Mel's Passion

by Marvin Hier and Harold Brackman

Author Biography:
Rabbi Marvin Hier is the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Harold Brackman is a historian and consultant to the Wiesenthal Center.

Mel Gibson has a responsibility to make a movie that does not contribute further to a legacy of pain and suffering.


Cecil B. DeMille's 1927 biblical epic, "The King of Kings" offended American Jews by portraying the Jewish people -- rather than the Romans -- as responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. DeMille dismissed criticism, insisting that "if Jesus were alive today, these Jews I speak of might crucify him again."

But whether DeMille admitted it or not, the film did fuel anti-Semitism. Consider the following note, passed between two fourth-grade girls, that found its way into the files of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise: "Martha, I found out who killed our God. The Jews did it. I went to see King of Kings. It showed how the Jews killed him."

Now comes Mel Gibson, who insists Jews and Catholics will have nothing to worry about in his new, self-financed, $25-million film, "The Passion." It's true that the final script hasn't been made available, and there is currently no release date, or even distributor, for the film. Still, there are reasons for concern.

The passion of Christ -- the crucifixion and hours leading up to it -- has been used by bigots, including popes and kings, to inflame anti-Semitism through the ages. A belief that Jews were responsible for crucifying the son of God led Pope Innocent III to conclude in the early 13th century that Jews should be consigned to a state of "perpetual subservience" as wanderers and fugitives, and made to wear a mark on their clothing identifying them as Jews. His pronouncement reinforced widespread anti-Semitism that led over the centuries to millions of Jews being burned at the stake and murdered in pogroms throughout Christian Europe.

Any film about such a sensitive subject would set off alarm bells. But a film by Gibson is particularly alarming. A New York Times Magazine story in March revealed that the actor's father questions many commonly accepted views of the Holocaust, including whether 6 million Jews were killed. Also revealed in the article was that Gibson himself has funded a Catholic splinter group that rejects the three popes elected since John XXIII died in 1963 and the reforms of Vatican II. Rejecting the accomplishments of Vatican II raises particular concerns for Jews, in that one of its significant achievements was the church's declaration that "the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God." It was that milestone that made possible the election of Pope John Paul II, who has done more for Catholic-Jewish relations then any of his predecessors.

Gibson, who co-wrote the script for his film, has said he relied on three sources: the New Testament and two nuns. One of the nuns, Mary of Agreda, a 17th century Spanish aristocrat, wrote of the Jews involved in Christ's death: "Although they did not die [they] were chastised with intense pains These disorders consequently upon shedding the blood of Christ descended to their posterity and even to this day continue to afflict this group with horrible impurities."

The other, Anne Catherine Emmerich, was an early 19th century German stigmatic who often described Jews as having hooked noses and who told of a vision she had in which she rescued from purgatory an old Jewish woman who confessed to her that Jews strangled Christian children and used their blood in the observance of their rituals. She claimed the woman in her vision told her that this practice was kept secret so it would not interfere with the Jews' commercial intercourse with Gentiles.

Gibson should consider the political context before bringing out his film. Globally, anti-Semitism is at its highest peak since the end of World War II. Synagogues and Jewish schools have been firebombed and Jews beaten on the streets of France and Belgium. According to some recent polls, 17% of Americans (up from 12% five years ago) hold to political and economic stereotypes about Jews; 37% hold Jews responsible for the death of Jesus.

On the Internet as well as in print media around the world, the new demonization of Israelis as Nazi-like oppressors is fusing with the old libel of the Jews as "Christ killers." A cartoon in the Italian newspaper La Stampa depicted an Israeli tank rolling up to a manger with little baby Jesus staring up in horror and crying out, "Do you want to kill me once more?"

Gibson's secrecy about his film stands in contrast with the handling of other controversial films. The producers of a recent drama about the young Hitler responded to criticism by soliciting input from responsible critics. They got good suggestions that made for a better film. In Gibson's case, his lawyers threatened to sue the Anti-Defamation League and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, whose nine-member advisory board issued a thoughtful critique of a leaked version of his script. What is interesting is that the critics were not only Jews but also leaders and scholars of the Catholic Church.

At this tinderbox moment in our new century, we need to be especially careful about a movie that has the potential to further ignite ancient hatreds. In a world where the Oberammergau Passion Play, a notoriously anti-Semitic presentation held every 10 years in Bavaria, is finally being toned down, it is ironic that we now have to be concerned about a possible revival of anti-Semitism in Hollywood.

It shouldn't need saying, but apparently it does. The Romans and their procurator, Pontius Pilate, were in control of Jerusalem at the time of Christ's execution -- not the Jews. Crucifixion was the preferred Roman method of punishment, not one sanctioned by Jewish law. Jesus and his followers were Jews; there was no Christianity back then.

Could Jewish authorities have played a role in turning Jesus over to the Romans because they feared a revolt or because Judaism gives no credence to the notion of a divine messiah?

Possibly. But, it was the Romans, not the Jews, who crucified him, as they had crucified thousands of other Jews. Yet it was the Jews alone who for 2,000 years have been held responsible, not because God wanted it that way but because bigots and anti-Semites insisted that it be that way.

Gibson is a great actor and director, but he has a responsibility to make a movie that does not contribute further to a legacy of pain and suffering. Franco Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" avoided flaming anti-Semitism. And if Gibson uses a wise head and a brave heart, his movie can do it too.

This article originally appeared in the LA Times.


- posted by Izak @ 12:38 AM (0) comments

 
A Puzzle for Darwin

On the sixth day, God created the platypus.

And God said:

Let's see the evolutionists try and figure this one out.

(beliefnet 6/24/03)

- posted by Izak @ 3:02 AM (0) comments

 
WELCOME
TO
THE
CONTINUATION
OF
OUR
BLOG
FROM:

http://izaksimshalom.blogspot.com/

HOPE
YOU
ENJOY
YOURSELF !
- posted by Izak @ 2:06 AM (0) comments

 
Crash Course in Orthodox Judaism for Lieberman's Aides
(From the New York Times)


May 1, 2003
Crash Course in Orthodox Judaism for Lieberman's Aides
By ADAM NAGOURNEY


WASHINGTON, April 30 — When the nine Democratic presidential contenders
arrive in Columbia, S.C., on Saturday for their first debate, they are
supposed to show up no later than 7:30 p.m., 90 minutes before air time.
Except for Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut.
He will be there, his aides say, at 8:58, two minutes before the debate
begins.
In fact, the reason the debate on ABC News is starting so late on Saturday
night, past many newspaper deadlines and considerably later than other
candidates would have liked, is because Mr. Lieberman will not take his
seat until after the sun has set and he has completed his weekly
observance of the Jewish Sabbath.
There has been much speculation, even among Mr. Lieberman's closest aides,
about whether the nation is prepared to elect its first Jewish president
next year beyond questions like whether Mr. Lieberman is too conservative
for voters in Democratic primaries.
A more immediate question for Mr. Lieberman's campaign is turning out to
be logistical, and it has potentially serious implications for how voters
perceive him. How does an Orthodox Jew run for president while obeying the
extensive and intricate rules that govern the activities of religiously
conservative members of his faith?
Americans were exposed to Mr. Lieberman's religious practices when he ran
for vice president in 2000. His advisers said that was only a challenge in
the initial attention that greeted his selection by Al Gore. Now that it
is Mr. Lieberman who is seeking a spot at the top of the ticket, the
advisers said, the demands on his schedule and the examination of his life
have increased enormously.
The aides, most of whom are not Jewish, have been struggling to get up to
speed on rules and practices that have been debated by Jewish scholars for
centuries. The most influential book around Mr. Lieberman's headquarters
these days is not "The Almanac of American Politics," but "Judaism for
Dummies." (Yes, it exists: John Wiley & Sons, April 2001, including the
cover blurb from none other than Mr. Lieberman.)
The aides, aware that their candidate is prohibited from politicking from
dusk on Friday to past dusk on Saturday, have found Web sites that track
sunsets from New Hampshire to Iowa. They have incorporated into the
official campaign calendar every single Jewish holiday — and there are
many — that may interfere with, say, sending Mr. Lieberman to a forum in
Iowa.
"I don't think everybody fully realized that the last two days of Passover
are no-work days," a senior adviser said with an air of resignation.
The time restrictions may be especially daunting. It is hard to imagine a
more inconvenient time for a presidential candidate to be out of pocket
than from the first half of a weekend, particularly when the candidate has
a day job like, say, being a senator.
Friday nights are prime fund-raising nights, and Saturdays are set aside
for county dinners, union picnics and dusk-to-dawn retail campaigning.
"What it means is he has to do more with less time," Mr. Lieberman's
pollster, Mark J. Penn, said.
Beyond that, political and religious experts said the nation was about to
have an in-depth lesson in the rituals of Orthodox Judaism, from dietary
rules to what activities are permitted on a Saturday, that will surely
shape how Mr. Lieberman is viewed. He is the first Orthodox Jew to run as
a major candidate for president.
Mr. Lieberman's advisers argued that the spirituality symbolized by the
rituals of his observance was central to his appeal as a candidate.
"It reinforces him as a person of faith," Mr. Penn said.
But the aides said the religious practices could complicate one of the
first challenges facing a candidate, convincing the electorate that Mr.
Lieberman is "one of us," as a consultant put it.
"Americans have great respect for religion," said Ken Goldstein, a
professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin. "So that
helps Lieberman."
But, Professor Goldstein added: "Are they going to think it's a little
weird, a little medieval? Why can't he drive? What's the deal with not
being able to light a fire?"
In 2000, Mr. Lieberman's aides were clearly worried about such
perceptions. So they would find kosher food for him to eat at fund-raisers
or political dinners, but removed the "kosher" label from the dish before
setting down the plate.
Jano Cabrera, a former altar boy who is Mr. Lieberman's spokesman, said
his early days at the campaign had proved to be as informative about
religion as about presidential politics.
"This is another thing I learned," he said with the tone of a student who
had just mastered the end of World War II. "There is sundown. And then
there is sundown. There is, like, sundown when the sun has set, and there
is sundown where observance has stopped. There's a difference!"
Mr. Cabrera was referring to the fact that the Sabbath officially does not
end until the sky is dark enough so that three stars can be seen.
Saturdays are hardly the only off-limits days.
"Most people have no idea how many Jewish holidays there are," said Steve
Rabinowitz, a Democratic consultant who has worked here and in Israel.
"There are just so many."
Six nonwork Jewish holidays occur in the fall, a season that tends to be
fairly busy in the election business. A senior Lieberman aide who is not
Jewish, showing his knowledge, said about the Feast of Weeks: "Like
Shavuot is coming up. I know it's a nonwork holiday."
He stopped midsentence and said, "You're pushing me to my limits right
now."
So it is that Mr. Lieberman will be represented by a videotape at a labor
forum in Des Moines in three weeks while his opponents are on stage. He
will also miss the pre-debate fish fry on Friday in Columbia.
Mr. Lieberman does not refer to himself as an Orthodox Jew, a description
that invokes images of ancient solemnity, but rather as "observant." He
belongs to an Orthodox synagogue in Georgetown here and engages in rituals
associated with the most devout wing of Judaism.
He prays three times a day, and he primarily attends synagogues where men
and women are separated.
On the Sabbath, Mr. Lieberman does not drive or enter cars. He does not
turn on light switches or cook. He will watch a television set only if
someone else has turned it on. Mr. Lieberman does not answer the
telephone, check his Blackberry, turn on a computer or engage in e-mail.
When the shuttle exploded on the Saturday before a planned Sunday trip to
Iowa, Mr. Lieberman's advisers met and quickly concluded that the trip
should be scrapped. But they agonized as they tried to figure out how to
consult the candidate. Finally, they dispatched an aide to Mr. Lieberman's
front door to obtain his approval.
All that said, the demands of observance have provided him some practical
advantages.
"In some ways," an adviser said, "campaigns are so hard driving it's
almost nice there's a little bit of relief, that the practice of Shabbat
extends to the campaign."


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
- posted by Izak @ 1:35 AM (0) comments

 
THE MIKVAH / RITUAL BATH IN JUDAISM

Hi,
Thanks for the thoughts.

[Side note on reincarnation: The ideas about reincarnation are important for those who face challenges from Oriental religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. I suspect that if one could locate some reverant Christian mystics, they would see its place. Not everyone in Judaism feels comfortable with the notion of reincarnation. The Non-Orthodox (Reform , and Conservative) do not accept it at all. Within Orthodoxy, the more rationalistic elements, those who value secular knowledge avoid the subject at best if not rule it out as "superstition" as you quote. So it's definitely a debate within Judaism, and not a foregone conclusion by any means.]

Now as for the following, I'll reply after each question:

What I was wondering was, (Here I go!) "Was Bathsheba bathing in a Mikvah when
David observed her, or was she actually bathing for the purposes of
cleanliness."

Answer: Yes , so the Torah commentators say she was readying herself to be with her husband (not David at that point obviously).

Here are some more: Was the basin of water outside the
tabernacle that Aaron bathed in considered a Mikvah?

Answer: No, it was not. It was called a "ki-or" it was a samovar looking object with which the Priests, such as Aaron, washed their hands and feet in a ritual fashion, from a spigot , the water came out as from a tap (faucet) of water.

Where else are Mikvahs mentioned in the Bible?

Answer: In many places. See,Leviticus Ch.11, vs. 36.(Purification from dead bodies). Exodus 29 vs 4 (Consecration of Priests).
Exodus 40 vs 12(Purification of priests before they do the Service). Leviticus 8 vs 6 (Installation of Priests).Leviticus 14 vs 8(Purification from leprosy). Leviticus 15 vs 12(Purification of impure vessels/bowls). Leviticus 22 vs 6(Purifying priests from seminal emmisions and leprosy). Numbers 31 vs 23 (Purification of weapons and metals from idol worshiping enemies). Deuteronomy 23 vs 12(Purification from "wet -dream" seminal emission), Leviticus 15 vs 21(Person who touches menstrual blood).
The whole subject of the Menstruating woman and Female menstruations is dealt with in Leviticus Chapter 15, in vs 28 it states that the menstruant woman must purify herself (via mikvah). (This is just in the Five Books of the Torah.)

Are modern Mikvahs found in the synagogues and temples

Answer: Not in Reform and Conservative synagogues as they have abandoned mikvah. All married Orthodox women go to the mikvah. In large cities there are special fancy mikvahs with beautiful bath tubs and showers to wash BEFORE the actual (naked) immersion in the mikvah. There are always "Mikvah ladies" who make sure everything is done right. In the smaller communities the local Orthodox synagogue will have a mikvah nearby, very rarely on its own premises. Usually a small house is purchased and converted into a mikvah, the upper floors are often used by people working with the synagogues.

and do they use water from a well or spring

Not from a well or spring as these are very rare. They use collected rain water from the roof. Usually this is not enough.Inside the mikvah there is built a canal and a little mini "well" or pool, from which water goes into the mikvah itself.These have to be built to specific dimensions. So there is a legalistic way of building a miniature canal of about two yards,then collect it in a small pool, and then run into the mikvah. The waters passage over the little canal and its collection in the little well before the mikvah ,is considered as re-connecting it with its "source" in the ground as in a well.

, or is the water more symbolic today and from the municipal water supply.

Answer: See above. But one may not simply fill a mikvah from a faucet, it has to go thru the above procedure.So yes , city water is used, but in a specified manner.

If many people do not understand the concept of "Mikvah" today within their marriages, is the use of
the Mikvah considered only for exceptionally high Holy days?

Answer: Non-Orthodox men and women do not "believe" in going to the mikvah. They think it is an archaic "custom", so the Holidays makes no difference to them.
MARRIED Orthodox women always go to the mikvah a minimum of twelve days after their periods end. They need to have, actually count, seven CLEAN days when they are totally free from any menstrual bleeding, and then they go to the mikvah the evening of the end of the seventh clean day.
Ultra Orthodox Men can go whenever they wish.Many go Friday afternoons and on the eve of ALL major Festivals to purify themselves for the holy days. MEN and WOMEN go to SEPARATE mikvahs. The mikvahs that men go to are specially built for them, and can be found in the basements of Ultra Orthodox synagogues.

If people think this way, would a rabbi find a woman who desired the use of a Mikvah unusual
and in so thinking this, discourage her from the practice.?

Answer: My answer this time is a question: What woman are you talking about? If she is an Orthodox married woman she has been educated by her family and schools (yeshivas) that observing the commandment of mikvah is obligatory for her as a married woman. Her husband is forbidden to have sex with her, as long as she is a NIDDAH (Menstruant), and even after menstruation as long as she has not gone to the mikvah, she is considred to be a NIDDAH (not permitted.)
A non Orthodox Jewish woman is usually ignorant and the rabbi would not mention it,as it is too "personal" a topic.
However, there has been a revival of some traditions, and many FEMALE "rabbis" in the Non-Orthodox denominations are encouraging women to observe the laws of Niddah and go to the Mikvah when the lady's period ends.
A non_Jewish woman is NOT OBLIGATED to go to the mikvah at all. The commandment applies to Jewish women ONLY.

I know, that's a hundred questions, but they are all about the same subject.
(Big smile.) Pick what you feel like answering. Please don't wear yourself
out.

Answer: No problem. Always enjoy your great questions.

- posted by Izak @ 4:37 AM (0) comments

 
Symposium on Dating and Shidduchim
Yeshiva University,
Halachic Myths and Realities of Dating

http://www.endthemadness.org/

Harav Hagaon Moshe Tendler (Rosh Kollel; R’ Moshe Feinstein’s son-in-law)

LOOK FOR ESSENTIALS, NOT CHANGEABLES AND VARIABLES [I.E. ETZEM, NOT GILUIM]

Dating is, really, a game and no one reveals their true personality until later.

What to look for:

1. Physical appearance

a. Looks

b. Clothes
– but this is not as important as priorities and values, because this doesn’t speak to the person, rather to the society in which they grew up, and is under flux
+ In fact, regarding any of these variables, if you ask them what their position is they won’t even be telling you how they really feel, they’ll only be parroting back what they’ve heard from their rebbeim or their society, etc.

c. Behavior patterns

2. Baal chessed –

e.g. works at a place like H.A.S.C. – if she can stomach diapering an old man then she definitely has a good heart


3. Family – the key concern is halachic commitment


a. Regarding BTs (Newly observant) :
are they willing to present a halachic househould to your children (yarmulke, no treif, etc.)? If not, this is a major deterrent to a shidduch, and affects whether you can take them over on Shabbos (if when the children come in he’ll wear a yarmulke, then it’s okay). This has to do with the children’s chinuch, and the question is “Do the parents have sensitivity?”

b. Genetics
– discuss with the family doctor – after the shidduch has progressed for awhile give permission for the family doctors to talk to each other and work it out
Problems: Diabetic – this is problematic because it’s hard to travel and go around town, etc.
Down’s Syndrome – not a problem, just an opportunity to give chessed

c. Integrity
1) What to tell – not so important – nowadays there’s a greater openness between the chosson and kallah and there’s an expectation to tell – consult a rov for what to tell
2) When to tell – by the 3rd date

Talk about mutual interest items:
e.g. Summer – what they did last summer
Career – what they intend to do as a career for the future
Education – the education they had – this reflects their commitments

Shadchonus is the most humane way, but the rigid rules are nonsense (e.g. only one at a time, can only report back to the shadchan – forget about it! If you like her, then tell the girl “I hope to see you again.”)

If she looks good, has a good family, and has a good reputation, then marry her and hope it will work out – don’t test her – v’tomim tihyeh im Elokecha.

Roshei Yeshiva are not always a good source of advice for shidduchim (they only know the boy from the classroom and not his true personality), especially regarding family matters (have the family doctors work it out). Instead, look for the abovementioned things.

Q&A·

Q: If someone asks me “Who is your posek?” what should I answer?A: “None of your damn business!”
·
More on BTs (Newly observant):
the gemora (Talmud)describes the personality of a ben niddah as grouchy, cranky, and ill-tempered, however you should not at all refrain from a shidduch from a BT. If you like the person and see that they don’t behave like this, then by all means marry her. Reb Moshe Feinstein has a teshuvah about a bas niddah, and the gist of it is that if you like her and she has a good personality, then we say her mother probably went swimming (and the tevilah does not require kavvona, so therefore she’s not a bas niddah) and it’s totally okay and even encouraged. Again, FFBs should not shun BTs.
· The Shulchon Oruch says to get married by 24, and the yeshivas do push bochurim out by that age.
· You leave your parents (i.e. money and luxury) and marry (i.e. move into a basement apartment – it’s perfectly fine and normal to start out this way).
·
Q: Regarding kibbud av v’eim, shouldn’t you try to find out about the girl’s interaction with her parents?

A: It is good to know, but the information is not available today because America is not a shtetl and people come from all over. One must only listen to a parent to break off an engagement if the parents are embarrassed by the person.
· Financial self-sufficiency immediately upon marriage is not the Jewish way – the parents should support the couple for 2-3 years.

- posted by Izak @ 7:48 PM (0) comments

 
END THE MADNESS
(FOR JEWISH SINGLES ON THE DATING SCENE)

http://www.endthemadness.org/

Check out notes from the second symposium!


1.) Mission:

EndTheMadness.org is an ambitious and unique effort to combat the angst and hardships associated with dating in the religious Jewish community.
This website is dedicated to the memory of Tova Sara bas Eliyahu, who at the age of twenty was considered “over the hill” by her society. She was denied suitable shidduchim, and suffered terribly all her days as a result. She died on Pesach 5762 in her fifties, leaving behind neither husband nor child to mourn her. May her unswerving devotion to Hashem and the Jewish people bring merit to those similarly abandoned.

2.)Why Is This Project Necessary?

All prior efforts to end the so-called “Shidduch Crisis” have failed. This fact, which is evidenced by the ever-burgeoning number of religious singles and the rising percentage of failed marriages, must be recognized.

Here is a brief but rather complete list of current attempts to address the “Shidduch Crisis”:
1. Matchmaking (“professional” or otherwise)
2. Singles events and activities (Shabbatonim, NCSY, Shiurim, etc.)
3. Wholesale introductions (mass socializing, Speed Dating, online dating)
What do these have in common? They are all designed to help singles meet one another. Different methods cater to different personalities and religious idiosyncrasies (that’s all they generally are), but the bottom line is always the same: bring singles together in some fashion and hope for the best. There are success stories, but not nearly often enough to consider any of these attempts an actual solution.

If helping singles meet was all that was needed, there wouldn’t be any “Shidduch Crisis”. Difficulty in meeting is not the problem, but one of the symptoms. All efforts to solve the problem by concentrating on a symptom are doomed, and serve only to confuse people.

3.) The Problem

The symptoms are many, and a lengthy analysis would be counterproductive in this venue. The intended audience is primarily interested in a solution, not a rehash of what is already well known. Besides, the various symptoms will be evident from the solution.

The root of the problem is social pressure. Our culture is dominated by an unwritten code of conduct and standards, a perverse sort of oral “Torah”. Conformance to this code often supersedes observance of fundamental principles of the actual Torah. For example, wearing a yarmulke has gone from a Jewish custom to an indicator of one’s political and religious views – and, by extension, one’s suitability for marriage. Hats and jackets (not to mention their colors and styles) have assumed more spiritual meaning than tallis and tefillin. The Yeshiva one attends or attended somehow speaks volumes about the essence of the person. All sorts of arbitrary external practices have become divisive “standards” by which the Jewish nation has splintered, each tiny faction holy unto itself.

The dating “scene” is replete with this insanity. Potential mates are judged on conformance to one’s culture, like an actor trying out for a part. The dating process has become a script that must be followed down to the slightest detail. The search for a spiritual partner has been reduced to matching résumés.

Worst of all, those who recognize the sickness of this culture feel compelled to perpetuate it, lest they be denied shidduchim. The courage to confront and defy social injustice makes one an outcast.

More social events will not help, certainly not if the participants are treated like rats in a laboratory, allowed to mingle only in a controlled, sterile environment. This conveys the notion that interaction with the opposite sex, even dating itself, is somehow illicit, a necessary evil. As a result, religious singles are never comfortable around one another, and natural affinities that might develop are inhibited by pressure to perform.

“Setting people up” at every opportunity often leads to frustration, and takes all the joy and excitement out of dating. These attempted solutions only perpetuate the problem.

4.) The Solution

The “Shidduch Crisis” can only be solved by a massive shift in attitudes, a social revolution. This can be accomplished – with great ease, in fact. All it takes is courage and commitment by those who desire it.

A tremendous number of people go along with the system because they feel there is no other way, or because they are scared to resist. If these people committed themselves to breaking the cycle of insanity, everything would change. For example, if enough people stopped tolerating thorough pre-date investigations, such things would become socially unacceptable. If enough people opposed the social canonization of fabricated “minhagim”, these things would no longer be viewed as religious “standards” or indicators of one’s values and hashkafa.

Social insanity itself can become socially unacceptable. The system is built on a foundation of ignorance and arrogance, of fear and confusion. This is not what we want, and it certainly is not what God wants. So let’s do something real about it.

5.) The Goal

Those Jews who feel that the current system is ideal will not heed our call to change it. Our goal is not to change their minds, not now, not ever. You can offer medicine to a sick person, but you can’t force him to take it.

Our goal is to give chizzuk to those who are revolted by the system but are dragged into it, intimidated by the threat of social exclusion. Let these people know that there are many thousands of serious, committed Jews all around the world who support them. Let them feel increasingly secure in discarding the chains of social pressure. Let them know that instead of perpetuating the sickness, they can perpetuate the cure.

May God remove the heart of stone from within us, and may this effort help bring everlasting blessing to the Jewish people.

6.) The Covenant

I recognize that the dating problems of today are rooted in ignorance of Jewish law and ideals, which leads to pettiness and faulty judgment. By attaching my name to this covenant, I affirm belief in the following principles:
1. It is fundamentally wrong to judge someone based on non-Halachic externalities. Doing so is an act of sinas chinam, the primary cause of our continued exile and national suffering. Reciting tehillim will not save us as long as the reason for our punishment continues in such force. People who scorn marriage with others based upon non-Halachic externalities are in violation of sinas chinam. This is true even if they are friends, even if they eat in each other’s homes, even if they learn Torah together, etc. The ultimate sign of true acceptance between people and families – or lack thereof – is marriage. The students of Hillel and Shamai had far greater issues to work out between one another than we do today, yet their families intermarried.
2. If one feels that certain personal customs enhance his religious observance, he is wise to adopt them. However, such customs are entirely optional. There is no special merit in adopting them or lack thereof in choosing not to. Putting any kind of pressure on others to adopt such customs is an invasion of one’s religious freedom (which exists within the bounds of the Torah), and confuses the ignorant.
3. Social pressure in all its forms (to date, not to date, to further a relationship, to terminate a relationship, etc.) is morally wrong and frequently in violation of the Torah. If people are mature enough to date, they should be considered mature enough to make the proper decisions. Advice and guidance should be offered with the greatest care and sensitivity, with full realization of the severity of offering inappropriate advice. Rabbis should be especially cautious.
4. The only true shadchan is Hashem. Consequently, while people should be proactive in finding their respective mates, one should not lose sight of Who runs the show. Availing oneself of human assistance is a choice, not a necessity. Perverting one’s actions to score points with a potential shadchan is a lack of faith in Hashem and a severe personal disservice.
5. It is a sin beyond description to belittle ba’alei teshuva. Since Biblical times our leaders have seen them as perfectly viable marriage candidates. Those who think otherwise are ignorant and cruel.
6. It is not bittul Torah to date. Period.
7. It is intrusive and degrading to ask petty questions about potential dates before agreeing to meet them. This is a form of narcissism, and should be strongly criticized whenever it is encountered.
8. If God created an ideal mate for every person (a “bashert”), there is no assurance that this person comes complete with wealthy parents.
9. One should search for what he truly needs in a marriage partner, not demand a person custom-made to the slightest details. Allowing room for individuality is healthy, not a “compromise”. People should search for their spiritual mates, not their “equals”.
10. Singles should feel comfortable talking to one another without intermediaries. Singles should not be embarrassed to be seen talking to one another, whether on a date or not. Interaction between religious singles is emotionally sound and Halachically permissible, and does not require supervision. It should become normal again for people to arrange dates on their own.

I agree . . .
. . . Not to undermine religious Jews for petty, non-Halachic reasons.
. . . Not to judge a person based on his family or his background.
. . . To educate friends and relatives about these principles, and to constructively criticize their inappropriate “shtick”. This is the best way you can help them and spread the positive messages.
. . . To familiarize myself with the pertinent Halachos (lashon hara, hochacha, etc.)
. . . To give chizzuk to those who would prefer not to perpetuate the current dating system.
. . . To emphasize the positive reasons for dating, not the societal expectations.
. . . To become an active part of the solution, not a passive part of the problem.

7.) Signup

EndTheMadness.org will not share your contact information with anyone, ever, no matter how much they offer to pay us. We will contact individuals by e-mail to verify their existence and intent to sign up. Your information will be used for no other purpose, nor will we spam you. That's just wrong.

Click to sign up

Contact Us

Questions? Concerns? Feedback? Success Stories?

endthemadness@bigfoot.com

If you feel it is necessary to obtain permission from a Rabbi or anyone else before signing this covenant (as opposed to just discussing it with them), please do not sign it. We desire only those whose minds are internal, not external.
If you believe that signing this covenant will impair your chances of finding a shidduch, please do not sign it. You are, perhaps unknowingly, part of the problem.
If whether or not you decide to sign the covenant depends on who has or has not signed before you, see above.
Please do not judge people by their willingness or lack thereof to sign the covenant.
If you disagree with minor nuances but agree with the essential messages, please do sign the covenant. This is a sensitive area, and there is room for variance of opinion. We need not all think exactly alike to join together in this holy effort.
If you are already married, please sign the covenant anyway (this it not a dating site, after all). Married people play a continued role in the dating world, and have a great ability to educate and influence.


- posted by Izak @ 7:27 PM (0) comments

 
Women in Israeli Army:
20% of female soldiers report sexual harassment

By Gideon Alon, Haaretz Correspondent.
Monday, June 02, 2003 Sivan 2, 5763

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/299556.html

Twenty percent of female IDF soldiers were sexually harassed during the course of their mandatory military service, according to an army survey presented Monday during a meeting of the Knesset committee for the advancement of women.

The study collected responses from 1,100 anonymous female soldiers - including 64 officers - in their second year of service.

There was no difference in the rate of sexual harassment suffered by female soldiers serving in combat units and those serving in rear echelon positions, the study revealed.

Eighty-one percent of female soldiers suffering from instances of sexual harassment reported "harmful hints," and 69 percent reported harassing sexual advances.

More than half the respondents suffering sexual harassment did not take any action in response. Only 20 percent turned to an official address for aid, primarily to unit commanders.

- posted by Izak @ 7:18 PM (0) comments

 
JEWISH FEMALE SEXUALITY:
Mikve-Taharas Hamishpacha

The Intimate Road
by Rebbetzin Feige Twerski

http://www.aish.com/family/rebbitzen/The_Intimate_Road.asp
The Western world has considerable difficulty with the concept of sexual intimacy. One indication is the culture's obsession with the subject. On highway billboards, in magazine ads, in best selling novels, in almost every form of cultural expression from high art to low language, sexual innuendoes dominate the landscape.
It often reminds me of that incisive quip made by Hamlet's mother Gertrude: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Rather than showing a free-and-easy approach to our physical relationships, this need to constantly mention the topic betrays a distinct discomfort with it.
Some of this uneasiness may be traced to the Christian roots of Western culture that identified sexual relations as the "original sin." Ironically, though the Western world has worked determinedly in the past century to free itself from every religiously imposed moral and sexual restraint, it's been left with a souvenir that sexuality is somehow dirty.
In Catholicism until this very day, holiness and sexuality don't mix. The pious people -- the Pope, priests and nuns -- are forbidden from engaging in intimate relations. Though it's permitted for the non-clergy in order to propagate the species, intimacy is seen at best as a concession to the flesh with no inherent holiness.
Judaism stands utterly opposed to this outlook.
In Jewish thought, physical intimacy contains within it the highest potential for spirituality. It is one of the greatest means a married couple is given to express holiness.
Like any other means, however, its use depends completely on the expression given to it by the individuals involved. The sexual union is like a canvas in the control of the artists -- husband and wife -- and the spiritual message they produce can be meaningless, or it can be a masterpiece.
Classical Jewish sources describe sexuality as a mighty river. If harnessed, it can bring irrigation and magnificent energy to countless communities. If unharnessed and out of control, it brings floods and destruction.
At its highest use -- in a Jewish marriage lived according to Jewish law -- the sexual union brings holiness into the world, as it bonds husband and wife together, spiritually, physically and emotionally.
Closeness between a husband and wife is not just a nice thing, but rather, it is the re-creation on a physical plane of a deeper spiritual reality. According to Jewish thought, a husband and wife were originally one soul before birth, split into two halves when the younger of the two was conceived. When they reunite in marriage, their bond is unique because it represents the recreation of a single entity, of one soul.
In describing marriage, the Torah writes:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
Yet this "oneness" that is the central goal of a Jewish marriage is not easy to achieve. By marriage age, these two half souls belong to two quite distinct individuals, who grew up with separate histories, separate experiences, separate likes and dislikes. Fortunately, marriage itself provides abundant tools to overcome these superimposed differences and establish on the physical plane the same oneness that exists on the spiritual plane.
Perhaps the most powerful of the tools that foster oneness in marriage is sexual intimacy. All the wonderful feelings a couple has in a relationship culminate in the physical intimacy between husband and wife.
If God gave intimacy this extraordinary power, it makes sense that God would give us guidelines -- a medium -- to use it to its maximum potential. Indeed, that's the case. We call this medium: Mikvah.
Mikvah -- and the accompanying discipline called "family Purity" associated with it -- were once as well known and as universally practiced in Jewish homes as lighting candles for the Sabbath. No Jewish family would dream of living without them.
Today, not only has this institution been completely forgotten by the vast majority of Jewish families, but marriage itself has lost much of its status.
In former times, however, values were different. Marriages were stronger; Jewish marriages, indeed, were the envy of the world. In those times, Jewish families not only knew about mikvah and family purity, they risked their lives to be able to practice them.
Mikvah means collection. In physical terms, it refers to a pool that is used to collect "natural" water, untouched by human hands such as rainwater, or water from rivers and underground springs.
Culturally, a mikvah is of such significance that the rabbis of Talmud ruled that if a community has neither a mikvah nor a synagogue, building a mikvah takes priority over erecting a synagogue.
Practically, a mikvah is used by both Jewish men and women who immerse in it before certain holy acts. Though it looks like a bath, it's not: When Jewish law mandates the use of a mikvah, the user must be perfectly clean and bathed before immersion. A mikvah is a spiritual tool; it has no association with hygiene.
The Torah mentions mikvah most prominently in connection with the Jewish High Priest, the Kohen Gadol, who immersed in its waters five times during the Yom Kippur services when the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem. Today, the most important use of mikvah is by women, who immerse in it as one step in the cycle of reunion and separation between husband and wife known as family purity.
No brief description of the practice of family purity, like the one that follows, can suffice to insure its proper practice. And indeed, no brief description of the benefits of family purity can adequately explain its beauty. Only practicing it can truly convey the remarkable nature of it.
Jewish couples who were initially unaware of the mikvah discipline, and who learned about it and incorporated its practice into their lives, have told me that if they once had doubts the Torah was given by God, then mikvah and family purity erased them. The insight, or, as they describe it, the genius of this practice is so great that no human mind could have invented it.
And yet, to the modern mind, this practice may sound strange at first because it's so different. Because this pillar of traditional Jewish life is now so foreign to us, it's often misunderstood, as we try to apply our inadequate and often shallow 21st century understanding to its extraordinary deep ways.
In the practice of mikvah and family purity, a Jewish couple separates when the wife gets her monthly period, and physical contact doesn't resume until seven days following the conclusion of her period. On the eve of the night that the couple is to resume physical relations, the woman immerses in the waters of the mikvah, where she utters a prayer inviting God to sanctify their forthcoming intimacy.
Essentially, the sexual union is an affirmation of life, as the couple joins together in the sacred endeavor to draw a new soul from its heavenly source into this world. Conversely, the time when a couple is allowed no contact is associated with the period of time when the woman undergoes a loss of life potential, as the unfertilized ovum is expelled from her body.
When the husband and wife wait for this time to elapse and the wife employs the mikvah before rejoining her husband in physical intimacy, their union represents a reaffirmation of the powers of life over death. It is a rising above our mortality. The cessation of physical relations between husband and wife has no connection to a feeling of revulsion over the woman's monthly flow, as is often mistakenly assumed. Such a concept has no home in Jewish sources.
Interestingly enough, though the mysteries of mikvah are bound up in this interplay between life and death, it's clear that the role mikvah plays is deeper than our understanding of life and death, because Jewish law calls for the use of mikvah even among couple for whom procreation is not possible. Indeed, Jewish law also calls for the active pursuit of a healthy, wholesome sexual relationship in married couples of all ages, and considers it an independent value -- indeed, a spiritual value -- whether or not creation of a human life is possible.
If we want to understand mikvah in depth, we must return to the references to it in the Torah. In Leviticus, chapter 16, we read about the Yom Kippur service as practiced when we had a Temple in Jerusalem.
At the apex of the service, the High Priest would enter the innermost chamber of the Temple -- indeed, the holiest space on earth -- the Holy of Holies, or Kodesh Hakodashim, where he would ask forgiveness for the nation's shortcomings throughout the previous year. No one but the High Priest was allowed to enter the holy of holies, and he himself, as the holiest representative of the holy Jewish nation, was allowed in there only once a year, for one short interval on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year.
It's hard to imagine today the significance of that moment. For seven days beforehand, the High Priest prepared himself for it. The night before he entered the holy of holies, a team of great Jewish leaders kept him awake all night, quizzing him and pushing him to the heights of his moral and spiritual potential. The future of not just the Jewish nation but the entire world would rest on his actions in the holy of holies - actions that were done completely in private, witnessed solely by God and himself.
After the seven days of refining himself, and after the night-long vigil, the High Priest had one final preparation to make before the awesome moment in which he would enter the Holy of Holies and effect atonement for himself, for his nation and for the world: He immersed himself in the mikvah.
The resumption of the act of intimacy of a Jewish woman with her husband is a similarly awesome moment. After her seven days preparing for that moment, a woman immerses in a mikvah in order to elevate her relationship with her husband and to elevate the world itself.
How? How can immersing in something as plain as water have such a profound effect?
Water is the most spiritual of all the physical elements. The opening passages of Genesis (1-2:22) describe the creation of many impressive things including the earth and mankind. And yet, though water is referred to ("The breath of God hovered above the face of the waters" [Genesis 1:2]), there is no mention of its creation. Our sages learn from this that water pre-existed our account of creation, and pre-existed the earth itself.
A mikvah, containing waters untouched by human hands because they either fall as rain directly into the mikvah or were fed into it via an underground spring, is the closest thing we have to a piece of heaven on earth. It gives us the opportunity to reunite with our spiritual source.
Just before a woman immerses herself in these Godly waters, she says a prayer, inviting God to sanctify her marriage -- her most intimate and important relationship.
What she says through the prayer, in effect, is: "Almighty, this is the most sacred relationship in my life. This, our conjugal union, is one of the greatest expressions of that sacred relationship, and I don't want something as sacred as this to be devoid of Your Presence. I want You to join me in this act. I want you to be there." And then she immerses and, in a sense, touches hands with the creator of the world.
The late Rabbi Shlomo Twerski, who was my brother-in-law and a brilliant Torah scholar, said that it's particularly appropriate that going to the mikvah is a woman's responsibility, as opposed to a man's, because mikvah sanctifies the family, and it is the wife's wisdom, more so than that of any other family member, that builds the home.
In a sense, a woman creates her family. For nine months before their births, she shapes a perfect internal environment for her children; then, for nearly two decades after birth, she sculpts their emotional, mental and physical environment. If she doesn't have children, she's still the one, who, in most families, will have the most creative influence on the home atmosphere and those living under her roof.
When a woman goes to the mikvah, before she returns home to exercise once again her creative intelligence, she -- the human creator -- asks for the blessings of the Creator of the universe. She asks God to come back home with her, to join her in her sacred activities, and foremost of these, to join her in her marriage.
All mitzvahs are kindnesses, and mikvah is no exception. The Talmud, which expounds on the laws in the Torah, explains a simple rule of human nature in discussing sexuality: something constantly available to us eventually loses its luster in our eyes. We allow routine to replace excitement, and grow contemptuous and bored. Boredom in marriage is no trifling matter. It is extremely destructive and in our times, it is a leading cause of divorce.
This is the first and most obvious advantage of mikvah. For approximately two weeks every month a husband and wife are off limits to each other. Because of this monthly "vacation," the Talmud tells us, a husband and wife become like a bride and groom to one another each month, again and again. There's a perpetual freshness to the relationship; if you doubt it, ask any couple who practices mikvah and they'll confirm it, although they may blush over this truth.
Second, mikvah teaches us the value of restraint. In a world where infidelity is as common as it is today -- there have been estimates that almost one of every two married men has been unfaithful -- people have to learn the art of restraint. Unfortunately, it's not taught in school.
Within the Jewish marriage relationship, if a husband and wife can't have access to each other at regular intervals, it means they must learn to control themselves within the marriage relationship. Outside the marriage relationship, when a temptation suddenly develops and they're called upon to exercise restraint, they know how to respond. It's not as if they're suddenly called upon to run ten miles when they've never run a block.
Third, mikvah gives us the invaluable asset of "spaces in our togetherness," to adapt the poet's phrase. It affords us the opportunity to be ourselves in a way not possible if there were no separation period.
One of the primary reasons our individual souls were brought down to earth is to actualize a part of ourselves that is unique and unlike anyone else. Yet in marriage it's easy for two people to get lost in each other and not know where one ends and the other begins. This is not the Jewish ideal. The "oneness" of a Jewish marriage is not a unity of sameness, of identical mates who neither oppose nor challenge one another. Rather, it's a dynamic interaction between two individuals who maintain their identities, even though they are joined by one goal; one heart and one soul.
Two people who strengthen their individuality during this time of separation join again and enrich each other precisely because they've strengthened that part of themselves that's theirs and only theirs.
Finally, mikvah teaches us that we are not objects. Because I don't belong to you and you don't belong to me in the same way we do during the togetherness period, I'm compelled to treat you as a whole person, not as an object for my pleasure, This is an invaluable lesson in our society which, for all its obeisance to feminism, continues to treat women as objects, in advertising, at the workplace and too often in the home itself.
We also learn to communicate better with each other through mikvah. Many problems can be glossed over by a hug and kiss. During the two weeks without physical contact, a couple has to learn how to talk about everything, including many difficult things. We get to know each other's inner thoughts in ways we might not otherwise. Intimacy -- real intimacy -- is the result.
As we stated before, these benefits just scratch the surface of the spiritual effects mikvah has on our lives and on the world. There are depths to this practice we, as humans, cannot fathom. But one thing is clear:
Without serving a higher purpose, our physical intimacy is just that -- physical. With mikvah -- and God's presence -- the sexual relationship changes from something that's completely physical, an act which subhuman species also engage in, to an act of holiness and the highest expression of two people.

Author Biography:
Rebbetzin Feige Twerski of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has devoted her life to Jewish education and Outreach, giving lectures worldwide on a myriad of Judaic subjects. She is a mother of 11 children, and many grandchildren whose number she refuses to divulge. She serves as the Rebbetzin along side her husband, Rabbi Michel Twerski, of Congregation Beth Jehudah of Milwaukee.


- posted by Izak @ 3:39 AM (0) comments

 
ARIK SHARON; ISRAEL'S SUPREME COURT : Courting disaster
RUBY RIVLIN (Speaker of Israel's Knesset [Parliament] ) SPEAKS

By Ari Shavit

Sunday, June 08, 2003 Sivan 8, 5763

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=300581&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Reuven ("Ruby") Rivlin is unwilling to reveal the names of the settlements that Ariel Sharon intends to evacuate. But he is willing to say how many: 17. And he is willing to say what they have in common: They are located on the connection points between one Sharonist canton and the next. And he is willing to reveal when Sharon decided on the evacuation: at the time he assumed the post of prime minister. When he understood that Israel's future for generations would be decided during his term of office. When he understood that there was no choice but to separate. When he understood that even though he promised repeatedly that he would not remove even one settlement, there would be no choice. Sharon understood that there will be no choice because it is essential to reach an agreement that will bring about a situation in which the Palestinians do not live in our midst and we do not live in their midst.

Are Beit El and Shiloh two of the 17 settlements that are earmarked for evacuation? Rivlin declines to reply. He is afraid that their mention attests to an expansion of the evacuation program and to Sharon's readiness to go beyond what he planned a year or two ago. However, a short clarification immediately after the conversation with him finds that Ganim and Kadim are definitely earmarked for evacuation. So are Tekoa and Nokdim. And Homesh. So are other settlements in the Nablus area, in the Bethlehem area and in the Binyamin District.

In contrast, Sharon is adamant that he will not evacuate Netzarim, an isolated settlement in the Gaza Strip, let alone the Katif Bloc of settlements in the northern Gaza Strip. He and the Americans are holding intensive talks on this subject. Sharon is insisting that only what stands in the way of Palestinian territorial contiguity will be evacuated. What does not block that contiguity will remain intact.

Is Sharon tormented by his personal responsibility for the establishment of the settlements and the need to deal with his mistakes? Rivlin says that whereas in the personal realm Sharon is a very sensitive person whose eyes often grow moist, in the national realm he is entirely without emotions. He has no inhibitions, Rivlin says. He is a Mapainik without inhibitions, referring to the Mapai party, the precursor of Labor, which was known for its rampant pragmatism. When he forms an opinion, nothing will stop him. No sentiment and no human commitment will hold him back.

Rivlin himself is agitated and of two minds about the Sharonist shift. In the room of the Jerusalem hotel in which we meet, his voice cracks and his eyes shine as he talks about the shattered dream of the "national camp" and the loss of the Land of Israel. Even though he understands the logic that is guiding his political patron, the prime minister, he is not willing to accept it. He, Reuven Rivlin, will never lift a finger to hand over the Land of Israel. Even if he remains utterly alone, he will prefer to show allegiance to the lost ideal of Ze'ev Jabotinsky and Menachem Begin and to the integrity of the homeland.

It is only after some time, after he asserts that he himself would be willing to eat the wild hubeiza fruit, as during the siege of Jerusalem in 1948, in order to save the Land of Israel, that he begins to speak with the same fervor about the subject we are here to discuss: the constitutional revolution, Supreme Court President Aharon Barak and the threat posed to democracy precisely by the Israeli establishments. The speaker of the Knesset does not mince his words. He talks bluntly and directly about the things that are disturbing him and making him lose sleep.

Sharon and me

Ruby Rivlin, you are very close to Sharon. You hold intimate conversations with him. Where is he taking us?

"Arik is trying to achieve a solution that will put him into the history books as a person who fomented a historical turning point - like Ben-Gurion in 1947, Begin in 1979 and Yitzhak Rabin in 1993. But Arik also understands in the clearest way possible that he cannot achieve a permanent settlement that will satisfy the Arabs. He understands that no one on the Arab side will agree to forgo the areas that he regards as essential for the defense of the State of Israel.

"I refer mainly to areas in the Jordan Rift Valley and to the strip running from Arad to Jerusalem, in the Dead Sea region. Arik is therefore aiming for a temporary settlement. But the temporary settlement he has in mind is far-reaching. He truly intends the establishment of a Palestinian state with territorial contiguity and a true separation between us and 3.5 million Palestinians."

Are you saying that the moderate Sharon we have seen since the eve of Pesach is the real Sharon?

"Undoubtedly. Undoubtedly. Whether I like it or not, the moderate Arik is authentic. Look, sometimes he zigzags. Sometimes he says things ambivalently, which can be interpreted either way. But to my chagrin, he has passed the point of no return. I can tell you and your readers with certainty that Arik Sharon is resolute in his position that a settlement has to be reached immediately. When he talks about the end of the occupation and about painful concessions, he is not pulling a fast one and he is not lying - unfortunately."

When did you grasp that this is it, that he crossed the Rubicon?

"In October. One night he called me into his office and showed me the road map and asked me for my comments. At that moment I understood that we were approaching the moment of truth. That he's really going for it."

So deep down he really has remained a Mapainik?

"Without a doubt. In the end, Arik believes in security above all and is a salient pragmatist, a disciple of Ben-Gurion. He reminds me of [former Jerusalem mayor] Teddy Kollek. Both he and Kollek learned from Ben-Gurion that statecraft is the art of the possible.

"Look, Arik Sharon has a doctrine of life that is far more coherent than what journalists give him credit for. It's true that in the past he moved from one place to another. I myself was critical of him for changing certain positions for political purposes. But people here didn't understand that from the day he assumed the post of prime minister, his security and political outlook was very crystallized.

"He didn't know, and he still doesn't know, how to reach a permanent settlement, but he is determined to recognize a Palestinian state and reach a settlement. Think about the fact that when he says the occupation is hard for the people of Israel he is really saying that the occupation corrupts. That we have the right to the land but that we can't realize it. In this, he is actually accepting the ideology of the left."

So the person who heads the Likud today is really a Ben-Gurionist?

"Arik is definitely a Ben-Gurionist. In our conversations, he laughs and calls me the ideologue, and I laugh and call him his [Ben-Gurion's] disciple. But there's nothing funny about it. It's completely true. And for me it's rough, because since October I have been wracked by an inner conflict between my uncompromising belief that all of Zion is ours, and my close friendship with the prime minister.

"That's why, when he offered me a cabinet post in his government, I preferred to become Speaker of the Knesset. I told him openly: Arik, we are now on an irreversible collision course. You are a disciple of Ben-Gurion and I am a disciple of Jabotinsky. You are a pragmatist and I cannot free myself of my belief. I will not convert my religion, I told him. I have no intention of converting."

Historic earthquake

Let's get back to him. If he is truly serious, as you describe it, there will be a settlement within half a year to a year. That's not just talk. There will really be a historic earthquake here.

"For many months I've been telling my journalist friends that an earthquake is happening. Arik Sharon is serious about the words he is speaking. And the moment you embark on that road, there is no knowing where it will lead, because once a sacrosanct principle is shattered, anything goes. The process is very powerful."

Give me a scenario. What's going to happen?

"There is one thing on which Arik will make no concessions: terrorism. On this subject Arik has no doubts and everyone can trust him, including Likudniks. If there is terrorism, he will not hand over territory. But if we actually reach a situation in which a solution is found for terrorism, and there are signs that the Palestinians are trying to meet us halfway, he will establish a Palestinian state in the territories held by the Palestinians with territorial contiguity, which could be very significant from the point of view of the Israeli government's attitude toward the sacred principle of non-evacuation of settlements."

Are you saying that Sharon will evacuate settlements already in the stage of the establishment of the temporary Palestinian state?

"It is definitely possible that an impossible friction between certain settlements and the need for a situation in which the Arabs will not pass through our territory and in which we will not rub shoulders with them - that this will thrust him into a situation in which he will make an Arik-style decision that it's possible that settlements will have to be evacuated."

I ask again, Ruby Rivlin: Has Arik Sharon accepted the fact that he will evacuate settlements?

"What he has accepted is that for us to live within borders that make movement possible for them other than through our territory, it will be necessary to reach a decision to evacuate a number of settlements."

How many settlements are we talking about?

"When Arik assumed the office of prime minister, and even earlier, in discussions he held with [former prime minister] Ehud Barak, about 17 settlements [in this category] were identified."

When Sharon mentions painful concessions, is he referring to these 17 settlements?

"He sees them above all. Arik has made clear and explained a number of times that their evacuation is necessary in order to stabilize some sort of way in which we will be able to reach some sort of settlement. Today we have cantons. Those cantons will be unified and connected. Connecting the cantons will necessitate this blow to the settlement project. It obliges the evacuation of about 17 settlements."

Are you telling me that Sharon has reconciled himself to the fact that he will evacuate 17 settlements already at the state of the interim agreement?

"Yes. When he talks about painful concessions, he is talking about a concrete map that some of the Yesha people [referring to the Yesha council of Jewish settlements in the territories] know about and that he has already talked to them about."

And does Sharon believe that an evacuation on that scale will bring about calm and conciliation?

"Sharon thinks that it's necessary to build some sort of relations of trust. Even though, knowing Sharon as I do, I don't see him placing any trust in the Arab side."

Not even in Abu Mazen?

"Not even in Abu Mazen."

So there is a basic problem in placing trust in the Arabs?

"He has no trust in them. Arik doesn't like them much because he doesn't believe them. But Arik knows that negotiations are not conducted only with people you believe. Negotiations are conducted in order to solve problems. Look, Arik does not view the Arabs from a position of superiority. He sees the Arabs as people to whom we owe nothing. We owe nothing to anyone who wants to attack and kill us. That side of the issue is of no interest to him. So when he talks about 3.5 million Palestinians, it is not because of their suffering, but because he has reached the conclusion that to go on ruling them is impractical."

Will he evacuate Netzarim [an isolated settlement in the Gaza Strip]?

"Arik is ready to pay the price in places where it is necessary to guarantee the Palestinians continuity. There is no such problem at Netzarim. At Netzarim, the problem is that of Netzarim, not of the Palestinians. Therefore he is more accepting of the need to evacuate [settlements] in the Binyamin region than in the Gaza Strip. But the American pressure in the direction of the Gaza District is very heavy."

And what about the permanent settlement? Will he not forgo the Jordan Rift Valley and the Gaza Strip and the strip between Arad and Jerusalem even as part of a final peace agreement?

"In my opinion, he will be more adamant on that than on the question of Jerusalem. That is his casus belli. As far as I know Arik, he will not compromise on that issue. To him, these are territories without which it is impossible to defend Israel. But a situation is liable to develop in which the decision about them will not be his to make."

New sounds about Jerusalem

Is it possible that Sharon will also compromise on Jerusalem?

"I don't want to believe that. Arik is suffused with a mystical belief about Jerusalem. But when you embark on the road, you will be asked - Will you now ruin everything just because of Jerusalem? I have a musical ear. In one of his recent speeches I heard new sounds about Jerusalem. They worried me."

So what you fear is that the process will pull him in further than what he himself supposes?

"When you embark on a trans-Atlantic flight and the pilot informs you that you have crossed the ocean, you can no longer go back to Europe, you have to land in North America. That is Arik's situation today, without a doubt. Politically, too. He took the risk knowingly and willingly, and he knows he will have no choice but to land on the other side."

What is his virtue and what is his weakness?

"His virtue is that he decides alone and his weakness is that he decides alone."

Is he the only one who makes the big decisions?

"He's very centralistic, Arik, very centralistic."

How much influence do his sons have?

"The sons have influence on him, but not at this level. Remember also that he has two sons. One pulls this way, the other one that way. So they balance each other. They offset each other."

So he is completely alone - he makes the major decisions in consultation only with himself?

"In trivial things he can be influenced. If there's an appointment to be made, it's obligatory to be the last one to see him, because otherwise you're lost. Arik is very sensitive on those kinds of issues. He tends to do well by the person who is next to him at that moment. But on major issues, forget it. He trusts only himself."

Is it your assessment that the very course Sharon has embarked on will in the end lead to the 1967 borders or something approximating them?

"That's more than an apprehension. That's a clear scenario. Unequivocally. Because once we live in a global village and the American sheriff is the sheriff of the whole world, you can be the world's greatest ideologue, but you have to take account of the political situation. And from the moment a crack appears in your belief, the crack gets wider and wider. You get into a state of mind that is not amenable to change.

"What Arik is now doing is causing the national movement to largely shed its basic tenets. Even principles that Arik promised me he would uphold just a few months ago have been eroded. We are entering a process here that does not make conditional the end of one stage before the transition to the next stage. We have already recognized the Palestinians' right to a state and we are talking about the Saudi plan and the right of return. It's all up for grabs. So it's clear that even if there are things that Arik really will not forgo, his successor will continue what he began."

Is this revolution hard for you?

"It's not only hard for me; it's impossible from my point of view. You have to understand that the love between Arik and me has a personal background. Correction: friendship, not love. There is no love between politicians. Only among Jerusalemites is there love. That's why they're such bad politicians. A sentimental politician like myself is not a politician. A politician who tells people what he thinks is not a politician.

"But between Arik and me there is trust. He believes me, I believe him. We don't lie to one another. When Arik talks to me, he looks me in the eye. When I talk to him, I look him in the eye. We have a very close relationship. But when all is said and done, he is one of the fathers of pragmatic Zionism. He is taking the state to where Ben-Gurion would have taken it. Whereas I, I was a Herutnik from age zero [referring to the Herut party, the precursor of the Likud].

"I know that my belief in the Land of Israel sounds a bit mystical today. A bit not implementable. But I believe. And I am too old to change. Therefore, I am completely torn now between loyalty to the man and loyalty to the path. I love Arik with all my soul but I don't love his path. For me to follow him now would be nothing less than a religious conversion. A genuine religious conversion. I can't do it."

Aharon Barak and me

Ruby Rivlin, your attack on the Supreme Court was unprecedented. What brought it on? Why do you perceive the court as being so dangerous?

"In 1992 I was a member of the [Knesset's] Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, which formulated and passed the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom. So I know what the idea behind that law was. The idea was to consolidate the rights of people insofar as they are people and the rights of the minority insofar as it is a minority. Under no circumstances was the idea to transfer legislative authority from the Knesset to another body. No one even talked about changing the balance of power between the Knesset and the court.

"So a few months later, when Dan Meridor declared that a constitutional revolution had taken place, I was stunned. Dan Meridor is one of the followers of Justice Barak [Aharon Barak, the president of the Supreme Court]. Follower is a nice word. I don't want to use a different word, heaven forbid. But unlike him, I thought - like several former Supreme Court presidents - that there had been no constitutional revolution here. No such thing.

"Yet as time passed and the court moved ahead with great deliberation and by creeping annexation took over more and more powers, I realized that not only had there been a constitutional revolution, there had been a coup d'etat. I do not accept this revolution, In my view, the Knesset never approved it and therefore it is taking place contrary to the democratic spirit and without authorization."

`Coup d'etat' is a serious term to use in this context; it means a putsch.

"Correct. And that is the term I used at the President's Residence last month. Supreme Court President Barak was very hurt by the expression, but in my opinion, when a group of people sit in a room and say that from this moment we are the power, that is a putsch. You tell me: Isn't it a putsch? It's a putsch. After all, they did not receive authorization from anyone. They did not consult with anyone. They created a situation of going ahead and seizing power."

Do you see this as the imposition of a particular worldview on the public by means of an improper procedure? Do you see a move to establish a kind of enlightened absolutism?

"Yes. It's as clear as day. Aharon Barak says that we have to distinguish between the Knesset as framing and the Knesset as legislating. He says that if you don't frame a constitution, I will set forth a constitution instead of you. But who gave him the right? Who gave him the right?"

What you are actually saying, then, is that the whole constitutional move that Justice Barak led in the past decade is illegitimate?

"Of course. On the basis of the false claim of a constitutional revolution, a new reality was created here. A new government was forged that is above everyone: both above the Knesset and above the government and above the law, too. Take note that the court has effectively placed itself above the law. It has lost the fear of the law."

Can you explain?

"I will give you an example. MK Azmi Bishara wants to be elected to the Knesset even though he says that the State of Israel should not be the state of the Jewish people. Personally, I think that's all right, that he should be able to run for the Knesset on the basis of that platform.

"But the Knesset thought differently. The Knesset stipulated that anyone who preaches that the State of Israel is not the Jewish state shall not be elected to the Knesset. The Knesset stipulated that in a law. Along comes the court and says that despite the Knesset's law, I am deciding differently. In other words, the court stands above the law. It is no longer interpreting the law, it is setting the law or replacing it, according to its norms, its worldview.

"What that means is that the court is telling the legislature that henceforth I am going to legislate instead of you. I find that intolerable. It is the loss of the court's fear before the law. It is the transformation of the court into an authority over which there is no review."


Continuation of Courting disaster

Threat to democracy

Do you really believe that the court is operating contrary to the democratic spirit and contrary to the values of democracy?

"Without a doubt. The court is disrupting the whole order of government. I will give you another example. On the issue of the Landau report [a 1987 report about the Shin Bet security service's interrogation methods, drawn up by a commission headed by Justice Moshe Landau, a former president of the Supreme Court], Aharon Barak comes and says, Look, even if all 120 members of the Knesset tell me that in the case of a human `ticking bomb,' moderate physical pressure can be used [as the Landau Commission recommended in certain interrogations], I will strike it down.

In other words, Barak is placing himself above 120 legislators. He says, If I think it's wrong, I don't care what the Knesset thinks. Now, I have high regard for Aharon Barak. I trust him. He is learned in the law, he is brilliant, he is a leader. He is also a gifted politician. But because of the reverence in which this person is held, a situation has been created that accords the president of the Supreme Court the authority to do anything he pleases above the head of the legislature. That is a very dangerous situation. It is not only a threat to Zionist and national values, it is a threat to democracy."

Still, why now? What decisions by the court made you react so harshly?

"There was of course the ruling by a Magistrate's Court that brought the process ad absurdum. When a junior judge allows himself to invalidate a law of the Knesset, you realize that we have reached a state of total madness. But in my opinion what was even more serious was the decision by the High Court of Justice on the question of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem [when armed Palestinians took refuge there during Operation Defensive Shield in May, 2002].

"The very fact that the court did not kick out the petitioners and agreed to get into a discussion about the conduct of war policy in wartime proved to me that the court is now placing itself above the government, too. Because the moment the court starts weighing the considerations of the government in matters about which only the government can decide and for which it alone bears responsibility, it's all over. The court has actually turned itself into a meta-government.

"Therefore, I reached the conclusion that someone had to tell His Honor Justice Barak that there is a limit. Someone had to tell him, It's not your affair. It's the affair of the government."

Do you seriously intend to curb the power of the court by means of legislation?

"Definitely. It has to be done. We are talking about a burning problem. We are talking about a situation in which they are already talking about a requiem for the law, about how the judge overcame the law. And we are talking about a situation in which the judicial system is endangering the democratic system in Israel because its people are sure that they are better than others.

"What's going on here, after all? Effectively there is no longer any law here because the law changes every minute according to the interpretation of the court based on some sort of meta-norm that has never been defined, so no one knows what it is. The result is a situation in which a very small group of people has arrogated to itself the authority to decide values and rules and even policy for a whole country and for a whole public that never gave them any such authorization."

Are you hostile to Justice Barak personally?

"The very opposite. I think Aharon Barak is a wonderful and amazing person. He is 20,000 leagues over me. And the truth is that it is very difficult to oppose him and argue with him. I am also very fond of him. He is a Zionist in every fiber of his being, a warm Jew, with extraordinary charm. When he and I hear the national anthem being played, we both cry. When he and I visit the grave of a person who gave his life in the struggle for the homeland 36 years ago, we both cry.

"But what I say is not to think about the fact that the meta-government is now in the hands of Aharon Barak. I, too, am ready for Aharon Barak to be a king in Israel. I trust him, he suits me. And we all kneel and bow and fall on our face when we hear Aharon Barak. But what will happen when the king is no longer Barak? What will happen, heaven forbid, if the king is a nobody like me?

"You know, it's impossible to build the whole system on the qualities of one man who is truly a giant of his generation. Perhaps a giant of all his generations. We have to think about what will happen in another three years. Another five years. We have to think what will happen if all the powers that are now in the hands of Aharon Barak will be in the hands of someone like Ruby Rivlin. What will happen then, I ask. What will happen if Ruby Rivlin exercises his authority to decide that he is above the prime minister, above the legislature, above the law?"

Not like America

If you have such high regard for Aharon Barak, how do you explain his insistence on a constitutional move that you find so flawed?

"Aharon Barak was an attorney general that you couldn't approach. He gave legal advice and managed the prosecution as only he can. That experience gave him the feeling that he could do everything. And the truth is that today in the State of Israel, Aharon Barak can do everything. But that state of affairs leads him to think that he is the be-all and end-all. Things that I, for example, would blush to do, he does without batting an eyelash.

"And a group of people has begun to gather around him who think they are suitable, they are wonderful, they are terrific. So with them there is no problem of nepotism. Because they are enlightened and they know one another and they know what's going on, so it's no problem at all to choose someone who is someone's relative for a position. Because they, in contrast to politicians, are allowed to know people and to esteem them.

"And they can also come and say that even though elections were held in which a particular worldview was victorious, their worldview is more correct. So it doesn't matter if the people decided to vote for the right, because they can come and tell the people that, with all due respect, the right wing is in the government and in the Knesset, but in the place where decisions are truly made the people will not decide. We will decide. Because we think better than you. We are better than you in every way."

Does it go that far?

"It goes that far. And I will let you in on a secret. They really are good. If you promise not to tell anyone, I will tell you that I know the justices of the Supreme Court and I know the members of the Knesset, and the people on the Supreme Court are better than the people in the Knesset. Believe me, in the Supreme Court they are tip-top, every one of them.

"But the problem is that, as my friend [the artist Yair] Garbuz says, democracy is the right of the majority to be wrong. The price we have to pay for democracy is to accept that the majority is sovereign even if the majority is wrong. That's the truth. And it is impossible to create some sort of regime of kohanim [biblical priests] here. It is impossible to create a kingdom here.

"When Aharon Barak says all the time, Look at America, look what powers the court has in America, I tell him, Fine, let's choose the judges the way they do in America. Arik Sharon will appoint the judges now and Haim Ramon or Avrum Burg or Fuad [Benjamin Ben-Eliezer] will appoint the judges in a few years, and so we will create a mosaic of opinions like they have in America. In that way not all the judges will be from the same village. They won't all come from the same Jerusalem neighborhood I grew up in, Rehavia. But when I say that, Aharon Barak suddenly goes pale and says, No, the American system is no good. There is terrible politicization in the American system."

Are you incensed by the process in which judges in Israel are appointed?

"Our system of choosing judges is fine, as long as the court knows its limits, as long as it doesn't become a meta-government. The problem, though, is that everything depends on the minister of justice. If the minister of justice is the tool of the president of the Supreme Court, then what we get is a closed system without pluralism. That is what makes it possible for the system to consider itself supreme over other democratic systems."

Two years ago, you were a candidate to become minister of justice, but just when you were about to be appointed a police investigation against you began. It's said that you serve the interests of [contractor and businessman] David Appel.

"Generally, the justice minister in Israel is chosen in such a way that it's known he will be sympathetic to the president of the Supreme Court. If apprehension exists that he is liable not to be sympathetic, he is arrested by the police or interrogated. That's what happened in my case, too.

"When Arik received the confidence of the nation in 2001 and intended to appoint me minister of justice, I was suddenly questioned by the police for 11 hours about all kinds of groundless things, and the fact of the interrogation was immediately leaked to all kinds of journalists and scribblers who shed my blood.

"I have no complaints against the court, heaven forbid. The court is above all that. But if there is one case and a second case and a third case in which people who are not convenient for the system find themselves summoned by the police with strange timing, then maybe there is a prima facie phenomenon here. Maybe there is a dangerous phenomenon here.

"On the face of it, the suspicion arises that perhaps one system is preventing another system from realizing the mandate it was given by the public. Because I, for example, was elected to the Knesset and if, for example, the prime minister wants to choose me, and another system comes along and says you cannot be chosen because there is some sort of suspicion against you that was raised at a time that is not accidental, and then you are not really investigated afterward, then we have here a threat to democracy precisely on the part of those who speak in the name of democracy. There is cause for concern that instead of the rule of law, we have in Israel a gang of the rule of law."

I don't understand. Can you explain?

"I repeat: I am not talking about the court, heaven forbid. But the concern arises that maybe what we have here is a gang of the rule of law. As soon as the need arises, as soon as someone threatens the group, they act against him wickedly and in complete symbiosis with the investigative branch, the prosecuting branch and the seventh branch. The result is that the person in question is stigmatized and then there are selective leaks to the papers from the interrogation and then you get a journalist who calls me Dudi Rivlin [David Appel is nicknamed "Dudi"] or Ruby Appel [in Hebrew, Appel can also be read afel, meaning `dark' with an underworld connotation] or things like that.

"And I tell you that there is no more moral person in the world than me. I am absolutely unblemished and pure-hearted. But because I am a nonconformist and because I am a politician, they allow themselves to persecute me. They say, Who is this politician, what if we shed his blood, one way or the other he is disqualified. If he hasn't committed a crime, he will. If we haven't pinned something on him, we will. In other words, irresponsible accusations are hurled. The symbiosis between the police and the press turns certain politicians, who are considered undesirable, into doormats. I consider that Sodom and Gomorrah, nothing less than Sodom and Gomorrah."

Aren't you close to David Appel? Don't you serve his interests? Isn't your opposition to the systems that constitute the rule of law bound up with your relationship with him?

"I am simply ashamed to answer that question. I don't deny my friendship with Dudi. We have known each other since the day he was born. True, our relations have cooled now, but for years Dudi's children were like my children, and my children were like his. But none of that is in any way related to anything illegal.

"I am innocent and pure-hearted, I tell you. I am also modest in my way of life. There is no one more honest or more moral than I am. So the whole allegation about this subject is not only ridiculous, it is wicked. And it only proves how much damage these contemptible people can cause. Do you know that to this day they haven't called me in to inform me that the investigation has ended? And the scribblers who work with them have never apologized.

"But I cannot forget that day two years ago when I was about to be appointed minister of justice, when they suddenly called me in and questioned me for 11 hours about nothing. I didn't know what to do with myself. What my children would say to me, what my wife was going through. I was about to become minister of justice and then there were reports, based on nonsense, that I was supposedly suspected of bribe- taking. Therefore I tell you that they are a gang, those people. A gang like any other gang. Except that the name of this gang is the gang of the rule of law."

- posted by Izak @ 3:34 AM (0) comments

 
Rabbi Akiva and his women

By Ben-Zion Fischler

Sunday, June 08, 2003 Sivan 8, 5763

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=300628&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Many legends have been woven around the person of Rabbi Akiva and their inclusion in the life story of one of the most important Talmudic scholars only adds greater depth to this much-revered individual. This article deals with only three of these legends, but the links between them invite further study and teaches us something about the women in Rabbi Akiva's life.

The first of the three legends, which appears in "Sefer Avot de Rabbi Natan," describes Rabbi Akiva beside the well: "How did Rabbi Akiva's illustrious career begin? It is said: He was 40 years old and he was an ignoramus." One day he was standing beside a well and he saw a stone there. The stone had tiny grooves in it. When he asked who had made the tiny grooves in this stone, he was told that it was the water that fell on it day after day. He thought for a while and asked himself: "Is my heart harder than a stone? If water can make tiny grooves in this stone, the words of the Torah can surely inscribe themselves on my heart." And there and then he began to learn. What did he do? He took his son and together they studied Torah with little children. And "he kept on learning until he knew the entire Torah."

This legend, presented here in concise form, has been used by many adult education institutions in Israel, especially ulpanim (Hebrew-language schools for new immigrants). In fact, one ulpan even went a step further and has called itself "Ulpan Akiva" - a name that had the built-in message: "No matter how old you are, success might just come your way."

Clandestine wedding

The second legend is about Rabbi Akiva and the daughter of Kalba Savua: "Rabbi Akiva was Kalba Savua's shepherd. Kalba Savua's daughter Rachel noticed how modest Rabbi Akiva was and how fine a person he was. She said to him: `If I agree to be your wife, will you study Torah in the beit midrash [school for the study of Torah]?' He replied, `Yes.' Their wedding ceremony was carried out clandestinely. Kalba Savua found out about the marriage and banished her from his house, cutting her off from all his assets" (from "The Book of Legends/Sefer Ha-Aggadah: Legends from the Talmud and Midrash," Haim Nahman Bialik and Yehoshua Hana Ravnitzky, editors; the original text in the Babylonian Talmud's Ketubot Tractate is in Aramaic and the name of Kalba Savua's daughter does not appear there).

The legend goes on to tell us of the difficulties faced by the young couple. Kalba Savua is one of the most affluent individuals in the city; his name, it is commonly believed, is derived from the fact that a poor person would enter his home, as famished as a dog ("kalba" is Aramaic for dog), and would emerge after a hearty meal with a full belly ("savua" is linked to "save'a," which in Hebrew means sated). Kalba Savua throws his daughter and his son-in-law out of his house and they must seek shelter in a barn. In the morning, when the daughter awakens, she finds that her hair is full of straw. Her new husband picks out the straw from her hair and promises her that, if he had enough money, he would give her a "Jerusalem of gold."

In order to persuade the bride that their situation is not so dire, Elijah the Prophet appears in the guise of a human being and asks them for a little straw for his wife who is about to give birth. "Rabbi Akiva says to his wife, `You see this person? He does not even have a bit of straw.'"

Rachel says to her husband, "Go and study Torah in a beit midrash." Rabbi Akiva obeys her wishes and sets off on his journey to learn Torah. Twelve years pass and he returns home accompanied by 12,000 students. As he stands beneath the window, he overhears a conversation between his wife and a few of her neighbors (in another version of the legend, he overhears an old man saying to his wife: "How long will you remain a widow whose husband is alive but absent?"). Rabbi Akiva hears his wife's reply: "If he would listen to me, he would go back [to his place of sacred studies] for another 12 years."

Sure enough (according to another legend), he does go back to the house of sacred learning, studies there for another 24 years and returns to his city with 24,000 students. All of the townspeople come out to greet him. So does his wife, who appears in ragged clothes and who refuses to heed the advice of her neighbors who suggest that she borrow suitable attire. When his students catch sight of her, they try to prevent her from approaching Rabbi Akiva. However, he immediately calls a stop to their efforts (using one of the shortest and most beautiful statements to describe their mutual relationship): "What is mine and what is yours - belongs to her!"

As in most legends, this one as well has a happy ending. Kalba Savua, who had banished his daughter and his son-in-law because he considered the latter to be an ignoramus, "bowed to the ground, his face pressing the earth, and then kissed Rabbi Akiva's feet, giving him half of all his wealth."

The third legend (presented here in succinct form and in a Hebrew translation) concerns Rabbi Akiva and the wife of Turnus (Tineius) Rufus (or "Turnusrufus," in one version), the Roman governor of Judea. The Babylonian Talmud's Nedarim Tractate informs us that there were ultimately three sources to Rabbi Akiva's wealth: his father-in-law Kalba Savua, an affluent Roman matron and Turnus Rufus' wife. However, since the subject of this article is not Rabbi Akiva's financial situation but rather his wives, we shall present here the events that led up to Rabbi Akiva's meeting with Turnus Rufus' wife.

Turnus Rufus was a Roman governor whose posting in the first half of the second century C.E. (that is, at the time of the Jewish revolt led by Bar-Kochba) was in Judea. The discussions and bitter arguments between Turnus Rufus and Rabbi Akiva were widely known and focused on theological issues. The Talmud tells us what the three main topics of debate were: circumcision, God's love for Israel and His hatred of idol worshipers, and the sacredness of the Sabbath. Needless to say, Rabbi Akiva always emerged the victor in these debates. This fact hurt Turnus Rufus' pride, increased his hatred for Rabbi Akiva and kindled a lust for revenge in the Roman governor's heart.

Here is how Rabbi Nissim Gerondi (known by his acronym, the "Ran") interprets the chain of events described in the Talmud's Nedarim Tractate: "R.A. [Rabbi Akiva] would always triumph over him as he cited biblical verses before the emperor and would anger him with the words he uttered." No wonder Turnus Rufus would go home each day with sadness and rage written all over his face! His wife asked him: "Why do you have such an angry scowl on your face?" He replied: "Because of R.A., who angers me each and every day ..." She said to him: "The God of those people hates licentiousness. Just give me your permission and I will trip him up and cause him to sin." He gave his permission. She put on her makeup and, wearing most attractive attire, she went to see R.A."

Another slightly different version of the legend can be found in the Midrash Yelamdenu presented by Rabbi Shimon the Biblical Orator (Rabbi Shimon Hadarshan), at the end of the first volume of "Yalkut Torah," printed in Salonika in 1526. The version was copied from this source and then inserted in several works, including the one by A. Jellinek in his "Beit Hamidrash" (second edition, Jerusalem, 1937/8): "The story is told of Turnus Rufus who tried to impose his will on Rabbi Akiv(a) but was unable to find a way that would enable him to attain that goal. His wife said to him: `I have a plan that will enable you to impose your will on him.' She dressed up in one her finest attires and stood beside the front entrance to his [Rabbi Akiva's] house (of sacred study) ..." The meeting between the two was short but fateful: She converted to Judaism and became his wife.

Unanswered questions

Let us return to the first of the third legends, the one that tells that, before he studied Torah, Rabbi Akiva hated Talmudic scholars. He himself confessed this fact: "When I was an ignoramus, I used to say: `If I could only get my hands on a Talmudic scholar; I would sink my teeth into his flesh just as a donkey would.'" (Pesakhim Tractate, Babylonian Talmud). However, another aspect of this legend is of particular interest to us: Rabbi Akiva's family status when he decides to study Torah. As noted above, he studies Torah together with his son. But where did this son come from? Another legend tells us that the name of this son was Joshua (his nickname was "Ben Karkha"). Who was his mother? Did Rabbi Akiva divorce her or is he a widower when we encounter him in this legend? No answer is provided for any of these questions. We are therefore forced to assume that his first wife did not bask in his fame during Rabbi Akiva's later years (according to various sources, he lived to the age of 120!).

Rabbi Akiva's second wife sometimes appears in the Talmud as the "daughter of Kalba Savua" and sometimes as the "daughter of the son of Kalba Savua" (apparently, the latter is the correct version), but she is never referred to by her first name. Then how did the name Rachel become associated with her? In the Talmud's Ketubot Tractate, we learn of the (protracted) engagement of Rabbi Akiva's daughter to Ben Azai, and the Talmud explains: "This is what people would say: `A sheep ["rachel" in Hebrew] always follows another sheep.'" This text prompted commentators to conclude that the name of both mother and daughter was Rachel, although such an argument would not be acceptable in any court charged with the task of determining kinship. Incidentally, the Bible is much more economical: To express the idea that daughters behave like their mothers, the Bible simply states (Ezekiel 16:44): "Like mother, like daughter."

`Jerusalem of gold'

As noted above, Rabbi Akiva promised his bride that, had he the means, he would give her a "Jerusalem of gold." Did he keep his promise? Apparently, he did. In the Jerusalem Talmud we read (the following is a free translation into Hebrew): "The story is told of Rabbi Akiva who made a city of gold for his wife. Rabban Gamliel's wife saw that gift and was filled with envy. She spoke with her husband. He said to her: `And would you have done what she did for him [Rabbi Akiva]: She would sell the braids of her head [that is, her hair - for use in wigs] and would give him [the money she received] while he engaged in the study of Torah?'" It should be mentioned that we encounter the subject of human hair in the Nedarim Tractate where Rabbi Akiva states: "Even if you have to sell the hair on your head, you must give [your wife] (the value of) her ketuba [marriage agreement]." The intention, according to the "Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov" commentary: "Even if you have nothing else with which to redeem the marriage contract except, for example, the hair on your head, which you must sell to secure food for your table, you must do so in order to give her [the value of] her marriage contract."

Elsewhere in the Talmud, we find Rabbi Akiva's statement that a reason that allows a man to divorce his wife is that "he has found another woman who is more beautiful" (the mishna at the end of the Gittin Tractate). It is difficult to learn to live with the speed with which Rabbi Akiva succumbs to the charms of Turnus Rufus' wife; however, the Tosafot commentary in the Talmud and Rabbi Nissim Gerondi (the Ran) rush to Rabbi Akiva's aid (in the commentaries to the Talmud's Nedarim Tractate).

Both Tosafot and the Ran tell us that, when Rabbi Akiva saw her magnificent beauty, he "spat on the floor, laughed and then began to cry." She was deeply offended by this behavior and demanded an explanation. "He told her: `Two actions I will explain, the third I will not.'" He spat because he remembered that she came into this world from a foul-smelling drop (she was born from semen, in the wake of a sexual act). He cried because he remembered that her beauty would eventually be buried in the ground and that worms would consume her lovely face. But why did he not explain his laughter? "Because he saw, by means of the holy spirit [here is the justification], that she would convert to Judaism and would become his wife."

The "fear" that Rabbi Akiva married the wife of Turnus Rufus while he was still married to his second wife (the daughter of Kalba Savua) was expressed many years before the present era. That argument was voiced 450 years ago by Rabbi Yitzhak Luria (also known as the Holy Ari), who lived in Safed. He raised that fear in a kabbalistic treatise that was published many years after his death: "Just as the Patriarch Jacob was the shepherd of his father-in-law's flocks, so was Rabbi Akiva the shepherd of his father-in-law's flocks. And, just as Jacob had two wives, similarly R.A. had two wives: He married the daughter of Kalba Savua and the wife of the evil Turnus Rufus. Kalba Savua's daughter can be compared to Jacob's wife Rachel, while the wife of Turnus Rufus can be compared to Leah" (Likutei Shas, 1983-84, commentary on the Talmud's Yebamot Tractate).

Well-known motif

And what was the fate of Rabbi Akiva's beloved wife, the daughter of (the son of) Kalba Savua? Unfortunately, we do not know very much about her later years, just as what happened to his first and third wives in the final years of their life is a mystery to us. According to the Midrash Yelamdenu (mentioned above), Turnus Rufus' wife said to him, "I am not moving from here until you convert me to Judaism." Rabbi Akiva apparently fulfilled that wish, because the legend goes on to tell us: "She boarded a ship and headed for another destination."

The name of Turnus Rufus' wife, Rufina, is mentioned in only one legend, which relates that Turnus Rufus once asked Rabbi Akiva a certain question to which Rabbi Akiva replied: "I will answer you tomorrow." The next day Rabbi Akiva said to him, "I had a dream ... in which I saw two dogs. One was named Rufus and the other Rufina." Turnus Rufus retorted: "Do you mean to tell me that the only names you could find for your dogs were mine and my wife's? You deserve to die for high treason!" (Midrash Tanhuma on the weekly Torah portion Teruma).

Since we began this article with the disclosure of names, we will mention here that the first time we encounter Rachel as the name of Rabbi Akiva's wife is in "Avot de Rabbi Natan," Chapter 6: "Rabbi Akiva will one day pass sentence on all poor people ... Why? Because, if they are asked, `Why did you not study Torah during your lifetime?' and they reply, `Because we were poor,' they will be told, `Yes, but Rabbi Akiva was the poorest person on earth.'" The debate ends with the statement: "Because Rachel his wife received her reward." It is thus no wonder that among the tombs of righteous Jewish men and women, another tomb has recently been added: that of Rachel of Galilee (that is, Rachel, Rabbi Akiva's wife) in the vicinity of Tiberias.

We have not mentioned many things associated directly or indirectly with Rabbi Akiva's wives, starting with the names of his four sons (in addition to Rabbi Joshua) - Simon, Hanania (Hanina), Rabbi Hama and Asa (Isi) - and ending with the well-known motif in the legends of other nations, about the beautiful princess who rejects all the princes who seek her hand in marriage. She falls in love with a young, poor shepherd and elopes with him. It ultimately emerges that he is a hero who saves the kingdom from its enemies who are poised to invade it. Obviously, this shepherd is rewarded with half of his father-in-law's assets.

This article must end with a textual delicacy, and here is a legend that is very far removed from the ones we have presented: "It is told of Rabbi Akiva that he was once in prison. A Gentile who lived in the neighborhood of the prison would visit him every day in order to persuade him to abandon his Jewish faith and become a pagan." Despite the Gentile's entreaties, Rabbi Akiva refused to convert to paganism. One day, when the Gentile returned to his home, he refused to eat the meal his wife had prepared for him and "did not honor with his presence" the bed that had been laid out for him. When his wife asked him, "Why are you so angry?" he told her about Rabbi Akiva's steadfast refusal to convert to paganism, adding: "Life holds no meaning for me until he joins our faith."

Whereupon she answered, "Here, eat and drink and be content of heart ... I will take it upon myself to convert him to our faith." She dressed herself up in beautiful attire and she was in any case an exquisitely beautiful woman. She went to see Rabbi Akiva. As in the legend about Rufina mentioned above, Rabbi Akiva "spat to the left and to the right." She then implores him to convert her to Judaism. "He told her, `Madame, how can I convert you when I am being held here as an inmate of this prison? ... Go to the sacred study home of the wise scholars and ask them to convert you to Judaism.'" And that is precisely what she did. Since she failed to return home, her husband began to look for her and he himself converted to Judaism (from the "Book of Tales," compiled and edited by M. Gester, Lipsia and London, 1924).

In this tale, in which we also see religious tension between Rabbi Akiva and his neighbor (who apparently filled some sort of official capacity that enabled him to visit the prison whenever he wanted to), a woman plays the role of a temptress; however, in this story, Rabbi Akiva does not succumb to her charms. Quite the contrary, both she and her husband convert to Judaism. Was this tale introduced to counterbalance the tale about Turnus Rufus' wife?

As noted above, Rabbi Akiva is mentioned on many occasions in the Talmud and in midrashim. A large number of books have been written about him and about the era during which he lived. This is not the context to enumerate those passages. Suffice it to mention one book that has nearly been forgotten: "Toldot Yisrael" ("Jewish History") by Ze'ev Yavetz (1927/8), in the sixth volume, the chapter entitled "Rabbi Akiva and His Friends." If we encounter legends that do not cast Rabbi Akiva in the most respectful light, we should consider them not only as products of envy among scholars but also, and primarily, as an expression of a certain awkwardness in the face of his enthusiastic support for Bar-Koziva (Bar-Kochba).

- posted by Izak @ 3:30 AM (0) comments