Category: Jewish Law

Categories
Hasidic Jews Hillary Clinton Israel Jewish Law Judaism and Technology Orthodox Judaism Photography Photoshop Politics Women

Hillary Clinton Removed from Iconic Photo by Hasidic Newspaper

Cross-posted to The Jewish Techs blog at The NY Jewish Week
A big hat-tip to Failed Messiah (who gave a hat-tip to Critical Minyan) for breaking the news that an Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jewish newspaper, Der Tzitung, has determined that the photo of top U.S. leaders receiving an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden was too scandalous.
What was so offensive about the image? U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the photo and, based on good intel, the editor of Der Tzitung discovered that she is a woman. The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive. The iconic photo shows President Obama, Vice President Biden, and members of the U.S. National Security Team in the Situation Room of the White House. Secretary of State Clinton, wearing a long-sleeved suit jacket, sits with her hand over her mouth. I’m not sure how Der Tzitung determined this was a racy photo. Perhaps they just don’t like the idea of a woman with that much political power.
Der Tzitung Photophopped Hillary Clinton out of the photo, thereby changing history. To my mind, this act of censorship is actually a violation of the Jewish legal principle of g’neivat da’at (deceit). I wrote about this subject a year ago following the Flotilla debacle in Israeli waters outside Gaza when the Reuters news agency doctored photos that it published by removing weapons from individuals aboard the Mavi Marmara. The doctoring of photographs like this is referred to as “Fauxtograpphing.” I’m curious to hear how Der Tzitung responds to its attempt to remove Hillary Clinton from this iconic photo and thereby from this historic event.
This official photograph was released from the White House and includes the following disclaimer after the caption: “This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.”
(c) Rabbi Jason Miller | http://blog.rabbijason.com | Twitter: @RabbiJason | facebook.com/rabbijasonmiller
Categories
Jewish Law News People Rabbis Spirituality

Kabbalah Centre’s Berg Sent Packing from Newsweek’s List of Top Rabbis

**UPDATE** – Somehow I missed the fact that Yehuda Berg is actually still on the list this year. He comes in at #37 (down from #14 last year). The Newsweek/Daily Beast gallery of the 50 Most Influential Rabbis shows Berg in a photo with Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore. Amazing. Just amazing. (Hat tip to Rabbi Aaron Spiegel, CEO of Synagogue 3000, for pointing out my oversight)

When I read Newsweek magazine’s expose of the Kabbalah Centre and its questionable foundation for a children’s school in Malawi founded with millions of dollars from Madonna, the first thing I thought about was the annual Newsweek list of the top fifty American rabbis (technically: the most “influential” rabbis).

Rabbi Yehuda Berg, the son of the controversial founder of the Kabbalah Centre, has been listed among the top five in Newsweek’s annual list each year. And each year, after the Newsweek list is published, there are those who argue that Berg isn’t even actually an ordained rabbi and doesn’t belong on the list. Some claim that he’s running a cult that is Judaism’s version of Scientology. And then there are those who believe that Berg isn’t a religious figure at all, but rather a businessman running a corporation that sells everything from red strings and holy water to books and astrology sets.

I immediately found it curious that the same publication that would expose such criminal income tax schemes, questionable fundraising practices and laughable merchandise sales would put the mastermind behind it all high on its list of the top rabbis in the country.

Well, sure enough the new list of the fifty most influential rabbis was published yesterday and guess who’s not on the list. Anywhere. Somehow the face of the Kabbalah Centre has disappeared from the list after being in the top five in prior years. I suppose it would have raised eyebrows even more had Yehuda Berg remained on the list only a couple week’s after the “Madonna’s Kabbalah Disaster in Malawi” article appeared. However, it would have been helpful had Newsweek/Daily Beast issued a statement as to why Berg was not included in this year’s list. It could be argued that he’s still very influential, but perhaps Newsweek is no longer regarding him as a rabbi.

I’m hesitant to criticize anyone else’s religious beliefs, however, I don’t think that what the Kabbalah Centre is producing is actually a religion at all. In fact, it’s not even fully based on the teachings of Jewish mysticism. From the Newsweek article, it looks like the Kabbalah Centre is made up of businessmen who have figured out ways to swindle people out of money, including celebrities like Madonna, corporations like Gucci, regular people buying $72 candles, and the U.S. government. The Kabbalah Centre has become classified as a Church by the IRS and they run everything (cars, houses, vacation homes, etc.) through the corporation. Add to that the scam they seemed to have produced with the foundation for the Malawi school, and I’m sure there will be a full-scale investigation soon that will end the Kabbalah Centre as we know it and return Kabbalah to its esoteric roots in the hands of the Jewish scholars of mysticism.

The good news about this year’s Newsweek/Daily Beast list of the top rabbis, in addition to them removing Yehuda Berg, is that it includes some wonderful colleagues of mine. Even though fellow social media consultant Esther Kustanowitz refers to the list as “My Rabbi’s Better Than Your Rabbi,” it actually does include some of the most influential rabbis in the American Jewish community. I was excited to see my classmate Rabbi Rachel Nussbaum of the start-up minyan Kavana Seattle make the list this year. Additionally, it was great to see the inclusion of Rabbis David Wolpe, Rick Jacobs, Irwin Kula, Jill Jacobs, Ethan Tucker, Elie Kaunfer, Shai Held, Naomi Levy, Burt Visotzky, Avi Weiss and Steve Greenberg.

(c) Rabbi Jason Miller | http://blog.rabbijason.com | Twitter: @RabbiJason | facebook.com/rabbijasonmiller
Categories
Jewish Law Judaism and Technology Rabbis Science Shabbat

Using Our Brain to Drive on Shabbat

Here is my recent post on the “Jewish Techs” blog at the Jewish Week:

Previously on the “Jewish Techs” blog, I discussed the technical halachic (Jewish legal) minutae surrounding the permissability of using the Amigo Shabbat Scooter from the Israeli-based Zomet Institute. The Shabbat Scooter is made by Michigan-based Amigo, founded by Allan Thieme, which began making the Jewish Sabbath-approved scooters six years ago.

But now there’s something even more impressive on the horizon that will further push Jewish legal scholars to determine if its use is acceptable for the Sabbath.

Engineers and futurists are now discussing a sitting vehicle which is driven solely with brain activity. Yes, you read that correctly: brain activity. But can it be used on Shabbat when observant Jews refrain from electricity and traditional forms of transportation.

The Jerusalem Post reports, “This intriguing thought was discussed on Thursday by Rabbi Dr. Dror Fixler, an electrooptics engineer at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, who was one of the speakers at Thursday’s 18th Torah and Science Conference of the Jerusalem College of Technology, Yeshiva University in Israel and BIU… Fixler showed a recently released clip of a ‘proof of concept’ vehicle that has a person inside who merely thinks of how to maneuver it. The vehicle drives itself safely, turning corners, slowing down and giving more gas. While this is ‘not something one should do at home,’ the Autonomos company successfully tested the proof-of-concept car a few months ago, said the BIU engineer.”

So how does this contraption work? A special cap, worn by the operator, contains 16 sensors and trains the car’s computer by examining the human brain’s electromagnetic signals. The operator of the vehicle simply points to the left and the right, which teaches his movements to the computer without speaking. Once the vehicle is trained, it can maneuver itself.

“Fixler said that the issue of the brain thinking and action – which could or could not be approved by rabbis as permissible Shabbat activity – could raise halachic arguments. Even though the person does not take any physical action to manipulate and move the car, just thinking about it could be forbidden on Shabbat… Fixler noted that even without seeing something work such as a remote control it could be argued that the tool was under the user’s control without actually being observed as doing something; it is much more complicated if only the brain is in control.”

But is merely thinking about something an act that could be deemed a violation of the Sabbath laws in Judaism? There are thirty-nine categories of actions that are forbidden on Shabbat, but one has to actually engage in them to be culpable. It is forbidden for a Jewish farmer to plow his field on Saturday afternoon, but it is fine if he just thinks about plowing his field. The question of course is what happens if his thinking about plowing actually instructs his plow to do the work.

There are certainly those who would argue that riding in any moving vehicle on the Sabbath is a violation of Jewish law. However, in the case of the Amigo scooter or this futuristic contraption controlled by thinking the user is most likely going to be a disabled individual. In those cases, most authorities would likely issue a heter (religious exeption to the rule) so that individual could travel to the synagogue to be with the community on the Sabbath.

There are some very impressive scientific and technological inventions on the way that will further cause religious debate. These are innovations that our forebearers could have never predicted generations ago. It will be interesting to see how these rulings take shape and to what extent the halachic decisors try to fully understand the technological advancements and their implications for our community.

(c) Rabbi Jason Miller | http://blog.rabbijason.com | Twitter: @RabbiJason | facebook.com/rabbijasonmiller
Categories
American Jews Basketball Jewish Law Rabbi Reform Judaism Sports

ESPN Joins the Who Is a Jew Debate

Since commenting here about how the assassination attempt of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has brought the “Who Is a Jew” debate back into the spotlight, I have had some really intriguing conversations with colleagues about how we define Jewish status. A number of colleagues, including Rabbi Irwin Kula, Rabbi Kerry Olitzky, Rabbi Alana Suskin, and Rabbi Sue Fendrick, posted comments and contributed to the discussion on this blog. A Reform colleague and I have had an ongoing private discussion about patrilineal descent. She told me that some Reform rabbis are questioning whether Gabby Giffords would even be considered Jewish according to the Reform movement’s definition (there’s been no mention of her Jewish education or upbringing which would be required by the Reform movement’s policy on Patrilineal Descent).

My rabbinical school classmate, Rabbi Micah Kelber, noticed that the “Who Is a Jew” debate has even made its way into the sports world. Watching ESPN’s “First Take,” Kelber caught commentator Skip Bayless putting his foot in his mouth while referencing how Judaism defines Jewish status through lineage. He blogged about at Jewcy.com:

Today Skip Bayless of ESPN’s First Take made a tiny, but amusing mistake while debating whether it is appropriate to call Blake Griffin of the Los Angeles Clippers the first great white star because while his father is black, his mother is white. To support his argument, he appealed to the Jews for help in determining someone’s identity.

His slip of the tongue: “I would just like to point out that in some cultures, like in the Jewish culture, if the mom is white, you’re Jewish.”

I don’t think that’s what he meant or else there’d be a whole lot more Jewish people in the world. I never thought the question of Jewish status would be taken up on ESPN. Maybe it’s better if it didn’t. In fact, maybe it’s better if we all moved on to other subjects now.

(c) Rabbi Jason Miller | http://blog.rabbijason.com | Twitter: @RabbiJason | facebook.com/rabbijasonmiller
Categories
American Jews Conservative Judaism Jewish Jewish Law Orthodox Judaism Politics Reform Judaism Terrorism

Gabby Giffords and Patrilineal Descent When It’s Desirable

As a Conservative rabbi and a member of the Rabbinical Assembly, I cannot officially consider Jewish descent to be determined patrilineally (from the father). In fact, in its “Code of Professional Conduct,” the section detailing the responsibilities for membership in the Rabbinical Assembly lists four current standards of religious practice. The first is: “Matrilineality determines Jewish status.”

And yet, like many Jews who regard Jewish status to require a Jewish mother or proper conversion, I admit to feeling pride when a Jewish athlete or celebrity is successful, even if their “Jewishness” isn’t technically defined by halachic standards. After all, when major league baseball player Ryan Braun won the National League Rookie of the Year award in 2007, should the Jewish community have refused to claim the “Hebrew Hammer” as one of our own since only his father is a “Member of the Tribe?” Braun considers himself to be Jewish and his Israeli-born father lost most of his family in the Holocaust.

The 1983 decision by the Reform Movement to recognize Jewish status by either the mother or the father continues to raise questions for the other streams of Judaism. The debate over “Who is a Jew” is back in the headlines following the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. For Giffords, the daughter of a mother who is a Christian Scientist and a father who is Jewish and the grandson of a rabbi, there is no question of her Jewishness. She is a proud Jew who is an active member of her Reform congregation. She was married under a chuppah (wedding canopy) by a rabbi, albeit to a non-Jewish man.

This week, as Giffords lay in a hospital recovering from being shot in an assassination attempt by a domestic terrorist, her Hebrew name has circulated the world to be used in the traditional Mi Sheberach prayer for healing. Some rabbis have even questioned whether her non-Jewish mother’s name should be part of her Hebrew nomenclature for the prayer, while others have referred to her as Jewish but added the caveat “not halachically speaking.” Giffords co-chaired the Jewish Outreach Institute’s 2007 conference and is active in her congregation. Yesterday, President Barack Obama called Rabbi Stephanie Aaron, Giffords’ rabbi at Congregation Chaverim, to offer his prayers for a speedy recovery for the congresswoman.

Since Saturday’s shooting, we’ve learned quite a bit about Gabrielle Giffords and her Jewish pride. Her paternal grandfather, the son of a Lithuanian rabbi, changed his name to Giff Giffords for anti-Semitic reasons. On her campaign website, Giffords wrote, “Growing up, my family’s Jewish roots and tradition played an important role in shaping my values. The women in my family served as strong role models for me as a girl. In my family, if you want to get something done, you take it to the women relatives! Like my grandmother, I am a lifetime member of Hadassah and now a member of Congregation Chaverim. When I served in the State Senate in Arizona, I had the opportunity to visit Jerusalem. It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. I will always be a strong supporter of Israel. As the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, Israel is a vital strategic ally of the United States. As a woman and as a Jew, I will always work to insure that the United States stands with Israel to jointly ensure our mutual safety, security, and prosperity.”

The Jerusalem Post was the first publication to state emphatically that Giffords’ Jewishness shouldn’t be questioned. In fact, in their editorial “Learning Judaism From Giffords,” they wrote, “With all our desire for a universally accepted definition of ‘Who is a Jew?’ that would unify the Jewish people, we cannot ignore the complicated reality that many ‘non-Jews’ are much more Jewish than their ‘Jewish’ fellows. Congresswoman Giffords is one of them.”

In her “In the Mix” blog at The Jewish Week, Julie Wiener wrote of how Giffords’ Jewishness is shining a spotlight on the “who is a Jew” debate. In her article, “Plight of the Patrilineals,” Weiner cited blogger “Kung Fu Jew,” who posted his angry rant on the JewSchool blog about how Giffords is “Jewish enough for the Jewish community to own a side-show of the media circus. Jewish enough to be our martyr, it seems, but not Jewish enough to be treated equally in life.” He has a point here. I’m sure many synagogues will offer prayers of healing for Rep. Giffords this Shabbat and recognize her as a Jewish member of Congress, yet they would be violating their own religious policy if they ever called her to the Torah for an aliyah honor.

I really wish we had a consensus on what determines Jewish status through lineage, even if only in the non-Orthodox Jewish community. Certainly, we cannot continue to make an exception for athletes, celebrities, and politicians of Jewish patrilineal descent. I’m in agreement with the Jerusalem Post on this matter. If Rep. Gabrielle Giffords considers herself Jewish because her father is Jewish and she lives a Jewish life, then she’s Jewish.

May Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (Gavriela bat Gloria v’Spencer) be granted a speedy and complete recovery.

(c) Rabbi Jason Miller | http://blog.rabbijason.com | Twitter: @RabbiJason | facebook.com/rabbijasonmiller
Categories
Jewish Law Michigan Politics Women

Rep. Dave Camp Should Force Staffer to Grant Ex-Wife a Jewish Divorce

On the final day of the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, thousands of conference attendees descend on Capitol Hill to lobby members of Congress on issues important to the State of Israel. A few years ago I joined other pro-Israel Michiganders and lobbied Representative Dave Camp. The congressman wasn’t available to meet with us and left an ill-prepared staffer to answer our questions and try to assure us of his boss’s support of the Jewish State. Since Dave Camp represents the 4th Congressional District of Michigan (an area pretty far north of where I live), I didn’t think I’d find myself lobbying him on any other issues in the future. And I surely never thought I’d lobby him on the issue of an agunah — the case of a Jewish woman whose ex-husband refuses to grant her a get (a Jewish bill of divorce).

Rep. Dave Camp becomes the chairman of House Ways and Means Committee tomorrow taking over from Rep. Sandy Levin, and The New York Times reports that there is already controversy surrounding his office. Aharon Friedman, a 34-year-old tax counsel for the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee is an Orthodox Jew who is refusing to give his wife, Tamar Epstein, 27, a get.

The NY Times says that Friedman “finds himself scrutinized in the Jewish press, condemned by important rabbis, and attacked in a YouTube video showing about 200 people protesting outside his Silver Spring, Md., apartment on Dec. 19…The Friedman case has become emblematic of a torturous issue in which only a husband can ‘give’ a get. While Jewish communities have historically pressured obstinate husbands to give gets, this was a very rare case of seeking to shame the husband in the secular world.”

One rabbi wrote to the House Ways and Means Committee asking that he lean on Aharon Friedman to grant the Jewish divorce. The couple has been civilly divorced since April and share custody of their daughter, but they are still married according to Jewish law. Without the get neither one of them is permitted to remarry within the faith. Tamar Friedman is considered an agunah, or chained woman until Aharon presents her with a get.

I implore Representative Dave Camp to compel Aharon Friedman, his staff member, to do the ethical thing and grant his wife a Jewish bill of divorce. I’m sure that Rep. Camp wants everyone who works with him to be of moral character. On his first day as the chairman of this important committee tomorrow, I hope Dave Camp will take Aharon Goldstein aside and tell him what he needs to do to “right this wrong.” This matter has nothing to do with the Committee on Ways and Means or the 4th District of Michigan, but it has a lot to do with character and hopefully the leadership of the 112th Congress will make that a top priority.

As Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld told The New York Times, “I don’t think the Messiah can come, as long as there is one agunah in the world.”

(c) Rabbi Jason Miller | http://blog.rabbijason.com | Twitter: @RabbiJason | facebook.com/rabbijasonmiller
Categories
Ethics Jewish Law Politics Values

Is the Death Penalty an Ethical Option According to Jewish Values?

In the past couple weeks there have been a couple of high profile death penalty decisions in our country. These rulings were not handed down by a judge or jury, but by a former presidential candidate and a cable news talking head.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was caught on video at a book signing in California earlier this month saying that the person that leaked the documents to WikiLeaks should be executed. “Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason,” Huckabee said. “I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.” Newt Gingrich even suggested that WikiLeak’s founder Julian Assange deserves to be hunted and executed Sunday by calling him an “enemy combatant.”

Political commentator Tucker Carlson, filling in for Fox News host Sean Hannity this past Tuesday, told a news panel that he believes football player Michael Vick, who was given a second chance after being convicted on dog fighting charges, deserves to die for his crimes. The panel had been discussing President Barack Obama’s praise of the Philadelphia Eagles for giving Vick a second chance to start at quarterback. Apparently, Tucker Carlson disagrees with Obama because not only does he disagree with giving Vick a second chance, he believes he deserves the death penalty. He said, “Michael Vick killed dogs… And I think, personally, he should’ve been executed for that.”

Admittedly, for many years I never gave much thought to the death penalty. Yes, it is a very serious and divisive topic, but it was not one of the hot button issues of most concern to me. The first time I researched the topic was in 2003 when I took a group of Jewish teens to Washington D.C. for the Panim program and I had to prepare them to debate the moral issues of capital punishment.

I had a cursory understanding of the basic ethical issues and knew the textual sources from the Torah about capital punishment, but it was not a core issue for me. In 2007, I led a family mission to Israel and the abolishment of capital punishment was the bailiwick of one of the adult participants. Before we left for Israel, someone told me that Abe Bonowitz was an abolishionist. I thought, “He’s against slavery? Aren’t we all?” But it turns out that there is a vast and strong death penalty abolishionist movement in this country. And as you can imagine, they weren’t very fond of President George W. Bush’s views on capital punishment.

The more I listened to Bonowitz’s views on capital punishment, the more I was convinced that it cannot possibly be an ethical option for punishment in the 21st century. I’m not sure if Huckabee or Carlson were really serious about executing the Wikileaks source or Michael Vick or if they were speaking in hyperbole like most politicians and political commentators do today. However, it piqued my interest in the ethical issues of capital punishment and my teacher’s thoughtful commentary on the subject came at the perfect time.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield of Clal published “The Jewish Precedent for a Moral Death Penalty” on his Beliefnet blog and on The Huffington Post. He wrote,

The rabbis teach that a unanimous court cannot impose the death penalty. Contrary to the law in Illinois and the safety we seek in unanimity, Jewish tradition teaches that the only court absolutely prohibited from carrying out a death sentence is the one most of us assume should — i.e., one in which all judges agree that it’s the right thing to do.

The rabbis accept that there may be times when it has to happen, but they cannot accept that any decision so momentous and complex should be seen the same way by everybody. If that happens, the rabbis tell us, we must be missing something and therefore cannot execute the offender.

Some of that thinking is what created the lengthy and hugely expensive process demanded by a system which still entertains the death penalty even if it rarely imposes it. That system would end with passage of SB 3539, making the world a better place by redirecting funds earmarked for death penalty litigation to murder victims’ families and enhanced law enforcement.

Ultimately, Jewish tradition values the idea of the death penalty as a moral statement, but hates its imposition on ethical grounds. Interestingly, that is where it seems many Americans stand when it comes to the issue as well. Perhaps now is the time to go back to the future when it comes to thinking about the death penalty.

The past president of my synagogue, Harold Gurewitz, is an experienced and well respected criminal defense attorney here in Michigan. This summer in a highly publicized federal death penalty case he successfully kept his client, Timothy O’Reilly, from being executed (Michigan banned capital punishment in the 1800s, but a death sentence is still possible for certain federal crimes.). Gurewitz spoke to our congregation about his experiences in the months-long trial. He explained that capital punishment in Jewish law requires the prosecutors to advocate for the taking of another life. The evidence offered to support the penalty – as distinguished from the decision of guilt– proved lingering or residual doubts about the defendant’s personal role in the specific acts causing death. It required the judge and/or jury to engage in a very personal decision-making process and to individually agree that another human being should be put to death.

When considering capital punishment in the Torah, it must be viewed in its historical context, Gurewitz explained. There are fundamental values in Jewish sources, the Bible and commentaries that provide meaningful references for how we should view capital punishment today.

While the Torah lists numerous transgressions for which the death penalty is prescribed, Hirschfield points out that there is only actually “one instance in the Five Books of Moses in which someone is executed by the court. In fact, later rabbinic tradition teaches that if the death penalty is imposed once in 70 years, the court which imposes it is called a terrorist court. While having the death penalty on the books has merit as a moral statement, actually imposing it seems to be quite to the contrary.”

Stoning, pushing the convict off a ledge to a stone floor, burning, strangulation, and decapitation are all forms of capital punishment in the Torah and Talmud. However, these were intended to represent an advancement over the cruelty and lack of restraint in earlier times and by other cultures. Gurewitz said that, “According to an Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States by a prominent lawyer, Nathan Lewin, supporting an argument against the use of electrocution as capital punishment in Florida should be banned as a violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, these practices exemplified respect for ‘human dignity’ in the means by which the penalty was to be carried out and restraint in its use.”
Judge Jack B. Weinstein, a United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York, spoke at Temple Emanuel of Great Neck in New York. He noted that “Conditions change. Our view of what is required of a humane and caring people should change with the times. What was required and permitted in biblical times is not necessarily what decent people should approve of today. The argument that “ the Torah says it, therefore its is right for us: is no excuse for unnecessary cruelty and inhumanity. We can and should reject capital punishment.”

Gurewitz quoted Judge Weinstein, but explained that what the judge did not explicitly mention was that when we focus on the “values” that obviously informed the “humane practices” of capital punishment, they support the view that it should not be practiced at all.

In Israel, capital punishment is only used for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against the Jewish people and treason in wartime. The only execution in Israel has been Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann by hanging.

Capital punishment is as nuanced and complex as an ethical issue can be. Perhaps that is why Mike Huckabee’s and Tucker Carlson’s rhetoric calling for execution makes headlines. There might have been a time generations ago when capital punishment was accepted, however, in today’s world it is clearly not an ethical option for punishment.

(c) Rabbi Jason Miller | http://blog.rabbijason.com | Twitter: @RabbiJason | facebook.com/rabbijasonmiller
Categories
Jewish Jewish Law Judaism and Technology Literature Shabbat Technology

Curling Up With an E-Book on Shabbat?

Cross-posted to the Jewish Techs blog at The Jewish Week

Tech gadgets have changed our lives. And they will change our lives even more in the future.

For Sabbath observant Jews, tech gadgets pose some lingering questions about their usage on Shabbat. My teacher, Rabbi Daniel Nevins, is a member of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards — the body that decides matters of Halakhah (Jewish law) for the Conservative movement. Rabbi Nevins has been working on a teshuvah (legal response) regarding the use of an e-book on Shabbat and was quoted on the matter in Uri Friedman’s recent article in The Atlantic, “People of the E-Book? Observant Jews Struggle With Sabbath in a Digital Age.”

I remember back in the 1990’s when CD-Roms containing entire collections of Jewish texts were first on the market. I saw a cartoon that in the first frame showed a Jewish library with hundreds of sets books — Bibles, Talmuds, rabbinic commentaries, etc. Each shelf was overfilled with Jewish books from the ancient to the modern. In the second frame, labeled modern Jewish library, was an entire library with empty shelves and one CD-Rom sitting on the shelf. At that time, the common response to the Jewish library becoming digital was that while it’s great to have the Talmud or Midrash on the computer six days of the week, on Shabbat we still want our traditional books.

Today, we’ve moved beyond having to load a CD into our computer to read Jewish books, study Torah, or look up reference material. We can now download the entire corpus of Jewish literature onto a mobile device like an e-reader. But the Shabbat issue is still relevant. Will technology trump the culture and experience of curling up with an actual book on Shabbat? As Menachem Wecker asked in his Forward article a few years ago, “Shabbat in the Age of Technology,” “Will Shabbat observance ultimately dwindle as people choose electronic entertainment over media-free rest, or will technology-addicted folks flock to Shabbat to escape their electronics-obsession of the rest of the week?”

Even for Jews who do not hold by the electricity restrictions on Shabbat (namely that electricity is in the category of lighting a fire or building), reading a book or newspaper on an e-reader seems to be the antithesis of the Shabbat experience. As the print media industry continues to move in the digital direction (US News & World Report is adopting a “digital first” strategy), there may have to be some adaption.

Uri Friedman writes in The Atlantic, “E-readers are problematic not only because they are electronic but also because some rabbis consider turning pages on the device – which causes words to dissolve and then resurface – an act of writing, also forbidden on the Sabbath.”

Friedman quotes rabbis from all over the denominational spectrum on the use of e-books on Shabbat. Rabbi Jeffrey Fox of Yeshivat Maharat, says, “There’s real value in embracing technology. It’s just about knowing when to turn it off.” And the leader of the Reform Movement, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, explained that “since the Reform movement doesn’t consider Jewish law binding, ‘The key for us [on the Sabbath] is abstaining from work that we do to earn a living and using the time to reflect and enjoy and sanctify, which is ultimately what the day is about. To the extent to which technology can contribute to that, then by all means make use of it.'”

Rabbi Danny Nevins, who reasons that the use of electricity on Shabbat is not inherently forbidden, as the circuitry connection is neither creating a fire nor building something new, nevertheless regards many types of electrical and electronic appliances as violating either the formal or informal goals of Shabbat. He says, “E-readers like the Kindle are problematic both in that they create a durable image and encourage readers to go online to shop for additional content. It is conceivable that future versions may work better with Shabbat values, but the iPad demonstrates a tendency towards multi-functionality, indicating continued challenges for Shabbat use.” In The Atlantic article, he also explains this theory that using an e-reader may violate the Shabbat laws of t’chum, or boundaries.

The Torah says you shouldn’t leave your place on the seventh day. You can say Judaism is creating a local ideal that you experience Shabbat in a place with people and don’t go out of those boundaries… The problem with virtual experiences is they distract our attention from our local environment and break all boundaries of space and time. Shabbat is about reinforcing boundaries of space and time so we can have a specific experience.

I can understand ruling that reading an e-book on a Kindle, Nook, Sony Reader, iPad, etc. is a forbidden act on Shabbat because it is not within the spirit of Shabbat. That is to say, that things not in keeping with the spirit of the Sabbath day can pull us out of that state and back to the realities of the weekday. However, I don’t agree with the rationale that it shouldn’t be allowed based on the principle that we shouldn’t leave our place on Shabbat. Any good book, whether read from traditional paper or on a tech gadget has the potential to transcend us, breaking the boundaries of space and time. Even a good story-tale that I tell my children at bedtime on a Friday night can be a virtual experience that magically takes them away from the boundaries of space and time. In fact, on Shabbat we are even supposed to be virtually transported to get a taste of the World to Come through our prayer and Torah study experiences.

There is an informal litmus test when it comes to Shabbat activity that in Hebrew is known as “ruach shel shabbat” (the spirit of Shabbat). Thus, there are certain activities that may be permitted according to Halakhah, but don’t pass the test when it comes to the spirit of Shabbat. So, it may very well be that using an e-reader on Shabbat isn’t in the category of “Shabbosdik activities” simply because it doesn’t feel like an appropriate Sabbath activity. Or, perhaps because it can lead to activities that are forbidden like accidentally ordering a new book on the device during Shabbat.

No matter how one ultimately rules about the use of an e-reader to read e-books on Shabbat, one thing is certainly clear: Technology is here to stay and we have to figure out how to “make Shabbos” in this new and emergent Digital World.

(c) Rabbi Jason Miller | http://blog.rabbijason.com | Twitter: @RabbiJason | facebook.com/rabbijasonmiller
Categories
Jewish Law Orthodox Judaism Rabbis Torah

Did the Torah’s Patriarchs Follow Jewish Law?

Xtranormal has helped users create close to 10 million projects by turning their words into funny animated movies. User “krumbagel” has created a hilarious Xtranormal animation that successfully (and humorously) critiques the ultra-Orthodox notion that the Avot (patriarchs) in the Torah not only followed the Halachah (Jewish law) as outlined in the Torah, but even observed the mitzvot (commandments) that were set forth by the sages thousands of years later through the debates of the Talmud and the explanations of the Mishnah Berurah.

The video begins with the yeshivah bucher asking, “Can I say over a vort that I heard by my rebbe’s house last Shabbos?” His interlocutor challenges him when he claims that, in the Torah, Jacob gave his brother Esau bread with the red lentl stew because there is a debate in the Talmud as to which blessing one says before eating lentls, and thus Jacob gave Esau the bread so he would perform the ritual hand-washing(!) and say Hamotzi (the blessing over the bread) without worrying if he was uttering the correct blessing.

I enjoy a fanciful midrash (homiletical explication of the text), but find it problematic when later rabbinic rulings of Jewish law are applied to the actions of the characters in the Torah’s narrative. A great example of this is when I was putting my first-grade son to bed a few weeks ago on a Friday night. It’s long been my custom to tell a Torah story to my children on Friday nights during our bedtime ritual. I was talking about the differences between the twin brothers Jacob and Esau when my son interrupted to tell me that his teacher at school taught him that Esau was bad because he would hunt and kill animals that weren’t kosher. Really?! When I asked my son how it would have been possible for Esau to know which animals were kosher, he just shot me a blank stare. Oh well!

Anyway, here’s krumbagel’s video:

(c) Rabbi Jason Miller | http://blog.rabbijason.com | Twitter: @RabbiJason | facebook.com/rabbijasonmiller
Categories
Humor Jewish Jewish Law Life-Cycle Events

Judge Kimba Wood Responds to Imbalanced Simchas for Jewish Babies

In my second year of rabbinical school at the Jewish Theological Seminary, I took a year-long seminar that focused on Jewish life-cycle observances. Of course, we covered all the basics like the bris, the Jewish wedding and the Jewish funeral. But we spent more time discussing life-cycle events that traditionally had been given short shrift. In fact, we devoted a great deal of time discussing appropriate ceremonies for the birth of a Jewish baby girl.

For generations, the birth of a baby boy in Judaism was cause for great celebration. The bris, or ritual circumcision, meant a crowded home event with festive foods, speeches, singing, and celebration. Relatives and friends would travel great distances to attend the bris on the eighth day of the baby’s life, carrying gifts with them for the elated parents. The birth of a baby girl often meant nothing more than a synagogue honor for the newborn’s father while mother and baby were still in the hospital. In recent time, it has been a naming ceremony after baby girl’s first month, or any time in the first year when the parents got around to it.

Beginning with recommended rituals for welcoming a newborn girl into the Jewish faith by the authors of the 1960s classic The First Jewish Catalog: A Do It Yourself Classic and continuing more recently with Debra Nussbaum Cohen’s wonderful Celebrating Your New Jewish Daughter: Creating Jewish Ways to Welcome Baby Girls into the Covenant-New and Traditional Ceremonies, greater attention has been paid to welcoming ceremonies for Jewish baby girls.

On Thanksgiving Day, 2005, my wife and I welcomed our twin son and daughter into the Jewish covenant with separate ceremonies that took place in the synagogue one after the other. We figured that they were born minutes apart, so their naming ceremonies should be minutes apart as well. On the eighth day of their lives, they would become part of the Jewish people in rituals that were different, yet balanced. Our son had the traditional bris and then our daughter had a “Simchat Bat,” in which she was blessed by her female relatives in a candlelighting ceremony. Rather than wait a month or longer to bestow a Hebrew name on our daughter, we chose to make both our son and daughter the main event of this life-cycle event attended by many friends and family.

I am feeling nostalgic as the fifth anniversary of that special event, in which neither male nor female was favored above the other, approaches. And so, I had to smile when I read about Judge Kimba Wood’s recent decision in a case in which a lawyer asked to be excused from court if and when his pregnant daughter’s baby turns out to be a boy. Kimba Wood was one of the judges nominated by President Bill Clinton to be Attorney General of the United States before Janet Reno was eventually confirmed. Both she and fellow nominee Zoe Baird were brought down by stories involving their nannies. Wood is also known as the judge who sentenced the “Junk Bond King” Michael Milken to ten years in prison.

Apparently, like me, Kimba Wood recognizes the unfairness in making a big fuss over a Jewish boy’s birth, but seeing a Jewish girl’s birth as a lesser event. Here is the letter to Judge Kimba Wood by attorney Bennett M. Epstein, with Wood’s response following:

Dear Judge Wood:

I represent Mark Barnett in the above matter, which is scheduled for trial beginning November 29th.

Please consider this letter as an application in limine for a brief recess in the middle of trial on the grounds known (perhaps not now, but hereafter) as a “writ of possible simcha]”.

The facts are as follows: My beautiful daughter, Eva, married and with a doctorate no less, and her husband, Ira Greenberg ( we like him, too) live in Philadelphia and are expecting their first child on December 3rd, tfu tfu tfu. They do not know whether it will be a boy or a girl, although from the oval shape of Eva’s tummy, many of the friends and family are betting male (which I think is a mere bubbameiseh but secretly hope is true).

Should the child be a girl, not much will happen in the way of public celebration. Some may even be disappointed, but will do their best to conceal this by saying, “as long as it’s a healthy baby”. My wife will run to Philly immediately, but I will probably be able [to] wait until the next weekend. There will be happiness, though muted, and this application will be mooted as well.

However, should baby be a boy, then hoo hah! Hordes of friends and family will arrive from around the globe and descend on Philadelphia for the joyous celebration mandated by the halacha  to take place during the daylight hours on the eighth day, known as the bris. The eighth day after December 3rd could be right in the middle of the trial. My presence at the bris is not strictly commanded, although my absence will never be forgotten by those that matter.

So please consider this an application for maybe, tfu tfu tfu, a day off during the trial, if the foregoing occurs on a weekday. I will let the Court (and the rest of the world) know as soon as I do, and promise to bring pictures.

Very truly yours,

Bennett M. Epstein

Judge Kimba Wood’s response:

(c) Rabbi Jason Miller | http://blog.rabbijason.com | Twitter: @RabbiJason | facebook.com/rabbijasonmiller