbi Morris Allen, was not contacted for the Kosher Today article, but Allen’s synagogue did write a letter to the publication, defending their religious leader.

“That Rabbi Allen’s efforts — which are of no financial benefit to him — are attacked by fellow Jews who also believe in the sanctity of kosher laws is unfair and misguided,” the letter said.

In addition to the criticism of Allen, Zeilingold told Kosher Today that an official for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had visited AgriProcessors and gave him a report praising the company’s labor practices.

Reached this week, Zeilingold said he could not release the OSHA report; however, he did say that the OSHA official was not working in an official capacity when he made his visit, but rather as a “private consultant.”

My understanding is OSHA would like to find this "OSHA official" and discipline him. OSHA regional head Charles "Chuck" Adkins told me he wanted to find the man because no one has the right to represent OSHA unless he is on official business. "I want to put the hammer down on him," Adkins said.

Rabbi Asher Zeilingold's veracity can further be determined by reading the data posted here.

[I should also note that Rabbi Zeilingold is the rabbi who excommunicated me.]

UPDATE: 2-8-07– I have now confirmed the "OSHA inspection" was done by an employee of Federal OSHA on his own time. It was not a full inspection, was not sanctioned or approved by OSHA, and was arranged by Rabbi Zeilingold's friend Carlos Carbonera (this "inspector" is a friend of Carbonera's). OSHA's regional head Chuck Adkins told me again today that he will "bring the hammer down" on anyone, this inspector included, who uses OSHA's name without permission. He also pointed out that what this inspector did was a violation of OSHA's "internal rules and regulations."

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein and Child Sexual Abuse

According to Luke Ford, Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, a haredi, LA-based rabbi and polemicist, has this to say about blogs and abuse:

“Halakhicly, you should not read blogs. It is not our business to punish people. Vengeance is not a Jewish idea except for in a court of law.”

“In some cases, a cover-up is not the worst thing.”

“Discretion is not the worst thing.”

“Cities should put together a special law court, beit din, for issues of abuse. Chicago put together a special beit din for issues of abuse. I guess there will be such a thing in Los Angeles.”

“Journalistic exposure is a last resort. The zeal to go after an accused abuser [often leads to bad results].”

While it is true Adlerstein dismisses the idea that halakha forbids going to police or warning others about abusers, his "solution" to the abuse problem is foolish at best. This type of "solution" is what gave us 40 years of Rabbi Yehuda Kolko's abuse, and Kolko is not a lone example.

But one piece of Rabbi Adlerstein's advice is good. He holds blogs most blogs (because they traffic in 'personal destruction') should not be read. I suggest you all take him up on that by refusing to read the blog he and his fellow abuse coverup expert Avi Shafran write for.

Who Owns The Holocaust?

Twelve years ago, the British Union of Jewish Students launched a project called 50 Days For 50 Years, an effort to commemorate the Holocaust by having Jews learn something each day for 50 days in memory of a Jew murdered in the Holocaust. A book of 50 essays written by leading (Orthodox) rabbis and scholars was published and the program was launched. In 2005, TRIBE, a section of the British United Synagogue (Modern Orthodox, Jonathan Sacks is their chief rabbi) relaunched the program under a new name, 60 Days For 60 Years. It then changed the name to 60 Days For 6 Million and "syndicated" the program to communities around the world.

Fine. To a point. Now groups like Aish and Ohr Somayach have gotten on the bandwagon (please see the pictures above for an example), and use this program as a way to draw non-Orthodox Jews to Orthodoxy and Modern Orthodox Jews to haredism.

But the problem with this program is deeper than subterfuge from Orthodox outreach organizations. First of all, many of the Jews who died in the Holocaust were secular or non-Orthodox, and they were secular or non-Orthodox by choice. They were Jews who left the backwaters of shtetl Orthodoxy for the bright lights of the Enlightenment. Is the proper way to remember those Jews learning Orthodox theology and theodicy?

Some of you will argue it is, claiming that Orthodoxy has a monopoly on theological truth. I beg to differ. Leaving aside the overwhelming failure of Orthodox rabbinic leaders leading up to the Holocaust (please see our discussion here), I would still argue that an Orthodox monopoly on this endeavor is wrong. Why? To me, it is too much like the Mormon baptisms of long-dead non-Mormons.

The proper way to do this, I think, is to take a Jewish text we all accept and study it or sections of it. For example, take the Pentateuch. Use the text to show how traditional commentary (like Rashi and Ibn Ezra) work, show how halakha is derived, codified and implemented. Show how the Documentary Hypothesis works, how modern Biblical Criticism works, and how Orthodoxy (for the most part) rejects it.

Another possibility is to deal with the exact issues the 60 Days program does, but bring varied, pluralistic responses to each one.

Of course, when an Orthodox organization sponsors an event like this, one expects the viewpoints to be Orthodox. That is why I don't have much of a problem when the OU sponsors 60 Days, or the British United Synagogue does. But when Orthodox outreach organizations get involved, especially when those organizations have a history of deception and when their involvement is partially masked by community organizations like the Jewish Community Relations Council (please see above pictures) or the non-Orthodox day school, I think a line has been crossed.

Should the Holocaust be used as a marketing tool to bring Jews to Orthodoxy? If you think it should, shouldn't information like Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman's letter (which I first read in the Aish HaTorah beis midrash) and the behavior of the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe be presented right along with it?

The Problem With Haredi Education

Rabbi Yakov Horowitz writes:

… I think that this analogy of bicycle riding and training wheels carries profound lessons for us as we chart a course for the chinuch of our precious children in these challenging times. If one takes a few steps back and surveys the overall landscape of how we impart Torah teaching to children and adults, one might be struck by a puzzling dichotomy. We seem to be offering our children a significant array of learning assistance and support after some form of educational failure has occurred. However, very few of these tools are offered to children who are in the critical ‘training-wheels’ phase of their learning experience.

Going back to the bicycle analogy; that would seem to be like having our children start riding their bicycles without the benefit of training wheels, and only providing them to those who severely injure themselves by falling off their bicycles repeatedly.…

This is about as spot on as it gets, I think.

Mohel Who Maimed Baby Is Baby's Father

Vos Iz Neias reports that the mohel in this sad story turns out to be the baby's own father. Was he licensed? Trained? Experienced? I doubt it. I also doubt he was – or is – sane. Perhaps that insanity will keep him out of jail …

Haredim and the Holocaust, 2

UOJ quotes the infamous letter written by Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman telling a student not to go to YU or HTC (Skokie), even though it would get him safely out of Europe:

"I received your letter, but unfortunately there is nothing I can do. The yeshivos in America which can bring talmidim from overseas are the yeshivah of Dr. Revel (YU) and [HTC in Chicago]. However, both are places of spiritual danger because they are run in a spirit of disloyalty to the Torah. Therefore, of what benefit would it be to escape [Europe] from physical danger to spiritual danger."…

UOJ notes that later in the letter, Rabbi Wasserman suggests the student contact Rabbi Shlomo Hymen at Yeshiva Torah Vodas who, Rabbi Wasserman writes, will help him. But then UOJ continues:

Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman was urged [by Rabbi Henkin] to bring over all of his students to Yeshiva Torah Vodaath and Rabbi Shlomo Hyman had agreed to step aside as the Rosh Hayeshiva and gladly have R' Elchonon take his place. Instead he went back to Europe where he was slaughtered along with his students . He is quoted in his "Kovetz Maamarim" as saying he intended himself and his students to be a "korbon" or a sacrifice, on behalf of American Jewry. So much for "daas Torah" and "gedolim infallibility".

Rabbis gave notoriously poor advice all during WW2; the above is only one example out of many rabbinic failures. From Hungarian hasidim to Chabad, from Litvaks to Galitzianers, rabbis failed. You can say this means God "hid" the truth from them, or you can say God never spoke to them in the first place. My money is on option number two.

Settlers At Play Again …

This video was taken in Hebron. The voices are of international observers there to protect Palestinian families from out of control settlers like this.

We need to make a choice. Behavior like this cannot be tolerated; neither can the atmosphere that causes it. Settlers teach their children hatred. It is true this is in part a reaction to the Intifada, but it is noxious, nonetheless. It is destroying Israel from within, and making Judaism not much different than the long line of fascist ideologies that oppressed us. If this type of behavior is the price of keeping Hebron, we must give it up. No piece of land, no matter how holy, is worth this.

[Hat Tip: Neo-Conservaguy.]

Rabbis: It's The Fault Of Provocative Women, Not Ill Behaved Men

According to Arutz Sheva, our dear rabbis of the reconstituted 'sanhedrin' have this to say about former Justice Minister Haim Ramon's conviction for sexual harassment:

The Ramon verdict is a judicial evil, said the rabbis. “After the complainant’s picture was published as it was published,” they said, “there is no reason to expect different behavior on the part of the defendant, in a society in which there is no fear of God and moral restraint.”

Got that, ladies? According to the rabbis, if you're too pretty, if your blouse is too tight or your skirt too short, it's your fault. Judaism, meet Stone Age.

[Hat Tip: Pilegesh.org.]

If We Are Down

If this blog is down, or if it does not seem to be updated, go to the Failed Messiah backup site:

http://failedmessiah.wordpress.com/

Falash Mura Set Up Christian Missions In Israel?

Ethiopian Jewish leaders are complaining that some of the Falash Mura, Jews whose ancestors converted to Christianity but who themselves have returned to Judaism, have set up missions in Israel to convert Jews and have done so with the backing of several churches. Ha'aretz reports:

    Ethiopian rabbis and spiritual leaders (keisim) called on the government Monday to halt the Ethiopian Falashmura aliyah to Israel, citing concerns that many of the Falashmura are engaged in Christian missionary activity.

    The leaders made the call during a Rehovot conference titled "Defeating the [Christian] mission manifestation in the community," in which hundreds of Ethiopian Jews took part.

    The keisim and rabbis called for establishing new rules for bringing Ethiopian Jews to Israel, maintaining that in recent years many of the Falshamura in Israel have resorted to Christianity and built missions in Jaffa, Jerusalem, and Rehovot, as a result of their difficult financial situation.…

    Conference participants elected a keisim-led committee that will map out the various missions in each city and prepare a list of missionaries, which they will transfer to the Interior Ministry, requesting that they be barred from marrying or being buried in a Jewish cemetery. In addition, the committee will formulate a position paper on potential future Falashmura aliyah.

    "The missionaries persecuted us in Ethiopia, and [we must] not permit them to persecute us in the Holy Land," said the conference participants.

This is a difficult problem. First of all, the Rabbinate already ruled these people must be saved. It did so, however, with the caveat that they formally convert to and practice Orthodox Judaism.  If these charges are true – and they appear to be, at least in part; I have seen documents that support the charges – should all Falash Mura suffer because of the sins of a few?

I don't know. My first reaction is to say no, they should not, and aliyah should continue. But Ethiopian Jewish leaders are adamantly opposed to this. (Indeed, I spoke with one leader about this problem this morning. He said what he has said for much of the past two years – stop aliyah now.)

The problem, it seems to me, is one of a contract violation. Falash Mura got to come to Israel on the condition they observe Orthodox Judaism. The question is, what should we do when that contract is violated?

I should also add that much of the missionary activity comes from financial distress, and Ethiopian Jewish leaders themselves say this is so. Israel has done a poor job of integrating all Ethiopian Jews. This has relegated many to poverty and despair. Successive Israeli governments bear the responsibility for this, for the pain and suffering it causes, and for the Christian missionizing that grows from it.

The Legal Wrangling Over Seperate Haredi Busses Continues

Remember the woman who was beaten on an Egged bus by haredim because she refused to move to the rear? A good update on the story from yesterday's Globe and Mail:

…"There's a concept in Jewish law which is that silence is acquiescence. And when the rabbinical leaders hear about a store being burned down . . . when people are being sprayed with bleach on the street because their clothes are not considered modest enough, when women are being beaten on buses, when these things are going on and the rabbinical leaders say nothing, there is an appearance that it is condoned," Ms. Shear said in a telephone interview from her home in Canada, emphasizing that she respects Haredi values but regards the violence as a tragedy that cannot be ignored. "I've come under a lot of heat for publicizing this. But I've stood my ground."…

"It's more relaxing, because the males are in the front and they leave me alone," said Rachel Orlowick, a Toronto-born religious Israeli on the mehadrin No. 36 bus in Jerusalem this week. Yet even as she speaks, the heavily pregnant Ms. Orlowick grabs at a handrail as she casts around for a seat in the crowded rear, though there are several places open at the front.

But secular passengers have reported being harassed or kicked off for what other passengers deem inappropriate dress, and even modestly dressed women have been verbally abused for refusing to board through a rear entrance and sit at the back.

The prominent Israeli-American author Naomi Ragen, an Orthodox Jew and women's rights activist, says she, too, has been verbally abused and physically threatened for refusing to relinquish a front seat, and is now petitioning the Supreme Court along with four other women for a review of the practice. At the least, they are asking that segregated buses be well marked and run only in parallel with regular buses.…

I believe Mrs. Orlowick is the wife of an Aish HaTorah rabbi. Women to the rear – something Aish most certainly does not tell new recruits.

Mohel Cuts Off Too Much, Baby's Penis Maimed

A baby is circumcised. A horrible accident takes place and the mohel (ritual circumciser) accidently cuts off part of the baby's penis. Ynet reports, dateline Bnai Brak, Israel:

…Following the bris and after the mohel (circumciser) had already left the building, the baby's parents noticed that his diaper was soaked with blood.

The parents phoned the mohel, who advised them to call an ambulance immediately, seeing that the baby has already lost a lot of blood.

The parents told the Magen David Adom paramedics who arrived at the place that although their son was suffering from hepatitis, they insisted on holding the bris on time. They also admitted that they had a hard time finding a mohel who would be willing to conduct the circumcision.

Shai Pinchas, an MDA paramedic, said he searched the hall for the baby's foreskin and the part of his penis that was cut off, and then brought them to the hospital in an ice bag.

"The baby was not in a serious condition and we brought him to the children's ward at Sheba. I assume that the mohel had cut too much of his penis during the circumcision," Pinchas said.

Atypical, to be sure. But these parents should be brought up on child endangerment charges. And the mohel? I think he needs to find another line of work.

Schvartzes?

Rabbi Shmuely Boteach writes:

Last week I delivered a sermon based on the Torah portion of the week and which compared Moses, the great Jewish redeemer, with Abraham Lincoln, the martyred American emancipator. When I finished, I was approached by an acquaintance who happens to be an Orthodox Jewish engineer. He seemed, up until that time, to be devout, educated, and sophisticated. But what he told me was sacrilegious, ignorant, and primitive.

This gentleman maintained that Lincoln was no hero, seeing as he had freed a people who were the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah, who was cursed for humiliating his father. “Ham’s children are black, and are condemned by God to eternal slavery,” he said. “There was even a rebbe in Poland who predicted that Abraham Lincoln would be shot for liberating a people against God’s wishes.”

I looked this man in the eye and said to him, “I’m confused. Judaism believes that every man is judged according to his actions. Now you are telling me that every black person in the world is cursed for something an ancestor did millennia ago. We Jews don’t believe in Original Sin, and we don’t believe in vertical accountability. So how can you tell me something so abominably racist like the fact that blacks are cursed?”

He responded that I was denying scripture. I told him that his views were repugnant to everything Judaism stood for in terms of the equality of all mankind.…

I remember my shock at seeing a book written by Rabbi Ahron Soleveitchik that strongly stated that racism of any kind has no place in Judaism. Why was I shocked? Because every Chabad and haredi rabbi I then knew was profoundly racist.

I was once driving with a head shaliach (the senior rabbi sent by the Chabad Rebbe to a particular area). We passed a bus stop at which a black man was kissing a white woman. The rabbi reacted with disgust. "It's unnatural!" he screamed. "What is?" I asked. "Schvartes and whites shouldn't mix. Races shouldn't mix," he answered. I asked him if that was true even if the "schvartze" had converted. He fumbled for an answer, finally settling on "that depends on the situation." He hastened to add that the black convert would be a full Jew, and really should be able to marry any Jew, regardless of color. "So," I asked him, "would you let your son marry a black convert or the daughter of black converts?" "No!," he said. "Why not?" I asked. "It just wouldn't be right," he said.

I used to write off this insanity as the side effects of living in or frequenting Crown Heights, with its years of racial tension. But the truth cuts much deeper. Orthodoxy in general and haredim specifically demonize the Other. Nothing is more "Other" than a black man.

I remember another haredi rabbi teaching that tselem elokim, the idea that man is made in God's image, only applies to Jews. And we have the assertion in the Tanya, the so-called bible of Chabad hasidut, that every kindness a non-Jew does for Jews is only done for selfish reasons; non-Jews are not capable of altruism.

Boteach is right. Racism, as Rabbi Ahron Soleveitchik said, has no place in Judaism. It's just too bad so many haredim don't realize this, and that they have not realized it for so long.

Israel's First "Secular Yeshiva" Opens

Jewish texts like the the Torah, Talmud and Mishna are studied. What's missing? God, and any idea of commandments. Ynet (briefly) reports.

Bad Neighbors

A haredi family in Brooklyn, in a mixed Jewish and Italian neighborhood, wants to build a synagogue on a site where a home stands. The haredim go to the city and get a permit for interior demolition, meaning the shell and basic structure of the building would remain as is. The haredim then proceed to tear down the entire building, leaving a heap of rubble on the lot where their new synagogue will one day stand. The city lets them get away with this serious code violation, in part because haredim control much of the local community council.

But there is more to this story. Before demolition, the haredim's architect hired a private contractor to check the building for asbestos, a dangerous substance that would need to be removed before demolition. Asbestos was found. A report containing this information was filed by the architect with the city. Haredim demolish the home anyway, without removing the asbestos,, and for about one year, dust containing that asbestos has filled the air of the neighborhood.

Three weeks ago, a local resident who had worked with and been poisoned by asbestos years before, saw asbestos on the property. He called the city. The city sent out inspectors, closed the site, issued a stop work order, and fined the haredim $10,000.

Dina d'malchuta dina, the law of the land is the law, except, it seems all to often, if you are haredi-connected.

CBS-2 TV News has their investigation of this sorry affair posted. The worse part is the potential danger to the neighborhoods children, Italians and Jews alike.

The rabbi of this synagogue, Kehillah L'Dovid, appears to be named Schick. His wife is Goldy Schick. Are they related to Marvin Schick?

Disposable Women

Rabbi Gil Student has a post on a troublesome mishna:

The Mishnah in Horiyos (13a) states: A man comes before a woman in matters of life (le-hachayos) and to return a lost item, and a woman comes before a man for clothing and redemption from captivity.

The implication of the first item is that if a man and woman are drowning, one should save the man first and then the woman.

Rabbi Student then goes on to cite two rabbis who recently found ways to get out of this:

R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggeros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat vol. 4 … writes that the rule of the Mishnah only applies when all other things are [absolutely] equal.…

R. Eliezer Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 18:1) notes that the rule of the Mishnah is not mentioned in Mishneh Torah, Tur, and Shulchan Arukh. Why? To answer this, he proposes a new interpretation of the Mishnah. He suggests that "matters of life (le-hachayos)" refers to feeding from charitable funds. Of course, he writes, when there is a literal case of life and death then we do not differentiate between people.…

Aplogetics aside, the intent of the mishna seems clear. When the ship sinks, save the men first. Why would this be? let me suggest the following answer. Men either were or had the potential to be Torah scholars; women did not. Therefore, the rabbis ruled that men – i.e., the Torah – must be saved first.

So why ransom women first? Why not ransom men first? Because, in that case, women had the real possiblity of being raped and abused. While men also needed to fear this, the threat was, I would think, lower for us than for women. Therefore, the case is not equal, and the threat to women is higher than the threat men; therefore, women come first in this case.

But what about clothing? Why should women get their clothing first? I would think, in part, because there a many areas of a woman's body that must, under Jewish law, be clothed; the same is not true for men. Further, who is seen to be damaged by a woman who is underdressed or naked? Men. So, giving women clothing comes first.

This leaves the case of the lost object. Why return a lost object to a male first, rather than a female? Because women had inferior property rights and were seen as extentions of their husbands or fathers.

In short, remove the apolgetics and you have discriminatory misogynistic halakha. On the bright side, the halakha is not cited in the Mishneh Torah, Tur, and Shulchan Arukh. Why?

Not, I think, for the reason citied in Rabbi Waldengerg's, ztz"l, name. I think this halakha was too much for the people to take and too open for attack from the outside, so, in order to preserve the rabbinic order (remember, Karaite and Muslim theology were both major threats in those days) the rabbis simply ignored it in theory. In practice, in the unlikely event that a case came before them based on this law, I would think they ruled narrowly.

Aplogetics aside, women go down with the ship. How can this be justified? Should it be justified?

If Moses Existed, Did He Have Two Tablets On Sinai Or Only One?

Stephen Gabriel Rosenberg of the Jerusalem-based Albright Institute of Archaeological Research asks what at first seems to be a stunning question – did Moses get stonne two tablets on Mount Sinai or only one? Rosenberg answers this question rather conclusively. But first, he points out a problem in out traditional understanding of the biblical text:

…[Two stone tablets] seems to be the easy way to read the biblical texts in Exodus and Deuteronomy, but were the Ten Commandments really engraved on two tablets, which together would have weighed one-quarter of a ton according to the dimensions given in the Talmud (Baba Bathra 14a)? Luckily the Gemara, which describes the tablets as each having been like a very large paving slab and six times as thick, does not have a monopoly on our history.

In any case, would it have made sense to engrave one of the shortest codes of Law on two pieces of stone, however large or small? If we look back into antiquity, we can see the actual pieces of stone of several codes of law. The most famous is the Code of Hammurabi of about 1750 BCE, which has 282 laws engraved in cuneiform on one mighty black stone, front and back. Also from Mesopotamia is the earlier code of 61 laws of Eshnunna of about 2000 BCE, and the 38 extant laws of Lipit-Ishtar of Sumer from a period a little later. These were all written on one piece of stone with a rounded head, as are major inscriptions from ancient Egypt, though we have no code of laws from that country.

To inscribe a set of laws, particularly such a succinct one as the Ten Commandments, on two pieces of stone seems to be asking for trouble. Is one stone the important one, and the other less so? Is one first class and the other second? What if one is lost, will its laws be forgotten and considered defunct?… [I would only half in jest note that we do have the more important, less important problem today, with the division going, more important: laws between God and man, less important: laws between man and man.--Shmarya]

So, we have stone tablets way to heavy for even the strongest human to carry. This is what our so-called mesora tells us to believe. Rosenberg now looks to the biblical text itself to clarify this:

…From the biblical texts it looks as if there were certainly two tablets, in Hebrew the word is luhot. Its original meaning is based on the root laha, meaning fresh or moist. In old age, Moses does not lose his freshness (leiho, Deut. 34:7). In a dispute between rival advisers to King Ahab, one prophet hits another on the cheek (haleihi, I Kings 22:24), a ruddy cheek being a sign of good health, of freshness. As leihi basically means the human cheek, then the two tablets or two luhot would be the two cheeks or sides of the one stone. This is further underlined by a passage in Ezekiel (27:5) which talks of the fine ships of the port of Tyre having their cedar wood made luhotayim, in the dual plural, meaning that the ships' planks had two smooth faces, or cheeks, on the underside as well as the top. Only the best ships would have that refinement. It looks therefore as if the two luhot of the Ten Commandments could be the two cheeks or smooth faces of one piece of stone.

IF WE look again at the Bible texts, we should now read them in that light. In Deut. 9:15, Moses says "and the two luhot of the Covenant were on my two hands," meaning the two smooth sides of one heavy stone. More revealing is 9:10, "He gave me the two luhot of stone written with the finger of God." Although the word stone is in the plural in the Hebrew, it implies the material and not the pieces, and is always translated in the singular, meaning that the "cheeks" were of stone, that is, the two sides were of stone. This is made clear in Exodus 24:12 which is quite explicit, when God says to Moses, "I will give you the luhot of the stone (ha'even)." And Exodus 31:18 says that He, God, gave "the two luhot of the Testimony, luhot of stone [singular], written with the finger of God."…

So, let's recap. We have a gemara that claims the impossible, a superhuman feat. We also have a rational explanation that fits well with the biblical text and with available historical evidence. Faced with this choice, what would you choose?

Before you answer that, look at this:

…[I]n 32:15, when Moses descended from the mountain, "the two luhot of the Testimony were in his hand, luhot written from their two sides (evreihem), from this side and that they were written."

If the tablets were two individual hunks of stone, no matter their size, how would this have worked? Rashi answers that question in a most bizarre fashion. The letters were engraved in a miraculous fashion, completely through the stone, so they were visable from both sides. What's miraculous about that? According to Rashi, whatever side you looked at was perfectly legible. Also, neither side had reversed letters, and round, closed letters were magically suspended in the stone.

Rosenberg answers Rashi this way:

…[The biblical passage] refers to the single stone itself, which had two sides (everim) of smooth faces or cheeks, and that it was the single stone that was written, or better engraved, on both of its faces.

The conclusion is, then, that the Ten Commandments - like other ancient codes of law such as the Code of Hammurabi - were engraved on both faces of one stone.

Of course, the problem with all this rational information and historical data is that it contradicts the fantasies of generations of rabbis. Did Moses even exist? It's an open question. But one thing seems sure; if he did, he carried one stone, smoothed and engraved on two sides.

Rabbi & Wife Who Stole Late Father's Estate Guilty

A rabbi and his wife pleaded guilty to embezzling $150,000 from the estate of the rabbi's father. The Albany Times Union reports:

A rabbi and his wife who were accused of pilphering a dead relative's estate have staved off prison terms by agreeing to serve periods of probation and repay $150,000.

Mark and Debra Berger, both 50 … will be held jointly liable for restitution to the relatives who brought charges after a probate court repayment plan didn't occur fast enough…

Mark Berger's father lived with the couple for years… He gave them power of attorney to handle not only his affairs, but to help provide for them, [the couple's atorney] explained: ``After his death, Debra continued to exercise that power of attorney.''

The Albany County District Attorney's office accused the couple of spending the money on trips to California, Florida and Israel, and on clothing, dinners out and jewelry. The alleged scam was discovered during the probate process, authorities said.

Although originally charged with second-degree grand larceny, and facing 5 to 15 years in state prison, if convicted, Debra Berger pleaded guilty to fourth-degree grand larceny on Tuesday, and will serve 5 years' probation.

Mark Berger, also known as Moshe, and a rabbi without a congregation, faced 1 to 4 years behind bars if found guilty of first-degree falsifying a business record, a felony. However, the former kosher food inspector for Vaad HaKashruth of the Capital Region pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of petit larceny, and will serve three years of probation.…

The Bergers must hand over a check for $50,000 at their Jan. 30 sentencing and repay the $100,000 balance in amortized payments over five years…

The rabbi's siblings apparently got the criminal prosecition when the rabbi didn't repay the stolen money on schedule.

Rabbi Krinsky Says The Late Rebbe Is Still Alive?

Luke Ford has a brief post on a fundraising letter signed by Chabad's titular head Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky. The letter refers to the Rebbe – who passed away in 1994 – as if he were still alive:

“As a fund which holds deep, personal significance to the Rebbe, the participation in its efforts is indeed a privilege and a priority for each of us.”

This sentence, which explicitly refers to the deceased Rebbe in the present tense as though he were still alive (i.e., “holds” not held), is underlined in the original letter.

Think this strange? Chabad, based on extreme interpretations of some kabbalistic theology, holds that tzaddikim are "more alive" after their passing than while "clothed" in a physical body. It's a very short jump from there to saying the Rebbe's relationship to hasidim and the world is unchanged by his passing, and that, therefore, our relationship to the Rebbe should be unchanged. As I noted last week, this is in fact what now passes for "normative" Chabad theology.

The Rebbe himself said things like this (and worse than this) about his father-in-law, the previous rebbe, after his passing in 1950. It was, in part, these extreme and bizarre statements that propelled Menachem Mendel Schneerson into leadership and rebbe status. In other words, to quote an old Yiddish proverb, the fish stinks from its head – the problems with today's Chabad can be traced directly to Menachem Mendel Schneerson's behavior in 1950 and 1951.