Sign In Forgot Password

Torah On the Grow, a periodic blog by Rav Shai Cherry

01/31/2020 12:00:46 PM

Jan31

Not everyone has the luxury, or patience, to learn Torah every week. Torah on the Grow is for that audience. The goal is to bring a Jewish perspective to topics that surround us in our non-Jewish environment. The hope is to grow in our Jewish knowledge, in our appreciation of Jewish wisdom, and in our desire to learn more.  – Rav Shai Cherry

To receive the periodic posts in your mailbox, click here to subscribe.

It's Not Antisemitic. It's Unreal.

08/17/2021 01:30:10 PM

Aug17

Torah on the Grow: Holocaust Analogies and COVID Vaccinations

At the University of San Diego, the Holocaust course is among the most popular. Students hope to understand how it could have been perpetrated by European Christians. It's a crucial question that also touches upon some of the political rhetoric surrounding COVID vaccinations.

Even if you were assigned The Diary of Anne Frank in high school, that's not the image most of us associate with the Holocaust. We are more likely to think of Elie Wiesel's Night, "Schindler's List," or some other grisly concentration camp movie. In other words, we tend to cut to the chase: six million Jews massacred.

Because the University of San Diego is a Catholic university, I began my Holocaust course with the New Testament and the long history of Christian antisemitism which scholars agree was a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for the Holocaust. It is critical for the students to understand that at the time of Adolph Hitler's electoral victories in the early 1930s, the Nazi Party was not dedicated to the genocide of the Jewish people.  

Identifying the Nazis with Auschwitz is not unfair, it is unhistorical. Auschwitz was built in 1940 as part of the "final" solution. The Nazis began their anti-Jewish laws in 1933 upon achieving political power. In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws stripped German Jews of their German citizenship and imposed upon them what historians call "social death." They were increasingly excluded from public affairs and confined to a social ghetto.

The Germans forced Polish Jews to wear armbands with the Star of David after the invasion of Poland in 1939. Not until 1941 were German Jews forced to wear a yellow Star of David on their clothing when outdoors. Auschwitz began using poisonous gas, Zyklon B, the same year. The Nazis deprived Jews of their rights, incrementally, until finally denying them the right to live. We think in images, but live by steps.

This May, a proprietor of a hat shop in Nashville starting selling Star of David patches with the words "not vaccinated" on them. Last month at a protest in Paris against the government's vaccination policies, yellow arm bands were seen among the crowd. Most recently, the Chairman of the Republican Party in Oklahoma, John Bennet, defended the meme he posted on social media comparing vaccine passports to the yellow badges imposed by the Nazis.  

His defense was that the yellow badges restricted Jewish access to public venues as would the COVID passports for the unvaccinated. His example and logic could not be more perverse! He was, he insists, comparing COVID health measures to the Nazi policy of 1939 not 1941! How silly for us to imagine Bennet was comparing restriction of access, or ostracism, to genocide, which would be ludicrous. He was merely comparing ostracism to protection, which is only surreal. (There is also the difference of badges which precluded access and passports that allow access. But, I quibble.)

Anticipating the FDA's approval, arguments against mandating vaccines have shifted from health concerns to individual liberties. Individuals should be able to decide whether or not to vaccinate themselves without government interference, so the argument goes.

How disingenuous! Personal liberties are infringed upon whenever the government determines those liberties to be in conflict with the public welfare. We take people's money through taxes; we take people's bodies through conscription during war; we take children's time through compulsory education; and every state requires children to be vaccinated to attend public school.  

The Nazis legally deprived German Jews of their rights and convinced non-Jewish Germans that it was for the general welfare. How? In March of 1933, the Nazis began putting political opponents in the Dachau prison camp. By the end of the year, Jews could no longer serve as newspaper editors. The Nazis controlled all forms of communication.

Social media, largely unregulated and unaccountable, is a minefield of misinformation and disinformation. Thus, emblazoned beneath the statue "Guardianship," overseeing the values of our National Archives, we read: "Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty." Liberty must be guarded as history unfolds, step by step.

Torah on the Grow: The King and the Law

01/14/2021 02:18:00 PM

Jan14

Torah on the Grow: Insurrection Edition

01/07/2021 12:43:25 PM

Jan7

Torah on the Grow: New Year's Edition

12/29/2020 12:40:18 PM

Dec29

Torah on the Grow: Hanukkah Edition

12/10/2020 01:39:24 PM

Dec10

Torah on the Grow: Thanksgiving Edition

11/25/2020 10:43:24 AM

Nov25

Torah on the Grow, High Holiday Edition

09/14/2020 11:23:50 AM

Sep14

A Shanda fur die Goyim: Another Argument for Conservative Judaism

08/28/2020 01:49:26 PM

Aug28

Like many of you, I was sickened by the article that appeared on the front page of Sunday’s Inquirer. Whenever the first word of a headline is “Jewish,” I get nervous. In this case, Jews were both victims and perpetrators. Last year, a local Jewish family suffered a very late and unexpected miscarriage. Through one of our local Jewish funeral homes, the parents arranged to have their stillborn son, Noach, buried in Lakewood, NJ.  

Once Julia and Eugene Gross were strong enough to visit their son’s grave, they were unable to locate the section of the cemetery dedicated to stillborn children. After hiring an attorney, they discovered that their child’s body had been buried in an unmarked, mass grave. Subsequently, the Grosses received a letter from Rabbi Shmuel Tendler, the rabbi of the congregation that runs the cemetery, assuring them that Noach was “buried in accordance with the strictest standards of Jewish Orthodox Halacha and tradition.” Tendler was almost right — and that’s yet another tragedy in this story.

Rabbi Stephanie Dickstein, whose ordination Rabbi Tendler would never recognize based exclusively on her gender, explained in her 1996 legal responsum on this issue that the laws in question were originally intended to show compassion.

Scholars speculate that infant mortality rates in 1st-century Israel were roughly 30%. The rabbis were concerned about overburdening the parents and the community members with all the rituals surrounding death and mourning, so they conditioned those rituals on the baby living past its first thirty days. Should a fetus or infant not survive that long, the parents and community were exempt from nearly all associated rituals.

Today, in the US, the mortality rate is just over one half of one percent. Particularly in the highly educated Jewish community, women are having children relatively late in life. When pregnancies fail, to ignore the pain and suffering of a woman, her partner, and family is callous. By committing oneself to the form of the law rather than the goal of the law, Rabbi Tendler and his ilk have turned the halakhah from agents of mercy to agents of cruelty. Rabbi Dickstein, writing for the Conservative movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, demonstrated the compassion and courage to change the form of the law to align with the purpose of the halakhic system. (Read Rabbi Dickstein’s teshuvah here.)

Moses Maimonides, RaMBaM, would censure Tendler on two accounts. The first is his inability to understand that a law should not be adhered to when its adherence would contradict the goal. Here’s a snapshot of his philosophy of halakhah concerning pikuach nefesh (safeguarding a life):

“The laws of Torah were given to bring compassion, lovingkindness, and peace into the world. The heretics who say that violating Shabbat is forbidden [even for one who is dangerously ill] offer an example of what Ezekiel wrote citing God’s words, ‘I also gave them laws that were not good and statutes that they could not live by (Ezekiel 20:28)” (Mishneh Torah, h. Shabbat 2:3).

Ezekiel’s God gave the Israelites bad laws; RaMBaM’s God gave the Israelites good laws that, under certain circumstances, turn cold.

The second reason why RaMBaM would sanction, or even excommunicate, Tendler was that his actions constitute a chillul haShem, a public desecration of God’s name. Anyone whose stomach churned when they read The Inquirer article felt that chillul haShem in their kishkes. RaMBaM writes in his halakhic code that something done by a person of great Torah learning which causes people to speak disparagingly about him, even if he doesn’t specifically violate a commandment, commits a chillul haShem. The Yiddish rendition of that sentiment is: A Shanda fur die Goyim.

May we have compassion for the Gross family, clarity about Tendler’s desecration of God’s name, and courage to ensure that all of our tradition radiates compassion, lovingkindness, and peace.

Your Choice

03/27/2020 09:39:27 AM

Mar27

Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him.  Dt. 30:19-20

Some of our political leaders are trying to balance the health of our economy against the health of our citizenry. It reminds me of this piece of Talmud:

וְאָ֣הַבְתָּ֔ אֵ֖ת יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ֥ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ֖ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶֽךָ׃

(A standard translation is: You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your soul, and with all your heart, and with all your might. Dt. 6:5)

Rabbi Eliezer says:  

If the verse says "with all your soul," why does it need to say "with all your might"? And since it says, "with all your might," why does it need to say "with all your soul"?

Ahhh. If one's body is more precious to him than his money, the verse says, "with all your soul." But if one's money is more precious to him than his property, it says, "with all your might."  --b. Brachot 61b

Two things to know:  

1) Rabbi Eliezer was rich, and 2) the earliest interpretations of "might" from this biblical verse are property and money. 

Samson Raphael Hirsch, the father of Modern Orthodoxy in Germany in the mid-19th century, turned the verse around. Whatever you love with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your money — that is your God.

The Talmud's word for money is mammon — and that reminds of a Jewish verse from a text that became Christian, The Gospel of Matthew. "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (6:24).

As Bob Dylan said, "You're gonna have to serve somebody."

Kind, Not Degree

03/19/2020 06:27:59 PM

Mar19

The Rabbinical Assembly, on March 17, posted a response to Covid-19 as it relates to remote or virtual minyans.

https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/story/cjls-guidance-remote-minyanim-time-covid-19 

The Rabbinical Assembly is the union for Conservative rabbis and houses the legal committee (Committee for Jewish Law and Standards) that discusses and advises rabbis on novel legal questions. Their decision was to endorse weekday minyans through Zoom or similar platforms because of sha'at hadehak which they translated as a crisis situation. It's a relatively short analysis that gives you a wonderful window into the halakhic process when rabbis are hunting for precedents that will justify a lenient decision. In my opinion, it's the wrong approach in this situation.

Our rabbis, and our movement, do an admirable job of incremental change, what we might call changes in degree. A sha'at hadehak, however, demands changes in kind, not degree. To survive crises, you don't adjust positions, you shift paradigms. The question they should have asked is: what constitutes a minyan? Instead, they basically asked if a virtual platform is kosher for kaddish. That's a bottom line/tachlis question. In a sha'at hadehak, more radical questions must be asked.

In the Talmud's discussion of how we know that a minyan consists of ten people, the verse that is ultimately settled upon labels the ten spies sent to reconnoiter the Land of Israel as an edah, a congregation (Numbers 14:27 and b. Megillah 23b). Since that's the source that illustrates a minyan, physical proximity with visual contact can't be essential. There must have been times during their forty-day assignment when they were dispersed. Their edah was composed of a group on a mission to fulfill a specific function. Prayer services and Shabbat services using a virtual platform similarly comprise a group on a mission to fulfill specific functions. Thus, during this sha'at hadehak, ten people sharing a virtual platform constitute a minyan without qualification. (The Rabbinical Assembly's permission was qualified.)

Since gathering physically is potentially dangerous, we need to shift paradigms. This is not a question of decreasing the number of transgressions one is forced to commit when in situation of pikuach nefesh, a life-or-death situation for an individual. We are in sha'at hadehak, a time of communal crisis. The normal rules of halakhic procedure must be suspended while we tend to the fundamental needs of our community. Those needs include gathering together however we can in order to engage our community in the comfort of the familiar.

Mon, September 27 2021 21 Tishrei 5782