From David Bernstein at the well-known Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Next time you hear someone criticizing Israel’s “checkpoints” for Palestinians, think about this: a surprise checkpoint set up Thursday prevented an Islamic Jihad terrorist from blowing up a children’s Hanukkah party in Tel Aviv. The checkpoints have many harsh consequences on innocent Palestinians, but the blame for these hardships lies with the terrorists who try to infiltrate Israel to murder innocents. And it shouldn’t need pointing out, but it unfortunately does, that before Palestinian terrorists starting using suicide bombings in response to the Oslo peace agreement, West Bank and Gaza Palestinians could come and go from Israel and within the territories rather freely, with over 100,000 Palestinians working in Israel proper (for much better wages than they could receive at home) daily.

Hat Tip: Ezzie, who also mentions the passing of Dr. Abraham Luchins, z”l. Dr. Luchins was a past member of the board of the OU. His son David Luchins was for many years the trusted aide of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of NY and remains active on behalf of the community — may he and the entire family have a nechama (consolation) among all those … Read More >>

After so many articles in the Jewish media praising the latest fad, it is a relief to read one like “Pop Goes The Hipster Judaism Bubble” from The Jewish Week.

“There’s something really appealing about hipster Judaism, but it often seems to be substanceless,” said Bari Weiss, a Columbia University junior and the editor of The Current, a new journal of politics, culture and Jewish affairs. “ I don’t think any project can sustain itself on great marketing. … Cool T-shirts aren’t going to save the Jewish people. Good falafel isn’t going to make people think Israel has the right to exist.”

Portraying being Jewish as “hip” or “cool” may look good, but in the long run isn’t going to ensure our survival as a people. Count me among those who really didn’t expect the Jewish Week to confront that so bluntly — she is quoted as an authority, not a nay-sayer. But it gets even better:

Weiss wonders if today’s 20- and 30-somethings Jews are really so different from those who came before them.

“I’ve read so many studies about how we’re the iPod Generation, how we’re The Millennials,” said Weiss, referring to recent Jewish communal studies about the … Read More >>

I know that we’ve talked about Intelligent Design quite a bit already, but I think it worthwhile to reference the memo from Ed Sisson posted by Rabbi Adlerstein back in June before leaving the topic. It seems to answer many of the criticisms posted in recent comments. In order to cover them all, this turned into a much longer post than I intended… maybe I should have done one at a time? In any case, here it is.

Ed Sisson was the lead counsel at the Kansas hearings on Intelligent Design. I don’t know who was the defense counsel for the Dover School Board, but if it wasn’t Mr. Sisson, perhaps his presence might have changed the results. His memo explains to his colleagues at Arnold & Porter why he — and by extension, the firm — undertook pro bono representation of the minority position in the Kansas case. He, too, brings home the point that there is only one real difference between evolution and ID: evolution posits that “the origin of species” is the result of fortuitous coincidence; ID posits that the probabilities for chance origin are so … Read More >>

Though the economic crisis of the chareidi community in Israel is much discussed subject, that discussion typically focuses on the threat to our yeshivos or trumpeting the percentage of children under the poverty line to demonstrate the failure of the government’s social and economic program. Much less frequently discussed is the impact of poverty on our homes and families.

I know of no authoritative statistics on the number of gittin (divorces) in the chareidi community, but each one of us is privy to plenty of anecdotal evidence of the rise in divorce, in particular among young couples. Prior to the Gaza withdrawal, the black humor in at least one community with a high concentration of younger couples went: “Yehudi aino m’garesh Yehudi, aval Yehudi megaresh Yehudiah — A Jew does not expel another Jew, but a Jew does divorce a Jewess.”

Economic factors are rarely the only factors behind divorce. But no one would deny that economic pressures are adding new stresses to marriage, and that many marriages are not standing up to the strain. As Chazal say, “Arguments are not found in a man’s home, except as a consequece of [a lack of] grain” (Bava Metziah 59b).

Having been trained to question premises and to challenge conventional wisdoms, I am often perplexed by seemingly intelligent and intellectually honest individuals who respond to another’s view with an intolerance reflecting not merely disagreement, but also indignation at the very contemplation of the alternative. Rather than engage in mindful exploration of fact or opinion, the response presupposes a full and final analysis, and indicates that the mere contemplation of a different conclusion results from the pathetic reliance upon faulty information, or, more likely, small mindedness. The appropriate role for the United Sates in Iraq, the nature and entitlements of a Palestinian people, the declaration of the Rebbe as Moshiach, or whether the Yankees are the premier franchise in sports history are among topics that simply cannot be raised among certain groups.

But is that wrong? Does intellectual honesty compel the listener to entertain any and all opinions, or at least desist from dismissing as frivolous views that are so apparently ludicrous? Or is there a distinction between what notions I am entitled to dismiss in my internal thought process and what ideas I may appropriately dismiss publicly when articulated by another? … Read More >>

I seldom disagree with Gil Student, whose Hirhurim is the only other blog I routinely look at. I don’t share his misgivings about the widespread use of a Hebrew legend invoking Hashem’s assistance – like BS”D – crowning the top of every scrap of paper people produce.

Gil points out that the Chasam Sofer and Rav Chaim Soloveitchik were apparently not in the habit of writing such a formula. Why, he asks, are we frummer than the giants of the past?

The answer, I believe, is in a Mishna in Berachos 54A, where Boaz is credited with a halachic innovation – apparently not practiced by the Gedolim of generations antecedent to his – of incorporating the Name of G-d while greeting people. The words of Rav Yosef Zev Lipovitz (Nachalas Yosef, Rus 2:4) are telling. He first explains that the practice seems to reduce the Majesty of G-d, by joining Him to the pedestrian and ordinary affairs of common folk. Of course, he writes, our mesorah actually insists on viewing Hashem as connected with the most mundane of our concerns and tasks. He continues:

Boaz and his beis din (court) were the … Read More >>

Rabbi Shafran sent me the following response to the comments on his article. I was pleased enough to get clearance from him to reprint a Jewish Observer article online (as compared to his Am Echad pieces). That he would respond to the comments is a pleasant surprise, and is probably about as close as Agudath Israel will come to engaging the blogosphere.

Thank you to all those who have sent in such well-thought-out, reasoned comments. I think it says a great deal that you helped create a high level of dialogue which a non-blogging-writer (and one with many demands on his time outside our little niche here) felt comfortable joining.

First and foremost, let me thank all of you who cared enough to both read my Jewish Observer article, which Rabbi Menken was kind enough to post on Cross-Currents, and to comment on it. The reason I write articles is largely to elicit such thoughtful responses, and I want you to know that your reactions, positive and negative alike, are deeply appreciated.

Due to the constraints on my time (and the experience of spending dozens of hours going back-and-forth on Moment’s reader feedback post-board after my article on the … Read More >>

I’m still gathering my thoughts after a wonderful Shabbos at the annual West Coast Orthodox Union Torah Convention. That’s a lot of words for one title, and it generated experiences and memories commensurate with its fullness.

For my wife and myself, it was an opportunity to spend much time with OU personalities we don’t get to see often. It was no less than thrilling to be around people who are bright, deep, well thought-out, and – how should I say it? – normal about their Yiddishkeit. Between Rabbi and Mrs Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Dr and Mrs David Luchins, and Rabbi Chaim Eisen, we feasted on stories about Modzhitz and Rav Tzaddok, machshava of Rav Ahron Soloveitchik, and attempts to synthesize Maharal with Moreh Nevuchim.

There were some less-than-stellar moments as well, such as a panel discussion on pluralism, which I couldn’t bring myself to attend. It produced the risible prediction by the single leftist on the panel (forcefully rejected by the other panel participants) that it was simply a matter of time before the Orthodox world welcomed female rabbis to its midst. Two weeks earlier, the same rabbi called on … Read More >>

Prof. Albert Alschuler of the University of Chicago is blogging his reactions to the ID decision (as noted by Michael Hobson).

Most of the Dover opinion says in effect to the proponents of intelligent design, “We know who you are. You’re Bible-thumpers.” The opinion begins, “The religious movement known as Fundamentalism began in nineteenth century America as a response to social changes, new religious thought, and Darwinism. Religiously motivated groups pushed state legislatures to adopt laws prohibiting public schools from teaching evolution, culminating in the Scopes ‘monkey trial’ of 1925.” When the Fundamentalists (the court often capitalizes the word) found themselves unable to ban Darwinism, they championed “balanced treatment,” then “creation science,” and finally “intelligent design.” According to the court, the agenda never changed. Dover is simply Scopes trial redux. The proponents of intelligent design are guilty by association, and today’s yahoos are merely yesterday’s reincarnated.

If fundamentalism still means what it meant in the early twentieth century, however — accepting the Bible as literal truth — the champions of intelligent design are not fundamentalists. They uniformly disclaim reliance on the Book and focus only on where the … Read More >>

In the article from Reuven Hammer that I quoted last week, he criticizes the adherence to halachic standards of conversion with the following statement:

This perversion of Judaism by placing unnecessary stumbling blocks before potential converts is particularly painful when one considers the fact that the number of Jews in the world is shrinking. If we have people who are eager to join us, why are we pushing them away?

In other words — we’re losing the battle with assimilation, and if we accept these converts we’ll keep our numbers up. This is the same argument that Reform leaders make in favor of patrilineal descent, just in favor of taking in the children rather than the parents themselves.

The latest Bnai Brith magazine makes this claim even more bluntly, with an article entitled “Hidden in Plain Sight” — but featured on the cover as “Lost Tribes: Can They Save The Jews?”

The article begins with the premise that not only are we a dying nation today, but that it has always been so:

Jews have been called the “ever-dying people,” a tiny and embattled group that sees itself perpetually lurching toward demographic oblivion. At first glance, the latest numbers seem … Read More >>

In most every area of computer science, the world has seen far more progress than we ever imagined possible back in 1950. Computer vision and control is so precise that we can launch a cruise missile from hundreds of miles away, and choose which window it will use to enter a building. We edit documents with point-and-click, not to mention creating them with voice dictation. Anyone familiar with the old Star Trek series knows that we already have computers that sound far more human than we expected, back in 1966, that they would sound in several centuries.

You are also reading this at a computer far more powerful than those that took humans to the moon, or even that launched the space shuttle. The method by which all our computers are communicating is certainly not something envisioned back in 1950, or even 1970, when in “Colossus: The Forbin Project” two supercomputers took hours to learn a common language that they could use.

In 1981, Bill Gates famously remarked that “nobody will ever need more than 640K of RAM!” Today, users with 1000 times that amount could increase computer speed and productivity with even more.

Now for the notable exception: Artificial Intelligence. … Read More >>

Hot off the presses (of this month’s Jewish Observer) is Rabbi Avi Shafran’s take on the Intelligent Design controversy. Some of his arguments you may have seen here before, but much else is new. Since the JO has no web site, this is a true Cross-Currents exclusive.

For the record, I’ve only skimmed it thus far, and don’t always agree with him — but I thought his consideration of the topic was worth republishing for a broader audience.

So the government has been intruding into our private lives by listening in to our telephones and our emails. The howls of protest are inevitable, but we need to remember that this transcends the legal issue of constitutional rights of privacy. We are at war — and with an enemy that will destroy us if we do not defend ourselves by every possible means. I, for one, am willing to give up some of my liberties temporarily so that all of my liberties in this blessed land are not destroyed permanently.

The current flap about eavesdropping bears in it a lesson for me. As believing Jews, we know that nothing is private or hidden from the One Above. Everything we do is seen, heard, and recorded. Kol ma-‘asecha basefer nichtavim, say the Sages in Avot II:1. “All of your deeds are recorded in a Book.” And not only deeds: words as well. There are no conversations and no communications that are hidden from the One Above. ‘Ayin ro-ah, ozen shoma-‘at, says that same Mishnah. “An Eye sees, and an Ear hears….”

How different our lives would be if we took … Read More >>

A long and thoughtful comment to my earlier post about the Dover court decision on Intelligent Design begins: “I’m a molecular biologist at UCLA, and after linking here from slate I hope to offer comments…”

Did he say “linking here from Slate?” Apparently, he did. I really didn’t expect that; I’m happy he found us.

In any case, the comment that followed is only one in a series of very sharp and well-done critiques of Intelligent Design, and my defense of the idea. There is more to discuss here, and much food for thought. As Slate put it, I think ID is an “inchoate” theory, meaning not well-defined. That could certainly be used to characterize my thoughts at this point on the various comments, but here are some reflections.

Here’s a proposal anyone who believes in the value of Jewish education should agree with: the Jewish community should, as a priority, provide free schooling to every Jewish child.

As Miriam Shaviv said, coming up with the money will be an issue — but I disagree with her that the challenge is necessarily insurmountable, or represents “wooly thinking.” If this is being suggested not by charedim, but by Ismar Schorsch of JTS– as it has been by philanthropist Michael Steinhardt (who is hardly a great fan of the Orthodox) — that increases the likelihood that federations and other Jewish foundations will pay serious attention.

If the Reform and Conservative movements were to either stop opposing tuition tax breaks for those offering their children non-public education, or offer to make up the difference for Jewish parents, that would make a huge difference right there. Orthodox parents would not be saddled with unreasonable combinations of tuition and taxes, and more parents overall would choose Jewish day schools.

The benefits are so vast that even if the goal looks unreachable at present, Schorsch deserves only praise for broaching this idea.

A judge decided yesterday that Intelligent Design cannot be taught in the Dover school district in Pennsylvania. Agudath Israel’s response is terse, and reads as follows:

The judge determined that the “Intelligent Designer” behind “Intelligent Design” is G-d. In this respect, he is right. If our Constitution, however, is to be understood as forbidding any mention in public schools of even the possibility that the universe was brought into being by the Creator, that should deeply trouble all Americans.

Rabbi David Zwiebel

Frankly, it’s not just a matter of the judge’s determination. The school board members advocating for the concept were quite probably trying to do as the judge claimed — find a way to sneak Creationism into the classroom. As the judge put it, “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

The proponents were wrong for so doing; the judge was wrong to base his legal decision upon the ulterior motives of the proponents.

Intelligent Design stands and should stand independent of any reference to Creation as found in the Bible. Creationism … Read More >>

In our society, lawlessness can take many forms. Sometimes, the person extorting money from you isn’t a man with a gun, but a person with a neatly-pressed suit and a PR agency explaining why what he’s doing is right and just. Roger Toussaint and the members of the Transport Workers Union are currently extorting from the City of New York, with the ongoing threat of damage to the tune of $420 million per day.

A system of laws is designed to protect us from all sorts of criminals. The strike is illegal, and designed to extort a pay raise of 8% per year for the next three years out of the citizens of NYC. Note that the strikers currently earn between $47,000 and $55,000 a year — before overtime — to drive buses and subways. The drivers are already earning far more than the median income of those who rely on public transportation to get to work — and now they are demanding a huge increase, and resorting to illegal action to get it.

The Torah has what to say about this as well. There are economic laws in the Torah about laborers and property owners. The overriding principle … Read More >>

Joe –

You came closer than anyone to denting my argument. (UCLA Law has done well by you. You are hereby entitled to an extra piece of kugel next time you come for Shabbos.)

Close, but not close enough.

Let’s say, arguendo [Note to real people out there: legal beagles like to throw Latin around. Inter alia. You know], that Tookie was guilty of the exact crime he was executed for. Justice is served; the law behaved exactly as it was designed. So what? Essentially, I was making two points. Firstly, the law may have worked, but it is a bad law according to HaKadosh Baruch Hu’s voiced directives on how a non-Jewish court should operate. Egregious violators of the law should not have a voice in the court, period. You asked me what standard I would employ – you’ve got it. That’s what halacha says, to the best of my knowledge. Tookie’s accusers may never have been shown to be liars, but that is beside the point. Evildoers don’t belong on the witness stand. They will be unreliable in other cases. This is enough to ban … Read More >>

My Chanuka post drew a comment pointing out that the Chanuka victory of the Maccabees over the Greeks was not very long-lived, because the Chashmonaim (Maccabees) betrayed their own cause in the end:

And don’t forget how the story ends: Within a generation the Macabees were Hellenized -complete with Greek names. Very, quickly, they became exactly the sort of people the family founders had fought against.

I responded that the Sages of the Talmud indeed considered these descendants of the Maccabees to have been traitors and sinners — who caused their people untold grief and suffering, defeat and exile.

But I left unanswered an implicit question that I would now like to address:

Why do we continue to celebrate Chanuka if the victory was so short-lived?