Jews On The Web  

Jacob or Israel?
 by Prof. Gerald August

Jacob or Israel? Israel or Jacob? Which name is the real name of this son of Isaac and Rebecca?

Jacob wrestled with himself and was named Israel. The name change happened only after he overcame his will to run. A trait he exhibited with Laban and Esau. So he was given a name that means he had the power to struggle and overcome.

But look at the trials and tribulations Jacob went through after this episode. His daughter was raped. Think of his anguish and anger. He feared for the safety of his family after Shimon and Levi took revenge.

Then he witnessed the discord between Joseph and the rest of his sons. After sending Joseph to be with his brothers, he was told his favorite son was killed. His grief was such that Jacob said, “ I will mourn for him until I go into my grave.”

Immediately he loses another son. Judah leaves home for many years. Jacob never met his daughter-in-law or grandsons.

Then a famine struck the land. Returning from Egypt, his sons told him a ruler of Egypt demanded Benjamin, now his favorite, must come with them if they ever returned for food.

Jacob was a rich man. So what? He was constantly in crisis! What sorrow he suffered.

But now, it is the end of his life and he has overcome the struggles. He saw them through. He did not commit suicide. He did not crawl into a corner and cease functioning.

And now once again he is Israel. He has prevailed. He overcame the challenges life threw at him.

We are all potential Israels. We all have obstacles. They could be physical, mental, social or financial. And the challenge is to overcome them. And yes, to achieve our goals

We have to look at a situation and say, “This is what is. What do I do to handle this?

At each point in our life, when we emerge victorious, we too can award ourselves a new name. Israel.

But that Israel lived 3700 years ago. What about today? Who will be our role model today? My answer is…you!!

We have all have overcome problems. Think of school. Even if you were a good student, there were still goals to be met. After school, there were the challenges of the new job, a promotion, a difficult manager, or the loss of a position. If you are married, there may have been times that were tough. Or maybe, unfortunately there was a divorce. Relationships with friends and family may not always have been smooth. Yet you’re here today.

Think of four situations when you faced adversity. The time frame could be days or weeks or years. And you came out of it. Celebrate yourself. You went from a Jacob time to an Israel time.

Remember: sometimes YOU are your best role model.

Anger Management In Stressful Situations
- A Torah Perspective

By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Shira_Svei]Shira Svei

The Talmud states, "Anyone who gets angry, it's as if he worships idolatry."
A strange correlation.
Were the Talmud to teach, "Anyone who gets angry, it's as if he destroys an entire home," I would nod in understanding. Even "Anyone who obsesses over his money, it's as if he worships idolatry," makes sense. But, anger and idolatry? What's the connection?
The following scenario may shed some light on the Talmud's seemingly enigmatic statement:
Your anniversary is coming up and you decide to surprise your wife with tickets to a Broadway show followed by dinner in a fancy restaurant in the city. You have everything planned to the "T"! You even convince your sister-in-law, Lisa, to babysit. (Lisa tends to grate on you and can sometimes get you very angry. But, you're desperate and you really want this evening to be perfect!) The big night finally arrives and everything is set. You and your wife manage to slip out on time despite some very vociferous kid-launched protests. (They aren't particularly fond of Lisa either...) Its six o'clock  and you live a half hour from the city. Showtime is at eight -- more than enough time to make it to Midtown and perhaps even do some window shopping together...alone! You flash your wife a smile as you turn on the highway, secretly congratulating yourself on an evening perfectly executed. You are in control. You enter the Battery Tunnel, all the while enjoying your wife's consternation at being unable to guess which show you've chosen. And then...you hit traffic. No problem. This evening is about enjoying each other. Who cares if some of it is spent in a car, right? Fifteen minutes pass and there is no movement -- not an inch. You start to sweat a little but you're still confidant that this traffic jam can't last too much longer. Another fifteen minutes pass and you are still smack in the middle of the Battery Tunnel. Mildly irritated, you turn on the radio for the traffic report. "And to the folks stuck on the Battery, I hope that y'all are comfortable. There's been a five car accident at the entrance of the tunnel on the Manhattan bound side. Its going to take at least 2 hours to get this thing cleared up. Here's a little music to lighten your (click)." Your hand instinctively goes for the horn. Then, as your anxiety is mounting, you turn backwards, furious that those imbecile drivers behind you aren't attempting to exit the tunnel from the entrance. That's what anyone with any measure of intelligence would have done.That's what you would have done. So, thanks to some accident (probably careless drivers!) and some dimwits, you're stuck...and boy are you angry! Hello! Don't you all know who I am? Don't you realize that I have somewhere to be?
Evaluating this scenario objectively, most would probably agree that anger is not the appropriate response here. It's certainly not the most productive response. Even so, many people can likely relate to the anxiety and mounting frustration of the "you" in the story.
The question is -- Where is this feeling coming from? What is the root of this reaction?
The Answer: It comes from the way that you perceive yourself. You are the man in charge. When you make plans, you expect the ensuing results to be satisfactory. Now, if you're the one who runs the show and things are not going the way you planned, you are not happy, not happy at all.
"Anyone who gets angry, it's as if he worships idolatry." The Talmud teaches that when you get angry, you are effectively saying that you, and not G-d, are in control of everything that happens in your life.
Here is where you can do a paradigm shift. If you are a believer in G-d then you know that He controls everything that happens in this entire world, down to the most minute detail. He controls when you hit traffic and controls when you make every green light. A believer in G-d also knows that G-d knows what He's doing. By relinquishing your "control" to the One who is really in control, you free yourself from the anger that previously bound you. A situation that was once anxiety provoking is now just another friendly reminder that "someone else" is in charge.
You thought you were supposed to be at a Broadway show tonight. Apparently, He had other plans. Sometimes you will see His divine providence clearly. (There were many people who were very upset when they missed their 8:00 trains to the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11th, 2001.) Other times, you'll be left guessing. Either way, you can sit back and enjoy the ride because The Conductor knows the route well -- perhaps even better than you do.

Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?Anger-Management-In-Stressful-Situations---A-Torah-Perspective&id=5057658] Anger Management In Stressful Situations - A Torah Perspective

Today’s Economy:  A Curse?  Or a Gift?
By Cantor Debbi

It’s inevitable.  Everywhere we turn, from morning through night, the media inundates us with messages of doom, despair, lack, shortage, and crisis.  The psychological effect of these messages can be devastating, because even when we’re not aware of it, our emotional vibration decreases every time we hear these messages.  Even for those of us who may have so far been fortunate enough to escape the most negative impact of today’s economy, we are surrounded by friends, co-workers, and family members who are certainly experiencing the crisis firsthand.

What are we to do?  
Well, I believe that life is meaningless – until we assign our own meaning to each situation.  Ever heard the expression “It is what it is”?  To me, that just means that what is happening is simply happening.  It is neither good, nor bad, until we give it that meaning ourselves. 

I’ve chosen to turn every negative message I hear today into a positive one.  First and foremost, I certainly try NOT to listen to the news as much as I possibly can, without attempting to crawl under a rock.  I select the types of news feeds I WANT to receive, and make sure that I begin each day with positive affirmations that set me on the proper course for the day.

But how can we possibly turn those negative messages into positive ones?  It isn’t easy, but I believe that if more people could concentrate on the positive, and follow some simple steps to increase our emotional vibration throughout the day, we just may make some headway into moving our economy – and ourselves, back into the positive side of life. 

First, and foremost – Remember that those things that matter most to us are free.  Reaching out and touching a family member, a friend, or even offering a smile to someone is completely free.  When I count my blessings, I begin with my children, continue to my parents and siblings, move on through the family tree, and then move on to my closest friends.  I am so thankful for the personal support network I have, and I have made a deal with them that unless there is an immediate crisis that needs to be dealt with, we will only exchange positive words of hope and optimism in our conversations.  I begin and end each day, thankful for the amazing relationships I have in my life. 

When I want to do something that costs money that either I cannot spend – or choose not to – I make the choice instead to do something that the universe has already provided me with – a walk on the beach, or in my neighborhood, a nearby park, or just to sit and meditate quietly, escaping the noise and chaos that I usually feel throughout the day.  It calms me, and makes me appreciate the gifts God has given me, that money just cannot buy.  I realize that a simpler life, with less choices brings me closer to nature, more in tune with myself, and closer to God. 

Since I am in the wedding industry, I see brides choosing to forego the large, lavish wedding celebrations, and instead, take their immediate family and friends to a beautiful tropical island location, which actually could save tens of thousands of dollars.  In exchange, they get to spend time with their closest family and friends, making memories they may never have been able to create otherwise, and truly sharing the beauty of the most meaningful event of their lives. More and more, people are choosing to simplify but enhance.  By making something smaller, and less costly, the intimacy of the time together becomes even more special. 

Yes, we made some bad choices over the last few years with our money, and many of us are paying for it today, but we have the power to turn things around.  I believe this economic crisis will lead us to focus more on family, spending time and reacquainting ourselves with people who matter in our lives.  We will be forced to be more creative about the way we spend our time.  Perhaps we might disconnect ourselves from computers and cell phones, and spend a bit more time listening to each other.  Perhaps we will begin to realize it is not what we have, but what we do with our souls that really counts in this life.

We can refuse to give negative meaning to the economic crisis.  We can be thankful that God has given us an opportunity to reconnect with ourselves, learn a new trade, help others less fortunate than ourselves, and grow personally as a result.  Last year, I moved out of the big house, sold all my furniture and most of my possessions, moved into a very small condo, and sent my last child to college.  I was clear with myself and my children about how I anticipated the economy to change our lives, but I made it a very positive message, not a negative one.  It gives me more time to go see my children, more control over my life, and allowed me to jump OFF the hamster wheel of a career I hated.  It allowed me to tap into my strengths, and turn them towards my career that brings me more joy than I have ever experienced in my entire life.  I am thankful that own LESS than I have ever owned before, because today- I am happier than ever.  I have more joy, more rewarding friendships and relationships with family members.  I am less stressed and more optimistic about what life holds, and I’m positive it is because I refused to allow the messages to have negative meaning in my life.  I truly believe, we are experiencing the greatest gift God has ever given us.  I pray you find peace with His gift.

Sanctity of Life and Sanctity of the Sabbath
By: Billy Kite

There is a question in the Talmud regarding the source that allows one to desecrate the Shabbos in order to save human life.
We will be focusing on one particular opinion taught to us in the Talmud. The Talmud was written almost 2000 years ago. It is mentioned according to one opinion in the Talmud, that the source from which we derive the law that sanctity of life, and therefore saving a life overrides the laws of Shabbos from the verse that teaches us the sanctity of Shabbos itself. The verse tells us as follows. We shall observe the Shabbos in order to perform the Shabbos throughout the generations. This teaches us that one should violate one Shabbos by saving a life so that the person whose life was saved may live to observe many Shabbosos. The implication from the Gemara is that if we know for certain that the person whose life is being saved will not live until the next Shabbos, one is forbidden to violate the Shabbos on his behalf.
The commentators question this theory from the Gemara that we learned earlier in Tractate Yoma 71, that states that we allow the Shabbos to be violated even if the person for whom the Shabbos is being violated will only live for a few hours.
It is worth noting that the Ohr HaChaim in Parashas Ki Sisa in verse 31:16 writes that we do not violate the Shabbos to save a life if the person will only live for a few more hours. The ruling of the Ohr HaChaim would appear to contradict the accepted law.
The Minchas Chinuch in mitzvah 32 resolves this issue by writing that we allow the laws of Shabbos to be violated to save the life of a person even for a few hours, if a rabbinical prohibition will be violated. It is therefore necessary to make the biblical prohibition into a rabbinic one, otherwise, we do not allow one to violate the Shabbos laws to save a life if it is only for a few hours. The verse quoted earlier which teaches us that one can violate the Shabbos laws to save ones life so that one will be able to observe many Shabbosos refers to violating biblical prohibitions.
The Minchas Chinuch concludes that the final halacha is that one can violate even the biblical prohibitions of Shabbos to save a life, even if the person whose life is being saved will only live for a few hours. This is based on the exposition of the Gemara that derives the source for saving a life on Shabbos and overriding the laws of Shabbos from the verse that states you shall guard My decrees and My laws that man shall carry out and by which he shall live.

About the Author - Billy Kite is a researcher writing on behalf of the source for Gemara Brochos - Shema Tefilla , classes, as well as Daf Yomi gemara, classes with Rabbi Avrohom Adler

(ArticlesBase SC #382663)
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/ - Sanctity of Life and Sanctity of the Sabbath

The Concept of Love
By: zadok krouz
Dr. Zadok D. KrouzDD,DHL,PhD

"Love" is a term, which serves many functions; so much so that in many instances its usage lacks content. "Love" is a shout heard externally, a banner bandied about, which many people encircle and seek, but whichfew understand. Newspaper headlines continually project "unfounded hate" but never "unfounded love"? What of this love with its meaningful essence and character? And what of those persons who live such a love? On this, we hear nothing. And we may assume that the condition will not change so long as the slogan of love is presented as artificial jargon, rather then as as internal and essential value; or as a cosmetic and habitual motto, rather than as a fulfilling and multi-significant experience.
Thes research paper concerns itself with the concept "love" as it relates to humanity according to the following criteria:
(a its source, (b its character, and finally (c the way to embgody and express it, all according to the perception of Maimonides, may his name be remembered in Righteousness and Blessing. In accordance with the dictum in the Talmud saying, "Torah learning is greater when it leads to action, "let it be His Will that this treatment of the concept will be a steppingstone to achieve love in our thought, speech and actions.

A. THE SOURCE OF LOVE
Chapters 51 and 52 of Section 3 of Maimonides` THE GUIDE TO THE PERPLEXED discuss knowing the Almighty as the source from which the love of G-d, grows. We learn that the source of love is knowing G-d, and to acheeve it one must cling to the spiritual concept that is liarned in the comment, "Didn`t I explain to you that this is the intellect that abounds in us from the Holy One; it is the attachment" which which exists between us and Him? We understand the source of love as the concentration of man`s thought in G-d, or the knowledge of G-d.

Maimonides joins the religious ideal of attaining G-d as the source of love with the philosophic ideal of a life of reflection. True, the purpose of man is reflection, but the purpose of reflection reflects the source of love, the knowledge of G-d. However the fundamental questions are asked: What is love`s explanatin, and what is the meaning of the knowledge of G-d? And how can man, in general, arrive at the source of this knowledge as a prelude to love?
Regarding these questions, it is worthwhile consedering the central chapter of the system of descriptions, THE GUIDE, Section 1, Chapter 54. There, Maimonides relies on Moses, Our Rabbi, and says that he requested two wishes from the Almighty: one, "that He should show him His strength and His truth," that is, that G-d should reveal His might before him; and two, that G-d "should describe Himself to him." On these requests G-d replied to Moses that His might is incomprehensible, and His descriptions are His acts. It is impossible, then, to know G-d from the aspect of His might, although it is possible to know Him from the aspect of His acts. The descriptions of G-d which embody Him to us are discriptions of actions. Thus, all the descriptions of which the Almighty notified Moses were descriptive of actions: merceful, gracious, forbearing. The ways in which Moses requested their knowledge and by which he was notified of them were through awareness of His acts, may His name be blesed. The Sages called these acts "attributes" naming them collectively "The Thirteen Attributes." (XXXIV:6-7)
Knowing G-d as the source of love is even called by the name "the pure thought." This is learned from the words of Maimonides in THE GUIDE, Section, Chapter 21, "That the pure thought, according to it will be love; it is the essential knowledge of G-d Himself." This direct attachment of love to knowledge teaches that the essence of the idea love did not, according to Maimonides, include the psychological eddect and the emotional experience. The source of the love of G-d is practical, thoughtful and not emotional. (See GUIDE,III:54 "`And you will love your G-d with all your heart` means with all of the strength of your heart.") Essentially, Maimonides sought to free the love of G-d from its emotional content and to turn it into a pure achievement. This approach is expressed at the end of THE GUIDE.

B. THE NATURE OF LOVE
The nature of love is purposeful. This is expressed in the fifth chapter o Maimonides` EIGHT CHAPTERS: Man must activate all the strengths of his soul to know... and will place before him at all times one purpose, and it is the attaining of G-d, may He be blessed, according to the ablility of the person to know Him. And he will offer all his acts, movements, strengths and whatever else he has to arrive at this purpose, such that none of his acts will be vain acts, meaning an act that will not lead to this purpose.
Love bears the purposeful nature of similarity to G-d and walking in His path. This assumes the form of love of attainment whose essence is attachment to the love of G-d. Maimonides set forth the decree of Jeremiah, XIX:22-3
Do not praise the wise man for his wisdom and the strong for his strengtyh and the wealthy for understanding and knowing Me that I am The Almighty who does kindness, justice and generosity on earth, in which I delighted in G-d`s address.
Jeremiah does not stop with the words "understanding and knowing Me," and this that did not suffice him for the verse to expain, is that their attacnment alone, may He be blessed, is that which venerates perfection.
The nature of love is also ethical; meaning that attainment of the knowledge of G-d is, in effect, awareness of ethical G-dly characteristics. And furthermore, the purposeful nature, which is in love, is an ethica purpose of the life of man in general. It is knowledge, the knowledge of G-d, though the purpose of this knowledge itself is ethical. Rational perfection os a characteristic of the love of man for G-d, and ethical perfection is a characteristic of the love of G-d for man.
Also, we discover an entirely new picture of Maimonides` thought on man and the nature of man`s love of G-d: Man does not trek towards the love of G-d in a straight line, but in a circular line. The way is that of ethics and knowing G-d, though the path does not end at this point. It returns and is overturned: From knowing G-d there develops a return to the ethical attributes, and the ethical nature of the love of G-d is in the awareness of the G-dly attributed. This means that attaining G-d is essentially attaining His works. Maimonides continues, (GUIDE,III:24) "It is not appropriate to praise only for the attainment of the knowlidge of His ways and His descriptions." His acts being synonymous with His descriptions, we may therefore deduce that we must seek to know His acts in order to perform them. Again, the intention is to replicate the thirteen attributes in order that we may walk in their ways.
But, how is it possible that man will walk in the path of The Almighty? That is, how can man replicate G-d and imitate His deeds? How can we understand this characteristic of love, which is the very fruit of love? To resolve these questions, we must fundamentally distinguish between act and effect. In man, the act results from the spiritual effect, from some creation or quality within the soul, whereas the acts of G-d do not result from a spiritual characteristic or from any essence.
Maimonides stresses this in his discourse on the descriptions of the acts in general saying, (GUIDE, I: 54) "This matter is not one of attributes, but of deeds similar to the acts which come to us from the attributes." That is, the acts of G-d are similar to ours, but there is no comparison in the causes inducing the actions. The acts of G-d do not result from any effect or spiritual characteristic, but they are as if they result from effects. The appellations "graciousness" and "mercy" and "slow to anger" are not understook as G-d loves or pities (or even hates). The understanding is only that the acts resulting from G-d result as if from love, mercy or hate. Now the term replication is understood: This characteristic of love os the walking in the path of G-d, the imitation of His acts. There os no replication from the aspect of effects or spiritual charactersitics. The replication is not in the spiritual realm, but in deeds.
To summarize, the nature of love is intellectual rationalism, an act approaching truth, which is knowledge of G-d; the nature of love is purposedul and reflective, knowing G-d so that we may walk in His ways; and at a certain level, love bears an ethical character.

C. THE WAY TO EMBODY AND EXPRESS LOVE
Theapex of process-reflective devotion is nothing other than reflective exertion toward the awareness o G-d. Reflective awareness is a processs of absorbing a reflective abundance from G-d by means of the active intelligence. This turns the human intelligence into a bridge between G-d and man. This bridge is dependent on man alone, in his intelligence and in his concentration of his thought upon The Almighty. Therefore, in the strengthening of his intellect, man will come to the love of G-d.
This reflection, however, is not only the theoretical, philosophical intelligence; it is also bound to the internal emotion of man. Intelligence, according to Maimonides, (GUIDE,III:51) is not only rationalistic speculation; it includes the sphere of feelings and emotions.
At a certain plateau love no longer remains in anything other than the beloved, and this is termed by Maimonides (Ibid) with the appellation "desire." This love is already planted in the material of the desire in a way that perfects it, leading us to conclude that the true belief is the religion of love.
Man has a purpose, and it is the attainment of G-d. Man will attain G-d through his entire deeds. Moral and ethical conducts serve as a preparation and as a means for this purpose. Man will not arrive at the supreme purpose if he will not control his morality. If he will not restrain his desires, if he will not internally discipline himself, if he will not improve his understanding and will not strengthen his will, he will not arrive at the supreme ethical stratum.
In the YAD HAHAZAKAH, Maimonides explains, "The revered and fearful G-d commands to love and fear Him, as it is written, `and love your G-d, ` and it is also writtten, `The Lord your G-d you will fear. `" How is it possible to both love and fear Him? It is possible at the time when man will observe His acts and His marvelous creations and see in them His wisdom, which has no measure and no end. Maimonides states further, in the MISHNEA TORAH, (Book I, p.36) "The servant from love studies Torah and follows the Commandments and walks in the ways of the wise not cecause of something in the world, and not because he will otherwise see evil, and not in order to inherit good; but he does the truth because it is truth and resultantly ends favorably..." Then, man will love G-d with a great love, overflowing and mighty, such that his soul will be linked to the love of G-d, G-d as a unity, with all his deeds in the name of Heaven for the sake of the attainment of G-d and performance of the Commandments for their sake alone.

CONCLUSION
According to current and classical thought thought, love is an essential need of each and every indinidual, although the nature and purpose of love is sometimes misconstrued. The essential love is the love of G-d, and the way to achiece it is through the intellect. The ultimate effect o this process is the attainment of G-d and the doing of His Commandments. In closing, we cite the "blessing of love" (Recited in the morning prayer service before the SHMA) which, in for man and man`s love for G-d.

LOVE OF THE WORLD, OUR LOVE, OUR LORD, OUR G-D, YOU HAVE BESTOWED EXCEEDINGLY ABUNDANT COMPASSION ON US. OUR FATHER, OUR KING, IN YOUR GREAT NAME AND FOR THE SAKE OF OUR FATHERS WHO TRUSTED IN YOU, WHO TAUGHT THEM THE LAWS OF LIFE TO DO YOUR WILL WHOLEHEARTEDLY, THUS WILL YOU FAVOR AND TEACH US. OUR FATHER, THE MERCIFUL FATHER, HAVE COMPASSION ON US AND PLACE IN OUR HEARTS UNDERSTANDING, TO KNOW AND TO REASON, TO HEAR, TO LEARN AND TO TEACH, TO RUARD AND TO PERFORM, AND TO DO ALL WHICH YOUR TORAH TEACHES US WITH LOVE. ILLUMINATE OUR EYES WITH YOUR LAW, AND ATTACH OUR HEARTS UNTO YOUR COMMANDMENTS. UNITE OUR HEARTS TO LOVE AND TO FEAR YOUR NAME S THAT WE SHALL NEITHER SHAME NOR REPROACH NOR WAVER, FOREVER. FOR IN YOUR HOLY, FRAND, MIGHTY AND REVERED NAME, WE TRUSTED. WE SHALL REFOICE AND FEAST IN YOUR SALVATION. IN YOUR MERCY, G-D, OUR FATHER, AND YOUR MANY KINDNESSES, SO NOT ABANDON US EVER. BRING US SPEEDILY BLESSING AND PEACE...FOR YOU ACT WITH SALVATION AND CHOSE US FROM AMONG ALL PEOPLES, AND BROUGHT US TOGETHER, OUR KING, TO YOUR GREAT NAME, ALWAYS INTRUTH WITH LOVE, TO THANK YOU AND TO PROFESS YOUR UNITY WITH LOVE, AND TO LOVE YOUR NAME. BLESSED BE THOU.OUR LORD, WHO CHOOSES HISPEOPLE ISRAEL WITH LOVE.

(ArticlesBase SC #265377)
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/ - The Concept of Love

Help others find this website: Digg It! or Bookmark it!  Share

COMMENTARIES Plus...

A Prayer 'Out Of Place'

This past week, the NY Times covered what has been an ongoing story in Rhode Island involving religion, the U.S. Constitution, the ACLU, and much heated debate and rhetoric.
The essence of the story is that a Cranston, RI student, Jessica Ahlquist, with the aid of the ACLU challenged an 8 foot tall prayer that has been in the Cranston West High School since the 1960's. - After much heated rhetoric, a judge has decreed that the prayer does in fact violate the U.S. Constitution. And, that it must be removed. The Cranston school committee is considering whether or no to appeal the decision. Meawile this tudent as been threatned and been called "evil" by even an area politician.

So with this serving as a thumbnail sketch of the facts, I would like to share some personal thoughts.

As a student growing up in a largely Roman Catholic state, there were, at the time, no days off for Jewish holidays. Christmas carols were frequently a school tradition. And, while some of this might have changed over the decades, prejudice remains a staple for some who are quite vocal.

Fast forward to the present, where some in public service have called Jessica, 'evil' or similar nasty & mean-spirited things.

I wonder how these same folks would react if the prayer that was displayed were Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu?

I would like to remind folks that the Baptist Minister, Francis Bellamy, wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, without any specific reference to God. When quesioned about this, he explained that the pledge was designed to unite people. And that religion was vey divisive. (We see this even in Israel where there are some Jews who shout similar epithets and evenobjects at Jewish women who do not dress or behave as they would wish that they did.) - It was only many, many decades later, in 1954, when the words 'under God' were added to the pledge.

Count me among those who do not believe that religious expression on the part of public, governmental entities is appropriate. For even within 1 faith, there can be many differences. - It is in your heart, your home, your place of worship, meeting places... that you can and should express your religion.

If you disagree (or even agree), drop me a line at Thoughts@JewsOnTheWeb.com

'Tis The Season

Lately, I have been listening intently to a talk show host who has been spending much time on those who would 'deny Christians freedom of expression' and who seek to remove religion from our society, here in the United States.
She has had callers who speak of boycotting stores that do not prominently display 'Christmas' in their buildings. Boycotting businesses where employees do not greet everyone with "Merry Christmas", instead of "Happy Holidays".
And, despite all of this, she maintains that Jews are not really offended by all of this. Or, the Christmas displays at a State House, Town Hall, or...

Well, folks, I am here to say that as the 1 Jew for whom I can truly speak (myself), that:
* I am not offended by stores displaying Christmas decorations, in general.
* I am not offended when a store employee wishes me a "Merry Christmas", because they do not know that I am Jewish.
* I am offended by businesses that overlook Hannukah, or the fact that they have Jewish customers. (Or, patrons who are Muslim, Buddhist, or of other religions.)
* I would like to see a Jewish-owned business play down Christmas decorations and promotions in favor of a 'Happy Holiday' motif. (If not, a Hannukah one.)
* I would love to see and hear the reaction of this talk show host if the above was actually done.
* I do not want my tax dollars going for religious displays. And, if they do, then they should highlight the major religions to an equal extent. (In other words, not a tiny menorah alongside a block-long Christmas display.)

Contrary to her callers' beliefs, there is not a huge 'war against Christianty'.  On the contrary! The problem seems to come in when some Christians decide that everyone should be exposed to their religious beliefs and traditions, regardless of the setting and who frequents those settings.
America is a melting pot. And, religious freedom should not equal unfettered desires of some people overiding the freedom of others.

What do you think? Let us know by writing at: ThoughtsPlus@JewsOnTheWeb.com

Are We Moving Beyond Denominational Borders?

Rabbi Jason A. Miller

     As a 30-something rabbi, I’ve noticed that denominational labels were much more important for our parents’ and grandparents’ generations than they are for us.  Today’s 20- and 30-year-olds are searching for meaning in religion and are not very concerned with the names of movements or synagogues.
     Rabbi Naftali Rothenberg, an Orthodox rabbi, recently wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Jewish Week entitled “Time To End The Reform-Orthodox Wars.” He was responding to Israeli chief rabbi Shlomo Amar’s attack on Reform Jews and his pressure on the Israeli government to prevent involvement of non-Orthodox movements in state and religion affairs.
     I was pleased to read Rothenberg’s perspective that it is time for Orthodox Jews to “build bridges of cooperation [to Reform and Conservative Jews] for the sake of the entire people of Israel and its future” without compromising principles or “fidelity to a life of Torah and mitzvoth.”
     My own sense is that despite some animosity toward other denominations of Judaism, which is often bred on ignorance, there is actually much tolerance and understanding among fellow Jews.  We are moving toward a Jewish community in which the borders that separate the denominations are becoming blurred.
Rothenberg  recognizes the need to bridge the vast abyss between his brand of Orthodoxy and the more progressive streams of modern Judaism, but he remains concerned that the depths of antipathy will make this too difficult.  I disagree.
     We live in a time when a Jewish person’s Facebook profile identifies her religion as "Recon-newel-ortho-conserva-form." This combination of religious denominations does not demonstrate confusion or haziness, but rather the realization that there is "meaning" to be made from the various pathways to Torah.
     I knew when I decided to become a rabbi that the Conservative Movements Jewish Theological Seminary would be the right place for my training. I had been raised in Conservative Judaism, studying at Hillel Day School and honing my leadership skills in United Synagogue Youth, the movement’s youth program. However, it was in rabbinical school that I came into contact with the other "flavors" of Judaism – praying each Shabbat at an Orthodox shul, engaging in Torah study with a Reconstructionist rabbi, and training as a hospital chaplain with a Reform rabbinical student.
     My first job after graduating rabbinical school was at the University of Michigan Hillel Foundation, an institution that offers five different Shabbat service options. On any given Friday evening I could find myself in a Reform havurah, a Conservative minyan, an egalitarian gathering with separate seating, or a traditional Orthodox service. From week to week, I saw many students sampling the various options, less concerned with ideological labels than with finding a comfort level that spoke to them spiritually, intellectually, and communally. They were in search of meaning, not a denominational brand.
     Last year, I traveled to New York City several times to be part of a fellowship with rabbinic colleagues spanning the denominations. We gathered every few months to study Torah together, to pray together, and to dialogue about the important issues of the day. As part of Clal’s Rabbis Without Borders program, we found a safe space to share our distinct viewpoints on a host of topics – from faith perspectives on healing to the economy’s effect on religion to the role of music in prayer. We might not have all agreed on how the Torah was revealed to the Jewish people in the desert thousands of years ago, but we each managed to share our Jewish wisdom through the medium of Torah.
     Denominational labels are becoming far less important in the 21st century as the borders have blurred.  While I may be a card-carrying Conservative rabbi, I work for Tamarack Camps – a Jewish camping agency that serves the entire community, from the unaffiliated to the religious. I lead a Reconstructionist synagogue, Congregation T’chiyah, in which my more traditional practices and beliefs are not compromised, but respected and admired.  I teach teens on Monday nights at Temple Israel, one of the largest Reform congregations in the world.  I run a kosher certification business in which I demand the highest levels of kashruth compliance to meet the requirements of our faith and the needs of our community.
     Looking beyond the borders that divide our Jewish community is not always easy or comfortable. After all, there are real differences that set us apart.  There are always going to be political and ideological conflicts that keep us from praying together or eating together. But we must always seek to dialogue with civility and come together over the issues on which we can agree. A Reform Passover seder may differ greatly from an Orthodox one, but the context is the same – we are all recalling the days our people spent in slavery. Neither Pharaoh nor Hitler differentiated between Reform, Conservative or Orthodox Jews.

Rabbi Jason Miller is a blogger (http://blog.rabbijason.com), kosher supervisor (http://koshermichigan.com), and Jewish educational entrepreneur.  He is the rabbi of Tamarack Camps and the spiritual leader of Congregation T’chiyah, both located in Michigan.

Conversion to Judaism
By: Rabbi Celso Cukierkorn

The First Word: Welcome, immigrants to Judaism
By Celso Cukierkorn Published: Jun. 15, 2006 in The Jerusalem Post

What do the divisive debates between Americans over immigration policy and within the Jewish world over conversion have in common? As a rabbi who recently became an American, and who is actively involved in counseling potential converts to Judaism, I have noticed that these seemingly disconnected controversies raise similar questions.
If there are jobs that go wanting, should we open the door wider to those who want to fill those jobs? If the family is already established here with children born, should the journey to citizenship involve fewer toll booths?
If intermarriage, low birthrates and secularization yield fewer Jews, should we make it easier for others to adopt our religion? If the husband is a Jew by birth should the wife's conversion to Judaism be simplified?
If America is truly the melting pot and if becoming a Jew literally means joining the wider family, then what's the fuss?
While I am a Jew by birth, I'm an American by choice, having become a citizen over a year ago. Maybe more significantly, I have worked to guide dozens of Jews by choice on their journey leading to conversion. I use the Internet as a vehicle to reach out to and attract those who might be consider joining the Jewish people.
MANY WONDER why someone not born Jewish would want to become a Jew, and whether someone who grew up in another tradition can truly embrace a new one. My own experience as an immigrant has helped me understand the possibilities for such profound transitions.
I will always be a Brazilian because I love the hot weather, the warm people, and I have wonderful memories from my childhood. But I chose to become an American for a myriad of reasons influenced by adult rationales and justifications. I encountered America's history, constitution, Pledge of Allegiance and national anthem through mature, experienced eyes and ears. I am most confident that I will be - maybe already have become - a knowledgeable and active participant in my democracy.
I made sure I knew where the polling place was a full two weeks ahead of the first opportunity I had to vote. And I was one of the first in line on that Tuesday in November. And unlike the folks on the street interviewed by Jay Leno, I know the name and recognize the face of the secretary of defense, and the senators from my state (Mississippi) and the mayor of my town (Hattiesburg).
My experience is hardly unique. I truly believe that those who make the choice and who work toward attaining the goal of citizenship often become among the most involved and informed citizens.
More importantly, those who left other societies and have chosen to work for that goal in America have a more immediate appreciation of the blessings of free speech and assembly and a more personal understanding of the value of our constitutional protections from governmental intrusion.
Likewise, I know from experience that those who choose to become Jewish typically are more knowledgeable about their adopted religion, more appreciative of the similarities and differences between the various faiths, and tend to be more genuine participants in the rituals, obligations and tenets of our tradition.
Whether they were attracted by the philosophy, the history, the ritual practices, or they wanted to further express their love for a spouse, I would be more than pleased to have the pews filled with converts. For the most part, they are adults who have made adult decisions.
IMMIGRANTS TEND to make great Americans; converts tend to make great Jews - and for similar reasons.
Given this, should it be permanently disqualifying if you entered the US without benefit of a visa if you now are willing to pay some kind of sanction (fine or taxes) and go through a rigorous process to introduce the details and mandates of this democracy? Should there be such a rigid bar to being able to call yourself a Jew or to become a member of a congregation of whatever denomination you choose? In modern times, when religious affiliation is not obligatory, should it be so burdensome to join a synagogue?
I was born a Jew; I was not born Orthodox, Conservative or Reform.
Should we really be using Halacha as a weapon against people who want to convert? Shouldn't we be looking for ways in which Halacha can be used as a bridge for the acceptance of converts? Furthermore, when one approaches a synagogue, why is it that the sincerity of the convert is always questioned, yet we take for granted that the motives of the born Jew are legitimate?
Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of an open border or a free pass to citizenship. And I do not wish to see a drive-in conversion window at the neighborhood shul.
There should be realistic standards that help the convert establish the basis for a positive Jewish identity, and there should be serious probing and assessment of the correctness, fluency and sincerity of the answers. But the accident of birth does not make someone different or special and does not and should not provide the title of gatekeeper.
I recoil at the self-styled patriots - those minutemen, or is it minyanmen - who want the day laborers corralled and sent home or who want only purebreds speaking from the bima or participating on the High Holy days.
My adopted country needs and will thrive on the infusion of new immigrants as much as my birth religion needs and will thrive with the addition of those who choose to worship with me. I welcome them as should you.
http://www.convertingtojudaism.com/jerusalempost.htm

About the Author
Rabbi at adat achim synagogue and runs http://www.convertingtojudaism.com/
(ArticlesBase SC #467848)
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/ - Conversion to Judaism

There Are Many Alternative Paths -
Story Of Baruch Spinoza
By: John Vespasian

You should never believe anyone who tells you that you only have one option, in particular when that person tries to justify his view by quoting some trite anti-philosophical remark. Never pay attention to people who tell you that, in life, you cannot get what you want. The ability to find alternative paths is critical to get out of losing situations.
If your parts supplier tells you that you have no choice, find a new supplier. If your internet provider acts as though you have no alternative, change providers. If an expensive computer repair shop tells you that they are the only experts in your type of machine, throw away the old computer and purchase another brand.
Should your bank tell you that you have no other possibility, go and open accounts in three other banks. If your plumber tells you that your have no alternative, learn how to replace the kitchen tabs yourself. When a painter tells you that he is the only choice in town, hire someone else to paint your house.
The life of Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) provides one of the best examples of how a man can create alternatives where none seem to exist. In his essay Ethics he wrote that "the human mind is designed for exercising memory and imagination." Few men in History have shown such extraordinary courage as Spinoza, whose dismissal of conformity estranged him from his family and made him a social and financial pariah.
Born into a wealthy family of Jewish merchants and destined to a life of economic comfort, Spinoza's free spirit already began to outgrow the narrow traditions of his community when he was a young man in Amsterdam.
In July 1656, when Spinoza was 24 years old, the rabbi of the synagogue, after having consulted the elders, gave him an ultimatum. He was to stop asking questions during lectures. He was to stop talking to other young men about tolerance and individual freedom. In a word, he was to stop thinking differently than everybody else in the community.
Although the rabbi uttered his threat in a soft voice, he painted clearly the consequences of non-compliance. Expulsion from the synagogue was tantamount to lifelong ostracism. If Spinoza refused to conform to social conventions, all doors would be closed to him.
"We expect your answer on the last Sabbath of the month," concluded the rabbi, already anticipating his victory. In his view, no one would be foolish enough to throw away a bright professional future in an established community for the sake of some nonsense about truth. On July 27th, Spinoza returned to the synagogue. The rabbi and the elders were awaiting him. "What have you decided?" they asked. "Are you with us or are you on your own?"
"A man must be guided by reason, if he is to remain fully a man," answered Spinoza. "Without the urge to understand and the freedom to search for answers, neither truth nor happiness are possible." After leaving Amsterdam, Spinoza moved thirty kilometres south and created a new community from scratch: a group of free-thinking intellectuals who would spread around the world his ideas about tolerance.
If Spinoza had believed that he had no options, he would have remained in his traditional community and led an obscure life of conformity. As he wrote in his Ethics, "the essence of human thinking is the ability to identify true ideas." When somebody tells you that you have only one way to go, give yourself a break. Don't get upset and don't give a snappy reply. Don't bother. Instead, nod, smile, and move on. You have more options than you think.
JOHN VESPASIAN writes about rational living and is the author of the books "When everything fails, try this" and "Rationality is the way to happiness." He has resided in New York, Madrid, Paris and Munich. His stories reflect the values of entrepreneurship, tolerance and self-reliance. See http://johnvespasian.blogspot.com a blog about rational living.

About the Author
JOHN VESPASIAN writes about rational living and is the author of the books "When everything fails, try this" and "Rationality is the way to happiness." He has resided in New York, Madrid, Paris and Munich. His stories reflect the values of entrepreneurship, tolerance and self-reliance. See John Vespasian's blog about rational living. http://johnvespasian.blogspot.com
(ArticlesBase SC #2167756) Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/ - There Are Many Alternative Paths - Story Of Baruch Spinoza

The Dual Nature of the Torah
Religion Articles | July 30, 2008

Classical Judaism holds that there is a dual Torah, consisting of the Torah Sh'b'ktav (the Written Torah) and the Torah Sh'Ba'al Peh (the Oral Torah). Commandments derived from the written Torah are called "d'Oraita" from the Aramaic word meaning "from the Torah."
Traditional Judaism believes that there is a dual Torah, consisting of the Torah Sh'b'ktav (the Written Torah) and the Torah Sh'Ba'al Peh (the Oral Torah). Commandments or statutes derived from the written Torah are called "d'Oraita" from the Aramaic word meaning "from the Torah."
For classical Judaism, the Oral Torah consists of Oral Torah revealed simultaneously at Sinai as well as enactments or laws instituted by later rabbis (d'Rabbanan). The basis or authority for the laws classified as"d'Rabbanan" and for the implementation of the observance of the commandments is derived from Deuteronomy 17:8-11.
The rabbis claim that the authority to interpret the commandments and subsequently define (i.e. the way in which the commandments are observed) is found in the written Torah itself, where Moses states that any case or question too difficult for the Jewish people in future days should be brought before the priests and judges in office at that time.
To this day, the rabbis serve as judges and legislators akin to a court and a legislature. Rabbis are in fact dayanim (i.e. Judges). The written Torah serves as the constitution for Israel with the Oral Torah and the Rabbis serving as the legislative process. Like the Constitution of the United States, the actual implementation of its statutes, and future needed statutes are left to the Congress and the validity of those laws is left to the courts. The concept of a constitutional model for Torah law that "evolves" or is "pliable" allows it to remain relevant and applicable.
A Torah model that does not include this eventually creates a situation in which many biblical commandments cannot be observed, applied, or understood. Hence a community like the Karaites who argue that they follow only the Biblical text have almost reached the point of extinction, have isolated and in fact excluded themselves from the Jewish community by adopting different calendar and different laws. In the end they nevertheless created a body of their own "halachah"out of necessity in attempting to follow the written text.
The case or argument for the Oral Torah exists on two levels. On a basic level, the very necessity of Oral Torah can be established by looking at the text of the Torah itself.
The a Torah scroll is written only with consonants, without vocalization. Hence one word written in Hebrew can have multiple meanings. Hence, where the Hebrew text says "BNCH," one might render this as "Bonayich" "your Builders" or as "B'nayich" "your Children." This occurs quite often. Vowels marks were only added much later after the text was written and codified.
So even our very ability to read and understand the text is based upon an oral tradition which provides us with both the ability to pronounce the alphabet, to read, and most importantly understand the text.
The famous Hillel was approached by a non-Jew who desired to learn the Torah on the condition he would learn the written Torah only. He started teaching him the alef-bet and the next day changed the names of the letters and their pronunciation and the student was confused. He did this to prove a point!
The text is foundational but it is informed and understood only with the aid of the oral tradition.

Article Tags: Written Torah, Oral Torah
Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jacob Lumbroso writes articles on history, foreign cultures, and Judaism. For more information on buying a Tallit or other Jewish symbols, visit http://www.judaicaquest.com

TheJewish Attitude Towards
Non-Violent Protest and Civil Disobedience

During the past twenty-five years, Israel has experienced a number of periods of civil unrest, including the evacuation from Sinai and Yamit, the War in Lebanon, the Oslo accords and, more recently, the security fence. These events have led to protests, civil disobedience, and refusal by soldiers to serve in certain areas or to fulfill certain duties.
This pattern is repeating itself now, as Israel prepares to withdraw from the Gaza strip and from four settlements in the West Bank in August. As this date draws closer, groups opposed to the Disengagement have escalated their rhetoric and their protest activities. They have encouraged soldiers and reservists to disobey orders, they have staged mass rallies, they have blocked traffic, and they have even thrown oil and nails on highways – leading to traffic accidents.
Some of those in favor of disengagement have expressed opposition to all of the above activities, saying that the majority has made a decision and the minority should not disobey orders, nor protest, nor engage in civil disobedience. I have stated elsewhere that Jewish law allows us to withdraw from the territories and I therefore am strongly in favor of the Disengagement.¹ On the other hand, I believe that Jewish law and tradition allow Jews to disobey orders, protest and engage in civil disobedience, provided that these activities are non-violent and provided that the protestors are willing to suffer the consequences such as imprisonment.

I) The Jewish Attitude Towards Protest
In general, Jewish law and tradition have a positive attitude towards protest.
Genesis 18 contains Abraham's classic protest against what he perceived as Divine injustice. Would God wipe out Sodom if contains fifty or forty or thirty or twenty or ten tzaddikim among the guilty? “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (v. 25). A similar protest is uttered by Moses and Aaron in the portion of Korach (Numbers 16: 20-22). God says: “Stand back from this community that I may annihilate them in an instant!” Moses and Aaron fell on their faces, saying: “O God… when one man sins, will you be wrathful with the whole community?!”
The importance of protesting an injustice or a transgression is emphasized numerous times in rabbinic literature:²
Rav, R. Hanina, and R. Yohanan taught… Whoever can protest to his household and does not, is accountable [for the sins] of his household; if he could protest to his townspeople, he is accountable for their sins; if he could protest to the whole world, he is accountable for the whole world (Shabbat 54b).
The opponents of disengagement believe that their fellow Jews are committing a sin. I disagree, but l'shitatam , according to their approach, they should protest.
A similar idea is expressed in a midrash about the plan to enslave the Israelites (Shemot Rabbah 1:9, ed. Shinan, pp. 48-49 = Sotah 11a = Sanhedrin 106a): R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of R. Simai: There were three involved in that plan – Bilam, Job and Jethro:
Bilam who advised it - was slain;

Job who was silent - was afflicted with sufferings ;
Jethro who fled - [his descendants were rewarded].

In other words, those who see an injustice or crime who remain silent, will be punished by God.
The Exilarch was the supreme civil authority of the Jews of Babylonia:
R. Zera said to R. Simon: Did you rebuke those of the Exilarch's house? He replied: they will not take it from me. R. Zera said: Even so, you should rebuke them. (Shabbat 55a and cf. Tanhuma Tazria parag. 9).

Another famous Talmudic passage (Gittin 55b-56a) explains why Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. It tells the story of a man in Jerusalem who loved Kamtza and hated Bar-Kamtza. He made a feast and, by mistake, his servant invited Bar-Kamtza. Bar-Kamtza offered to pay for the entire feast if he would let him stay. The man refused and threw him out. Bar-Kamtza said: “ Since the Sages sat here and did not protest… I will go slander the Jews to [Caesar]…”. In other words, according to this story, Jerusalem was destroyed because the Sages witnessed an injustice and did not protest.

Silence and lack of protest in the face of evil are also condemned by medieval moralists and philosophers. The Maharal of Prague (ca. 1525-1609) explained ( Netivot Olam , Netiv Hatochecha , end of Chapter 2, p. 194, translated by Kimelman, p. 41):
While a person may be individually pious, such good will pale in the face of the sin of not protesting against an emerging communal evil…such a pious person will be accountable for having been able to prevent it and did not…

A tzadik who remains quiet and passive is ultimately responsible for the communal evil which he could have and should have prevented.

This idea is stated even more forcefully by Orhot Zaddikim (Chapter 24, ed. Seymour Cohen, New York, 1969, p. 404), which was apparently written in fifteenth-century Germany:
If one could protest, but neither protests nor pays attention to the sinful acts, then it is akin to flattery, because the sinners think [to themselves]: since they are neither protesting nor reproaching us, all our deeds are good…

We also have a Talmudic story (Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2:1 = Yerushalmi Horayot 3:1) which shows that one rabbi felt duty bound to rebuke a Jewish leader, even if it meant going to prison. Resh Lakish said that if a Nasi (Patriarch) sinned, he is flogged by a court of three. Rabi Yudan Nesiah - the Patriarch - issued a warrant for his arrest. Resh Lakish fled. In the end, they were reconciled through the intercession of R. Yohanan, but Resh Lakish said to R. Yudan: “Did you think that for fear of you I would stop [proclaiming] the teaching of God!”

Finally, there was a medieval Jewish custom mentioned in many sources which shows that medieval Jews used to protest an injustice in practice . This custom was called ikuv hatefilah or ikuv hakeriah or bitul hatamid (delaying the prayer, delaying the Torah reading or abolition of the daily offering). If a person felt that an injustice was perpetrated upon him by wealthy or violent people or by the community, he or she could interrupt the service before Barekhu or before the Torah service “until justice is done them”. This custom is mentioned frequently in the Cairo Genizah, in the Takkanot of Medieval Germany and even in the Shulhan Arukh.³

II) Civil Disobedience⁴
Civil disobedience was defined by Ghandi as follows:
He who resorts to civil disobedience obeys the laws of the state to which he belongs, not out of fear of sanctions, but because he considers them to be good for the welfare of society. But there come occasions, generally rare, when he considers certain laws to be so unjust as to render obedience to them a dishonor. He then openly and civilly breaks them and quietly suffers the penalty for their breach.⁵

We have many examples of Civil Disobedience in the Bible, Apocrypha and rabbinic literature.
If Joshua Chapter 2, we have an example of a non-Jew disobeying a non-Jewish king in order to help the Jewish people. The King of Jericho explicitly ordered Rahab the harlot to surrender the two Jewish spies whom she was harboring. She lied, saying that they had already left town. She helped them because she believed that God would give the country to the Israelites and she asked the spies to save her and her family. Rahab knew that she was breaking the law and was no doubt willing to risk the dire consequences.
Many of the stories in our classic sources involve Jews disobeying the anti-Jewish laws and decrees of non-Jewish rulers:
According to Exodus Chapter 1, the Hebrew midwives Shifra and Puah, fearing God, did not murder the newborn Jewish boys as commanded by the King of Egypt. Verse 21 states ambiguously “and he made them houses”. Rashbam (France, 12 th century) explained that Pharaoh made them houses “to guard them lest they go to [assist] the Israelite women giving birth”. In other words, Shifra and Puah were put under house arrest for refusing to murder the Jewish boys. They disobeyed the King and were willing to face the consequences.
In Esther Chapter 3, Mordechai refused to bow down to Haman; he apparently considered it a form of idol worship. He did this for many days and was clearly willing to face the consequences, which as we know, were dire.
In Esther Chapters 4-5, Esther was willing to risk death by going to see King Ahashverosh without being invited, in order to save her people.
In Daniel Chapter 3, King Nebuchadnezzar ordered everyone to bow down to his statue. Hanania, Mishael and Azaria refused to bow down, despite being threatened with death in a fiery furnace. They replied that God could save them from the fiery furnace and even if He does not, they will not worship the statue of gold. In other words, they too engaged in civil disobedience under pain of death.
In Daniel Chapter 6, Daniel's fellow ministers in Persia were jealous of him and sought his downfall. They convinced King Darius to issue a ban that whoever shall address a petition to any God or man besides Darius for the next thirty days shall be thrown into the lions' den. When Daniel learned that it had been put in writing, he went to his house to pray. The King made every effort not to arrest him, but Daniel continued to pray. In other words, Daniel engaged in civil disobedience even though he knew that the penalty was death.
According to I Macabbees 1: 44-64, Antiochus outlawed circumcision and ordered the Jews to eat impure foods. The women who circumcised their sons were murdered along with their children and many Jews were murdered for refusing to eat impure foods.
According to I Macabbees 2: 29-37, many of the rebels fled to caves in the desert, but would not fight on Shabbat. About 1,000 Jews were killed because they refused to fight on Shabbat.⁶
According to II Macabees 7:2 ff:, a mother and her seven sons were tortured and murdered because they refused to eat swine's flesh offered in sacrifice to pagan gods.⁷ According to IV Macabees 5-6, an elderly Jew named Elazar was murdered for the same reason.
An ancient example of mass non-violent civil disobedience is reported by Josephus (Antiquities 18, 8, 1 ff., parag. 257 ff., Loeb edition, Vol. IX, pp. 153 ff.) and Philo (The Embassy to Gaius, Loeb edition, Vol. 10, parag. 232 ff.). The Emperor Gaius Caligula (37-41 c.e.) decided to put his statue in the Temple in Jerusalem since he considered himself a god. He sent Petronius to Israel to carry out his order. When he arrived at Acco, Josephus reports:
But there came ten thousands of the Jews to Petronius at Ptolemais [=Acco] to offer their petitions to him that he would not compel them to violate the law of their forefathers. “But if,” they said, “your are wholly resolved to bring the statue and install it, then you must first kill us, and then do what you have resolved on. For while we are alive, we cannot permit such things as are forbidden by our law”…
Then Petronius came to them [at Tiberias]: “Will you then make war with Caesar, regardless of his great preparations for war and your own weakness?” They replied: “We will not by any means make war with Caesar, but we will die before we see our laws transgressed.” Then they threw themselves down on their faces and stretched out their throats and said that they were ready to be slain. And this they did for forty days, neglecting to till their soil, though this was the season which called for sowing. Thus they continued firm in their resolution and proposed to themselves to die willingly rather than see the statue dedicated.

Finally, we have many stories and halakhic discussions related to the Hadrianic persecutions (ca. 132-138 c.e.), when the Emperor Hadrian decreed against twenty-one mitzvot such as reading Torah in public, reciting the Shema, wearing tefillin, eating matzah, and circumcision - under penalty of death.⁸ Many rabbis and simple Jews died al kiddush hashem , for the sanctification of God's name, in order to fulfill these commandments. These many deaths led to a limitation of the commandments which require martyrdom. Sanhedrin 74a rules that, in general, a Jew should die al kiddush hashem only if forced to perform forbidden sexual relations, idol worship and murder in public. However, in a time of shemad , of general, religious persecution, a Jew should die rather than transgress any commandment. These rulings were codified by Maimonides ( Yesodei Torah 5: 1-4).

However, one could agrue that all of the above examples are totally irrelevant to civil disobedience in Israel today because:
1. they deal with persecution of Jews by non-Jewish kings;
2. they deal mostly with the cardinal sin of Judaism – idol worship;
3. the penalty in each case was death.
Therefore, if we want precedents for civil disobedience by Jews in a Jewish State, we need to find examples of Jews disobeying the laws or decrees of Jewish kings since a Jewish State, according to a number of important rabbis, has the same status as a Jewish king.⁹ Indeed there are at least four sources relevant to civil disobedience in Israel today:
1) I Kings 18: 3-4: King Ahab was considered by the bible to be a wicked king of Israel who worshipped idols and opposed Elijah the Prophet.
Ahab had summoned Obadiah, the steward of the palace. (Obadiah revered the Lord greatly. When Jezebel was killing off the prophets of the Lord, Obadiah had taken a hundred prophets and hidden them, fifty to a cave, and provided them with food and drink.) And Ahab said to Obadiah…
In other words, Obadiah feared the Lord more than he feared King Ahab and Queen Jezebel who were Jewish. He saved 100 prophets at the risk of his own life.¹⁰

2) I Samuel Chapters 21-22: David was on the run from King Saul and he and his men received provisions from Ahimelekh son of Ahitub and the men of Nov, the priestly city. Doeg the Edomite learns of this and informs King Saul, who summons Ahimelekh and the men of Nov. King Saul berates them (22:17):
And the king commanded the guards standing by: “Turn around and kill the priests of the Lord, for they are in league with David!”... But the king's servants would not raise a hand to strike down the priests of the Lord.
The Palestinian Talmud (Sanhedrin, Chapter 10, ed. Venice, fol. 29a) asks:
Who were those servants? R. Samuel son of R. Isaac said: they were Avner and Amasa. They said [to Saul]: “Do we owe you anything beyond this belt and mantle [= insignia of office]? Here, take them back!”¹¹
According to this Midrash, the “servants” who refused King Saul's direct orders were not simply soldiers; they were Avner his Chief of Staff and Amasa, one of his generals. They refused to kill Ahimelekh and the Priests of Nov, either because they thought that the punishment was too severe or because they were afraid to kill Priests. They “resigned their commission” even though the penalty could have been death. They did not take up arms against King Saul; they simply refused to participate. In other words, they acknowledged that the king had the legal right to execute people, but they would not participate in that unjust or excessive punishment.

3) In addition to these two biblical stories, Maimonides discusses our issue in his Mishneh Torah (Laws of Kings 3:9):
A person who annuls the decree of a [Jewish] king because he was engaged in performing a mitzvah , even a minor mitzvah , he is not liable: the words of the master [= God] and the words of the servant [=the king] – the words of the master take precedence. And there is no need to say that if the king decreed to annul a mitzvah , one does not listen to him.
In other words, if a Jewish king decrees to annul a mitzvah , one should engage in civil disobedience and not listen to that decree. Maimonides, as usual, cites no source for his ruling. R. Yosef Karo in his Kesef Mishneh ad loc. refers to Sanhedrin 49a. In that Midrash, Avner says that he killed Amasa because the latter took more than three days to gather the men of Judah to go to war (II Samuel 20:4 ff.). King Solomon replies that Amasa delayed because he found the Israelites engaged in studying a tractate. In other words, God's command to the Jewish people to study Torah takes precedence over the King's command to gather the troops.

4) A similar opinion is found in Numbers Rabbah (Naso, 14:6), which was edited in the 12 th century, apparently in Provence:¹²
“I obey the king's orders” (Kohelet 8:2)… that you should not rebel against his command. Does this mean even if he tells you to transgress the words of God? Therefore it says “and uttering an oath by God” - the verse comes to inform you that the [utterance of God] takes precedence over the command of flesh and blood [=the King]…
In other words, according to Maimonides and Sanhedrin and Numbers Rabbah, if a Jewish king – or a Jewish State which has the halakhic status of a Jewish king – orders a Jew to desecrate the Sabbath or to eat pig or to transgress a commandment – the Jew should refuse, since the words of God take precedence over the words of the Jewish king or the Jewish State.
The religious opponents of disengagement say that an order to evacuate part of the territories has the exact same status as an order to desecrate the Sabbath. I strongly disagree . However, those who think so have biblical and halakhic precedent for engaging in civil disobedience.

III) Non – Violence
While it is clear that Jewish law and tradition have a positive attitude towards protest and civil disobedience, it is equally clear that such activities must be non-violent in nature. This is because one Jew is not allowed to strike or injure another Jew.
When Moses sees one Jew striking another in Egypt (Exodus 1:13), he says “ Rasha (=evil one), why do you hit your fellow!” and the midrash comments: “Rabbi Yitzhak said: from this you learn that whoever hits his fellow, is called a rasha ” ( Ginzey Schechter , Vol. I, p. 114). Similarly, Maimonides ruled that whoever hits his fellow Jew transgresses a negative commandment ( Hovel Umazik 5:1).
In conclusion, while I believe that disengagement is perfectly permissible according to Jewish law and tradition, I also believe that Jewish law and tradition permit non-violent protest and civil disobedience, provided that those who engage in these actions are willing to face the consequences of their actions.
May both sides on this divisive issue have the wisdom to treat each other with respect and to maintain the unity of the Jewish people without demanding uniformity.¹³

Notes
1. David Golinkin, Responsa in a Moment , Jerusalem, 2000, pp. 31-36, reprinted in my email column Insight Israel Vol. 5, No. 6, February 2005. For the opposing point of view, see Shochetman's entire book listed in the Bibliography at the end of this article.

2. This section is based on Kimelman.

3. S.D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society , Vol. II, Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1971, pp. 169-170, 323-325; Louis Finkelstein, Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages , second edition, New York, 1964, pp. 15-18; Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 54:3. See Encyclopaedia Judaica , s.v. Bittul Hatamid, vol. 4, cols. 1061-1062 and especially Avraham Grossman, Milet 1 (1983), pp. 199-219. My thanks to Prof. Elhanan Reiner who reminded me to mention this topic.

4. This section is based primarily on Konvitz. I am including “refusal to obey orders” under civil disobedience because there is only one source on military disobedience – see below.

5. Mohandas K. Ghandi, Non-Violent Resistance , New York, 1961, p. 7, quoted by Konvitz, p. 246.

6. Matityahu and the Macabbees subsequently changed this law – see I Macabbees 2:38-40 and Chanoch Albeck, Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Moed , Jerusalem – Tel Aviv, 1952, p. 9.

7. For the parallels to this famous story, see Encyclopaedia Judaica s.v. Hannah and her Seven Sons, vol. 7, cols. 1270-1272 and Gerson Cohen, Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures , Philadelphia, 1991, pp. 39-60.

8. See Moshe David Herr, Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972), pp. 85-125 and Saul Lieberman, Mehkirei Eretz Yisrael , Jerusalem, 1991, pp. 348-380.

9. See Responsa in a Moment (above, note 1), p. 91 and note 8 and Shochetman, pp. 103-104.

10. My thanks to Eitan Cooper of the Schechter Institute for referring me to this story.

11. Cf. Greenberg, p. 214 and the sources quoted by Korff, p. 12.

12. Hananel Mack, Teudah 11 (1996), pp. 91-105.

13. See David Golinkin in Naftali Rothenberg, ed., Pothim Shavua , Jerusalem, 2001, pp. 97-102.

Bibliography
 Nachum Amsel, The Jewish Encyclopedia of Moral and Ethical Issues , Northvale, New Jersey and London, 1994, pp. 43-45, 334-336, s.v. Civil Disobedience

Rabbi Paul Arberman, Sarvanut L'or Hahalakhah , final thesis, Schechter Rabbinical Seminary, 2002, 29 pages (unpublished)

Stuart Cohen, The Torah U-Madda Journal 12 (2004), pp. 13-15

“Day of Reckoning”, March 29, 2005, www.yom-pkuda.org

“ Dvar Hakibbutz Hadati ”, Amudim 688 (Kislev 5765), p. 3

Moshe Greenberg, “Rabbinic Reflections on Defying Illegal Orders” etc., in Marc Kellner, ed., Contemporary Jewish Ethics , New York, 1978, pp. 211-220

Rabbi Hayyim David Halevi, “What is the extent of the obligation to follow orders?” (Hebrew), Aseh Lekha Rav , Vol. 7, Tel Aviv, 1986, No. 68.

A. J. Heschel, “The Reasons for My Involvement in the Peace Movement”, in Susannah Heschel, ed., Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity , New York, 1996, pp. 224-226

Reuven Kimelman, “The Rabbinic Ethics of Protest”, Judaism 19/1 (Winter 1970), pp. 38-58

Milton R. Konvitz, “Conscience and Civil Disobedience in the Jewish Tradition”, in Marc Kellner ed., Contemporary Jewish Ethics , New York, 1978, pp. 239-254

Rabbi Samuel I. Korff, A Responsum on Questions of Conscience , Rabbinical Court of Justice, Boston, 1970, 54 pp. (unpublished. That court was headed by my grandfather Rabbi Mordechai Ya'akov Golinkin z”l.)

Rinah Lipis Shaskolsky, “Protest and Dissent in Jewish Tradition”, Judaism 19/1 (Winter 1970), pp. 15-29

Rabbi Yehudah Shaviv, “ Samkhuyot Hashilton V'hovat Hatziyut ”, Tehumin 15 (5755), pp. 118-131 and the literature listed ibid ., note 2

Yair Sheleg, The Political and Social Ramifications of Evacuating Settlements in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip , Jerusalem, 2004, 157 pp.

Eliav Shochetman, Vaya'amideha L'ya'akov L'hok , second edition, Jerusalem, 1995, part II, pp. 67-157

Azriel Weinstein, “ Anahnu Omrim Shebashamayim Lo Rotzim ”, De'ot 19 (Winter 5765), pp. 35-37

Yehoshua Weinstein, Disobedience and Democracy (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1998, 252 pp.

Prof. David Golinkin is the President of the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem. Feel free to reprint this article in its entirety. If you wish to abbreviate the article, please contact Rabbi Golinkin at: golinklin@schechter.ac.il.
The opinions expressed here are the author’s and in no way reflect an official policy of the Schechter Institute.