The Evolving Jew

In a Facebook discussion, someone brought up a 2012 post of Eliyahu Fink's entitled " Dear Chaya " and I was looking through the comments and I noticed a couple of mine that were worth reproducing here. One commenter wrote: "The statement of  'women are second class citizens' , is absolutely against a true Torah ideology!!  ... as Jews we believe that women and men each have the equal opportunity to fulfill our DIFFERENT potential, not better, but different and unique!" My response was: "...that's a modern apologetic that all of us have heard ad nauseum.. And every person who presents it acts as if it's some giant revelation that those of us critical of womens' roles in Orthodoxy must have never heard before. Yes, it's become the defensive party line, but that doesn't make it any less a manufactured apologetic... just because you are happy with your role in Orthodox Judaism doesn't mean that you speak for all women

The New York Times printed a very nice obituary of Gil Marks , whose death is a great loss. I own and deeply value his wonderful "Olive Trees and Honey" cookbook. The current brouhaha is over this line at the bottom of the article: "Correction: December 11, 2014. An earlier version of this obituary misstated the location of Alon Shvut, where Mr. Marks lived. It is in the West Bank, not in Israel." I agree, the unnecessary correction does come across as insensitive, and would have better been left alone. However... 1) They probably got in trouble with some readers. I doubt they would have changed it without complaints. 2) Alon Shvut is in Gush Etzion, which, technically, is not part of the state of Israel, however much it feels like it and has been integrated. Yes, it was settled by Jews well before the state was established. Yes, in almost every proposed peace deal, it would be part of Israel. But legally, at least for now. it's an "administered

In a Facebook thread, someone angry about the distortions he was fed by Judaism referred to "Chazal's crimes" and that their "lies" are what shaped most of the religion. This really bothered me. "Chazal's crimes"? Their "lies"? That's a worse distortion than what Chazal did. Were the ancient Greeks' misunderstandings about reality being composed of four elements "crimes" and "lies"? Was Aristotle trying to fool people when he maintained that the earth was at the center of the universe? They were men of their time who had at their disposal only the tools they were given. The very concept of empirical scientific proof hadn't been invented. They deeply believed in the divinity of the Torah and of the truth of the work they were doing. It's OK to still respect them and the remarkable work they did, while acknowledging that they were technically wrong. It's a distortion of history, shows a lack of

Back in 2007, when I started my first blog, my stated purpose was to start a new denomination. I figured that what constituted normative Orthodoxy had become too restrictive, and I wanted a big tent that could encompass basic halachic practice (shabbat, kashrut, etc) with the freedom of more egalitarianism, less dogma, compassion and acceptance of LGB's, etc. I'm thinking something similar now, more as a thought experiment this time, not to actually start a new movement. But I'm sick of all the scandal, the excessive chumrot, the heavy handed rabbinical control, the misogyny, the power plays, the conspicuous consumption, the condescension of anyone who doesn't seem "frum" enough according to others' social mores, the sexual shaming, the objectification of women, the worship of rabbis, the sheep-like adherence to "daas torah", the corruption of battei dinim and the Israeli rabbanut, the increasingly stringent demands of kashrut agencies, t

There's far too much publicly available evidence now to hope that Freundel is innocent, that this is a misunderstanding, or that he was framed. He was visible on the camera numerous times, setting it up. The courts will eventually deliver a verdict, but at this point, there can be little doubt that Barry Freundel committed the crime. Now we have to ask ourselves some very hard questions. Many of us have blamed the occasional scandals of deviant individuals in the Charedi world on the cloistered nature of that world, and of the objectification of women that accompanies it. But Barry Freundel was a leading light of the Modern Orthodox world, which prides itself on opening up roles for women, where interaction between the sexes, while having careful boundaries, is acceptable. Where women are, supposedly, not objectified. Modern Orthodox women become doctors, lawyers, and professors. They are not cloistered in the home, told that their primary role in life is to become a mother.

There's been a lot of discussion over the last few days about the app being developed that might allow texting on Shabbat. Personally, I don't text much. I'm in my 40's, not my teens, and still prefer verbal conversation. But I can understand the appeal. There's definitely merit to the arguments that you can make texting halachically permissable. But the Shabbat observing public has halachic prohibitions, and then they have social ones. And for the past century, Shabbat has come to mean not using electrical or electronic devices. Personally, I'm very thankful for that. I happen to see myself as a pluralist, and I don't think anyone's required to keep halacha if they don't want to, and therefore certainly don't judge anyone for using a phone on Shabbat. Still, I would hate for it to become socially acceptable. It would change the entire flavor of the day. There's a social aspect to halacha, and social mores that have been established

I like to think I'm pretty savvy about the origins of various minhagim, and I usually look at the legends behind the various customs with a skeptical eye. But I only learned today that the Rosh Hashana prayer "Unetaneh Tokef" was found in the Cairo Geniza, in a manuscript dating to the 8th century. That is far earlier than the traditional belief in the story of R Amnon of Mainz in the 10th or 11th century, who wrote it as he lay dying because of his refusal to convert to Christianity. I had already viewed the details of this story as suspect, because it smacked of being too perfect in its emotional impact. But until today, I still assumed that the authorship, and its time period, were relatively accurate. It turns out that the issues with the authorship are well-known, and have been for half a century. The Geniza manuscript was known to scholars as early as the 1950's. And that is not not the only issue with the traditional story. See this Schechter Institute

July 5, 1776 PHILADELPHIA — Voters in America decisively rejected independence from the British Empire in a referendum that had threatened to break up the 150-year union, but also appeared to open the way for a looser, more federal Britain. With results tallied by early Friday from all 13 colonies, the “no” campaign won 55.3 percent of the vote while the pro-independence side won 44.7 percent. The margin was greater than forecast by virtually all pre-election polls. The outcome was a deep disappointment for the vocal, enthusiastic pro-independence movement led by Benjamin Franklin, who had seen an opportunity to make a decades-old nationalist dream a reality and had forced the British crown into panicked promises that they would grant substantial new power to the colonial governments. The decision spared King George III of Britain a shattering defeat that would have raised questions about his ability to continue in office and would have diminished his nation’s standing in th

In Ferguson, I think we can all agree, violence is absolutely unacceptable. And those who engage in violence should be subject to due legal process and punished. However, I think we can also all agree that the fact that some engage in violence doesn't mean that the protesters don't have legitimate grievances and that those grievances shouldn't be addressed. Further, I think we can agree that those engaging in violence, wrong as they might be, wouldn't be doing such things without the injustice present that created the underlying tension. Now, with due disclaimers that I am not drawing a 1:1 comparison, just for a thought experiment, please replace the word "Ferguson", above, with "Gaza", and read the paragraph again. Thoughts?

DISCLAIMER: I am in NO way making excuses for the terrorism of Hamas. I'm just musing on the nature of warfare. It's interesting - Israel is negotiating with Hamas for a long term cease-fire. So even though we say that terrorism, in the form of shooting rockets into cities indiscriminately, is not legal warfare and should only be answered with force, we nonetheless negotiate with them as if they were playing by the rules. Of course, the idea that innocents shouldn't be targeted during wartime is a fairly recent one. For most of human history, war, people expected war to bring rape, massacres, expulsion, and people being taken into slavery. That was just the way of things. The notion of human rights didn't exist. Now, we pretend to be more civilized. Yet only 70 years ago, the United States, which is supposed to be a bastion of human rights. dropped weapons of mass destruction on innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing between 150,000 and 200,00 peopl

Earlier, on Facebook, I criticized the establishment of a new settlement in the memory of the 3 boys. I suggested that if they really wanted to honor their memory, they could give tzedaka, learn mishnayot, even establish a new yishuv inside the green line, rather than creating a political provocation for the PA at a time when Yehuda and Shomron has, thankfully, stayed relatively quiet as compared to Gaza. Of course, a number of you strongly disagreed with me, as I expected. But one comment really bothered me, implying that since I don't live there, I shouldn't question these types of decisions. Here's my issue with that attitude. Even if you accept the "you're in chutz la-Artez, you can't judge the war in Gaza" argument (which I don't), this case is entirely different. This has nothing to do with protecting people. I happen to have consistently supported the incursion into Gaza (despite the horrific consequences, which I blame on Hamas). This

From 2010 (slightly edited): There are voices that assert that we should no longer fast on Tisha B'Av, that if we wanted to rebuild the temple, we could simply do so, and that with a rebuilt Israel and a rebuilt Jerusalem, Tisha B'Av should be obsolete. These people certainly have a point. It’s ironic to see people who live in fancy houses in Flatbush, travel to Israel on El Al several times a year, and have full religious freedoms in America begging Hashem to “end the terrible golus!” But there’s another way of looking at it, and it’s the way I choose to look at many of our traditions. What we commemorate on Tisha B’Av isn’t just the loss of the Temple. It isn’t just a yearning for the Beit HaMikdash to be rebuilt and for sacrifices and a monarchy to be reinstituted. To tell the truth, how likely, practical, or even desirable does that really seem? Instead, it's about something much bigger. We fast because we’ve fasted for 2,000 years. We mourn for the very real

When you hear or see a report on the radio or TV about the suffering and death in Gaza, please don't reflexively shut it off, thinking that it's "anti-Israel". Yes, we can, and should, stand with Israel during this fight. Yes, Israel is in the right here. But that doesn't negate the tremendous human suffering on the other side. It doesn't change the fact that children are being killed by our bombs, even if Hamas did put them in harm's way. It doesn't mean that innocent people aren't being killed, wounded, and displaced in massive numbers. We should continue to cheer on our side, but we should also remember that war is hell, and there's nothing good about it. Israel is doing what she has to. But there are ugly consequences to the actions she has been forced to take, and we cannot diminish our humanity by ignoring that. As Jews and human beings, our empathy should extend across enemy lines. So next time a report from Gaza comes on, forc

I hate to say it, but if Israel is already launching a ground invasion (which I'm ambivalent about), they should do it right. Any cease-fire or agreement to withdraw that leaves Hamas still in power means nothing was accomplished in the long run. We'll just have to do the same dance again in two or three years. And even during the supposed quiet, Hamas will continue taking potshots at communities like Sderot. Removing Hamas from power entirely will leave a power vacuum that Israel may have to fill. And I hate the idea of our troops having to be there long-term again. But if it's done right, maybe it can return Gaza to normalcy and quiet, and with Hamas out of the picture, perhaps even set the stage for a peace agreement in a couple of years. Whatever happens, I pray for the safety of our soldiers and of all innocent people.

Dreams of "peace" tend to be farfetched. If peace means warm relations and no tension ever, and if that's the goal of negotiations, then negotiations will never lead anywhere. Various Israeli governments talk about "difficult sacrifices" in return for "peace", but the implication is always that the only peace worthy of those sacrifices is a everlasting / kumbaya / we all love one another type of peace. A more realistic goal is basically a perpetual truce. We can call it a "peace" agreement while being aware that it would be a tough agreement where most people will be unhappy, and where there will still be tension and even occasional violence. But if we're ever going to get out of the current endless cycle, we have to understand that even that kind of peace may be worth some "difficult sacrifices". And hopefully, that might even, over time, progress to a warmer peace.

I found this building in downtown Hartford, a few blocks away from my work. Any ideas what this was? Why did this society decide to use the Jewish year? (תרנ"ד - 1894) What was the significance? Here's the whole building At some later point, it must've become the Law Tribune building.

I have a confession to make. I don't feel the death of the 3 boys in Israel as deeply as some of you seem to. Don't get me wrong. It's terribly sad. And the way they died is tragic and horrifying. And when I think of the parents, I realize I can't imagine what they're going through. But I haven't cried. I haven't made tribute videos. I haven't felt like I'm in deep mourning. I haven't filled my Facebook wall with their pictures. I simply wrote "BDE", and expressed my deep and sincere sympathy for the families. I didn't know these boys. They were strangers. As a fellow Jew, I feel deep sympathy for the families.. But I don't feel like I lost a family member myself. I want to tell you about two other young people who lost their lives in Israel recently. Their names were Yishai Levy (11 years old) and his sister Sara Levy (10 years old). Somehow, their deaths hit me harder than those of Naftali, Eyal, and Gilad. Maybe it

You remember all the suicide bombings in the 90's and the early 00's? Remember the constant terrorism? Remember innocent people being killed every few weeks? I think that we've gotten used to living without that constant threat, without that constant barrage of attacks. The very fact that people are reacting in a hyperbolic manner and demanding mass murder of civilians as revenge is itself an indication that we've forgotten how to react to terrorism. There is no silver lining to this terrible tragedy of the 3 boys. But perhaps there's a silver lining to people's inappropriate reactions. It reminds us that Israel has become far safer for civilians in the past decade. We are no longer numb to all the death. When the kind of terror that we used to experience on a regular basis returns, we react in a way that shows our raw sensitivity. It shows that, small comfort it may be to the mothers of these boys, Israel is, Thank God, a relatively safe place to live or v

Here's something I posted on my "Philo" Facebook account today (that's the account I use for "blogging" type material, as opposed to my regular FB account): ------------------------------------------------ Earlier today, I wrote, here on Facebook: "Happy Pride Week to all my LGBT friends!". But I wrote it only on this account, my "blogging" Facebook account. I'm hardly anonymous. My real name (David Staum) is right there next to "Philo" on my main page. But the whole reason I have 2 Facebook accounts is to have one for keeping in touch with family & friends, who range from very conservative to very liberal, very Jewish to very non-Jewish, etc, and another account, this one, for discussing my opinions on politics, social issues, religion, philosophy, etc. So even though I would like to, I didn't write the same message about Pride Week on my "real" account. And I'm conflicted about that. It's

In Bamidbar Rabba, Chukat 3, it recounts instances of Shlomo's Hamelech's (King Solomon's) deep understanding of everything, reflecting his exceptional wisdom. But at the end of all this, it quotes Shlomo himself saying that despite all his attempts at studying it, he could not understand the nature of Para Aduma, the Red Heifer, which was burned to ash, after which the ashes were used for ritual purification (Bamidbar 19). Which, of course, doesn't mean that Shlomo couldn't understand it. He presumably would have, as a king at a time when these laws were paramount. What the midrash really means is that they (the authors of Bamidbar Rabba), living 1,000 years later than Shlomo at the very least, and perhaps much later, were no longer comfortable with the idea. The authors of the Midrash were certainly comfortable with the idea of korbanot (sacrifices) in general. But Parah Adumah is different. It's not really a korban in the sense we think of it: It is ent

In this week's parsha, we have the story of "Mey Merivah", where Moshe hits the rock instead of speaking to it. As a little kid, I got very confused, experiencing deja vu when learning Chumash. For example: Avimelech of Gerar wanted Yitzchak's wife? So Yitzchak told the king that Rivka was his sister? Wait - didn't that happen with Avraham? Or did I confuse Avraham and Yitzchak? And of course, Moshe and the rock. Studying Parshat Chukat in class as a kid: Wait, didn't I study this before? Why do I remember it as Hashem TELLING Moshe to hit the rock? He was supposed to speak to it? I'm so confused! Of course, as a got a little older, I paid attention to my teachers, who explained to me that there were NOT the same incident. Similar events occurred, but they happened twice. In the case of Mey Merivah, the 2 incidents happened 40 years apart. And the fact that the two places had the same name was just coincidence. Or Bnei Yisrael, having experienced a

In the wake of the kidnapping of the 3 young men in Israel, I've read a lot of lofty sentiment, how we are all united, all Jews seeing themselves as parents or siblings of these boys. And that's a beautiful idea. It really is. If nothing else, it must help their families, knowing that everyone is praying and hoping with them, as they deal with this nightmare situation. If only people left it there. But apparently "achdut" also means making your particular political point. It means hatred spewed at anyone who doesn't agree with your exact interpretation of events. It means a chance to bash, in ugly terms, politicians, journalists, and leaders who don't jump on a jingoistic bandwagon that apparently is deeply integral to the search for these three young men. It means blatantly misrepresenting facts with no shame. It means a chance to spew racism and xenophobia. It means contempt for fellow Jews whose only crime is not to sign on to your personal crusade.

A historical "what if" question. Constantine adopted Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. But in prior centuries, Judaism was a massively proselytizing religion, in Rome and beyond. And though the historicity of this is doubtful, according to the Talmud the emperor "Antoninus" (identification uncertain) actually did embrace Judaism. So here's the question. What if, instead of converting to Christianity, the Roman Empire had become Jewish? What would the world look like today? Would Judaism and Islam have been the great historical rivals, instead of Christianity and Islam? Would Islam even have existed? What would Judaism look like? Would a Jewish Rome have rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem? Or would they have shifted the centrality of the religion to Rome itself? Would Judaism still be a religion of shuls and Torah learning? Or would it look very much like the Catholic Church, with grandiose Cathedrals and a pope-lik

You want to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash? A few problems with that, unless you believe in the idea that it will be rebuilt miraculously. But otherwise? Seriously, are we really going to go back to animal sacrifice and a priestly caste system? Those are ideas that were popular among all cultures in the ancient near east, were not unique to the Jews, and are rather distasteful when you take a few minutes to think about it. And what about the actual building? Trying to build the b eit hamikdash on the temple mount for the foreseeable future would spark a massive war. Not to mention that destroying the mosques there would be an archaeological crime, just like the Taliban destroying those Buddha statues, which is universally condemned. But here's an idea for actually building the third temple, in a realistic manner: Find a plot of land near the temple mount. Maybe on what was once the slope of that very mountain Let's say, a big open plaza that is in Jewish hands. Hmm,

I just read Yoram Hazony's piece on Open Orthodoxy . On the one hand, despite excellent writing, the article harps on the same issue that people over-focus on: what is Orthodoxy? Why not let Open Orthodoxy be? It's all semantics. If they called it "Open Traditional Judaism", no one would are. It's only the inclusion of the word "Orthodox" that makes people upset. Then again, a good part of that is the fault of the Open Orthodox themselves, by vociferously claiming that they are Orthodox. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, it's a substantive article, and is mostly respectful, not engaging in any name calling or targeting specific individuals. And he has a point about the stifling of dissent. Those of us who believe that academic biblical criticism has a place in traditional thought have to make sure that we don't become what we claim our detractors to be; close minded and intolerant of opposing viewpoints. In response to the arti

So, leaving ideologues (like Shlomo Sand) or weak science (like Eran Elhaik) aside, the fact remains that our genetic heritage is murky. Also, the question of where the explosion of the Ashkenazi Jewish population came from is a valid one. Without a strong outside influx, the late medieval appearance of Ashkenazim on the scene in extremely large numbers is highly improbable. Unfortunately, exploration of these questions is deeply tied to politics these days. Proponents of the Palestinian cause use Sand's theories to claim that Zionists are just European interlopers. And supporters of Israel counter with genetic studies that bolster the ancestral claims of today's Jews, while ignoring other studies that cloud the issue. The fact is, a Jew is a Jew is a Jew, whether by birth or by choice. The claim to Eretz Yisrael is based on a combination of ancestral heritage and of a grand journey of millennia through the diaspora, in which that ancestral land was never forgotten, and

While the writer's topic here is about lying for shidduch purposes, something else caught my eye: "The groom was from a 'good family'; his father is head of a large hospital unit. The bride is also from a 'good family.' Her father has a dental clinic, which employs around a dozen employees. His father is a professor, hers a doctor, it seemed like they were two peas in a pod. My friend only knew the mothers, but the similar socioeconomic status and background seemed an adequate indication for a good match." Really? Socioeconomic status is the basis of a good match? Chas VeShalom that a rich person should date a poor one. Bizarre.

Yesterday, I wrote about the comparison between "Lo tikach ha'em al habanim" (Shiluach HaKen)" and "Lo tevashel g'di bachalev imo". Quick recap: Two different mitzvot in the Torah, that upon a simple reading would seem to be similar. They're both about the mother/offspring relationship in the animal kingdom, and about compassion or respect for that relationship. Yet the former is a limited circumstance mitzvah, limited by the chachamim even further to precise conditions. But the latter controls half our lives as observant Jews. A couple of commenters (on on FB and one here on the blog) mentioned that the chachamim use the fact that "lo tevashel" is repeated 3 times in the Torah as the source for all the laws of mixing meat & milk. Like so many other things gleaned from the Torah, the repetition is taken to mean that it must be understood as much more than the plain meaning. Which is, of course, true. As those who follow me kno

לֹא-תִקַּח הָאֵם, עַל-הַבָּנִים לֹא-תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי, בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ Two different mitzvot in the Torah, that upon a simple reading would seem to be similar. They're both about the mother/offspring relationship in the animal kingdom, and about compassion or respect for that relationship. Yet the former is a limited circumstance mitzvah, limited by the chachamim even further to precise conditions. But the latter controls half our lives as observant Jews. Imagine if Shiluach HaKen was treated like meat & milk? Imagine if we derived a vast body of laws from it the way we do with those 5 simple words about a kid and mother's milk? We probably wouldn't be allowed to eat eggs and chicken together. And we'd have separate sets of dishes for egg products and fowl products. Or something along those lines. Why are they so different? I know the traditional answer is that Torah SheBa'al Peh was given at Sinai, and that's the interpretation that was given