Rama Burshtein is a product of the haredi Tel Aviv world she depicts warmly in 'Fill the Void,' opening in theaters.
Film on The New Yorker writer’s coverage of the Eichmann trial lacks some passion.
New theater troupe, a division of the Folksbiene, mounts second production digging into Russians’ complex background.
Learn the "Top 18" Kosher white, red and Israeli Wines, Read about the American kosher wine scene, Israeli wines and much more
Tourism booming in the Negev, that first teen roots journey, driving in Israel (really!), and more.
I had the same desire to find out what was going on after 9/11 but came to a very different conclusion than Ms. Geller. It only took a little bit of scratching the surface to see that the official narrative of Israel/Jews as entirely the "white hats" and Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims as the "black hats" was horribly one-sided.
I am an atheist and reject everyone's mythology. And while fundamentalists and fanatics are certainly more troublesome than your ordinary practitioners, our pluralist values are worth defending as it protects our rights individually. If we go even crazier then we have already, then the terrorists have won.
I have more concern about the lies US citizens are being told regarding 9/11 then I do over a "beheading threat" based on the rise of Islam (Americans love beer, bacon, and dogs too much). And I have a hypothetical for Pam -- if it was established that Israel played a part in the 9/11 attacks, would she be for the prohibition of synagogues near Ground Zero?
Our "War on Terror" has made us no safer, and exposed our own moral bankruptcy.
After 9/11 we were outraged by the killing of thousands of innocent people over a political beef; so we responded by killing thousands and thousands of innocent people over a political beef.
First, contrary to the previous writer's assertion, Rabbi Broyde's essay is clearly an attempt to explain what Rabbi Broyde considers to be the normative Jewish position. True, Rabbi Broyde's essay may reflect his individual understanding of that "normative" approach, but there is no question that the position that Rabbi Broyde assumes that Rabbi Broyde is defending the "normative" Jewish approach and that Rabbi Weiss's position goes against that approach.
Second, Mr. Gross was not attacking Rabbi Broyde for disputing Rabbi Weiss, as the previous writer implies. On the contrary, Mr. Gross was engaging Rabbi Broyde in a substantive discussion of the issue. Surely a writer who argues that Rabbi Broyde "should be thanked" for his "attempt to...engage in rational ...discussion," should be thankful to Mr. Gross for doing the same. Unless, of course, the writer only supports substantive articulation of positions the writer agrees with.
The writer's last paragraph is not only condescending but suggests that the writer may not have actually read Mr. Gross's entire article (though the writer clearly reached paragraph 1, where Mr. Gross describes Rabbi Broyde's aforementioned "normative" assumption). After all, Mr. Gross directly addresses the writer's concern by speaking of the communal considerations that may have motivated Rabbi Weiss's decision. Indeed, Mr. Gross criticizes Rabbi Broyde for not addressing such communal considerations and engaging in the type of weighing that the writer describes. A writer who (rightly) argues for such a rational and careful approach, would be well-served to actually read the pieces he or she criticizes.
As usual, R. Broyde’s presentation of the halachic history and material is elegant, comprehensive, and lucid. Probably, few lay readers are qualified to argue with the analysis. On the other hand, I think that he has the sociology backwards and ignores community developments over the past 60-70 years.
During much of that time, our community has encouraged and promoted the intensive study by women of traditional Talmudic text. Our institutions have not confined women to Chumash, Tanach, or parshanut, or restricted them to mimeographed extracts from Talmudic and its sources. We have come far beyond the initial limited scope of the authorization for establishment of Beis Yaakov schools at the turn of the last century, incorporating women’s advanced Torah study as a lechatchila. Given that encouragement, isn’t it natural to expect some impulse or desire for liturgical expression of religious identification from these same women who are now educated at an increasingly high level?
Instead, viewed from the perspective of many decades, mainstream halacha has adopted a consistently negative position on such liturgical efforts. Women’s Megillah readings have strong rabbinic backings, but our rabbis dismiss them as “not communally accepted! ”Women’s tefila groups are rejected as “not expressions of true religious piety” because they forgo tefilla betsibur –but there is little attempt to encourage women to join tefilla betsibur at kabbalat Shabbat or Shabbat Mincha. Women presidents who may have responsibility for ongoing maintenance of minyanim, but it is the Rambam and not lenient authorities who is quoted to forbid it. Women’s leadership of Kabbalat Shabbat is “technically all right, but not appropriate!”
No limmud zechus is necessary for one or more of the suggested forms of participation when it is really allowed. We need only recognize the implications of increased Torah learning by women. Where social norms and practices of significant segments of the community begin to ignore official psak, we run the risk that the posek and the rabbi will eventually be ignored in more areas by broad swathes of the community.
Larry
GDG - It is not clear to me what you are faulting. The fact that Ramah graduates feel compelled to continue their Jewish practice, and find haven in an Orthodox shul, indicates to me that they must have had Jewish experiences at Ramah far richer than simply singing "Zoom Gali Gali." While I too am disheartened that some Jewish people lack strong Jewish identities (whether as a result of their own choices or the lack of support by Jewish professionals/communties), I don't think that the Ramah Camps should take any of the blame. If anything, the Ramah camps have produced generations of committed Jews, wholesome people, and active members of whatever communities they choose to participate in.
I read this article with great interest, and after thinking about it, there was one simple question that kept coming to mind, and that is, what's the big deal?
I firmly believe that ANYTHING that gets Jews more involved in Jewish life is a positive thing, regardless of the location, shul or JCC. It's as simple as that!
I have worked in Jewish educational and community organizations in several different cities for more than 15 years, and frankly, I found the attitudes of the Rabbis quoted in the article to be quite unprofessional and childish.
While I understand fully that all synagogues/Rabbis are trying to do the best that they can to reach out to the community, (many are quite good at it), and that many shuls are having difficult times economically, the attitude displayed here is one of the reasons that a growing number of Jews, particularly younger families and individuals, are not joining a synagogue. Instead of worrying about "numbers" and "usurping authority", they should be concentrating on trying a bit harder to listen to and connect with the type of Jews that are going to alternative types of services and programs.
I congratulate the JCC in Florida for stepping up and listening to them!
The "parallel" that is claimed here is superficial. The writer might as well say that an elephant and a can of soup are the same since neither one can ride a horse.
Even if certain Quran verses can be taken out of context it doesn’t mean that they all are, or that those who do this are doing so insidiously. The fact is that the holy book of Islam does contain a great many anti-Semitic verses, and merely saying that they are taken out of context doesn’t make it so.
In fact, the "context" of these verses is the life of Muhammad, who attacked peaceful Jewish communities, beheaded the men, raped the women and enslaved the children. His companions continued doing the same long after his death.
I agree with Victoria 100%. Bayoumi was actually my professor for a graduate course I took a few years back at Brooklyn College. He is a great guy and takes everyone's opinion into consideration. The nature of his work can be political, but Bayoumi's book is representing an uncommon view point that we do not see within the media much. Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and others who fall into similar categories have been for the most part dehumanized within the West after 9/11. He is simply enlightening us with the other side. But isn't that the nature of literature and books? They are suppposed to have a thesis, an argument and a focal point, even if we don't necessarily agree with it. Bayoumi has an opinion and he is relaying it to us. Although the book is a required read, it does not mean one is required to agree with the opinion relayed by the book. That's the whole point of literature classes though, is it not? To react and relay your own opinion to readings.
With that said, students at Brooklyn College will be receiving a different point of view, but this is in no way "indoctrination". In fact, I think very interesting arguments and papers will be written about the book by students. I wonder though, if Brooklyn College was assigning a book to freshmen by an author who is pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim instead of Bayoumi's book, would the protestors make the same argument that it's "indoctrination" or be angry that the college assigned the work. Somehow I don't think so. So what's all the fuss about? Please be fair.
After reading this article...I can only say Wow! It's so filled with lies & half truths. I was at the community board meeting & nobody was shouted down. It is true that about 95% of the speakers were against the mega (in your face) mosque, from being built so close to ground zero. That was to be expected. Most New Yorkers have some semblance of respect & decency. It is not OK to draw a cartoon?, but building a shrine to the 911 murderers seems to be just fine to this writer. Anyone who has bothered to read what is written in the Koran, would know that it is a book full of hate for all non-believers. All the politically correct rhetoric can not change that fact. I applaud Pamela Geller for having the guts to speak the truth about Islam. All you liberal Jews would be the first ones to be beheaded, if the Islamists ever gained power in the US. Shame on You!
The history of the Jews, the return of Christ, and the global governance of the earth, can not be divorced from each other.
Follow me in Twitter@jerryopus as we explore this truth.
Mr Chandler, you are a disgrace to the Jewish community.
A bitchy article, no substance, just plain leftwing bitchy dhimmitude.
I won't ever visit this site again and all other ties ceased.
Absolutely disgraceful.
It is interesting that any believer can say that his/her action(s) is divorced from his/her believes. Christianity is a lifestyle which influences everything an individual does.
Please note that nothing can happen in Israel which is contrary to the scriptures, it does not matter those for or against it.
The current Jews, restored from their second captivity with a flood (Daniel 9:24-26; Luke 21:5-24), has a maximum life span of 80 years; at the end of which, Satan and his aliens and allies will flush them out for their third and final captivity (Psalms 90:1-10; Revelation 12:1-14).
This captivity will last for 42 months at the end of which, Christ is returning to rescue them.
Prior to their seventy years of nationhood, no nation will be able to withstand them, thereafter, they will face severe pressures for ten years at the end of which, nothing shall keep them in their land they must be flushed out (Psalms 90:5-10; Revelation 12:.13-17).
Like their first and second captivities, prophesied thousands of years ahead, so is this (third captivity), consciously or unconsciously, everyone involved in the middle east affairs, is working towards this goal.
This is the scriptures that can not be broken.
To the Editor:
Mr. Gross has neglected several important points that deserve consideration. The first is that Rabbi Broyde's article never claimed to represent the single and only viewpoint of normative Judaism. Anyone who has read any of his writings in Halakha knows that this is not his way. Nevertheless, he does have a view, and those who are generally impressed by his halakhic acumen will want to pay close attention.
Second, is that Rabbi Broyde's response to Rabbi Weiss was written in the context of widespread attacks on Rabbi Weiss's innovations, including efforts to see him removed from various Orthodox organizations and institutions. In this context, Rabbi Broyde's response needs to be seen for what it is: an attempt to lower the temperature and engage in rational halakhic discussion. He should be thanked for this, whatever one's views of Rabbi Weiss's recent decisions.
Finally, it must be said that it would surprise any reader of the Shulkhan Arukh to hear that Minhag Yisrael in ritual matters is only a matter of public policy. Poskim and rabbis have always viewed themselves as both trustees and (where necessary) critics of Jewish traditional practice, and this is no exception. To say that a given practice is grounded in strong minhag does not mean that it is up for grabs in normative halakha, but actually gives it weight that needs to be grappled with on a number of levels, including (but not limited to) the needs of the moment. Neither Rabbi Broyde nor Rabbi Weiss will have the last word on this matter, but I venture to say that there is no rabbinic authority anywhere who will argue that anything which could be permissible ought to be treated that way. This is part of the weighing of factors that takes place in any halakhic decision, for which we turn to our rabbis for guidance.
Hi,
I live in Los Angeles and so do not know the Florida scene. As well I am biased, like most everyone else.
That being said I grew up in a reform synagogue and with all due respoect, not a lot of Judaism was taught there. There are large conservative and reform synagoues in LA that do not get a lot of people and that are shrinking and getting older.
It does sound like the reform and conservative synagosues in Florida should do a little more introspection as to why these individuals are choosing to go elsewhere, rather than trying to stifle their ability to do so.
Joel Berman
Los Angeles
Thank you for the book suggestions! With a whole list to choose from, I am able to select something that helps me get into the high-holiday mind set.
As the Jerusalem Post points out, American conservatives should be very wary of promoting Pamela Geller. Her blog deals with conspiracy theories and lies. She is basically a right-wing Rev. Wright. Stay away!
I remember a cituation that occured years ago in northern New Jersey, where a Young Modern Orthodox Rabbi was connecting with the teenagers odf that town,
that the Conservative Rabbi of a large congregation was angry that "his" kids were being drawn away.
Sounds to me that if the JCC is helping unaffiliated Jews to continue to identify
as Jews, the Synogogue Rabbi's should rejoice.
Gary, what exactly are you so riled up about??? doesn't G-d command the jews to wipe out Amalek? Besides, Rav Ovadia was NOT saying jews should do it but was asking the Almighty to d it. What is so wrong about asking G-d to wipe out those who wish our destruction? Your attention is misplaced. Why not illuminate to the public Abbas' calls made in Arabic to invade Israel ?
The greatest threat to America today is our own government and the selfish, wealthy elitists who really run this country.
Jonathan: I basically agree with you and with Rabbi Lookstein that building the mosque near ground zero is insensitive and common sense dictates that it will have the opposite impact than the tolerance that its supporters had hoped. And while I think the analogy used by Abe Foxman and others of the convent near Aushwitz is appropriate--I would also wish that Foxman and Lookstein would also protest the Simon Weinsenthal Center's pompous plan to build a "Musuem of Tolerance" in Jerusalem's Old City--since it's both a waste of good money, unnecessary and will not foster tolerance.
What I take issue with is, as usual, your inflamatory rhetoric. My instinct is--although my information is incomplete and based solely what I've read in the press--that the Iman isn't the hidden extremist that he's sometimes portrayed as being--but rather he's a well meaning and decent human being who has a well-documented history of working with people of different faiths. And, as a Sufi, he clearly represents the most tolerant branch of Islam--in its American reconstruction, perhaps something akin to the re-made and tolerant Hassidism as portrayed by Martin Buber.
The real problem is different. This nice man is clearly over his head and through bad and naive advice and the absolutist statements of someone like Mayor Blumberg, he simply is lost and doesn't know what to do. He doesn't seem like the type who was made for this kind of controversy; and equally important -- but rarely talked about--he doesn't have anything like the skill or organizational experience to pull off an operation as costly and as complex as a Islamic 92nd Street Y. This well meaning man needs help from others to come up with some kind of face-saving compromise--since what's really unfortunate and sad here is the human dimension of the whole thing, a kind of "tragedy of good intentions" and unforseen consequences. So I'm afraid, Jonathan, that while I love and respect you, try to tone down the rhetoric and let's find someone who is skillful at mediation to come up with some kind of compromise which allow the Iman to go back to davening and learning another page of his Koran, hopefully with the Moslem equivalent of Rashi.
Mark is nasty and vicious and like Rush, blames everything on "the liberals." Then he quotes Lookstein's sermon to support himself. But Lookstein is wrong, too. Both are misguided bigots. They use the 9/11 incident to tar and feather all Muslims. This doesn't wash. If Park51 is ever built, there will be no effect on NY life. There will not be "terror centers" preaching destruction of America.
Remember our own history and the resentments by gentiles against us when we sought to build synagogues or acquire cemetery plots. Nothing has changed except Jews are accepted now but Muslims are not. Thank God for the First Amendment which ought to give U.S. Muslims the same rights U.S. Jews enjoy today.
I LOVE PAMELA GELLER! She stands for all which is good and decent - With her watchful eye and common-sense blog, I hope that she can help turn our country from the abyss-like direction it is currently heading.
Doug Chandler, you are a no-goodnik - You should be writing articles for "Jewish Weak". Shame on you.
Pam Geller is a bold, courageous, intelligent and passionate Counter-Jihad Activist.
I support her in her valiant efforts to raise awareness to the perils of Islamic Jihad.
(My longer comment went into moderation queue.)
Pam Geller is a bold, courageous, intelligent and passionate Counter-Jihad Activist.
Once you get beyond the basic faith aspects of Islam, Islam brings with it a comprehensive package of violent, oppressive and de-civilizational war-making and political ideology, all aimed at conquering lands by whatever means necessary, bringing the peoples of those lands to submit to "Allah" by converting them to Islam and exercising a chokehold on the thus converted people and their subsequent generations via the Sharia law, until a Global Islamic Ummah is established, where all people everywhere on the planet either become Muslims or are relegated to subjugated slave-like Dhimmi status. And that, in essence, Islamic Jihad.
One should not chastise or hate ordinary non-Islamist and non-Jihadist Muslims, as that would be inhumane, but the ideological aspects of Islam beyond basic faith MUST BE critically examined and questioned. Only then does a reformed version of Islam that is compatible with the non-Muslim world have a chance to emerge (I am not counting on such emergence of non-violent Islam, going by the extremely violent past and present of Islamic Jihad.)
That's pretty much Geller's message, once you strip off (what some may consider) the "political incorrect" and flamboyant elements of what she writes. My one advice to Pam would be tone down her writings a bit, while not comprising at all on the informative and substantive aspects (ala Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch), in order to extend her reach to a much larger audience.
The publication and the interviewers should be ashamed of yourselves for a slanted interview whose predetermined aim appears to be to attack her and paint her in as bad light as possible. Shame on you.
You do a great NON-mitzvah by ridiculing Pamela Geller. You also are meshugina in using the right wing card...this is everyone's problem...the CREEPING creepy Sharia perpetrated by Obama and the Iman of the mosque at Ground Zero....Islam has already destroyed the UK and France where there are many NO GO zones and the police don't even go there. What IS it that you, a Jewish magazine, don't understand about ISLAM's hate for Jews and all western society?
And don't give me that freedom of religion garbage. ISLAM is system of SHARIA LAW...it is NOT a religion...it poses as a religion..The Constitution and the Bill of Rights have NO USE for any LAW or system of LAW that would usurp us.
You are not behaving in a Jewish manner that is helpful to the Jewish people. You are blind dhimmis...By the way, do you even know that Islam was in cahoots with NAZIS in WWII and in Croatia? WAKE UP AND ACT JEWISH. Wow...you can't fix stupid.
I'm amazed that a synagogue would charge to attend a service. I know that in many synagogues in France or Spain you would not get in without a paid ticket. In England where standard membership fees are common, additional fees for the Hagim are not charged and as a visitor, if you explained who you are, you would be able to attend without problem. Try Bevis Marks Synagogue in the City of London.... 308 years old, 600 seats, always has seats available.