George Floyd’s death was tragic. What made his death all the more tragic is that it was at the hand of a policeman. As a country, we need to do some serious soul-searching. I am reminded of the early 19th century Baptist preacher, C.H. Spurgeon (1834-1892), where he writes about Cain’s question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
 

• I put it to the consciences of many silent Christians, who have never yet made known to others what God has made known to them—How can you be clear from guilt in this matter? Do not say, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” for I shall have to give you a horrible answer if you do. I shall have to say, “No, Cain, you are not your brother’s keeper, but you are your brother’s killer.” If, by your effort, you have not sought his good, by your neglect you have destroyed him.”[1]

There have been too many cases where young black men died at the hand of the police. Yet, when we dig deeper beneath the surface, we discover there are questions I find asking myself about the death of George Floyd. Apparently, the officer had over a dozen offenses where he acted violently against those persons, he had arrested over a two-decade career. Why did the political leaders of this predominant Democratic stronghold pass legislation to limit how the police arrest somebody accused of a crime?
 
The subject of the chokehold has a remarkable history. In 1982, there was the famous City of Los Angeles v. Adolph Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1982). The case involved bears a striking similarity to the George Floyd case. In 1976, four white police officers of the LAPD stopped Adolph Lyons for driving with a broken tail light. Lyons was unarmed and posed no threat. The officers drew their guns; one officer made him spread his legs and placed his hands-on top of his head. After being frisked, Lyons put his hands down. That prompted one officer to grab his hands and slam them against his head. After Lyons complained that holding his car keys had caused him pain, a police officer put him in a chokehold until he finally lost consciousness. As he laid unconscious, faced down with soiled underwear and blood flowing from his mouth, the officers waited till he was revived and ticketed him with a traffic citation and sent him on his way.
 
Seven years later, Lyons fought for justice and for damages against the LAPD chokehold policy. Apparently, from 1975 to 1983, sixteen people, including 12 African-Americans had been killed by the LAPD using chokeholds. The Supreme Court took the case and ruled 5-4 that the chokehold was permitted.
 
Thurgood Marshall was an African American was the first African-American judge who served on the Supreme Court and he wrote the dissenting view, a view that police departments must follow in the future:
 

• “The city [of Los Angeles] instructs its officers that use of a chokehold does not constitute deadly force.” Nevertheless, “no less than 16 persons have died following the use of a chokehold by an LAPD police officer,” 12 of whom were black men. According to Justice Marshall, “the evidence submitted to the District Court established that, for many years, it has been the official policy of the city to permit police officers to employ chokeholds in a variety of situations where they face no threat of violence.”[2]

 
I recall as a young yeshiva student how Rabbi Shlomo Cunin, the head of Chabad operations of the West Coast, was once having a farbrengen (where Hasidim make lots of noise and get drunk). A neighbor called the police, and they placed Cunin (a big man who could have played linebacker for the Rams) in a chokehold, and he lost consciousness.
 
I knew of a Jewish man named Liberty back in the late sixties who also died from a chokehold. LAPD was notorious for using it. Nobody from his family pleaded for justice, it was swept under the carpet.
 
The place: New York.
The year: 2014.
 
In July of that year, the NYPD arrested Eric Garner on suspicion of illegally selling single cigarettes on Staten Island. Officer Daniel Pantaleo placed Garner in a chokehold where Garner, like Floyd, cried out, “I cannot breathe!” eleven times before losing consciousness; he died.
 
One would think the liberal state of California would have banned chokeholds decades ago, yet the State of California allows a similar technique to the chokehold called, the “carotid restraint,” which squeezes the arteries instead of the windpipe. In 2014, it was still being used.[3]
 
There are many more examples we can point to, but the time has come for all communities—liberal and conservative to ban chokeholds once and for all. It has proven to be a weapon of choice against the African Americans accused of crimes—often trivial crimes at that.
 
Let us work together in eliminating this practice. It will not solve the problem of racism in our society, which I might add is not limited to race, religion, or creed. (a topic I shall address in my next article). But if we take this step, we can make amends for the death of George Floyd, who did not deserve to die.  



[1] C.H. Spurgeon and T. Carter, 2,200 Quotations: From the writings of Charles H. Spurgeon: Arranged topically or textually and indexed by subject, Scripture, and people (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), 228. Vol. 33. 672.
[2] https://www.vox.com/2020/5/30/21274697/supreme-court-police-chokehold-george-floyd-derek-chauvin-lyons-los-angeles
[3] https://abc7news.com/grand-jury-police-daniel-pantaleo-chokehold/424502/

• As Bush explained in 2005: “A pandemic is a lot like a forest fire: If caught early, it might be extinguished with limited damage; if allowed to smolder undetected, it can grow to an inferno that spreads quickly beyond our ability to control it.” Because of a decade of failures, we are now in the midst of that inferno, waiting for the fire to burn itself out. And there is no excuse for it.

                                                                                                        George Bush, 2005
Not long after WW II, the civil defense came up with guidance that was distributed to schoolchildren in the 1950s. This 1952 film provided a prescription about how students ought to react in the event of a nuclear explosion.  At the time, the Soviet Union was engaged in nuclear testing and the US was in the midst of the Korean War. The lyrics most of us recall went like this:
There was a turtle by the name of Bert
and Bert the turtle was very alert;
when danger threatened him he never got hurt
he knew just what to do ...
He'd duck! [gasp]
And cover!
Duck! [gasp]
And cover!
(male) He did what we all must learn to do
(male) You (female) And you (male) And you (deeper male) And you!
[bang, gasp] Duck, and cover!
 
When we look back at this old memory, I probably chuckle. We wonder, “Did we really think hiding under our desk would protect us from a nuclear explosion?” Our teachers and parents realized that doing something, however minimal might confer a degree of from a potential oncoming nuclear fireball that was likely to cause serious injury or death.
The 2013 Noble Prize biologist Mike Leavitt served as the Secretary of Health and Human Services during the Bush Administration. In 2004, he urged that Americans store canned tuna and powdered milk under their beds for when bird flu hits. But Americans did not take him very seriously, and the comedian Jay Leno ridiculed Leavitt, who quipped, ““What? … Powdered milk and tuna? How many would rather have the bird flu?”
Nobody thought of distributing facemasks, or rubber gloves. Like a young child, our nation with a sense of invulnerability; we never imagined we would ever need rubber gloves, disinfection, and facemasks. The so-called “experts” from the Centers of Disease Control suffered from the type of hubris that Aristotle characterized in his depiction of the tragic hero, who, despite his great or virtuous character was destined for downfall, suffering, or defeat: Oedipus, the classic tragic hero. But Leavitt wisely observed, “In advance of a pandemic, anything you say sounds alarmist,” Leavitt explained. “After a pandemic starts, everything you’ve done is inadequate”
Our political leaders would love to blame Trump for the lack of America’s preparedness for the coronavirus outbreak. The pandemic revealed how the wealthiest country in the world was asleep at the wheel. Politicians, who lack foresight and wisdom, defunded monies that might have made the difference in our country’s preparedness.
When we chronicle the list of pandemics, we witnessed over the last twenty years, we recall the warning signs, e.g.,

• the 2002 SARS outbreak;
• the 2003 resurgence of H5N1 avian flu;
• the 2009 H1N1 swine flu outbreak;
• the 2012 MERS outbreak;
• the 2014 Ebola outbreak.

Unfortunately, the experts of the scientific, medical, and political community failed to consider the consequences of their sightlessness.

• The story behind today’s ventilator shortage is even more infuriating. The New York Times reports that in 2008, the Bush administration launched a project to stockpile ventilators for a pandemic, and in 2009 the Obama administration contracted with a California company to provide 40,000 of them. But in 2014, the company withdrew from the contract without delivering a single ventilator. So the government started over with a new contractor. It took another five years for the Food and Drug Administration to sign off on a new ventilator design, and the government did not place an order for 10,000 ventilators until December 2019 — the month that the COVID-19 outbreak began. We lost more than a decade due to government incompetence.[1]

Despite the warnings, we didn’t take the danger seriously enough — and were caught unprepared for COVID-19. We should have learned some wisdom from the out cartoon, “Duck and Cover.” Let us hope that we go back to making preparedness against a potential biological threat, which will serve to keep our country better prepared for whatever the future may bring.
The belief in scientism and our unquestioning belief in the scientific experts have revealed to all, “The Emperor has no clothes.”



[1] https://www.aei.org/op-eds/we-were-caught-unprepared-by-a-pandemic-9-11-the-failures-began-long-before-trump/

Many of us have grown up with the idea that myth is synonymous with a widely held but false belief or idea, e.g., "he wants to dispel the myth that sea kayaking is too risky or too strenuous." Plato discusses this idea of myth in the Republic. According to Plato, Socrates distinguishes between a true lie that leads to “ignorance of the Soul.” Myth, from this perspective, is a non-historical story that helps ignorant people come to understand the necessity of virtue.
 
As a case in point, Don commented on an old story about how King Christian X of Denmark donned the yellow star badges on behalf of the Danish Jews and the rest of the Danish community also wore the yellow star badges so the Nazis could not distinguish who was Jewish from those who weren’t. As Don mentioned in one of his articles:
 

• The story gained considerable currency with the publication of Exodus by the novelist Leon Uris, but the story was not a true one. In fact, through most of the German occupation, Denmark's government was permitted to run the country's internal affairs. Although the Germans suggested that anti-Jewish measures be enacted by the Danes—including a requirement that Jews wear the yellow stars—the Danes steadfastly refused. Therefore, Danish Jews never wore the yellow star and there was never any reason for Christian X to do so either.[1]

 
In the interest of clarity, here is the passage Don alluded to from Uris’ Exodus:
 

• The King has said that one Dane is exactly the same as the next Dane. He himself will wear the first Star of David and he expects that every loyal Dane will do the same." The next day in Copenhagen almost the entire population wore arm bands showing a Star of David. The following day the Germans rescinded the order.”[2]

 
 
With due respect to Don Harrison’s fine observation, I wish to approach this “mythical” account from an altogether different perspective. As I mentioned in the beginning of this article, myths—no matter how strange they may seem—often have elements that are grounded in historical fact.  According to the Danish historian, Bo Lidegaard a Danish historian in his book, “Countrymen: The untold story of how Denmark’s Jews escaped the Nazis, of the courage of their fellow Danes—and of the extraordinary role of the SS”
 
At the very beginning of the book, he shows a political Danish cartoon that appeared in one of the Göteborg Trade and Maritime Journal newspapers in April of 1940 depicting how King Christian rode through the streets of Copenhagen wearing the yellow star in defiance of Nazi demands that the Jews do so.
 
The cartoon shows, according to Lidegaard:
 

• “the Danish prime minister, Thorvald Stauning, in an overcoat, in thoughtful conversation with King Christian, easily recognizable by his riding boots and uniform. In the caption Stauning asks: “What shall we do, Your Majesty, if Scavenius says that our Jews also have to wear yellow stars?” The king replies: “Then we’ll probably all wear yellow stars”—an almost literal transcription of an interview King Christian had had with Acting Prime Minister Vilhelm Buhl four months earlier. The fact that the tenacious myth is rooted in a real conversation has only been revealed recently, as the handwritten diary notes made by the king were made accessible to historians. Even if King Christian was prepared to do so, he did not ride through the streets of Copenhagen wearing the yellow star; in fact, no one in Denmark was required to wear it.

 
What is remarkable however is the fact that the King was willing to do so in the event the Nazis tried to force their hand and will upon the Danish people. The question raised between these two men was of real concern—especially since the United States did not yet enter the war. The discussion of the plight of the Danish Jews was a sensitive one for everyone involved. But in the end, as Don also pointed out in his article, “Considering the inhuman treatment of the Jews not only in Germany but also in other countries under German occupation, one could not help but worry that one day this request would also be presented to us. If so, we would have to reject it outright following their protection under the Constitution.”
 
King Christian, his assistants, and the Danish people stood up for the constitutional rights of the Jewish Danes, and Hitler fortunately relented. But this is where Socrates’ concept of the “noble lie” came to play. For those unfamiliar with this concept, the noble lie presents to the public false propaganda for the sake of the public welfare.[3]  Lidegaard explains how the cartoon and myth of the King served an important political purpose;
 

• Buhl did not keep the king’s suggestion to himself, and four months later the conversation appeared as the text of a cartoon in a newspaper in neighboring Sweden, also neutral but not occupied by the Germans. The cartoon gave birth to the compelling image of King Christian riding the streets of occupied Copenhagen wearing the yellow star. The myth has never died, and new generations have taken it as a token of hope amid the dismal history of the Holocaust.

 

• The history from the Swedish cartoon traveled widely and it proved both compelling and useful. It served those in the United States and the United Kingdom who were working to improve the public image of an occupied Denmark criticized for its cowardly appeasement of Hitler’s Germany. In the United States the myth was spread by Danish-American and Jewish organizations, in the United Kingdom by the Political Warfare Executive as part of a targeted effort to drive a wedge between Denmark’s allegedly pro-German government and the resistance-willing people rallying behind their king.

 
Apparently, King Christian X did not mind this story getting disseminated. The cartoon and the story associated with it spread across the world, and it served to bolster the public image of Denmark and their willingness to protect the Jews as a matter of principle and conscience.[4] In the end, Plato and Socrates proved correct about the role of the “noble lie” in shaping a country’s political values.  and it illustrates how this conversation between King Christian X and PM Buhl took on a new life beyond what actually occurred.



[1] http://www.sandiegojewishworld.com/denmark/copenhagen/1994-01-28_myth_magic.htm
http://www.sandiegojewishworld.com/denmark/copenhagen/1994-02-04_jews-danes_400_years.htm
http://www.sandiegojewishworld.com/denmark/copenhagen/1994-01-28_why_danes_rescued.htm
http://www.sandiegojewishworld.com/denmark/copenhagen/1994-01-14_red_cap_girl.htm
[2] Leon Uris, Exodus (New York: Bantam Books, 1958), p. 72
[3] Plato, Republic  607a, comp. 611b-612a.
[4] Bo Lidegaard  and Robert Maass (Trans), Countrymen: The untold story of how Denmark’s Jews escaped the Nazis, of the courage of their fellow Danes—and of the extraordinary role of the SS” (New York: Alfred Knoph, 2013), pp. 8-9.
 

 When I was a young yeshiva student, I would get up every day and bathe in the hot mikveh (similar to a jacuzzi) around 5:00 in the morning. Then I would walk to the yeshiva hall and study the entire Mishnah while observing the sunrise. By my second year, I had completed the study of the Mishnah with its commentaries. This experience afforded me the opportunity to study the laws of animal sacrifices; most people might be surprised to see how the sacrificial cult influenced the origins of Jewish prayer—especially with respect to the role of intentionality, for one stray thought, could invalidate a sacrifice.  
 
But when I came to the section regarding ritual purity, the laws pertaining to the mikveh seemed fairly straightforward. But the laws regarding ritual contamination left me wondering about the characteristics of ritual contamination. I wondered: Did the rabbis think of ritual impurity as a spiritual or as a physical phenomenon?  This question bothered me for many years and decades. The rituals of handwashing originated from these Levitical laws and historically, handwashing helped prevent the spread of contagions. To this day, the pious Jew almost instinctively washes his/her hands several times in the course of the day.
 
In this week's Parsha Tazria and Metzorah, considerable space is dedicated to the theme of the problem of ritual uncleanness with respect to the ancient dreaded disease of leprosy—a disease that does not kill but disfigures the victim. The ancients practiced social-distancing because they did not know how to deal with a threatening disease that might spread upon close contact with others.
 
  In Levitical literature, uncleanness describes ritual uncleanness as a substance that can cling to a person or thing and may be transmitted to others in a variety of ways.  The Mishnah creates a hierarchy of ritual contamination. The “grandfather” of all uncleanness is the human corpse. Ritual uncleanness can be transmitted in a variety of ways. The Mishnah distinguishes between the primary source of impurity, commonly referred to as (אַב הַטֻּמְאָה), and from there it imparts uncleanness to the object that is infected. The latter is what is sometimes called, a “child of uncleanness” (וְלַד הַטֻּמְאָה).[1]
 
Examples of the former include anyone who has been in contact with the dead—either directly or indirectly, e.g., sharing space under the same roof with a corpse. An animal carcass, the blood of couches, beds, foods, and drinks; it includes being in touch with lepers, or human bones—each of which is considered as a primary transmitter of ritual uncleanness.[2] Thus, we have primary sources of ritual contamination, along with second, third, and fourth degrees of uncleanness. Men, hands, vessels, and clothes are infected only directly through contact with the dead, or with a leper.[3]
 
Secular or non-sacrificial meats and drinks (חֻלִּין,) are susceptible to second-degree infection. First-fruits, priestly tithes, are affected only to the third degree, and sacrifices to the fourth. The intensity of infection weakens a stage with each transmission. The ancient Greeks were no stranger to the concept of ritual pollution, a term they called μίασμα(miasma), believed to be a physical contagion that is airborne. This pollution especially occurs when there is a murder or any kind of heinous crime, thus leaving those responsible of taint pollution.   These laws probably make little sense to a modern Jew. If the most Orthodox Jew were to travel in a time machine to the time of the Second Temple, odds are s/he would feel completely out of place in a Jewish society that took the purity laws seriously.
 
 As with the Mishnaic laws of uncleanness, the parameters concerning how the COVID-19 virus can live in the air and on the surfaces.  One study from the John Hopkins School of Medicine found the virus is viable for up to 72 hours on plastics, 48 hours on stainless steel, 24 hours on cardboard, and 4 hours on copper. The virus has also detectable in the air for three hours. The virus is purported capable of lasting on plastic for 72 hours. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, COVID-19 can be detected in the air for 3 hours. Nevertheless, one is more likely to catch the infection through the air than to someone infecting them off of a surface. Cleaning the surfaces with disinfectant or soap is very effective because once the oily surface coat of the virus is disabled, there is no way the virus can infect a host cell.
 
Objects to be concerned about include tables, doorknobs, light switches, countertops, handles, desks, phones, keyboards, toilets, faucets, and sinks. Avoid touching high-contact surfaces in public. Handwashing with a strong disinfectant soap and water for at least 20 seconds upon returning home, or from public places such as a bank or grocery store. Social distancing requires there be a distance of six feet between people standing in a line.[i]
 
Although these laws have not played a dominant role in Jewish life for over 2000 years, the guidelines bear a striking resemblance to the precautions we now observe in stemming from this pandemic. Note that in the days of the Temple, rabbinic tradition imposed social distancing in preventing people who were ritually unclean from entering the Temple.
 
According to Maimonides, the laws governing ceremonial uncleanness are designed to help heighten the faith community’s respect when entering the Temple.  But today, these ancient rules of uncleanness take on an altogether new meaning in the age of the COVID-19 pandemic.


NOTES:

[1] Taharoth, 1, 5.
[2] Kelim, 1.
[3] Yadaim 3:1,



[i] https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/03/20/sars-cov-2-survive-on-surfaces/

Mayor Bill de Blasio has a penchant for making controversial comments. As a politician who always tries to win the loyalty of his constituency, it is quite possible he may have dug a hole for himself that he cannot climb out of. The Mayor said:
If your congregation continues to meet, you could be done for good. If you go to your synagogue, if you go to your church and attempt to hold services, after having been told so often not to, our enforcement agents will have no choice, but to shut down those services,” “I don’t say that with any joy. It’s the last thing I would like to do, because I understand how important people’s faiths are to them, and we need our faith in this time of crisis. But we do not need gatherings that will endanger people.[1]
One would have gotten the distinct impression that churches and synagogues were not cooperating with the need for social-distancing. Yet, this has not been the case. Across the religious divide, synagogues and churches both committed to closing their services in the interest of halting the pandemic. De Blasio’s use of threats has made everyone more nervous than before—and in do so has exacerbated tensions in an anxious community.
The Mayor came across as a bully. But given the stressful state of our nation, today, it would be easy for us to overlook his remark; Blasio probably spoke off-the-cuff. Still, he really needs to clarify what exactly he meant and that under no circumstances would he seek to “permanently” close down places of worship. It would be prudent for him to stress the rules apply to everybody and that he has no animus toward any place of worship.
I found the Mayor’s response provocative for other reasons. Yes, we understand that the Mayor want all places of worship to observe the social-distancing so we might have a better chance at containing the pandemic.  The fact he included only synagogues and churches came across as being somewhat discriminatory. What about mosques? What about Ashrams, or other religious communities? This year, the month of Ramadan will begin on Thursday, April 23 and it will last to Saturday, May 23. Will they also subject to this new decree?
Time will tell.
Making threats sound more like religious discrimination.  What legal authority does a government have to permanently shut down worship services?  We know the answer: none. The Constitution makes it questionable whether one can shut down private property that is being held for a religious service—even in the face of a health crisis. By coming out strongly against the synagogues and churches, he inadvertently sparked a national debate over the separation of Church and State and the fundamental First Amendment, which guarantees Americans the right to free exercise of worship.
As Kristen Waggoner observed in her op ed article in the New York Daily News:

• The Constitution requires officials to exercise great caution when they attempt to regulate or restrict these freedoms. Our laws ensure that governments only limit religious free exercise for a “compelling interest” of the “highest order,” and even then, only if they do it with the “least restrictive means.” That means, even if the government is taking strong action for an exceptionally important reason, it cannot restrict more religious exercise than necessary to achieve its compelling goal.[2]

Should this case come before the Supreme Court, it will be a landmark case for future generations. I suspect, but I could be wrong, the judges will probably rule that governments can never target or explicitly target religious entities. Concerning the First Amendment, Oliver Wendel Holmes (1841-1935) has famously been quoted saying, “Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is not protected free speech.[3] That is to say, the most stringent protection of free speech does not protect a man who falsely shouts out fire in a theater, while causing a panic. Just as free speech has its limitations, one could argue this principle applies to the gathering of people at a worship center during the time of a pandemic poses a similar danger to all those present.
It would be interesting to see how such a case might unfold.
Oddly, certain medieval attitudes might have some practical use today. The medievalists did whatever they could to isolate plague victims as a public safety precaution. Not only were those infected by the plague quarantined, but so were their contacts, e.g., family members and friends—anyone who got in contact with them. In fact, the medievalists employed “medical police” to enforce the quarantine regulations and restrictions on movement. As you might expect, the authorities who enacted these rules received considerable criticism. But in the end, this proved to be successful way of constricting the spread of contagion.[4]
One last note:
The Mayor should have urged churches, synagogues, mosques, ashrams, or any place of worship to follow the government guidance against group gatherings; had he urged them to utilize zoom or Facebook Live, and YouTube, I think his point would have been no less persuasive. Using this new medium of communication has been very well received so far at the synagogue. I think we will continue using it long after the pandemic is over.



[1] https://politicodailynews.com/de-blasio-threatens-to-permanently-shutter-churches-that-continue-to-hold-worship-services-2/
[2] https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-sorry-cant-close-churches-20200331-itiui23k5fbivcrzeavsfb5a4a-story.html
[3] This phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes came from the cause celeb, United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
[4] Ellen L. Idler, Religion as a Social Determinant of Public Health (New York: Oxford University, 2014), p.ge 410
 

One of my congregants posed an interesting question we ought to consider asking: What would Rev Martin Luther King Jr. have said about the Poway synagogue shooting? It is an important question—not just for members of the Jewish community, but also for the African-American community.
Throughout his life, King proved to be a close friend of the Jewish community. He often noted the similarities existing between Jews and African-Americans. Both groups experienced hatred, prejudice, attacks from those wishing to harm them; both peoples worked together to overcome that hatred.
In this short article I will briefly touch on some of my favorite quotes Martin Luther King Jr concerning what it is the Jewish and non-Jewish community is up against. Simply put, we are fighting for the soul of our nation. Many of King’s quotes highlight the warm feelings he felt for the Jewish people and the State of Israel.
King proved to be a relentless foe against anti-Semitism and racism. He observed that the Hitler archetype is alive in well—even in the United States.

• There are Hitlers loose in America today, both in high and low places… As the tensions and bewilderment of economic problems become more severe, history(‘s) scapegoats, the Jews, will be joined by new scapegoats, the Negroes. The Hitlers will seek to divert people’s minds and turn their frustration and anger to the helpless, to the outnumbered. Then whether the Negro and Jew shall live in peace will depend upon how firmly they resist, how effectively they reach the minds of the decent Americans to halt this deadly diversion….[1] 

“Some have bombed the homes and churches of Negroes; and in recent acts of inhuman barbarity, some have bombed your synagogues — indeed, right here in Florida.”[2] Three months later, on Oct. 12, 1958, The Temple in Midtown Atlanta was bombed. When I came across this news, I was surprised to see that targeting synagogues is by no means a new phenomenon; it has happened before—many times, in fact.
 
Because of the Jewish advocacy for civil rights, between November 1957, and October 1958, there were bombings and attempted bombings in seven Jewish communities in the South. North Carolina had two such incidents; there were two more in Florida, and one in Tennessee and Georgia (where Atlanta’s Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple sustained almost $200,000 in damages in the last of the 11-month rash of attacks). Alabama synagogues were also targeted—particularly, Temple Beth-El of Birmingham’s was a bombing target on April 28, 1958. Fortunately, weather conditions fizzled the fuse—one minute before it would have detonated. Experts said the explosion would have killed scores of people. The bomb itself was said to be three times more powerful than the one that would kill four young black girls at 16th Street Baptist Church in 1963. It could have demolished not only the synagogue, by also several nearby structures.[3]
 
King respected the dangers the Jewish community put itself in for championing civil rights. At the Rabbinical Assembly Convention of 1968, King observed, “Probably more than any other ethnic group, the Jewish community has been sympathetic and has stood as an ally to the Negro in his struggle for justice.”
On October 27, 1967, at a Civil Rights rally in Boston, King boldly said, “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!”
When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!”
In 1958, King spoke to the American Jewish Committee, and pointed out, “My people were brought to America in chains. Your people were driven here to escape the chains fashioned for them in Europe. Our unity is born of our common struggle for centuries, not only to rid ourselves of bondage, but to make oppression of any people by others an impossibility.”
King loved to write about the Israelites experience in Egypt and its moral message for the African-American individual. For me, one of King’s most memorable sermons he presented a sermon on the subject, “The Death of Evil upon the Seashore.” King’s comments vividly portray the flight of Hebrew slaves from Egypt: He observed,

• Egypt symbolized evil in the form of humiliating oppression, ungodly exploitation, and crushing domination.” But then, the wonderful event occurred, and ‘when the Israelites looked back, all they could see was here and there a poor drowned body beaten upon the seashore.’ For the Israelites, this was a great moment... It was a joyous daybreak that had come to end the long night of their captivity . . . The meaning of this story is not found in the drowning of Egyptian soldiers, for no one should rejoice at the death or defeat of a human being. Rather, this story symbolizes the death of evil and of inhuman oppression and unjust exploitation.[4]

King observed, “We've got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh's court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that's the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity.”
This last remark is what we need to remember when combatting anti-Semitism. Today, anti-Semitic attacks seem to becoming fashionable once more in our society. We need to root out the intolerance that is affecting our society. This approach offers the best medicine for the hatred we are witnessing in the world today, as Jews in the 21st century experience a resurging anti-Semitism.
Evil people will always exist, but we must do our part to thwart them.
On a personal note, Martin Luther King’s heroism inspired me to decide becoming a rabbi when I was barely fourteen years old.



[1] Cited from Marc Schneier, Shared Dreams: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Jewish Community (Woodstock VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1999), p. 35.
[2] Martin Luther, Clayborne Carson (ed.), The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., Volume IV: Symbol of the Movement, January 1957-December 1958 (Berkeley: University of California Press; First edition, 2000), p. 408.
[3] https://weldbham.com/blog/2012/09/19/54-sticks-of-dynamite-the-bomb-at-temple-beth-el/
[4] Martin Luther King, Jr, The Strength to Love (New York: Harper & Row, 1963; Pocketbook Edition, 1964), pp. 71-8

Hero’s Journey–Stan Lee & the Bible
Posted on November 27, 2018 by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Whenever we talk about the protagonists of the Bible, we must remember that every biblical actor’s character evolves in the course of a lifetime. What each person starts out differs from what each one ultimately becomes. In the latter half of Genesis, the ancient storyteller lavished considerable detail upon Jacob—who emerges as the most complex personality of Genesis. In the stories involving his interactions and experiences, we discover Jacob is the most morally challenged individual of all the biblical patriarchs.

Jacob’s journey begins with a series of tests that he will have to face and endure heroically.

Joseph Campbell’s seminal work, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, examines the hero archetype in ancient literature through Homer’s epic story—The Odyssey. He observed that heroes often undertake the most challenging tasks and place themselves in mortal danger to bring back, for themselves and their societies, both knowledge, and treasure.

According to Campbell, the Odyssey, ought to be seen as a metaphor for the various psychological hardships a true hero must learn to overcome.

Once Ulysses overcomes these hardships, the protagonist matures—achieving a more complete understanding of himself and his place in the world. As a result of successfully facing his ordeals, Ulysses ultimately returns home with a more definite sense of who he is. In the process, Ulysses emerges as a better king for his country of Ithaca; he is now a more attentive husband, a dedicated father, and loyal son.
As with virtually all hero myths, the hero must undergo a series of tests and tribulations that form the essence of his or her heroic journey.

Campbell’s concept of the heroic journey consists of three stages: separation or departure; the trials and victories of initiation; and the return and reintegration with society. The hero must prove his worth the caliber of his ideas and his character in a variety of dangerous ways that will test the limits of mortality.

As mentioned earlier, the hero descends into the underworld and has a close brush with the forces of death. He must also face mysterious and threatening adventures that lead to the wresting of a gift or prize from powerful and ominous powers. Each of these obstacles will serve as a rite of passage resulting in the spiritual transformation and individuation of the hero. The hero’s journey, when seen from this perspective, connotes a triumphant return from the realm of darkness and death to light and life—from unconsciousness to a state of pure consciousness.

Indeed, each of these characteristics occurs in the Jacob stories, as they do with Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, and Moses. A true hero faces his mortality with uncommon courage.

In honor of Stan Lee, the creator of Marvel Comics, I would like to talk to you this evening about the heroic journeys that characterized his characters.

As a child I grew up on Marvel Comics; I had all the original issues; And although Superman and Batman remained everyone’s favorite, the Marvel heroes resembled Jacob—in that each of them had flaws in their own character that they had to conquer. For many decades, DC Comics portrayed their heroes as if they were like Greek gods—so perfect, they seemed totally unrealistic; young people could not possibly aspire to emulate.

It was only in the last fifty years, DC decided to rewrite their comics and portray their characters as having personality disorders. In one episode, Green Arrow’s partner, young Roy Harper was depicted as suffering from drug addiction. Comics started to focus on real-life issues— mostly because of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, his great assistant. Yet, in each of Stan Lee’s comic book characters, the protagonists learn to conquer their inner fears and insecurities. Even the Hulk—over time—comes to embrace his humanity.
.

“Who is mighty?” asks the Sages? He who learns to master his own nature.” My father used to say, “He who overcomes his passion for anger.”

Influenced by Jewish tradition, I think Stan Lee could relate to the fact that all the heroes and heroines of the biblical stories—from Adam to Job—must undergo a series of spiritual and psychological trials that will eventually facilitate a new sense of self and personal identity.

In Jewish thought, the creation of the cosmos from non-being, known as “nothing” is not just a theological construct—it is also a psychological process where we—as individuals must touch the nothingness of our being, as God creates us anew through our preservation and heroic vindication, as we experience the uncertainty of the “Dark Night of the Soul.”

Yet, the mark of a true hero is facing one’s own demons and monsters. For young people such as myself, comic books taught me to recognize that each true hero must conquer his own fears and insecurities—just as Jacob did in this week’s parsha.

Sun Tzu, in his Art of War, summed up the key to overcoming the obstacles we face—whether in the world of comics or for that matter in the real world:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Posted in biblical theology

CHULA VISTA, California  – The 1stCentury Jewish philosopher and religious scholar, Philo, was very familiar with the Torah, commenting here and there on different portions of the Five Books of Moses in writings that were spread over approximately 40 publications in the native Greek language that he spoke in his home of Alexandria, Egypt.
Growing up in a Reform Jewish home, Michael Leo Samuel had been a fan of Philo’s since his early teenage years. His passion for reading Jewish texts eventually led to Samuel being ordained through the Lubavitcher (Chabad) movement, and then going on to serve as a Hebrew school teacher and a pulpit rabbi in Modern Orthodox and Conservative congregations.  Recently, Samuel, who serves today as spiritual leader of Conservative Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista, has completed publication of a five-volume work, Rediscovering Philo of Alexandria,  in which he pulls together Philo’s thoughts about Jewish scripture from Philo’s many writings and puts them into sequential order, thus creating for the first time Philo’s comprehensive commentary on the Torah.  The books are available via Amazon.
To undertake this project, Samuel, who speaks Hebrew also taught himself Greek so he could read Philo in the original.  He also drew upon the thoughts of some of Judaism’s later, and perhaps better known, commentators like Rashi, Maimonides, Nachmanides, and Ibn Ezra to illustrate how Philo’s commentaries in some cases presaged the thoughts of these great commentators and in other instances contradicted them.
Rediscovering Philo of Alexandria relates in order Philo’s commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
In a wide-ranging interview, Samuel, who contributes occasional columns to San Diego Jewish World, discussed his books and the philosopher who inspired it.  He also is accepting invitations to discuss the book at synagogue, chavurah, and club gatherings.
He said that while living in First Century C.E. Alexandria, Philo faced two conflicting forces during his life.  On the positive side, Alexandria was a cosmopolitan port city which treasured learning, as was exemplified by its world-famous library.  On the other hand, many native Egyptians harbored anti-Semitic attitudes, making life in Alexandria a wary experience for Jews.  “One of the great pogroms in Alexandria that took place in the year 30 or so, resulted in the death of 50,000 people,” Samuel commented.  “It was the first modern pogrom of late antiquity.  Philo gives eye witness to how Jews were not even allowed to bury the dead, and the Roman prefect in Alexandria, Flaccus, was always trying to curry favor with the local anti-Semitic population.”
Nevertheless, Philo manage to enjoy some of what life had to offer.   “One of the things that I like about Philo was that he was an Alexandrian Jew, much like today we are American Jews,” said Samuel. “He would attend the gymnasium, watch wrestling matches. He would attend Olympic-style games.  He would go to horse races, and he had an interest in sports and would often draw some profound spiritual analogies about Jewish spirituality from sporting events that took place in his time.”
As a commentator, Philo was willing to opine on issues that continue to be controversial to the present day.  Abortion, homosexuality, and how Jews should treat other religions were among the subjects to which Philo gave deep thought.  Living in the pre-rabbinic era of Judaism, his commentaries often were in sharp contrast to those of later Jewish scholars, according to Samuel.
Whereas many later commentators took every word of the Torah literally, Philo was one of the first Jewish scholars to suggest that it must instead be understood as an allegory from which lessons may be learned, even if every word is not true.  In Philo’s view, according to Samuel, the Torah was given to the Jewish people at a time when they were not far removed from slavery.  Intellectually, they were like children, unable to understand complex rationales.  So, in the Torah, God warns the Jews of adverse consequences if they don’t follow His law, much like a parent warning a child, “Eat your dinner, or there will be no dessert.”
Philo differed with more recent commentators over the passage in Leviticus which describes as an “abomination” or an “abhorrence” the situation of a male lying with another male as with a woman.  Samuel said, “Philo explains that this is a statement that deals primarily with pedophilia and he gives many examples from Greek society how boys were often paraded around like women, under the tutelage of an older male adult.  He said this was what the Torah forbids; the reason that he said this was forbidden was a man has to be manly; to make a man womanly is degrading …. That approach might not fly in modern times, but his concern about the exploitation about children is definitely an important issue to bring up.”
Most rabbinical commentators in later periods did not address the problem of pedophilia at all, according to Samuel.  What little discussion there was seemed to wink at the problem, Samuel said.  “The rabbis (of the Talmud) did not have a concept of pedophilia, one of the shocking aspects of Talmudic history that frankly is very embarrassing,” he added.  “Philo stands head and shoulders above.”
On the issue of abortion, Philo definitely would have been on the “pro-life” side of the debate, rather than the “pro-choice” side, said Samuel.
“Philo had tremendous respect for prenatal life,” Samuel said. “He considered abortion to be immoral.  It is not clear whether he believed that life began at conception, but certainly in the last trimester of a fetus’s life, he said that the fetus is like a statue that has been prepared—only needs to be uncovered and exposed to the world.  Beautiful analogy.”
In contrast, others in the ancient world seemingly were unconcerned with the unborn babies.  “If a woman was accused of adultery, she would drink this potion that came from the earth of the sanctuary—and if she was guilty her stomach would explode,” Samuel said.  “So, if she were pregnant with another man’s child, she would die and the child would also.  That’s implied in Scripture,” Samuel said.
In some early rabbinic writings, he added, “If a woman is a murderess and is about to be condemned for that murder, but she is pregnant, the rabbis say you take a club and you smash her stomach even to the time till she is almost ready to deliver, to kill the baby.  Because the mother is so unhappy that the child is going to grow up without a parent; better for the child to die than to endorse such a sadness.  Rabbinic thinking!  If those rabbis had been familiar with Philo’s argument, he had turned that argument on its head.  He said, just as you are not allowed to slaughter a calf and its mother on the same day, this applies to animals, how much more so to human beings.  So, if you have a case where a woman is condemned, and she is about to give birth, you do not execute her with the child – that would be an act of murder.  That would be treating a human with less dignity than an animal with its young.  Therefore, you have to wait for the mother to give birth, nurse the child, and a later time execute the mother.”
Samuel added, “These discussions were really theoretical, the reason being that Rome did not allow Jews to practice the death penalty.”
Respect for all religions was a hallmark of Philo’s thinking, Samuel said.  “One of the laws in the Torah is that we are not allowed to curse God – and Philo understood this to mean not only are you not allowed to curse God; you are not allowed to curse the gods of other peoples.  Now when I was a yeshiva student many years ago, I remember how many of my friends in the Lubavitcher community would walk by a church and they would always spit on the sidewalk.  In fact, they spit whenever they mentioned idols in the Aleinu prayer, and even from the most Orthodox perspective that is considered a risqué and halachically scandalous behavior.  You don’t spit in a synagogue; it is considered inappropriate.”
Samuel’s first book was an outgrowth of his doctoral thesis at the San Francisco Theological Seminary.  The Lord is My Shepherd: The Theology of a Caring God was followed by five other books on diverse topics, and then this five-book series.  A workaholic, Samuel said he never lets a day go by without writing at least three pages and sometimes, if the juices are flowing, he might write 20.  He said that he has as many as 50 books in various stages of completion, with some of them likely to be published later this year or early in 2019.
Rabbi Israel Drazin, one of the most prolific writers on biblical topics with books to his credit about the Prophet Samuel, King David, King Solomon, Jonah, Amos, The Aramaic translation of the Bible known as the Targum Onkelos, and various other commentaries, has reviewed Rabbi Samuel’s work on Amazon, giving it a five-star rating.   “Until recently, it was Harry Wolfson’s 1962-1968 two-volume work Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that was considered the authoritative book on Philo of Alexandria, Egypt (ca. 20 BCE to about 50 CE),” Drazin wrote. “Today, because of the wealth of scholarly material contained in his five volumes and their presentation in a very readable manner, Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel’s books can now be considered the authoritative work on the great Greek Jewish philosopher.”
*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World.  He may be contacted via donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com

by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel


Some people may view this topic too incendiary to write about—I get it. Yet, it is an important issue—especially when we consider the high stakes that are at risk. My point of view is contrarian. Consider me a contrarian life-long Democrat who values truth and integrity above politics.
Admittedly, President Trump can be a lightning rod when it comes to some of the things that he says off the cuff. Yet, he has been surprisingly effective in the international arena. By “arena,” the images of the Roman Coliseum comes to mind. I thought President Obama or Bush had his detractors, but President Donald Trump is in a league of his own.
With this thought in mind, I would like to share some thoughts on the President’s meeting with Vladimir Putin, who in his own way, is every bit as complicated as our President.
Before Trump met with Putin, I could hear the naysayers say that having a summit with Putin was a bad idea. What could Trump gain from such a meeting? If he publicly confronts Putin about the Russians interfering in the American elections, then it is quite possible the critics of Trump would construe such a remark as an admission that he did not legitimately “win the election.” Conversely, if Trump did not publicly address the problem, then his critics would view him as weak—or worse argue that Trump is a puppet of Putin.
It reminds me of an old story—one, in fact, that is relevant to the holiday of Tisha’ b’Av

• In Roman times, a Jew once walked in front of Emperor Hadrian and greeted him. The King asked, “Who are you?” He answered, “I am a Jew.” Hadrian exclaimed, “How dare a Jew to pass in front of Hadrian and greet him?” and he ordered his officers, “Off with his head!” Another Jew passed and, seeing what happened to the first man, did not greet him. Hadrian asked, “Who are you?” He answered, “A Jew.”
• He exclaimed, “How dare a Jew pass in front of Hadrian without giving a greeting?” and again ordered his officers, “Off with his head!” His senators said, “We cannot understand your actions. He who greeted you was put to death, and he who did not greet you was put to death!”

• Hadrian replied, “How dare you advise me on how I should execute those I hate?” And the Holy Spirit kept crying out, “You have seen the wrong done to me, O Lord; judge my cause. You have seen all their malice, all their plots against me.” (Lam. 3:59-60).[1]

If you substitute “Democratic Party” (or even certain members of the Republican Party), and change “Jew” to “Trump,” you have an almost perfect parallel to the midrashic story mentioned above.
Arguably, Trump’s greatest criticisms come from two major groups: (1)  Those who hate Trump and who will criticize the President for anything he does. (2). Those few in the military and intelligence communities who are wholly bought and owned by the war industries, for it is in their financial interests to have the US and Russia armed to the teeth and at each other’s throats. Eisenhower warned us about the excesses of the American military complex.
One of the more objective Republican critics of President Trump is Rand Paul, whose fierce independence as a thinker and as a leader has challenged the President on numerous occasions in the past. He is sometimes known as the “the Republican who saved ObamaCare.” In an article he wrote for the Washington Post, his remarks on the Trump-Putin meeting impressed me as clear-headed and thought-provoking. Paul was supportive of both these men meeting. Paul further pointed out to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Trump’s legion of critics are motivated by a mutual animus they have for him. Comically, he even referred to the enemies of Trump as suffering from “a bit of Trump derangement syndrome.”
Now that was truly funny!
When Paul was asked by Blitzer “Who do you trust [on election meddling], the American intelligence community . . . or Putin?” Paul gave an interesting diplomatic answer, ““What I would say is that all power needs to have checks and balances, and I think our intelligence community has way too much power.”[2] . (This interview happened before Trump claimed Tuesday that he misspoke when he gave Putin the benefit of the doubt).” It is a pity Trump did not have Rand Paul coaching him. If I were him, I’d bring him along next time he meets with Putin.
Paul agrees with Trump that engaging pariah global powers is more productive than punishing them. This writer agrees with this objective. Shaming a world leader is a very dangerous thing to do—especially when it is guaranteed to escalate tensions and make a potential adversary. more hostile.
The world has become a very dangerous place over the last thirty years or more. The Iranian presence in Syria is so serious; a war between Israel and Iran is almost inevitable. The two most powerful leaders of the world have within their ability to take control of this dangerous situation.
The proliferation of nuclear technology is another serious problem that can engulf Western Civilization with destruction. Once again, the two leaders of the most powerful nuclear nations must establish a dialogue and address these issues. Remarkably, Trump’s diplomacy with China and North Korea has the potential of yielding positive fruit. Whether you hate Trump or not, at least give him credit for being innovative and bold—whereas leaders in the past, beginning with Clinton, Bush, and Obama and their underlings only appeased the North Korean dictators.
Give Trump credit for decimating the ranks of ISIS, who proved they are a presence that must be utterly defeated for world peace.
One of the most memorable lines Trump expressed—one that really ought to command our respect, “I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than risk peace in pursuit of politics.” Once again, this statement comes from a man whose vision may help pave the way for a safer world for all of us to co-inhabit.
As my good Internet Indian friend, Imitz Mohummad, wrote to me, “These jerks want Trump to punch Putin in the nose and start a nuclear war with the other major nuclear force on Earth. I’m a patriot and a believer in a powerful America. I have also witnessed the body bags filled with the fruit of American youth when fat old saber rattlers play soldier. Trump was masterful in Helsinki. The Swamp Donkeys may scream but tonight the world is better off that these two men shook hands!”
Amen!
Postscript:
One of the most interesting remarks regarding the Russian meddling came from Putin who floated an offer for members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team to “come and work” with Russian investigators and interrogate those individuals, whom Mueller recently indicted.  During the Monday press conference, Putin said Russia would allow the special counsel to “send an official request” to the Kremlin to question the 12 Russian intelligence officers who had been charged by Mueller with crimes related to election meddling just three days earlier. Moreover, there is an extradition policy that both the US and Russia have agreed to.
Trump’s reaction was cute, Putin “offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators with respect to the 12 people. I think that’s an incredible offer.”
Indeed it is.
But this is assuming that Mueller or his team take Putin up on his offer. I doubt it, much like the Roman senators could not persuade Hadrian to let go of his animus toward the Jews.
Lastly, and Putin also made an interesting counter-argument that should not be ignored. Putin accused U.S. officials of committing crimes against Russia and said his government would want to question them in return. Specifically, he mentioned an investor named Bill Browder, a  former high-level investor in Russia who has become one of Putin’s most oft-cited enemies for his role in lobbying for the U.S. sanctions bill known as the Magnitsky Act.
Putin countered that Browder’s associates sent $400 million in campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the 2016 election.[3]
As always, follow the money trail. Corruption in American politics is a problem no honest American can ignore. Perhaps the inescapable moral comes from the famous proverb, “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
Do not criticize others if you have similar weaknesses yourself. None of us can afford the sin of self-righteousness.
[1] Lamentations Rabba 3:60,
[2] I would only like to add that the subject of election meddling by the Russians is a topic I would love to address at another time. Simply stated, strong nations do this when it affects a country’s political interest to do so. The Obama administration interfered in the Ukraine elections, which led to Russia’s predictable takeover of the area which holds Russia’s major naval base and sea outlet. The Obama administration interfered in the election of Israel. Lastly, The alleged Russian interference that occurred during the Obama administration did not elicit any criticism from our Commander in Chief, President Obama. The United States, like Russia, has a long history of interfering with elections elsewhere around the globe. See Ishaan Tharoor’s informative article on this subject in the Washington Posthttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?utm_term=.00572c6d89da.
*
Rabbi Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista.  He may be contacted via Michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com 


[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/16/putin-asked-special-counsel-to-come-and-work-with-russia-trump-says.html

Posted in Bible, biblical theology, Contrarian wisdom, Current Events, Israel

By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

​The story is a familiar one. Once a man went out for a walk through the forest. To his sudden surprise, he sees a grizzly bear chasing him. After the bear traps him, he prepares himself for his last rites, he says the Shema Prayer, and to his surprise he sees the bear praying with his eyes closed! But to his surprise, the bear is not reciting the Shema—he is instead saying the blessing, “HaMotzi lechem min ha’aretz!”
By now, most of you heard about how a pride of lions killed suspected poachers at a game reserve in Africa. A field guide found human remains the next day. “Clearly, the poachers had walked into a pride of six lions and some, if not all had been killed,” according to a Facebook post by Fox.
“They were armed with, amongst other things, a high powered rifle with a silencer, an ax, wire cutters and had food supplies for a number of days – all the hallmarks of a gang intent on killing a rhino and removing their horns,” said Fox.
I am reminded of an old medieval aphorism, “Man proposes, but God disposes”
Pious Jews recite Psalm 145:14-17 every day
The eyes of all look hopefully to you;
You give them their food in due season.
You open wide your hand
and satisfy the desire of every living thing.
You, LORD, are just in all your ways,
faithful in all your works.
After the reading the news story from Africa, this passage took on new meaning for me. Yes, the ways of God are truly just. God not only provides His creatures with an appetizer, but also with main-course and dessert!
Jewish tradition has much to say about hunting.

• Abbahu said: A man should always strive to identify with the persecuted than of the persecutors as there is none among the birds more persecuted than doves and pigeons, and yet Scripture made them [alone] eligible for the altar (Lev. 1:14).[1]

As Jews, we, in particular, have much to comiserate about whenever we see God’s endangered species being threatened. Anti-Semites, too, have often hunted Jews, throughout history. The Nazis paid a premium for capturing Jews—whether dead or alive.
In the Tanakh, God beckoned Noah to preserve the animal species. The Book of Leviticus tells us “You shall not slaughter an ox or a sheep on one and the same day with its young” (Lev. 22:28). Both Philo of Alexandria and Ramban believe the purpose of this prohibition aims to prevent the destruction of a species. In one famous midrashic text we read:

• When the Holy Blessed One created the first man, He took him and led him around all the trees of the Garden of Eden, and said to him, “Look at my handiwork, see how beautiful and excellent they are! Everything I have created, I created for you! Be careful that you do not corrupt and destroy My world, for if you corrupt it there is no one to repair it after you.[2]

One of the principle reasons why the Torah limited animals for human consumption that had two kosher characteristics (animals that have split hooves and chew their cud) is to preserve the animal species as a whole. Thus, the Torah imposed limitations upon the human appetite.
Rabbinic law reflects this disdain toward hunting.

• “How can a man from Israel actively kill an animal for no need other than to fulfill his desire to spend his time hunting? We do not find that people in the Torah are hunters except with Nimrod and Esau. This is not the way of descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…”[3]

One 17th century noted,  “…It is certain that those who shoot arrows after birds and beasts for no purpose at all other than to learn archery, and kill animals for no reason, are destined to stand in judgment for it; for it is not the way of Israel, the holy congregation, to commit evil to any creature for no reason. . .  Killing an animal in order for the joy of pure sport is sheer cruelty “[4]
Anyone who goes to the San Diego Zoo might be surprised at a large number of endangered species that the zoo and other similar habitats are trying to preserve. Unfortunately, there are some people who will do anything to kill these species, for rhino horns are often used in Chinese medicine and their price is considered more valuable than gold.
In my conversation with some Orthodox rabbis, I was surprised to see a number of them argue that there is a place for “big game” centers provided the monies go to promote animal growth in African communities. While this may be true in theory, the corruption and lust for profit may prove to be counterproductive; aside from this, poachers will always try to find a way to circumvent existing laws.
Furthermore, popularizing these big-game trophies only serves to motivate other would be hunters who live for the thrill of the moment.
As Jews who love animals, we cannot stand idly by as malignant people attempt to depopulate the world of these magnificent creatures. Instead of justifying the barbarism of these hunters with contrived Halakhic arguments, we need to remember that God expects human beings and animals to live in a world peaceably with these rare creatures.
One of the great 20th century Jewish mystics, R. Abraham Isaac Kook expressed an ethical thought that people need to hear and consider today:

• It goes against the clear emotions of the heart that a talmid hakham (Torah scholar), a spiritual man, should be permanently engaged in the taking of animals’ lives. Though shechitah (ritual slaughter)—and in general the consumption of animals—remains a necessity in this world, nevertheless, it would be fitting that this work performed by men who have not yet evolved to the level of refinement of feeling. However, those endowed with ethical sensitivity ought to serve as supervisors (pekidim) in order that the killing of the animals must not become a  barbaric act. Let there be a light that will enter into the heart of meat-eaters–a light that will someday illuminate the world. For those who truly understand the significance of kosher slaughtering, this light is truly contained in the laws of shehitah and tereifot (unfit animals), as is well known to us.[5]

[1] BT Bava Kama 93a


[2] Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:20.
[3] Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, Shailos U’Teshuvot Noda B’Yehudah, Mehadurah Tinyana, Yoreh De’ah 10.
[4]  Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kaidanover, Kav HaYashar 83.
[5] Igrot Rayah, vol. I, p. 230.

Posted in Bible, biblical history, biblical theology, Contrarian wisdom, Current Events, good and evil, Halacha, science and religion