Rabbi's Blog - Nov/Dec 2011 & Jan/Feb 2012

Rabbis Influence In Football

26/2/2012

A member tweeted me this morning asking if there was a blessing he could recite for the big NorthWest London derby happening today. The Arsenal V Tottenham match is going to have tens of thousands filling the stadium. There will likely be as many Jews in attendance as at the average Synagogue during a High Holiday service. Many more will be glued to their TV sets.

Moments after that initial member contacted me, yet another member, having read his tweet, chimed in asking for the same. What do I do if they support opposing teams?

To be sure, in case one doubts my prowess in being able to influence the outcome of a game with spiritual powers I can readily attest to something that happened only several weeks ago. There was an Arsenal V Aston Villa game while I was officiating at a Bat Mitzvah ceremony in Central London. There was a rowdy bunch of young men watching the game on their smart-phones and making much noise throughout. When I got up to speak I looked toward them and asked simply, “How many of you are Arsenal supporters?” Most hands went up. “OK,” I said. “If you stay quiet throughout my speech, Arsenal will win the match.” One cheeky kid called back: “Aston Villa is winning 2-0.” Not one to be outdone by a thirteen-year-old I replied simply: “I’ll say it again. If you want Arsenal to still win, you have to stay quiet while I speak.” They remained perfectly still. They were also fawning all over me when the service was over. Arsenal won 3-2. This was witnessed by the 200 in attendance, is documented on video and was acknowledged by the father of the Bat Mitzvah in a letter adding his extra thanks for that result. I suspect one might yet see more of those kids in synagogue in the future.

Back to today’s Derby. At running the risk of sounding pompous, it is quite apparent whichever side I bless will be victorious. To be sure, I have no interest in either team. (I’m a Leeds supporter – long story). But which members do I accommodate and which do I alienate?

To be on the safe side I won’t bless either and let the better team win without my intervention. However it has given me pause to consider how there is much we could learn football to apply to Synagogue life. Let’s consider some of the typical terms:

Halftime - When we start the Torah reading. Offside - When someone else sits in the seat you normally sit in. Rain Delay - When we have to wait for a minyan because of the weather. Pass - What some people do when an appeal is made. Instant Replay– When the chazzan sings the same dirge each week. Tackle - Asking the “new couple” who walk into shul to join the board, sit on a committee and do the Kiddush rota before they get away. Time Out – What most people look to take just before the rabbi commences his sermon. Over Time – When the service runs past the usual finish time, because the Rabbi & Chazan rambled on too long.

Its amazing how football brings out the best and the worst in people. Watching the highly charged atmosphere is always electric, the yelling and screaming quite extraordinary. I’ve observed in the past how different the Jewish world would be if we could summon that same level of enthusiasm and generate a similar atmosphere. Just imagine members chanting, Stand up if you love coming to Shul. Or better still, theres only one Rabbi Schochet!

I’m especially intrigued by the rush, the panic and the urgency with which a losing side plays as they go into the final minutes. One wonders, if they could exert that same energy throughout would they have got a better result?

Indeed why do we take so much of life for granted, and only in the latter minutes, do we stop to realize that we are racing against the clock? What would life be like if we paid that same attention to detail all the way through? It is what could be appropriately termed as the Neliah syndrome. Much like when we come into synagogue on Yom Kippur eve, but the next twenty-four hours dont reach the same crescendo as the final hour of Neilah when know that “now Ive got to give it my all.”

People tend to take their relationships for granted. When there is friction they ignore the essential issues - and only when the hole is gaping and someone is about to slip through do the spouses frantically snap back into reality and determine what they can do to save their union only sometimes the damage has been done – it is too late.

We dont focus on our children’s internal conflicts and dilemmas. Even as we may be aware of them, we just assume they’ll grow out of it and only when they emerge as troubled adults do we suddenly go in frantic search for a solution.

So often we are faced with schism – whether on the Jewish home front or throughout much of the political world. Alas it takes for tragedy before we pause to consider that, that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

Think of your life as a big playing field. There will always be obstruction – things or people getting in the way of your goals. Sometimes you could be right there inside the box, ready to make your mark when life steps in and tackles you. Other times you can be fouled by the impediments of our universe. Life can seem so unfair and we sometimes assume the big ‘Ref’ to be making bad calls.

The onus is on us not to get bogged down by the things we cannot change, but to focus on exerting every bit of energy on those things that we can.

Above all else remember that you are a player, not merely a fan. Fans can be exceptionally loyal to their team, but they are not bound or committed in any real way. Ask any great die-hard fan of whichever team and they’ll tell you that when their team is trailing by several points in the last twenty minutes of a game, they will pick up and leave. But the players don’t leave in the middle of a game. The players cant leave in the middle of the game! Fans can leave when they like - theyre not part of the game and the game could, and does, continue after they leave. But the players need to stay in the belief that they could yet win until the game is over.

In life we have to see ourselves, not as mere fans – individual spectators the sidelines picking and choosing which bits we want to enjoy or observe and then turn our backs in the face of perceived difficulty or complications. We have to be players, committed to victory all the way through.

Whoever coined the phrase, ‘it’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game,’ must have lost a lot of games in life. Of course how you play is vital, but winning is paramount. To be sure, winning is the willingness to strive for something you really want. The person not reaching the top is no less a success than the one who achieved it, if they both sweated to overcome obstacles and fears. In life it doesn’t matter by how many points you are trailing. When applying the right sort of energy, resolve and determination all the way, you will find ultimate success.

Whats The Difference Between A Doctor & G-d?

20/2/2012

If you walk into the new Jewish museum in London, there is a section containing a large screen. On the screen are a variety of ethical questions with different Jewish perspectives. If you push the “Jewish Orthodox button” I pop up with responses to those questions. On a particular medical question I begin my analysis with something like, “the difference between a doctor and G-d is that G-d doesn’t think he’s a doctor.”

This prompted one irate anaesthetist who visited the museum to write me an angry email expressing his moral outrage at my making fun of doctors like that. He insisted it was a cheap joke in poor taste. I insisted that humour notwithstanding, there was an implicit message. We engaged in detailed correspondence as a result. I don’t think his protests to the museum to remove me bore any fruit. But what is the implicit message?

A doctor in the US has blown the lid on one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Ken Murray, professor of medicine at the University of Southern California recently published a widely disseminated essay in which he writes: “Of course doctors don’t want to die – they want to live. But they know enough about modern medicine to know its limits. Almost all medical professionals have seen what we call, ‘futile care’ when doctors bring the cutting edge of technology to bear on a grievously ill person near the end of life.”

The good doctor is talking about terminally ill patients who can resort to some treatment that will elongate life. He defines this treatment as ‘futile’ as the end result will be the same, even if pushed off for a while and in the interim will most likely make those final days or months utterly miserable.

Only recently I was in conversation with an octogenarian who was diagnosed with cancer. Having endured countless infections and a lot of suffering over the past two decades, he was adamant that he won’t take any of the treatments on offer. He would rather make the most of his final time, enjoying it to the best of his ability, before submitting to his ultimate fate. The native, he argued, is that he would take treatment which would quite possibly add several months onto his life, but at what price? Most of that time would be spent in hospital receiving the treatment, dealing with reactions to the treatment, and make every day a living hell.

Indeed according to Professor Murray, most doctors, if told they have a terminal illness, don’t even think about trying to fight it. They get hold of the best pain-relief available and enjoy whatever time is left to them rather than putting themselves through whatever distressing treatment that is ultimately pointless.

A little while back my father was diagnosed with glioblastoma grade IV. In a word, it is the most aggressive form of brain cancer. The doctors gave him a year. They also gave him options. Combined chemo and radiotherapy is the most recommended course, although at his age they don’t advise radiotherapy for more than three weeks. Being a robust seventy year old and never having spent a day in hospital, he told them point blank, “treat me like a fifty year old and give me the six weeks treatment.” So began the daily journeys to the hospital my three siblings and I would fly in our respective countries to form a rota and help my mother through the process.

When I flew in London during my “shift” my father and I had a conversation about his treatment. I still remember his words: “It’s all hevlai havolim (Hebrew for “nonsense”) but Halacha (Jewish law) says I have to do it, and so I am doing it.”

In other words his personal attitude is not dissimilar to that of Professor Murray. Such a response is only natural and intuitive. “Let me roll with the punches,” and, to borrow a favourite catch-phrase of my father, “let the chips fall they may.” But Jewish law mandates that one has to pursue medical treatment and to do everything within one’s ability to preserve life. Doctors, according to Jewish philosophy, are not a law onto themselves, rather representatives of the Almighty who are there to assist in the preservation of life. The rest of course is in the hands of Above. “G-d heals,” observed Benjamin Franklin, “and the Doctor takes the fees.”

It is now more than eight months past the one year they gave him, and his most recent scan shows no re-growth. My father, a retired philosophy professor and acting Rabbi, still attends his synagogue daily. He still sermonises on the Sabbath. He still edits essays for an online website. He just enjoyed the news of the first of his more than two dozen grandchildren getting engaged and now there is a wedding to look forward to in a few months time.

That isn’t to say it hasn’t come at a price. Radiotherapy never quite leaves your system. There are many struggles as an end result, but my father is still with us and we tend to fly in often enough to enjoy time with him, ‘enjoy’ being the operative word. After my most recent visit in December, I reminded him of the conversation we had back in June 2010. He simply smiled. “Thank you for coming I really enjoyed our time together.” Had he done things Professor Murray’s way that enjoyment would probably not have happened. But he did it G-d’s way. My quip on the museum screen doesn’t seem so funny after all.

Jonah & The Netherlands

23/1/2012

Homosexuality has always been a hot potato in the Jewish community. Proponents argue that Judaism is homophobic while detractors insist they are just upholding the letter of the law.

The Biblical injunction against homosexual activity is clear. People who want to conform to the Bible should not be condemned as homophobic anymore than critics of religion might be labelled Theophobic. However, just because I maintain that homosexuality is wrong doesn’t mean I have to go beating the drum about it anymore than I might regularly preach against adultery. To be sure, there are times when public statements are deemed necessary, such as when same-sex marriages began to become legalised. Imagine the public outcry were bigamy to be declared legal. Similarly, when governments were voting with their feet to recognise same-sex marriages, it was only to be expected that moralists and religious leaders would speak out against. Still, even when it is considered necessary to protest, it remains imperative that basic sensitivity is maintained. A fundamental principle in Judaism, sadly lost on too many extremists today, is to condemn the action, never the person. Take for example the “Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community,” initially released in mid 2010. It was signed by dozens of leading Orthodox Rabbis across the Jewish world, making perfectly clear the traditional Jewish viewpoint on homosexuality, while also reassuring gay people that they are always welcome into Synagogues and communities.

Last week, the Jews Free School in London made headlines for teaching a class that homosexuality can be cured. According to a Jewish Chronicle report, as part of the schools Jewish studies curriculum, pupils were shown a website the American group JONAH - Jews Offering New natives to Homosexuality, apparently introduced at the end of the textual study on homosexuality and the Orthodox viewpoint. Having met last night with Michael Glass, the Chair of Governors of JFS, he informs me that the school has issued a statement denying the reported sequence of events, and insisting it was something that formed part of a discussion, rather than an ideal that was being formally promoted.

Meanwhile, Amsterdams Chief Rabbi, Aryeh Ralbag has been suspended for putting his signature to the JONAH mission statement that promotes the idea that homosexuality can be mitigated and potentially eliminated. This in turn has prompted a public outcry the Conference of European Rabbis and others, arguing that to relieve a Chief Rabbi his position for upholding an ancient Biblical law, is deplorable, “verging on fascism.”

There is a difference between issuing a statement asserting the traditional Jewish view on homosexuality, and offering one’s own theory about “illness and cure.” The Bible condemns the act as an abomination, as it does eating bacon. Plain and simply put, it is forbidden. That’s the scope of any Rabbi’s position should begin and end. If psychotherapists believe that sexual orientation can be ed, that is their remit. It’s not for Rabbis to go publicly endorsing such a position, which is essentially saying, not only are you gay but you’re also mentally unstable. That’s crossing the line into condemning the person, not just the act.

Chief Rabbi Ralbag should not be relieved of his position for taking a religious stance on a traditional Biblical position. That’s plain ludicrous. However, his sensitivity, and by extension his ability to reach out to his wider constituency, in endorsing a controversial statement regarding homosexuals, must surely be called into question.

Not Everything Is As Kosher As It Seems

19/1/2012

Shmuley Boteach is an old friend, but even old friends can go awry sometimes. When they do, it behooves someone who cares enough for them to try and set them straight. Not to do so is to betray that friendship.

In the past couple of weeks there has been much hoopla surrounding his recent publication entitled “Kosher J….” the book triggered much ire in the Orthodox Jewish community, with comments and condemnations across a broad range of websites. Most recently, my own father wrote a letter of condemnation, issuing his halachic view that it is forbidden to read the book. As the world’s leading authority on Christian missionaries, this letter was widely disseminated and indeed sent out by the umbrella organization of Chabad International to all its emissaries around the world. This of course rattled Shmuley’s cage, and quite possibly shattered it as well, prompting him to write a response. You can read it here.

I am not writing this in order to defend my father’s position. G-d knows he doesn’t need my input. But in a brazen lack of professionalism and common decency, Shmuley chose to drag me into the response he wrote against my father. This compels me to respond in kind.

Rebuke, you shall rebuke is a Biblical command. Of course not everyone is in a position to do so, especially when they may not be au fait with the particular concern at hand. Hence they will turn to an expert for guidance on the matter. If I am concerned about the kosher status of a particular food item that one Rabbi declared as kosher, I may turn to someone I consider a higher authority to ask his opinion on the matter. Did Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the preeminent halachic authority of the twentieth century always feel the need to elaborate on his halachic rulings when consulted on a matter? Was he ever challenged to a debate when stating a position against someone whose opinion was different to that of his own? Was he accused of betraying scholarship?

In this instance my father was inundated with phone-calls and emails all over the world, asking for his professional opinion. As the leading authority in the Jewish world on comparative religion, and considered the foremost expert on Christian missionaries, it was only natural for people to turn to him for guidance and advice. He would not, could not comment till he read the book. One recipient of the book (it was handed out to several people in Israel) ensured that a copy made its way to Toronto. (Not one of the so-called pirated copies, “full of errors?” that Shmuley refers to). Having done so and after careful deliberation he chose to respond by issuing his expert and halachic view. Getting into the why and what for would be beyond the scope of many who were simply looking for directive. It would also invariably drag people into the murky waters of Christian theology, which he felt is no place for the average Jew.

If there is one thing I admire about my father it is “consistency,” a buzz-word many will have come to know his lectures over the years. As a matter of principle, he never engaged in public debate with Christian missionaries. He would always consider it giving them a platform, which they don’t deserve. Does that make him less scholarly? Did that reduce the level of intellectualism that he has become so highly acknowledged for throughout the Jewish and non-Jewish world? Did that diminish the impact on thousands who packed his lecture halls, or the many Jewish kids and adults who found their way back to their roots on account of his lectures?

To be sure, there was one debate my father did have when asked to challenge Michael Brown, the tragic Jewish, Jews for J proponent. This was in the presence of a panel of judges who would determine the winner of the debate. Notwithstanding my father’s victory and inasmuch as he felt that one time necessary, he still regretted it thereafter. (Shmuley once debated Brown as well. Brown proudly shows off that debate on his own website, only proving the point how debates can be so counterproductive and indeed dangerous, especially when you’re out of your depth).

One of the things my father was consistent about was never using certain terms in our family home. as my father would have typically used the name “J” in lectures, in what would be termed as horoat sha’ah, (a need for the moment) G-d help any of us, his children, if we dared ever utter it in our own home. Even as kids we understood the distinction between exceptions when necessary and when not. Surely Shmuley understands the same?

In a “highbrow scholarly” retort, Shmuley resorts to suggesting my father wrote this letter because we are both “being openly discussed as possible candidates for the position of Chief Rabbi of the UK, with significant media speculation as to my (Shmuley) candidacy growing over the past two weeks even though, despite many high-profile endorsements, I have said I am not a declared candidate.” In other words my father wrote the letter to bolster my chances against him.

MP Louise Mensch and spoon-bender Uri Geller are hardly what anyone in the UK would consider “high profile endorsements.” Furthermore, just as my father doesn’t need my input, I’ve never used him to fight any of my battles. The Jewish Chronicle already reported last week that liberal Rabbi, Julia Neuberger has a better chance of becoming Chief Rabbi than Shmuley. Like Shmuley, I’ve never said that I am a declared candidate either. Most of all, and I will dare to go public with this, in several discussions with my father, he told me in no uncertain terms that it is not a position he would want to see me in. I’m not going to discuss the reasons, but that should put paid to the absurdity of Shmuley’s insinuation.

It was fourteen years ago when I was publically critical of some of the content of Shmuley’s then book “The Jewish Guide to Adultery.” This prompted him to call me and challenge me to a debate. (Sounds familiar?). I vividly remember how during the conversation I raised some objections about another publication of his, “Moses of Oxford,” which he admitted to me “may have some points that are “halachically problematic, but this book is different.” I rose to the challenge (much to the disappointment of my father who questioned why I was giving him a platform). I did not, as Shmuley suggests, proceed to tear pages the book. I did however have several torn pages the book which I quoted during the debate, some of which at one point went spiraling to the floor. Shmuley knows this to be true. Shame again that he resorts to this kind of “scholarly” retort.

Shmuley, by his own email admission did not win that debate. What he didn’t know at the time was that it was my first ever public debate. Truth will always prevail. But it was his post debate comment that still lingers disturbingly in my head: “Yitzchak, be your own man. Be the Rebbe’s man (the Lubavitcher Rebbe) but more importantly be your own man.”

Therein lays the essence of the problem, does it not? My father wrote more than thirty scholarly works. I remember him exchanging manuscripts with other authors to edit and comment upon. In several instances these would pass by the desk of the Lubavitcher Rebbe as well. Intellectual honesty necessitates that you accept the possibility that you may be wrong and let others tell you so before you go to print. Why publish Moses of Oxford and admit only later that some of it may be flawed? How can you be so sure the same doesn’t apply now as well?

Everyone needs a mentor. The ancient Rabbis in Ethics of the Fathers already stressed the importance of “appoint for oneself a Rabbi.” The simple logic is that self-love masks over iniquity, and submitting to a higher authority negates the ego that could so readily lead one astray. As Shmuley concludes in his piece, “It’s time for the light of Judaism to brighten the world and for the Jews to live up to their ancient Biblical mandate as a light unto the nations.” Shmuley is a talented individual who could do much in that regard. His starting point must surely be, at the very least, consulting with an authority that he would consider greater than his own self. If such a person does indeed exist, the rest will follow of itself.

Beit Shemesh –
The Sun No Longer Shines

17/1/2012

Another week, another act of terror as a young boy is making his way home and is set upon by five thugs baying for his blood. I’m not talking about the backwaters of Iraq or downtown Gaza. I’m speaking of Beit Shemesh, a community in the heart of Israel.

The once peaceful town in the district of Jerusalem came into the spotlight a few weeks ago when a purported ultra-Orthodox man was arrested for spitting at a local eight-year-old girl deemed to be dressed “immodestly,” in turn sparking riots by the ultra-Orthodox community.

The victim this time was a third-grader, according to Haaretz newspaper, whose parents asked to identify him only as A. He was surrounded by a group of boys who shouted and spat at him and then threw a large rock in his direction that hit him in the back. His crime was that he was recently seen walking with a friend and his dog in a field near an ultra-Orthodox neighbourhood. At the time, they were approached by another ultra-Orthodox man who screamed at the boy and threatened to kill the dog because it was “impure.”

Some recoil at the use of the term ‘terror.’ It is, they argue, at most an act of violence. Violence by definition is the use of physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing. This is more than that; much more. Terrorism is defined by a systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal. Is that not the case here? Aren’t these so-called Haredim looking to impose their standards on the rest of the eighty-thousand strong population of Beit Shemesh (and given half a chance, the rest of Israel)? You have to assume their dress code, adhere to their defined levels of modesty, have men and women walk on opposite sides of the road and abolish any pets, lest you will be spat upon or have rocks thrown at you.

I know a number of families who emigrated to Beit Shemesh over the years, settling into what was once a wonderfully peaceful, cohesive and thriving community. Today some might walk around with the same sense of trepidation I might feel when walking into Iran with a yarmulke on my head. It was reported to me last week how one former member who settled there more than a decade ago, was recently refused service in a store because “too much flesh above her elbow was showing.”

Israel has always prided itself on being the only democracy in the Middle East. These actions are chipping away at that reality. In democratic societies, spitting and throwing stones would be an offence in law, and even refusing service in a store in such circumstances would be considered racial discrimination.

With no leadership condemning these acts, and Haredim being allowed to run riot each time one of their perpetrators is arrested, I, as an Orthodox Jew and a Rabbi, maintain that every stone, every spit, every act of discrimination should be confronted with the full mettle of the law. Every person responsible for these deplorable actions, including the rioters, should be prosecuted, with heavy fines imposed. The police ought not to allow themselves to become intimidated by a fundamentalist fringe group anymore than Afghan authorities should feel threatened by the Taliban. Every remnant of this radicalism must be eradicated.

In the words of the Midrash: “Whoever is kind to the cruel will end up being cruel to the kind.” Sometimes we must make distinctions. We must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love. Such ‘acts of terror’ have no place in any democratic society, let alone a Jewish State, whose “ways are kind ways, and all her paths are peace.” Eradicating evil is sometimes the greatest act of kindness possible.

Radicals In The Ranks

3/1/2012

For all the political divides in Western society the one thing we all agree upon is our mutual resentment of the radicalism that defines many Middle Eastern countries. We look with disdain upon men who treat women as second class. We mock governments that mete out anachronistic justice. We detest those that regard democracy as the poison pill of the devil. Apartheid has become a dirty word. And yet, I wonder to what extent much of the same is creeping into our own Jewish society.

Having just spent a week in Israel there were two stories making the rounds at dinner tables and daily headlines in the press. The first was about a man who had spit on an Orthodox eight-year-old girl for immodest dress and another man arrested for calling a female Jewish soldier a “whore” for refusing to move to the back of a bus. Both these men have been described as “Haredi.” This is typically taken to mean ultra-Orthodox. I take umbrage to that definition. I think of myself as ultra-Orthodox but believe these “Haredi” men to be a disgrace to Jewish society. When boarding an El Al flight back to the UK I was stopped by a stranger who proceeded to ask me my opinion on the recent hoopla. It was as if my black hat makes me one of ‘them’ and I needed to justify ‘my people’s’ actions. At best that’s gross naïveté, tantamount to racial profiling. I and most of my ultra-Orthodox brothers and sisters believe in ‘live and let live’ while these men are no different to the radicals in Iran or the fundamentalists in Afghanistan that we’ve come to hear so much about.

To be sure, the comparison is not wholly justified. The foul-mouthed man was arrested, in other places he would have been applauded. The Israeli government is democratic after all and thankfully the law of the land prevails. What Israel must remain alert to however is when the middle begins to feel safe enough to accept some of the so-called radical thinking by ideas move to the middle and a new edge is created

To be sure, there is extremism on the left as well. There are plenty of secularists in Israel who loath anyone remotely religious, just because. They may not spit on Orthodox Jews or call them whores, but at the core they too are guilty of the same. Extremism is so easy. Youve got your position, and thats it. It doesnt take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around the left.

I’ve often pondered the contemporary significance of the third of the Ten Commandments: “Do not take My name in vain.” Religion does not engender anarchy, as some might argue. It is people’s subjective interpretation of religion that causes discord. Maimonides states that if a pious individual acts in a way that the general population would consider inappropriate, this person is performing a chilul Hashem (lit. desecration of G-dliness). That’s taking G-d’s name in vain.

I maintain that everyone is entitled to embrace whatever standards they want within their own lives and it is not for anyone else to criticise that. If “Haredim” want to maintain their own dress code, have men and women walk on opposite sides of the street and sit separately on busses, then that remains their prerogative. It is when they try to impose their standards on others that it becomes difficult – nay, impossible to differentiate between them and other radicals that we are all so quick to condemn.

Which begs one final question: indeed is the voice of condemnation? are the Jewish leaders, the so-called “Torah giants” who should be publically decrying this repugnant behaviour precisely so that people don’t make the mistake of tarring all black hats with the same brush? If this is, as it is justifiably argued, a fringe group, then that can only be made obvious with vocal protestation. There could be no greater kiddush Hashem (lit. sanctification of G-d’s name) to counterbalance the chilul Hashem. In the words of King Solomon: “There is a time to be silent and a time to speak.”

I’ve challenged Islamic leaders in televised debates as to why they were not more outspoken against the extremism evident within their faith. Many might interpret the very silence as agreement, I argued. I now put this same challenge to our own Jewish leadership, lest the quiet might be perceived as concurrence and it will remain difficult to differentiate between them and others as well.

Big Tent - Big Egos

2/12/2011

It was never going to be perfect but then no big event ever is, especially when it’s a first of its kind. It was never going to be without controversy, but then no event involving over seven hundred Jews could hope to be so, especially when the topic is all about Israel.

I didn’t attend the Big Tent for Israel event in Manchester only because I was in New York at the time (attending a sort of Big Tent for Chabad event with over 4500 people – and pretty much controversy free, but that’s another matter). I applaud Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag for his vision and conviction in launching this vital initiative. I heard plenty of feedback and I think it is fair to say the event was a resounding success. Could it have done with a bigger attendance? This is Anglo-Jewry after all and unless the Chief Rabbi is speaking, which is always a huge draw in itself, or Chazanim are singing, which is always appealing to the fuddie-duddies, seven hundred people is a great result. Could it have done with more of the younger generation in attendance? We’re talking Anglo-Jewish youth who seem to be disillusioned on so many levels at the moment – as reflected even in the elections for new chair of UJS – only one person standing unopposed. So on balance all those who had input in making this happen ought to be very pleased indeed.

The only downside of this event is the initial response and support by other leading organisations. When you know you should really be doing something but someone else gets up to do it instead, you feel threatened. I get that. Hence BICOM and even the Board of Deputies were jumping all over BTFI at the outset. When some lame ducks at the helm of those organisations think that it is entirely their domain to be dealing with these issues and let no one else dare tread on their turf, it reflects a deep-seeded insecurity which probably says more about its particular lay leadership than it does about the organisations per se. Just because you can’t get your act together and galvanize people the way Rabbi Guttentag has done, almost singlehandedly, is no reason to undermine him.

PR guru Shimon Cohen got it spot on when he said: When we started Shechita UK, I was told we didnt need it; our leaders would have a quiet word at the top. That is utter rubbish. People matter, opinions matter, voices matter. Thanks to the great Jewish public, a voice got across and we won.

MP Ivan Lewis also noted, Far too often, those who claim the mantle of leadership in our community would rather ignore some home truths.”

How good are your ‘tents’ O Jacob: Making the case for Israel in an ever-increasing hostile environment is challenging enough. The secret for success – what ensures that our tents, whether big or mini, are good, are the people with sincere agendas helping to fight for the cause. It’s when there are those whose own agendas are greater than the cause that we are doomed to failure.

Is Jobs Really Responsible?

22/11/2011

The final words at the end of Ethics of the Fathers reads: “All that G-d created in His world, He created for His glory.”

The point of these words is that everything that exists within G-d’s universe can serve some inherent spiritual purpose. Whether it’s a car in order to drive to synagogue, a mobile phone by which to call and cheer up a friend or even the internet through which a plethora of Torah study is now available.

Of course with time there are advances to technology and today all three of the aforementioned can be rolled into one, such that I can sit in my car, have my mobile phone speak out an email received and dictate a response.

I was therefore surprised that Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks took a swipe at Steve Jobs recently when he blamed him for engendering a selfish generation. The concerns expressed by the Chief Rabbi are absolutely correct. But this “want it finer, want it better, want it faster” ailment that so plagues our society has been around since the dawn of advertising. cars to phones, holiday destinations to children’s toys, every manufacturer shares in the blame for creating the consumerism mentality. The ‘i’ in front of Mr. Jobs’ products might underscore the reality, but I don’t believe he is anymore to blame than say Jaguar who put out a new car every six months and look to entice the same insatiability within would-be buyers.

To be sure, one will have never seen people camping outside car showrooms for three nights in order to be the first to own the new car, or outside Toys R Us to get their hands on the latest Barbie doll, but Jobs was just picking up on an already voracious consumers and delivering an exciting, practical and mostly affordable product.

I fondly recall a man whom I never had the chance to meet but thanks to the internet we established a unique rapport. It was nearly a decade ago when he emailed me to ask a question. This was in response to my Ask the Rabbi column in London’s Jewish News. Owing to the nature of the question I avoided publication and emailed a direct response. Realising that we both shared the same internet provider he started to instant message me – this in the day when such messaging was not as rampant. He endearingly referred to me as ‘Rebbe’ and told me to call him ‘Shvants’ (crude term meaning tail and usually implying a ‘loser’). It became apparent that he was relatively young and awaiting a liver transplant. We never met. He never wanted to. But we conversed regularly over the course of two years, always by instant message. He wasn’t a shul-goer and got very defensive when I would attempt to encourage him to put on Tefilin.

I hadn’t heard him for a little while and of course had no way to contact him. Then I took a call one day someone identifying herself as Mr. Brown’s daughter. “My father had gone into hospital with liver complications and unfortunately has passed away.” I was looking through my shul list and could not find the name. “Is your father a member of the synagogue? Are you a member?” “My Dad was not a member but you knew him well the internet.” “Oh my goodness – Shvants!” There was quiet at the other end: “Who?”

She couldn’t know all the ins and outs of our relationship but she said her father spoke about me often. “He asked if you could officiate at his funeral.” How could I say no? “And he wanted me to tell you that he took his Tefilin into the hospital with him and put them on the morning before he passed away.” Did I mention I would communicate with Shvants my Apple computer? Mr Jobs, you may have figured out how to take advantage of people’s greed, but I wouldn’t lay the blame at your feet. To my mind you did a mitzvah.

This article (as well as most of my articles for the shul website) was written on an iPad.

Find A Better Way To Occupy Yourself

1/11/2011

The Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral has resigned because of protestors camped outside his church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is under fire for waffling in response to the crisis. And I am left scratching my head trying to figure out why “Occupy London” has become their problem. I understand their conflict of interest. How do you balance sympathy with the protestors’ campaign while wanting them to clear a path to your front door? But what I cannot understand is why these protestors are there in the first place?

When Occupy Wall Street started out their agenda was clear. They were fed up with joblessness, poor economic conditions and much of it seemingly triggered by the greed that greases the wheels of Wall Street. That in turn spilled over into other States throughout the US and other cities throughout the world. So why are Graeme Knowles and Rowan Williams at fault? Did they get budget busting bonuses this year? Have they fiddled their expenses, pilfering the charity plate perhaps?

If you have a problem with capitalism, park yourselves in Canary Wharf, outside Downing Street or pitch tent near your local branch. But let good G-d fearing people carry on their sacred work. Religion is after all the antidote to greed and all that it breeds.

The real issue I suggest is that many aren’t even quite sure why they are they are. At least one American news station interviewed some of the campaigners on Wall Street who couldn’t quite explain why they were actually out on the streets. In London, a news report out this morning suggested one man gave up in disgust because it had lost direction and become a hotbed for loutishness and drugs.

I’m reminded of the Biblical story read only last week about those who launched a campaign of their own to build the Tower of Babel. Commentators grapple with the essence of their misdeed and conclude that it lies in the words, “and let us make a name for ourselves.” In other words it was less about the campaign and more about the self-aggrandizement.

I’m not suggesting the “Occupy” campaign has no merit. Nor am I suggesting there are no serious people out there reflecting all our concerns. But for every protester occupying Wall Street or London or Denmark, there is at least one other who is simply looking to occupy him or herself with nothing else to do. That surely defeats the whole purpose.