tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-219251402024-03-12T20:32:23.147-07:00Happiness Warrior - The BookRabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-41217077784062575912012-11-22T09:09:00.002-08:002012-11-22T09:09:55.459-08:00Jewish Reflections on War and Peace<br />
<div class="WordSection1">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Judaism recognizes both "a time of war
and a time of peace" (Ecclesiastes 3:8). What requires clarification, is
how the conflicting values of war and peace interact with each other. With a
long conflict expected in Afghanistan, it is the proper time to reflect on the
Jewish attitude towards war.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Any Jewish discussion of war must begin
with peace. Peace is Judaism’s highest aspiration. The Midrash says the entire
Torah is based on the value of peace ( Bamidbar Rabbah 11:7). The obligation to
seek peace is of a higher order than ritual observances. It notes that peace is
the only commandment that the Torah demands us to actively seek, that a person
must “search for peace and pursue it”(Psalms 34:15; Vayikra Rabbah 9:9). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">For the sake of peace, we are allowed to
compromise on other moral and religious values. One may lie in order to prevent
strife (Yebamot 65b), and in one instance, a section of the Torah may be erased
in order to preserve marital peace (see Rambam Chanukah 4:14).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">One must bend over backwards to make peace.
It is a mark of piety if a person accepts insults quietly, and does not respond
(Shabbat 88b). In general, grace and mercy are divine attributes, meant to be
emulated by man (Shabbat 133b).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Clearly peace is Judaism’s paramount value.
How do we apply this value in the face of aggression? Some argue that pacifism
is the only appropriate response. Pacifism has the advantage of being
uncompromising, categorical, and absolute. Pacifists love peace without
sullying their hands with violent actions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Two types of arguments are made for
pacifism. One is consequentialist, and assumes that in long run, the world will
be more peaceful if people choose to remain passive in the face of aggression.
A second argument is moral, which claims that violence is forbidden no matter
what the circumstances are. (Brian Orend, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
s.v. “War”). Consequentialists posit that if you defend yourself with violence,
you perpetuate an endless cycle of violence. Non-violent protest is the only
way to break the cycle of violence. According to this view, attacking
Afghanistan will create future violent reactions; the United States would be
better off taking the high ground, and by remaining nonviolent, teach the
aggressors the value of peace. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">This view is not new; indeed, some
pacifists trace this idea to a passage in Josephus’ The Jewish War (Book II
chapter 16). In a speech by Agrippa, (the Jewish King during the revolt of 66
c.e.), he exhorts the crowd not to revolt against the Roman Governor Florus. He
tells them: “Now nothing so much damps the force of strokes as bearing them
with patience; and the quietness of those who are injured diverts the injurious
persons from afflicting.”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Agrippa assumes the Jews will receive
goodwill if they remain meek, passive and useful. Indeed, the Talmud (Gittin
57a) considers the Jewish revolt a tragic mistake. The tactic of “shvieg
shtill”(stay quiet) was often used by Jews in antisemitic societies, where they
found it best to offer complete cooperation to those in authority.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: auto;" />
</span>
<div class="WordSection2">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">While the “shvieg shtill” form of pacifism
is a reasonable approach for a powerless group, it would seem absurd for a
powerful nation like the United States to be nonviolent, allowing all who
attack it to do so with impunity. Yet pacifists argue that even world powers
should embrace nonviolence. They argue that nonviolence, by virtue of its moral
authority, can be successful, and note that Gandhi succeeded in getting the
British to leave India through nonviolent protest. However, as Michael Walzer
points out (in Just and Unjust Wars), Gandhi succeeded because he was opposing
an empire tired and weakened after World War II, and one that had a tradition
of respect for human rights. It would have been ineffective in other instances.
For the 6,000,000 Jews getting murdered in Europe, Gandhi had no practical
advice. He advised Rabbi Leo Baeck, the leader of German Jewry during the
Holocaust, that he should get all German Jews to commit mass suicide; this he
said would focus the world’s attention on Hitler’s inhumanity. (To this Baeck
replied “we Jews know, that it is God’s singular commandment, to live”).
Nonviolent protest would have done nothing to change Hitler’s evil heart.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The second type of pacifism, moral
pacifism, assumes that it is morally forbidden to use violence, even in
self-defense. Many people are inspired by the
Buddhist teachings of the Dalai Lama, who received the 1989 Nobel Peace
Prize. Exiled from his homeland of Tibet, he still preaches a principled form
of nonviolence to his followers. Others have based their moral pacifism on the
New Testament. In Matthew 26:52 Jesus
tells a disciple not to defend him against an enemy. “Then said Jesus unto him,
Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall
perish with the sword.”. This can be construed as a prohibition against any
violence, even in self defense. Furthermore, on the Sermon on the Mount
(Matthew 5:29), Jesus says: “but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”. While
many Christian authorities interpret these verses in other ways, there are
Christian sects, such as the Mennonites and Anabaptists, who preach an
uncompromising moral pacifism. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In the Jewish tradition, self defense is a
moral obligation. The Torah allows people to defend their property from a thief
even if this will cause the conflict to escalate into a physical battle. If
there is reason to assume that the thief will use lethal force to seize the
property, the owner may use physical force, and even kill the thief if
necessary to protect himself (Exodus 22:1, Sanhedrin 72a). There are two
rationales for allowing self defense. The first is practical; without the
ability to use lethal force to stop the actions of aggressors, anarchy would
reign (Chinnuch 600). The second
rationale challenges the moral assumptions of nonviolence. It asserts
that the life of the aggressor and the victim are not of equal value; if only
one will survive, it is our obligation to make certain that it is the innocent
person, the victim, who will survive (Cf. Rashi to Exodus 22:1). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">For this reason, the Jewish tradition
considers pacifism in the face of aggression to be immoral. Refusing to fight
evil is to be party to evil. As Michael Kelly (Washington Post September 26,
2001) has pointed out:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: auto;" />
</span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">“No honest person can pretend that the
groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again..... To not
fight in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murder again;
to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, support this
outcome”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">This is essentially the Jewish point of
view; if you don’t help the victim, you are an ally of the aggressor. If a
person refuses to defend himself, he allows evil to triumph. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">There are times then, when we must make
war. Yet even during times of war, Judaism obligates us to continue to love
peace. We must never lose sight of the humanity of our enemies, and we must
recognize that every death on the battlefield is tragic. The Talmud teaches us
that on the night that the Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea, the first true
moment of freedom for the Jews fleeing Egypt, God refused to hear the angels
sing their prayers, and said “my creations are drowning in the sea, and you
will sing songs?”(Megillah 10b). Every human is created in God’s image, and
every death is a tragedy. The former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was
often quoted as saying she could forgive the Arab countries for killing Jewish
children, but she could not forgive the Arab countries for making it necessary
for Jews to kill Arab children. The warrior must mourn the deaths of his
enemies, and never forget the value of life.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">A soldier’s love for peace will affect his
wartime behavior. War must be conducted in a just fashion. During wartime
soldiers must make every effort to avoid killing noncombatants. This concern
with collateral damage is first found in Abraham’s pleading with God to avoid
killing any righteous citizens of Sodom. Abraham argued that even though God
was destroying Sodom because it was a profoundly wicked city, justice demanded
that God avoid killing any righteous individual while destroying the city. The
Torah even prohibits the destruction of trees in the vicinity of military
attack (Deuteronomy 20:19). Even in wartime, we must be careful never to
destroy, and despite the violence inherent in battle, we must endeavor to
preserve every living being, from humans to animals to trees (Chinnuch 630).
Even during the chaos of wartime, a soldier must act with decency and morality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">A recent report in the New York Times (August
31, 2001) illustrates this point. In August, Israeli troops entered Beit Jala to stop snipers from shooting into
Gilo. Clyde Haberman visited Beit Jala after the Israeli troops withdrew. He
found that in one apartment:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"> “soldiers apologized in a note that they left
in the paws of a teddy bear. In slightly misspelled English, it said, "We
are truely sorry for the mess we made."”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<!--[if supportFields]><span lang=EN-US><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span>ADVANCE \d4</span><![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
lang=EN-US><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span lang="EN-US">These soldiers understood that peace is Judaism’s paramount value.
They understood that we are always sorry about the mess and tragedy of war, and
that all Jews wait desperately for the days when “They will beat their swords
into plowshares... and no nation will lift up its sword against another
nation..”(Isaiah 2:4)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-12484626414858203752011-03-15T14:45:00.000-07:002011-03-15T14:47:56.710-07:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7JpKaZgOY_4/TX_eajo2jQI/AAAAAAAAAQs/ivSmcPb_hI8/s1600/news_ad_full14_2b.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 309px; height: 400px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7JpKaZgOY_4/TX_eajo2jQI/AAAAAAAAAQs/ivSmcPb_hI8/s400/news_ad_full14_2b.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5584426610787257602" /></a>Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-21055237795523181232010-11-16T08:55:00.000-08:002010-11-16T09:28:29.586-08:00<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cremation and Halacha</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(originally published in Moment Magazine, June 1995)</span><br /><br />The Halachic view of cremation became a matter of controversy in the late nineteenth century. Cremation had become progressively more popular, fueled by the British physician Sir Henry Thompson, Queen Victoria's personal surgeon, who in 1878, argued in his book, <span style="font-style:italic;">Cremation:The Determination of the Body After Death</span>, that cremation was a scientifically superior way of disposing of dead bodies . Proponents of cremation claimed that the germs of the dead body would contanimate the ground. The popularity of cremation was also a reaction to the raucous, indecorous wakes and funerals in the late 19th century. The ensuing popularity of cremation became a matter of heated polemics in the Jewish community and Orthodox Rabbis were called upon to defend the Jewish custom of underground burial. Jewish custom, from early times, has disallowed cremation. Tacitus (First century C.E.) writes about the Jews that "rather than cremate their dead, they prefer to bury them" (The Histories 5:5). To defend these long standing traditions, many responsa* were written. Presented here are the major arguments used by various rabbinic authorities to disallow cremation.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">1. The Commandment of Burial</span></span><br /><br />The first issue that must be discussed is the commandment to bury the dead.The Torah (Deuteronomy 21:22-3) says:<br /><br /> "When someone is convicted of a capital offense and is put to death, and you hang him on a tree. His body must not remain there overnight; it must be buried on the same night. For it is the curse of God for one to hang, and you should not pollute the land which God gave you."**<br /><br />These verses require some explanation. At first glance it would appear that the verses contain a prohibition against allowing the body of a hanged convict to remain overnight, as well as a positive commandment to bury him. The Torah also indicates the reason for this commandment: "Ki killat Elokim taluy", that it is a curse to God for one to hang. Several commentaries explain that the reason why it is a curse to God is because the person hanged is one who cursed God; If he continues to hang for an extended period of time, it will remind others that he cursed God. Reminding observers of the deceased convict's curse is tantamount to cursing God on our own.<br />Rashbam gives a different explanation. He says that the word "Elokim" in this context is refering not to God, but to a Beit Din . The reason why a convict should not hang is because "it is the curse of the Beit Din", for the relatives of the deceased convict will curse the Beit Din that delivered the death sentence. According to these two Rishonim, these commandments are exclusive to those who have recieved the death penalty. The Mishnah also interprets the verse in a similar way. It says: "this means to say, why did this man hang, because he cursed God, and it will desecrate God's name." Rashi explains that people are reminded by the hanging body of the act of cursing God.<br /><br />However, the Mishnah extends the prohibition and commandment to all deceased bodies, stating "that it is not only in this case (of the hanged convict), but anyone who delays burial has violated a commandment". The reason for the Mishnah's extending this prohibition to all bodies is found in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 46b) that says that a lack of dignity for the human body, which is made in the image of God, is tantamount to a lack of dignity for God.This ruling is subsequently codified by Maimonides (Yad, Sanhedrin 15:8) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 362:1).<br /><br />The commandment to bury the deceased is understood to be specifically underground. The Talmud Yerushalmi (Kilayim 9:2) quotes Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi as saying that "my coffin should be open to the ground". Rav Natronai Gaon (quoted in Ramban, Torat HaAdam (Chavel edition; Jerusalem:1964) page 117) discusses the custom of placing dirt into the coffin with the deceased. He comments that when the Bible says that "you are earth, and you shall return to the earth"(Genesis 3:19), it indicates that underground burial is the "remedy" for one who has died.<br /><br />This commandment is perhaps the major Halachic impediment to cremation. If one is cremated, his body is no longer available for burial, thereby obviating the Biblical commandment of burial. Burying the ashes after burial is insufficient, as it is clear that the entire point of in ground burial is the return of the body to the ground.<br /><br />2. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Mistreatment of the body:</span> Jewish tradition warrants that the body not be mistreated after death. The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 29b) concludes that it is forbidden to receive any enjoyment from a dead body and any of its shrouds. The Mishnah (Yadayim 6:4) says that the rationale for the ritual impurity when one comes in contact with a dead body is because we are concerned that people may mistreat the body. For this and other reasons the Talmud (Hullin 11b, Baba Batra 154a) prohibits the mutilation of the dead. Because of this prohibition, Rabbinic authorities have ruled that it is prohibited to perform an autopsy unless it will save human lives. Cremation would clearly violate the prohibition against mutilating dead bodies.<br /><br />3<span style="font-weight: bold;">. </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The Importance of Tradition:</span> Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook , emphasizes the fact that even if there was no Halachic reason for underground burial, it is essential to preserve Jewish custom. While this is true about all Jewish customs (TB Beitzah 4b, TJ Baba Metzia 7:1) It is particularly important in the case of burial. Funerary rites are one of the only universal rituals; each and every society has a specific way of disposing of the body. Scholars of religion have noted that funerary rites signify a society's view of death. The clear historical evidence that it was an ancient Jewish custom to practice underground burial and not to cremate is significant, for even if there was no direct Halachic warrant for burial, it would be an important part of our folk religion and culture.<br /><br />It is also the last religious act in any person's life. For this reason, Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg argues that cremation is a more serious transgression than other violations of Halacha.<br /><br />4. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Theological reasons:</span> There are several theological ideas represented in underground burial. Burial is considered the most respectful way to treat the body of the deceased. The Talmud compares the dead body to a Torah scroll that is no longer usable. This comparison is explained by R. Aharon of Lunel (early 14th century) who writes that "a man must treat with respect that which he has had enjoyment from....and so it is proper that we do not treat the body abominably once his soul has finished dwelling in it....and following this path, we treat with affection the body through burial and other forms of honor that are done for it, which is similar to the treatment of holy items that are hidden away (when worn out)." The analogy indicates that we treat the body with the same respect as we would treat a worn out Torah scroll. Out of respect, we bury an unusable Torah scroll, and it is forbidden to burn it. We must treat the body with similar respect.<br /><br />Another idea is advanced by Rabbi Yechiel Michal Tucatzinsky. He says that burial represents the body's return to mother earth. The earth is the source of all life, the provider of food for all living beings. By returning to source of food and life, and becoming one with it, man's body can become part of the earth's life giving magic. This idea that the body's return to the earth is a return to the womb of mother earth is also found in the verse "naked I came out of the maternal<br />womb, and naked I shall return there."(Job 1:21). Burial is part of the cycle of life for "you are earth, and you shall return to the earth" (Genesis 3:19) Tucatzinsky notes that ashes are not easily biodegradable, and do not truly become part of the earth.<br /><br />It seems clear that the overwhelming majority of halachic sources weigh against cremation. Burial is an ancient Jewish tradition, and is deeply rooted in biblical and rabbinic texts.<br /><br />Footnotes:<br /><br />*There are many responsa on the topic of cremation. The most prominent collection is a group of letters solicited by Meyer Lerner, the Rabbi of Altona, Germany, and published as Chayei Olam (Berlin 1904). Other important responsa on this issue include Beit Yitzchak, Yoreh Deah no. 155, Even Yekarah Volume II no. 64, Yabiah Omer, Volume III Yoreh Deah no. 22, Melamed L'hoil Volume Yoreh Deah no. 113-114, Achiezer Volume III no. 72. See also Michael Higger Halachot V'Aggadot, (New York 1935) who, although he is opposed to cremation, rebuts some of the rhetorical excesses of Rabbis who were opposed to cremation. However, some of Higger's counter arguments are tendentious as well.<br /><br /> ** The commentaries of Ibn Ezra and Rashbam interpret this verse according to its simple meaning, and limit its scope to one who is hanged for a capitol crime. For more on the interplay of the simple meaning of the verse and the Mishnah's interpretation, see the entire text of Mishnah, Sanhedrin 6:4, and Maimonides, Sefer Hamitzvot, negative commandment 66 and positive commandment 291, and Sha'agat Aryeh, New Responsa, no.6. Whether the commandment of burial is of Biblical or Rabbinic origin, see Havot Yair no.139, and S'dei Hemed s.v. "Burial" no. 39. Note that Josephus, (Antiquities of the Jews, 4:265) follows the Mishnah's interpretation that these commandments apply to all dead bodies.Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-47544736379239961232010-03-10T09:13:00.001-08:002010-03-10T09:13:51.177-08:00<strong>Son of Hamas</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uGXCY5_azoI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uGXCY5_azoI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><em>Thank you to Abigail Hirsch for videotaping this video, and to Lorne Lieberman for his support of the video project. You can sponsor these weekly videos with a 54$ donation to TBDJ! Please e-mail office@tbdj.org if you are interested.</em>Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-49462384049524772762010-03-10T09:12:00.000-08:002010-03-10T09:12:49.616-08:00Chaim Steinmetz - Happiness Warrior<strong>Son of Hamas</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uGXCY5_azoI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uGXCY5_azoI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><em>Thank you to Abigail Hirsch for videotaping this video, and to Lorne Lieberman for his support of the video project. You can sponsor these weekly videos with a 54$ donation to TBDJ! Please e-mail office@tbdj.org if you are interested.</em>Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-73523353753755600642010-03-02T11:52:00.000-08:002010-03-02T12:10:12.409-08:00<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">This Purim, Stand Up to a Modern Haman<br /></span></strong><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">(Tragically, this article is now 4 years old. (It appeared in the Canadian Jewish News in 2006). Nothing's happened since; the U.S and Europe keep talking, and the time bomb keeps ticking. God help us.)</span></em><br /><br />Would he, and could he?<br /><br />It seems that the most important question on the world stage today is: How do we defend civilization against tasteless cartoons? And so the world is busy searching for protection from hazardous forms of animation, with the E.U.’s bureaucrats looking for new ways to revive medieval blasphemy laws.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the international community is asking the wrong questions. There are two questions that must be asked, and the answer to them could possibly change the course of world history:<br /><br />Would he, and could he?<br /><br />It is easy to dismiss the Iran’s ultra-conservative regime led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Their public pronouncements are at times bizarre and ridiculous. Khamenei believes that the West is trying to destroy Iran with miniskirts. When a plane crashed in Tehran last December, killing 108, Ahmadinejad said “But what is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow.". And the official press agency, IRNA, reported a year and a half ago that a woman in the southeastern Iranian city of Iranshahr “gave birth to a live gray frog accompanied with mud”.<br /><br />Yet the Ahmadinejad regime’s bizarre beliefs are precisely why the world must ask the question: would he use nuclear weapons?<br /><br />Ahmadinejad is drawn to violence. He started his political career in 1979 as one of the hostage takers at the U.S. embassy in Tehran. When the Tehran stock market plummeted after his election, Ahmadinejad told his cabinet “if we were permitted to hang two or three persons, the problems with the stock exchange would be solved forever”. And in Ahmadinejad’s world, the pinnacle of life is death. He constantly extols martyrdom, and once remarked “Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom?”<br /><br />Ahmadinejad follows a radical theology. He follows an extremist Shiite view that believes in “mahdaviat”, preparing the world for the 12th Mahdi, a saviour who according Shiite belief will bring the end of times. Mahdaviat is an obsession of Ahmadinejad’s. As Tehran’s mayor, he built an avenue to welcome the Mahdi, and has recently allocated $17 million dollars to build a mosque in honor of the Mahdi. When he addressed the U.N. last September, Ahmadinejad ended his speech with a prayer for the coming of the Mahdi.<br /><br />These beliefs are dangerous. As Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor points out, “this presidential obsession with the Mahdaviat yields a certitude that leaves little room for compromise”. And of course preparing for the Mahdi means getting rid of what Ahmadinejad calls “the oppressor world”, namely Israel, the United States and the West.<br /><br />Ahmadinejad hates Jews and Israel. He is the world’s most prominent Holocaust denier, and Holocaust denial is now a staple of Iranian media. Recently, Iranian state TV has included “news” pieces affirming the veracity of the blood libels and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Last December, he sponsored a conference on a “world without Zionism”, in which he vowed that Israel would be “wiped off the map”. In addition, he made it clear to the crowd that “this goal is attainable”.<br /><br />Maclean’s magazine got it right when it called Ahmadinejad “the scariest man on earth”. There is no question that this radical, violent man who hates Israel and the West would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons to achieve his goals. Indeed, a recent report from Iran on the MEMRI website reports that a new fatwa has been issued by influential Iranian clerics stating that "shari'a does not forbid the use of nuclear weapons."<br /><br />It is clear Ahmadinejad would use nuclear weapons. The only question left is:<br /><br />Could he use nuclear weapons?<br /><br />Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad may have a nuclear weapon sooner than you think. His government has recently resumed uranium enrichment and will no longer allow snap International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of its nuclear facilities. And recently, Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iranian Supreme National Security Council, has stated that Iran is already capable of conducting a nuclear reaction. Iran is not all that far away from a nuclear weapon.<br /><br />Unquestionably, time is short. Unfortunately, the attention span of most Canadians is even shorter. Much like a pre-9/11 Ossama Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad is unknown to most Canadians. It is time for us to speak up, create international awareness, and stop the scariest man on earth.<br /><br />To this end, four concerned activists, Itay Gadot, Rabbi Reuven Poupko, Professor Gil Troy and myself, have formed the Coalition on Iran (CI), an ad hoc group of activists concerned about this dangerous regime. We are organizing rallies on Tuesday, March 14 in cities all across Canada. If you are interested in organizing a rally in your community, contact Itay at info@betar.ca.<br />March 14th commemorates the Jewish holiday of Purim, a day in which another man from Persia, the viceroy Haman, had his plans to destroy the Jews thwarted. Ahmadinejad is a modern day Haman. There’s no question he would use nuclear weapons to achieve his goals. Let’s make sure we stop him now, before it’s too late.Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-23634399266316882062008-11-22T19:52:00.001-08:002008-11-22T19:52:33.834-08:00<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pq6ROlOQ2IE/SSjTe_mJi5I/AAAAAAAAAPg/2poFtmaWVdQ/s1600-h/gilad_final%5B1%5D.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5271695893258144658" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 309px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pq6ROlOQ2IE/SSjTe_mJi5I/AAAAAAAAAPg/2poFtmaWVdQ/s400/gilad_final%5B1%5D.JPG" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div>Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-8205618171918955882007-07-11T20:15:00.000-07:002007-07-12T04:52:15.910-07:00<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Bring the Captives Home<br /></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">By Rabbi Reuven Poupko and Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz</span></strong><br /><br />July 12 marked the anniversary of last summer’s hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. The conflict, which started with the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, created enormous hardships on both sides of the Israeli/Lebanese border, and displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians.<br /><br />Canadians remember how our government intervened quickly to evacuate Canadians from Lebanon. While the plight of the civilians in Lebanon was the focus of much media attention, a like number of Israelis were forced to flee the north of Israel in the face of unrelenting Hezbollah rocket attacks directed at Israeli civilian centers. (The inequality of media attention during the conflict was pointed out in a report by Marvin Kalb of Harvard’s Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy).<br /><br />We visited Israel during the conflict, and traveled through northern Israel. These cities were turned upside down because of the war. Tiberius was relatively lucky, with Kaytushas blowing through the roofs of a wedding hall and children’s school while both buildings were empty. Safed was a ghost town, with one of the remaining people pointing out where a man, on his way to visit his children, was struck dead in the street by a Katuysha. A short while after entering Haifa the air raid siren went off. We ran out of the car and took cover along with a group of people behind a tree. With us were two young girls who were crying loudly. Their father hugged them tightly, trying to calm them down. To us, the young girls’ panic was the face of war.<br /><br />After the conflict, the United Nations passed Resolution 1701. Among other things, the Resolution calls for an immediate end to Syrian arms shipments to Hezbollah and an immediate release of the captive Israeli soldiers.<br /><br />The resolution has been completely ignored by Hezbollah and its’ allies. Arms shipments to Hezbollah have continued unabated (as confirmed by U.N. reports). Even more tragically, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, the kidnapped soldiers, remain in captivity, along with another soldier kidnapped from Israel by Hamas, Gilad Shalit.<br /><br />Shalit, Goldwasser and Regev have been held by Hamas and Hezbollah without any information on their condition or Red Cross visits. Aside from being a flagrant violation International Law, this is profoundly inhumane. Now, the families of these soldiers must endure the torture of not knowing anything about the condition of their loved ones.<br /><br />It is difficult to imagine the profound pain these kidnappings have caused the captive’s families. Ehud Goldwasser’s wife, Karnit, travels the world, hoping to find a way to bring home her newlywed husband of ten months. The Regev family shows anyone they can a picture album of a loving brother and son they pray will come home soon. Gilad Shalit’s father Noam, meets the press, clutching his son’s elementary school project that shows his son’s love for peace. These scenes cry out to us; they remind us that the world must do everything to bring these soldiers home.<br /><br />Considering the scale of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it may seem odd to focus so much on three captive soldiers. But these three soldiers in many ways embody the conflict. It is actually in the strategic interests of Hamas and Hezbollah to release these captives. The captives have little military value to Israel, and if Hamas and Hezbollah released them, they would garner a bonanza of positive PR, as well as international goodwill. Yet Hamas and Hezbollah continue to shut out the Red Cross and ignore the U.N., causing untold grief to their families.<br /><br />Hamas and Hezbollah stubbornly hold on to these soldiers against their own self interest because terrorism is not about strategic gain. Terrorists are far more interested in inflicting pain on others then pursuing their own strategic interests. The goal of Hamas and Hezbollah is to hurt the Shalit, Regev and Goldwasser families. It is critical that people around the world subvert these sadistic goals, and do everything to pressure these terror groups and their patrons to release these unfortunate young men.<br /><br />We pray that the anniversary of this conflict will remind everyone of the three Israeli families who deserve have their sons come home. We hope that humanitarian voices will call out for their release. And we dream of the day when all people in the region can live together in peace.Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-10052719943772603962007-06-13T08:48:00.000-07:002019-07-11T10:03:40.473-07:00<strong><span style="font-size: 130%;">Mei Merivah: A Leader’s Sin</span></strong><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wq07TJBjMSQ/XSdr54-6hWI/AAAAAAAANcM/PxlLw0PvtWUin-7UqQGYKjj56Bfv_nm1gCLcBGAs/s1600/Tissot_Moses_Smites_the_Rock_in_the_Desert.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="310" data-original-width="445" height="222" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wq07TJBjMSQ/XSdr54-6hWI/AAAAAAAANcM/PxlLw0PvtWUin-7UqQGYKjj56Bfv_nm1gCLcBGAs/s320/Tissot_Moses_Smites_the_Rock_in_the_Desert.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
What did Moshe do wrong?<br />
<br />
It is an exceptionally puzzling passage. In the 40th year in the desert, the Jews are thirsty and complaining for water. Moshe, commanded by God to perform a miracle, assembles the community before a rock. There, he hits the rock, and out pours water.<br />
<br />
Immediately after this miracle, Moshe is informed:<br />
<br />
<em><span style="color: #000099;">'Because you have not believed in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you will not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.'<br /></span></em>Moshe’s sin remains elusive. All of the commentaries comb the text, hoping to find an element in the narrative that explains this sin.<br />
<br />
Rashi explains that Moshe had specifically been commanded by God to speak to the rock. Since Moshe decided to hit the rock, he desecrated God’s name. Rashi says:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #000099;"><em>“For had you spoken to the rock and it had given forth [water], I would have been sanctified in the eyes of the congregation. They would have said,"If this rock, which neither speaks nor hears, and does not require sustenance, fulfills the word of the Omnipresent, how much more should we!”</em></span><br />
Rashi’s explanation seems more puzzling than the passage itself! First of all, (as the Ramban notes), why would God ask Moshe to carry a stick if he wasn’t supposed to hit the rock? In addition, considering that it’s an inanimate object, what difference does getting hit or speaking make to the rock?<br />
<br />
Even more perplexing about Rashi’s explanation is Moshe is simply repeating what he had done in the past. In the first year in the desert, Moshe is told to produce water by hitting a rock! (Exodus 17:5-6).<br />
<br />
Perhaps this Rashi is better understood with Theodore Roosevelt’s famous proverb:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #000099;"><em>“speak softly and carry a big stick”.</em></span><br />
This proverb is about leadership. Leaders use different tools to influence their followers. They can persuade with words, or coerce with the stick. The proper mode of influence depends in large part on the audience. For certain audiences one needs to carry a big stick; for others, it is critical to speak softly.<br />
<br />
In Moshe’s early career, he was a leader that carried a big stick. When Moshe initially refuses to lead because he is “not a man of words”, the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 3:14) explains that God tells Moshe he doesn’t need to use words. In dealing with a dictator like Pharaoh, a man used to the master-slave view of politics, all Moshe needs is a big stick. Pharaoh is not open to persuasion, and only will respond to brute force.<br />
<br />
Moshe’s leadership of the Jews in those early years is also one of the “big stick” variety. Former slaves, they respond best to force and coercion. Even at Mount Sinai, the Talmud says the Jews accept the Torah under duress (Shabbat 88a).<br />
<br />
In this context, we can understand why in the first year in the desert, Moshe is commanded to produce water by hitting the rock. Moshe must inspire former slaves, and that type of leadership requires a powerful show of force.<br />
<br />
But the event at Mei Merivah takes place in the 40th year. At this point, we are dealing with a new generation, born free in the desert. Although their parents need to follow the leadership of the big stick, this generation must learn how to follow out of a sense of inner morality. Moshe must limit his use of the big stick, while this generation is persuaded to follow what is good on their own volition.<br />
<br />
Rashi incisively leads us to the core of the Mei Merivah issue. In the 40th year in the desert, big stick leadership will diminish the second generation’s ability to truly listen to God.<br />
<br />
Moshe’s sin is nearly imperceptible from the text, because it is unique to his situation. As a leader overseeing generational change, he was expected to understand that some generations require the big stick, while others require soft words.<br />
<br />
For the second generation, soft words are the proper form of leadership. Without them, people will not open their hearts to God. And because he cannot learn the leadership of speaking softly, Moshe cannot be the leader to bring the second generation into Eretz Yisrael.<br />
<br />
(this article <a href="http://www.yctorah.org/content/blogcategory/12/58/">can also be found here</a>)Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-85796096457192902452007-06-07T09:30:00.000-07:002007-06-18T08:52:01.423-07:00<strong>United Parliament, Unified Jerusalem</strong><br /><p>By: Rabbi Reuven Poupko and Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz<br /><br />It was a remarkable evening.<br /><br />On May 15th a reception organized by The Canada-Israel Committee (CIC) in conjunction with the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC) and the Jerusalem Foundation took place in the Speaker’s Salon on Parliament Hill. Over 100 parliamentarians were welcomed by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Peter Milliken, as well as by Israel’s Ambassador Alan Baker. But this was no ordinary after hours cocktail party; the MP’s had come to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem.<br /><br />The CIC and CJPAC deserve the heartiest congratulations for organizing a reception of this kind. Jerusalem is still a sensitive issue and many countries including Canada still do not recognize it as the capital of Israel. CIC and CJPAC also deserve praise for arranging for the publication of an ad in the Canadian Jewish News which saw close to 80 parliamentarians sign their names to a declaration that stated:<br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;">“We, the undersigned, join in celebrating the 40th anniversary of a reunited Jerusalem that is open to the world, encourages freedom of worship and protects the right of each religion and faith group to full access and authority at its holy sites.”</span><br /><br />Unfortunately, there are still too many voices, informed by historical amnesia, that attempt to deny the tangible benefits enjoyed by all faiths due to Israel’s extraordinary stewardship of Jerusalem since 1967. The senators and MPs who came to celebrate now understand that only since reunification, is Jerusalem a city of tolerance where all religions and holy places are respected and protected.<br /><br />This united group of parliamentarians now understands that it is only under Israeli sovereignty that all religions have complete freedom of worship in Jerusalem. When the city was under Jordanian control from 1948- 67, Jewish holy sites were desecrated., 58 synagogues demolished, and part of the ancient cemetery on the Mount of Olives paved over to make way for a hotel. Jews were barred from visiting the Western Wall. Any Jew who wanted to catch a glimpse of Judaism’s most holy site had to stand on a ledge on Mt. Zion and strain for a view.<br /><br />The MPs and senators came to honor Israel’s record in Jerusalem. Over the last 40 years Israel has acted as a faithful guardian of Jerusalem for all religions, for Jews, Muslims and Christians. Indeed, this remarkable record is unique in the Middle East, one which should be held up as a model for the entire region.<br /><br />The MPs and senators also came to recognize history. Jerusalem has been the heart and soul of the Jewish people for 3,000 years. This capital, first established by King David, has been the setting for many of the important events in the Bible and Jewish history. It is a city that was inhabited by prophets, poets, priests and kings. David, Solomon and Hezekiah ruled here. Hillel and Akiva walked her streets. It is impossible to imagine Jewish or Christian history without Jerusalem.<br /><br />The evening was filled with genuine warmth and spirit. Members of our organization, the Canadian Rabbinic Caucus, attended the reception and struck up friendships with the parliamentarians. Naomi Azrieli, spoke eloquently about the work done by the Jerusalem Foundation on behalf of all citizens of Jerusalem, regardless of race, creed or colour. Inspiration was in the air.<br /><br />Indeed, the idea of Jerusalem has inspired humanity for the last 3,000 years. Democracies like Canada and Israel, which value human rights and freedom, are inspired by the ideals of Jerusalem as embodied in the words of Jeremiah and Isaiah, who spoke about justice, charity and peace. After 1900 years of exile Jerusalem is no longer a dream, but rather a vibrant modern city that is the repository of our heritage and an expression of our ethical vision.<br /><br />The Jerusalem of today is in some very significant ways more inspiring than even the ancient Jerusalem. That reality is what unified Parliament Hill on May 15th.</p><p>photos: </p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.cicweb.ca/jerusalemday_hill/index.cfm">http://www.cicweb.ca/jerusalemday_hill/index.cfm</a></p><p><br /><br /></p>Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-30784535902376454162007-06-07T09:22:00.000-07:002007-06-07T09:24:59.551-07:00Hi!<br /><br />This is from the Vancouver Jewish Independent, June 1 2007:<br /><br /><a name="two"></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">High-tech hobnobbing</span></strong><br /><br /><em>Rabbi uses web to disseminate his words.</em><br /><br />DAVE GORDON<br /><br />Chaim Steinmetz is making it easier for people to access a rabbi at any place and any time, simply by using an Internet browser.As the rabbi for Tifereth Beth David Jerusalem (aka "the Baily Road shul") in Cote St. Luc, Que., the 43-year-old not only gives sermons from the bimah, but has found a way to offer words of wisdom through a virtual pulpit, by blogging.A blog (short for "web log") is a regularly updated journal on the Internet where people are invited to comment on entries. Steinmetz claims to be among only a dozen rabbis in North America that have or operate a blog, a handful of whom are in Canada. He refers to this ever-growing Internet tool as "the ultimate megaphone." By opening this digital door, the rabbi has invited people all over the world into his shul and into his head.One of the many advantages he cited for having a blog is that his sermons reach beyond the synagogue bulletin and the community."In this way, anyone anywhere can see something of interest to them," he said. "A rabbi gets up on Shabbat, presumably because he has something to say, and on a blog, hopefully a lot more people can take a look at it."His blog, like most, includes archives of previous postings. By last month, Steinmetz had written 100 entries. Recent postings included an array of topics such as "big fat weddings," chutzpah and how not to become distracted by taking too many photographs.Of the latter, he wrote, "People can become so absorbed in taking pictures and movies that they simply forget to experience life itself. Perhaps the photographic class could gain something by occasionally putting their cameras down."Another recent posting was entitled "Why unhappiness makes sense." The self-dubbed "Happiness Warrior" noted that after hundreds of funeral sermons in more than 15 years as a spiritual leader, he learned that others might benefit from blog entries pertaining to overcoming loss. "Putting those insights on the web is an opportunity for people to use that positively," he said. "I found a real connection in working with people on lifecycle events."Part of what he says brought him to blogging four years ago was the chance to connect with a wide group of people of all religious spectrums, both Jewish and gentile, even though the rabbi is Orthodox."It's something that could have a wide audience. It's really just to connect with people and to share Shabbat morning sermons and basic Jewish wisdom for a good life," said Steinmetz. "It's the most gratifying thing." In the last six months, he has been blogging regularly and said he tracks some 250 visitors a week.According to the rabbi, he receives e-mail and visitors from North America, Europe, Australia, Kuwait, China and the United Kingdom. A professor in Scotland, after seeing Steinmetz's entry on Adam Smith – the 18th-century Scottish philosopher and economist – offered criticism on the rabbi's interpretation of Smith's writings. "The web is an amazing way to connect, not just with congregants, but with the entire world," he said. "I've noticed my writings reach places I never thought they would."Citing his congregants as his greatest source of inspiration and criticism, he said they often approach him with observations and commentary of their own. They inquire about his choice of subject or suggest topics."This is co-authorship. People feel like they're partners with you," said Steinmetz. "I think blogging is in some ways more approachable than a website or a sermon. It certainly offers people an opportunity to come back with comments. It has this feel of a discussion in which the blogger shows, 'Look, I saw this, and what do you say about it?' "The medium and the message don't stop at blogging for the rabbi. Next up are mini video sermons on YouTube.com, linked to his blog. He plans on being just as circumspect on video as he is in writing."I'm not too controversial, because it weakens one's ability to communicate," he said. "Controversies never help communities. I am always exceedingly careful about what I have to say. My blog always has words of sensitivity, words of justice and moral focus.<br /><br /><em>Visit the rabbi's blog at </em><a href="http://www.chaimsteinmetz.blogspot.com" target="_blank"><em>www.chaimsteinmetz.blogspot.com</em></a><em>. </em><br /><em></em><br /><em>Dave Gordon is a freelance writer. His website is </em><a href="http://davegordonwrites.com/" target="_blank"><em>DaveGordonWrites.com</em></a><em>. </em>Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-1159195088391088302006-09-25T07:37:00.000-07:002006-09-25T07:38:08.406-07:00<strong>Bring Them Home</strong><br /><br /><em>Disclaimer: I hope this article becomes obsolete before publication. I sincerely hope the captives are free when this article runs two weeks from now.</em><br /><br />Does your conscience bother you? Well, it should. I have my own blunders to reflect on during Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. But some failures are communal, and this year, our entire community’s conscience should be troubled. Our community has forgotten her captive sons.<br /><br />Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev are still held prisoner by Hamas and Hezbollah. The Red Cross cannot visit them, and there has been no independent verification of their condition. No one knows if they are alive or dead.<br /><br />Because of these three young men, Israel has gone to war. This war has left Israel with a huge casualty total, and still, Gilad, Ehud and Eldad are not home.<br /><br />Of course there was no guarantee that this war would bring the captives freedom. But where have we been since the end of the war? These captives are not exactly the cause celebre of the Jewish world. There have been rallies in Tel Aviv and New York. Is that all we can expect from a people that believes that each Jew is responsible for the other?<br /><br />Freeing captives is a fundamental Jewish value. The Exodus narrative instills in Jews a profound love of freedom. Exile made the ransoming of slaves an all too common event, and a communal priority. Most importantly, the commandment to free captives is rooted in kinship and community.<br /><br />Kinship is the starting point of Jewish identity. Abraham risks his life to save his nephew Lot from captivity. Actually, he can’t stand Lot; but family is family, and saving Lot is the responsibility of kinship. (Years later, Abraham’s great grandchildren will commit the cardinal sin of kinship, and sell their brother into slavery. For that sin, the Jewish people will be exiled to Egypt). Jews throughout the ages have emulated Abraham, and gone to heroic lengths to free their captive brethren. <br /><br />In the Middle Ages, Jews emptied their savings to ransom captives. In 1286, the Jewish community collected 23,000 Marks (the contemporary equivalent of 15,000,000 dollars) to ransom Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg. (Rabbi Meir refused to allow them to pay the ransom). Israel’s history is filled with dramatic rescue efforts like Entebbe and Operation Solomon, as well as lopsided prisoner exchanges like the Jibril Deal. Jews don’t ignore their captive brothers.<br /><br />Today, we must raise our voices to help Gilad, Ehud and Eldad. We must mention their names at every Jewish event, pray for them every Shabbat, and write letters to our MP’s. We need to support their families, and we must march on the Iranian embassy in Ottawa.<br /><br />It’s time for the Jewish world to take responsibility for the captives. We need to let the world know their continued captivity is an outrage. And we need to bring Gilad, Ehud and Eldad home.Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-1157644659519258412006-09-07T08:53:00.000-07:002006-09-07T08:59:13.180-07:00Here's an op-ed describing Jewish sensitivities regarding the captives. I urge all of you to sign on at the <a href="http://support.adl.org/site/PageServer?pagename=freethemnow&s_src=homepage_link">ADL website</a>. We also need to get a campaign of support for these captives going here in Canada.<br /><br /><strong>Israel and Her Captives </strong><br /><br /><em>Would 300,000 Canadians rally for three missing soldiers?</em><br /><br /><br />In a country where politics is the national obsession, it was a singular event: a rally without a political message. On August 31st, over 60,000 Israelis squeezed into Rabin Square in Tel Aviv to demand the return of three Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hamas and Hezbollah. Israelis from all walks of life, from the deeply religious to secular cosmopolitans, joined together to rally for the three captives, Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev and Gilad Shalit. On a moment’s notice, this large crowd came out to show solidarity with the kidnapped soldiers.<br /><br />It is hard to imagine a similar response taking place in Canada. In Israel, 60,000 people, one percent of the total population, showed up at this rally. Would 300,000 Canadians show up to rally for three soldiers? The Israeli dedication to rescuing any citizen in distress is exceptional. Israel’s history is filled with dramatic rescue efforts like Entebbe and Operation Solomon, as well as lopsided hostage negotiations.<br /><br />Over the last twenty years, Israel has released over 6,000 prisoners in order to bring home nineteen soldiers and eight bodies of soldiers. In the famous “Jibril Deal," of May 1985, three soldiers were returned to Israel in exchange for 1150 Palestinian prisoners. Indeed, Israel’s enormous emphasis on repatriating captive soldiers is often exploited at the negotiating table.<br /><br />Israel’s concern for captives has deep roots. Jewish law requires the community make the rescue of captives its number one priority. The Talmud considers the redemption of captives to be the most important religious commandment. <br /><br />This emphasis on releasing captives is also a product of Jewish history. The Exodus from Egypt, arguably the most important event in Jewish history, places personal freedom at the center of Jewish ideals. The experience of exile plays a decisive role as well. As a minority without rights, Jews were particularly vulnerable to imprisonment and slavery. Captivity was more than a personal problem; it was an existential danger, one which threatened the morale of the entire community. The religious responsibility of ransoming captives became a way for Jews to achieve a sense of security in an insecure age. <br /><br />Of course, the Jewish community’s diligence in redeeming captives was noticed by kidnappers. As a result, the ransom for captive Jews was often pegged at a very high amount, and Jews were targeted by pirates and highwaymen. In response, the Mishnah, an 1,800 year old text, decreed that communities must refuse to pay a higher than usual ransom for Jewish captives. (Yes, there was once a “normal” price for ransoming captives). Paying too high a ransom was now considered a hazard to the community, a course of action that would encourage future kidnappings.<br /><br />The Mishnah’s decree on ransom engendered a great deal of debate. The emotional instinct to free captives and the rational response to limit ransoms often clashed. Sometimes the emotional instincts won out, and medieval Rabbis accepted several loopholes to allow the payment of large ransoms. At other times, communities acted more carefully, and refused to pay irresponsibly high ransoms. In one celebrated incident, a famous 13th century Rabbi, Meir of Rothenburg, spent the last seven years of his life in prison because he refused to allow his community to pay a ransom for his release.<br /><br />In contemporary Israel, this debate continues to rage. On January 29, 2004, Israel released more than 430 Arab prisoners in exchange for the bodies of three kidnapped Israeli soldiers and an Israeli businessman who had been abducted in Abu Dhabi. This exchange was hotly debated in Israel, and ratified by an 11-10 vote of the Israeli cabinet. Many argued that the Mishnah’s logic remains persuasive, and any disproportionate exchange will only encourage future kidnappings. However, most Israelis backed the government’s actions. Supporters of these lopsided exchanges argue that in a country with universal military service, it is necessary for each soldier to know that he will not be abandoned in the field. In their view, making sure that no soldier is left behind is now part of the Israeli social contract and critical for military morale. <br /><br />What remains unquestioned is the enormous emphasis all Israelis place on the redeeming captives. In the coming weeks, as various negotiations on the ceasefire in Lebanon move forward, headlines will begin to turn to the fate of the kidnapped soldiers. The safe return of Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser will play a critical role in the future stability of the region. <br /><br />From an Israeli perspective, this makes eminent sense. After all, Israel is a country nourished by Jeremiah’s vision “that the children shall return to their homeland”. Israel simply cannot forget its lost children, and abandon three young men in the field.Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-1155061103461785222006-08-08T11:17:00.000-07:002006-08-08T11:18:23.483-07:00<strong>Why Are Fringe Rabbis on the Front Page?</strong><br /><br />By: Chaim Steinmetz<br /><br />No news story about an anti-Israel protest would be complete without a quote from a member of the Neutrei Karta, a group of Ultra- Orthodox Jews who oppose Israel. Indeed, at a recent anti-Israel rally, the Montreal Gazette, put a picture of a Hassid holding a placard on its front page. But who are the Neturei Karta, and are they truly newsworthy?<br /><br />In the early 1900’s, before the State of Israel existed, Zionism was debated among Orthodox Jews. A significant group supported Mizrachi, a religious Zionist organization that worked together with secular Zionists. However, many Orthodox Jews rejected Zionism. Some, part of a coalition called Agudath Israel, were concerned by the lack of religiosity in the secular Zionist leadership. A much smaller group, coalescing around ultra-Orthodox groups in Hungary and the Edah Hacharedis organization in Jerusalem, took the extreme view Zionism was a heresy. In their view, Jewish belief in a Messiah obliged loyal Jews to wait for the Messianic redemption, rather than take matters into their own hands. The group most prominent in contemporary demonstrations, the Neturei Karta, was formed in the mid-1930’s as a radical breakaway from the Edah Hacharedis. <br /><br />The Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel transformed Orthodox views on Zionism. Rabbi Issacher Shlomo Teichtal, a prominent anti-Zionist, became a religious Zionist because of the Holocaust. Formerly anti-Zionist groups, such as the Hassidic communities of Belz, Klausenberg, and Lubavitch, adopted a more positive and pragmatic view toward the new Jewish state. Indeed, Agudath Israel had its representatives sign Israel’s Declaration of Independence. For most Orthodox Jews, rejectionist anti-Zionism was a matter of the past. Even many of those who have retained an anti-Zionist stance, such as Satmar Hassidim, currently value Israel as place where Jews can live in safety, and refuse to make any common cause with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.<br /><br />Today, the Neturei Karta have about 1,000 supporters. Finding themselves more isolated than ever, the Neturei Karta’s theology has grown even more radical, and the behavior of its leaders is increasingly bizarre. For example, a leader of a Neturei Karta affiliated group currently living in St. Agathe, Rabbi Shlomo Elbarnes, spent time in a U.S. jail for kidnapping a teenager. For today’s Neturei Karta, anti-Zionism is the focus of their theology, and as a consequence, they demonize all Zionists as disciples of Satan.<br /><br />Indeed, the Neturei Karta are enamored of Israel’s enemies and even anti-Semites. Rabbi Moshe Hirsch, the group’s elder statesman, has close ties to the Palestinian leadership, and was on Yasser Arafat’s payroll. These Neturei Karta maintain close ties to Iran’s radical regime as well. In June 2000, Rabbi Yisroel David Weiss supported Iran’s accusations that 13 Jews had spied for Israel; this, while governments around the world protested these false arrests. Neturei Karta’s leaders have also cultivated relationships with Louis Farrakhan, an American preacher known for his anti-Semitism, and Abu Hamza, a radical British cleric later imprisoned under Britain’s Terrorism Act. Because of their bizarre views and behavior, they have been condemned multiple times by other ultra-Orthodox groups, and they are viewed as infuriating oddities. Frankly, the Neturei Karta are a fringe group, even less relevant than the Amish or the Raelians.<br /><br />Yet, despite being a marginal phenomena, the Neturei Karta receive a lot of media attention. Certainly, the Neturei Karta work tirelessly at public relations, issuing press releases, buying the occasional advertisement, and traveling all over North America to join with any anti-Israel group they can find. Due to sympathetic journalists, they manage to get a lot of media attention.<br /><br />Of course, the Neturei Karta seem made for media. People are fascinated by Hassidic Jews in general, as exotic figures who seem to have stepped straight out of the 18th century. For journalists, the caftan wearing extremists of the Neturei Karta are an exotic “man bites dog” story, with very Jewish-looking Jews denouncing Israel. Indeed, Jewish solidarity with Israel puzzles many journalists, and leaves them searching in vain for some sort of internal Jewish discord. The Neturei Karta offer a story of internal debate unavailable elsewhere. <br /><br />Contemporary media, much like pro wrestling, thrives on conflict. In that regard, the Neturei Karta are the “Andre the Giant” of pro-Israel events, protesting in order to irritate and annoy, hoping this will initiate conflict with supporters of Zionism. Sadly, when journalists give the Neturei Karta prominent coverage, they have taken a circus sideshow and put it on the front page. There are many important debates about the Middle East, but instead of those, these journalists have chosen to focus on a fringe phenomenon and consider it newsworthy. <br /><br />It’s a shame the media seems to make this journalistic mistake, over and over again.Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-1154713897098008182006-08-04T10:49:00.000-07:002006-08-04T10:51:37.116-07:00<strong>On Pacifism, Proportionality, and State Terrorism</strong><br /><br /><em>By Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz</em><br /><br /><br />I have always dreamed of world peace. As a child, I was nurtured on visions of the messianic era, an epoch when soldiers world would beat their swords into plowshares. Because of this intoxicating image I have always aspired to fulfill the Psalmist's exhortation to "search for peace and pursue it".<br />Obviously, I can't stand wartime.<br /><br />I read the newspaper, and the headlines assault me. An awful report about the dozens of civilians killed in an air raid in the village of Kana in Southern Lebanon. The story of the Al-Akhrass family, tragically wiped out while on vacation in Southern Lebanon. The ongoing saga of three Israeli soldiers held captive, uncertain if they will live or die. Yehudit Itzkovitch killed together with her 7 year old grandson, Omer, when a Kaytusha crashes into their home. There is much too much tragedy on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border. As a supporter of Israel, it disturbs me when Israelis are killed; it disturbs me even more if Israelis have to kill.<br /><br />As Golda Meir put it, "We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours."<br /><br />Considering the horrors of war, one has to examine the morality of each and every war, including this one. Of course, it is to be expected that the network of anti-Israel pundits would use the current bloodshed for polemical effect, as another opportunity to demonize Israel. However, other, more neutral voices have also questioned Israel's case for war. Some have made claims of "State Terrorism" and "Disproportionate Force", and have questioned the wisdom of Israel's strategies as well. As much as I love peace, I still cannot find any merit to these claims. Please allow me to explain why.<br /><br /><br /><strong>1. State Terrorism</strong><br /><br />Jack Todd, the sportswriter for the Montreal Gazette, has opined that Israel's actions amount to "state sponsored terrorism". He argues that if Israel strikes at Hezbollah targets in highly populated areas where there is a certainty of civilian deaths, this is same as targeting civilian lives. To Todd, Israel's actions are state sponsored terrorism, because "if you know there are going to be civilian casualties, is that not deliberate?".<br /><br />This argument is the intellectual equivalent of a three base error. By Todd's logic virtually all war is a form of terrorism. No country could go to war, because every serious war will eventually cause civilian casualties.<br /><br />How could the allies plan D-Day, knowing they will eventually kill civilians in the French countryside? (Let's forget for a moment the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) Is it possible to fight a war that will avoid civilian casualties?<br /><br />What Todd has forgotten is that in the ethical realm, intention matters. In extenuating circumstances, an acceptable act that also causes a secondary, unintended and unwanted forbidden outcome is morally acceptable. (In Jewish ritual law, this category is called "p'sik reisha d'lo nicha ley"). Just like there is a major difference between a sacrifice bunt and a simple out, there is a major difference between targeting civilians and targeting combatants. Civilian deaths are always tragic. However, their deaths are not terrorism if they are unintended.<br /><br />Because he ignores each side's stated intentions, Jack Todd has a problem picking out the good guys and bad guys in this war. I have no such problem.<br />Hezbollah openly targets Israeli civilians, and even uses Lebanese civilians as human shields; that is why they are despicable terrorists. Israel sends out warning flyers asking civilians to leave targeted areas, and endangers ground troops in order to reduce the collateral damage of an aerial bombing campaign; that is why they are the heroes. It's a shame Jack Todd is too politically correct to see this.<br /><br /><br /><strong>2. Disproportionate Force</strong><br /><br />Disproportionate force is the new mantra of internationalists such as Kofi Annan, Javier Solana, Jack Straw and Jacques Chirac. Israel, in their view, is not responding proportionately. On the surface, they may have an argument. International law does require proportionality of response. That means, to quote Michael Newton, a professor of law at Vanderbilt University Law School "if someone punches you in the nose, you don't burn their house down." So, at first glance, it would seem two kidnapped soldiers is not a large enough grievance to start a full scale war.<br /><br />But let's take the nose-punching analogy a step further. Imagine if someone punched your nose every so often, frequently enough to harass you, but infrequently enough for you to justify a serious retaliation. And what if this nose puncher has promised to kill you, and is presently searching for a knife. Now let's say he's got some local bullies to help him out. All of a sudden, his promise to kill you is looking a lot more threatening.<br /><br />Now you have the full picture. Even after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon 6 years ago, Hezbollah continued to fire rockets into Israel and skirmish with Israeli soldiers on a regular basis. Israel is not fighting this war for two kidnapped soldiers; they are fighting because Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, is a genuine threat to Israel. Hezbollah doesn't care much about the 3 convicted Lebanese terrorists in Israeli jails; they want to destroy Israel, piece by piece. Now, the legal judgement is quite different. Almost all legal codes, (based on passages in the Bible in Exodus 22:1-2, and the Talmud Sanhedrin 72a), recognize that one can preemptively use lethal force against a person who will become a mortal threat in the near future.<br /><br />Proportionality may be a valid principle in a grievance, when one party retaliates against another for the sake of righting a wrong. But self defense is different. When it comes to self-defense, there is no reason to give a future murderer second chances, even if his his last attempt was just a measly punch.<br /><br />Hezbollah will be a mortal threat to the State of Israel in the near future (if it isn't one already). Israel would be failing its citizens if it didn't defend against this threat.<br /><br /><br /><strong>3. The Arab Street</strong><br /><br />Pacifism has a mixed reputation. Most people have a healthy respect for the idealism embodied in pacifism. At the same time, there is a general recognition that pacifism is quixotic and naive. Indeed, pacifism is often an unwitting form of collaboration with evil, a formula for ensuring that the bloodthirsty and immoral triumph.<br /><br />But the one area pacifism excels at is public relations. Gandhi took the world by storm with a campaign of non-violence. Certainly pacifism can be strategic, advancing one's political cause without recourse to violence.<br /><br />In the current conflict, it is undeniable that public opinion in the Arab world is inflamed against Israel. From a political point of view, this is a serious loss. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times argues that Israel should consider what I would term as "strategic pacifism". He argues that despite initial disappointments, both Spain and England succeeding in curbing the IRA and ETA through restraint. To Kristof, "The record of Spain and Britain suggests that restraint and conciliation can seem maddeningly ineffective - but they are still the last, best hope for peace."<br /><br />Actually, I don't completely disagree with Kristof. Unquestionably, Israel should try to win over public opinion in the Arab world. I imagine any intelligent supporter of Israel will regret how this conflict will hurt Israel's image in the Arab world. However, Israel's predicament is far different than Spain's and England's.<br /><br />Hezbollah and Hamas don't want a specific territory; they are planning nothing less than the destruction of Israel. Their entire theologically laced ideology is based on the belief that all of Israel must become an Islamic land. The upshot of this is, unlike Spain and England, Israel cannot afford to gamble; If Hezbollah succeeds, it's bye bye Israel. In addition, because Hamas and Hezbollah are religious movements, their supporters are far less likely to be swayed by any overtures Israel has to offer. In fact, these true believers will interpret any overtures by Israel as proof that their extremist ideology is triumphant.<br /><br />More upsetting to me is the implication that Israel is primarily responsible to win over the Arab world. Somehow, after the vast majority of the Arab world has refused to accept the State of Israel for the last 60 years, after multiple Arab regimes have sponsored terrorist groups, Israel bears the responsibility to make nice, as if all this fuss is her fault. Perhaps, for a change, someone else should be responsible for the political change in the Middle East!<br /><br />And by the way, didn't overwhelming force, as opposed to strategic pacifism, transform Germany, Italy and Japan in 1945?<br /><br /><br /><strong>4. What Now?</strong><br /><br />Ultimately, peace must remain everyone's dream. But the peace of the naive is not a peace at all. When dealing with an uncompromising, rejectionist enemy, peace is elusive. Violent enemies may require an even more violent response. At times like this, we must fight.<br /><br />However, at the same time, we must continue to hope and pray for world peace, a time when every one of God's children will unite together in brotherhood and love.Rabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21925140.post-1143217076749927622006-03-24T08:17:00.000-08:002006-09-07T08:59:38.580-07:00Happiness Warrior is now a trademark of Chaim SteinmetzRabbi Chaim Steinmetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927664495724913102noreply@blogger.com0